el-Lejjun (aka Betthorus)

Aerial view of El-Lejjun Aerial view of El-Lejjun

APAAME

  • Reference: APAAME_20070419_DLK-0009
  • Photographer: David Leslie Kennedy
  • Credit: Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East
  • Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works


Click photo for high res magnifiable image


Names
Transliterated Name Language Name
el-Lejjun Arabic يل ليججون
Legio Latin
Betthorus Greek ? bετθορuσ‎
Baetarus ‎
Introduction
Introduction

The Lejjun Legionary Fortress which was probably Betthorus, the base of Legio IV Martia as specified in the Notita Dignitatum however no proof of this has been found on the site (Parker, 2006).

Maps and Plans
Maps and Plans

  • Map of Limes Arabicus
    Limes arabicus, central part in Jordan - Azraq basin and Wadi el-Mujib basin. Red squares are Roman fortresses and forts from the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 4th century.

    (modified from S. T. Parker, An Empire's New Holy Land: The Byzantine Perio, Near Eastern Archaeology , Sep., 1999, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), p. 138)

    Ursus - Wikipedia - CC-BY-SA 4.0
    Fortresses in Jordan from Wikipedia
  • Aerial Photo El-Lejjun
    Pl 3.1

    Aerial photo (1982) of el-Lejjun:

    • Roman fortress
    • Early Bronze (EB) Age site
    • 'Ain Lejjun (spring)
    • Khirbet el-Fityan
    • Ottoman barracks


    (Royal Geographic Centre of Jordan

    Parker (2006)
    and environs from Parker (2006)
  • Aerial view of El-Lejjun
    Aerial view of El-Lejjun

    APAAME

    • Reference: APAAME_20070419_DLK-0009
    • Photographer: David Leslie Kennedy
    • Credit: Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East
    • Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works
    from APAAME
  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress

    Mike Bishop flickr modified (?) from Parker (2006)
    modified (?) from Parker (2006) - oriented to match with the APAAME photo
  • Plan of north part of the fort
    The north-western area of ​​the legionary camp with the porta principalis sinistra , the military baths, the cistern and accommodation buildings. Only the older, late Roman expansion phase is taken into account in the figure

    Legion camp Betthorus - Plan of the excavations, Limes Arabicus Project, Jordan. Only the late Roman expansion phase is taken into account.

    Click on photo for high resolution image

    Mediatus - Wikipedia - CC BY-SA 3.0
    from Wikipedia (Mediatus)
  • Reconstruction of El-Lejjun
    Fig. 6

    Reconstruction of El-Lejjun

    Campbell (2006:59)
    from Campbell (2006)

Chronology
Stratigraphy

Stratigraphy from Parker (2006)

Ceramic evidence suggests that the fort was first built around 300 CE and occupied until the early 6th century CE with later limited occupation in the Ummayad and Late Islamic periods (Parker, 2006). Three "identifiable earthquakes" (Southern Cyril Quake - 363 CE, Fire in the Sky Quake - 502 CE, and the 551 CE Beirut Quake) were interpreted as providing breaks in the stratigraphic sequence which is listed below (JW: the earthquake assignments of 502 and 551 CE are incorrect). There is additional evidence on the site for one or two more earthquakes.

Stratum Period Approximate Dates (CE)
VI Late Roman IV 284-324
VB Early Byzantine I 324-363
VA Early Byzantine II 363-400
IV Early Byzantine III-IV 400-502
III Late Byzantine I-II 502-551
Post Stratum III Gap intermittent use of site for camping and as a cemetery 551-1900
II Ottoman 1900-1918
I Modern 1918-
The stratigraphic framework was based on numismatic and ceramic evidence. The details of the stratigraphy are fairly complex. There are a number of apparent dating contradictions in their report that were explained as intrusive and, while this appears to have been necessary to make sense of the phasing and deal with incidences of stone robbing, etc., it does add some additional uncertainty to the dating. The dates for the 2nd and 3rd earthquakes provided by Parker (2006) are incorrect and may have been relied on to sort through the difficult chronology. Both the Fire in the Sky Quake of 502 CE and the 551 CE Beirut Quake were too far away to have caused the type of devastation reported at el-Lejjun absent some sort of unusual site effect - which does not appear to be present. The dates provided below are based on information in their report rather than their earthquake date assignments.

Building History from Wikipedia

Table Explanation

Building History

As Parker was able to state and as the prehistorian Johanna Ritter-Burkert put it, Betthorus was "established on virgin soil". [8] This finding was so important for science because at the beginning of the investigations from 1980, this was one of the few cases in which a late antique legionary camp had been built as a new building. So it was neither an older camp that was rebuilt, as is generally found, nor was it disfigured by post-fort construction. With the legionary camp of Betthorus, the archaeologists at that time had the undisturbed construction plan of a late antique garrison before them. For these reasons, complex stratigraphy was not to be expected. [28]Based on these central selection criteria, Betthorus became the best-studied legionary camp on the eastern border of the empire after Palmyra . [8th]

Parker derived the founding of the fort during the reign of Emperor Diocletian (284-305) not only from the construction plan of the complex, but in particular from the numismatic findings and the late Roman ceramics from the area of ​​the enclosing wall and other finds from the foundation areas of the buildings inside of the castle. Apart from a single Nabataean piece, the series of coins begins in the last quarter of the third century with two issues of Emperor Probus (276–282) and one issue of Numerianus (283–284). During the investigations of the Limes Arabic project, about a dozen coins of Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy were discovered(284–305) picked up. The earliest accurately datable coin from this era dates from AD 284-286. Of particular interest is an issue from Diocletian's co-emperor Maximianus (286-305), discovered in the foundation of a late Roman barrack and dating to around 304-304 305 dated. This suggests that the legionary camp was constructed relatively late in the reign of Diocletian - perhaps shortly after AD 300 according to Parker [1]

The occupancy of the camp by the Legio IV Martia, which according to the Notitia Dignitatum was stationed in the Arabic Betthorus, cannot yet be proven on site. [8] The only inscription found in the staff building (Principia) was the rest of a dipino painted in red on white wall plaster. This remains of plaster was still attached to a block of limestone that had been torn from its original context by the earthquake of 551 AD. The Dipinto is written in Latin. Its relatively careful letterforms are typical of the third or fourth century. [29] Overall, however, only a few letters remained [8]of the 0.02 meter high inscription. The ancient historian Michael P. Speidel, who was responsible for the epigraphy during the Limes Arabic project, determined the following reading: [30]

[…] why
[…] t […]

The second inscription found in the military bath consisted of a single Latin letter, an "A" on a fallen block of stone. [31]

The development of fortifications for military use can be roughly divided into two construction phases between the period around 300 AD and 530 AD.

For citations, see Wikipedia page for Betthorus (in German)

Dates Events
around AD 300 to May 19, AD 363 Parker's excavations revealed that most of the fort's internal structures date back to a reconstruction [32] that took place after a major earthquake on May 19, 363 AD. [31] The only buildings and components that are known to date back to the original construction around 300 AD are the fence, the wall sections of the subsequently massively rebuilt Principia, which are still partly made of limestone, and the older limestone barracks that were later built over , the remains of limestone walls on the structures that can probably be identified as granaries ( horreum ) and the military baths (balnea) also made of limestone . [32]The founding date could be specified by numismatic and ceramic sources. [1]
May 19 AD 363
to AD 530 		After extensive reconstruction of the interior of the fort and structural changes, chert was used instead of limestone. Troop strength may have been reduced by as much as 50 percent. [3] The fort was probably abandoned by the troops in 530.
AD 530
to July 9, AD 551 		After the military gave up the fort, there was a short period of civilian use. Already in the early 6th century, however, fortifications were neglected. Large amounts of rubbish accumulated on the camp streets and the deceased were left to rot where they died. This last phase apparently culminated in the devastating earthquake of July 9, 551 AD. The numismatic final coins date to the reign of Emperor Justinian I (527–565). [33]
661 AD
to 750 AD 		After the Islamic conquest of the Levant, the Roman ruins were only partially used to a very limited extent. For the most part, the Lejjun spring remained the main attraction for short-term nomad deposits. Only two surviving rooms of the north-west corner tower, which collapsed in AD 551, were temporarily reused in the Umayyad period . [2]
1174 AD
to 1517 AD 		Also during the Ayyubid - Mamluk period, a room in the north-west corner tower was used for a limited time. At the same time, a temporary use of the Roman building remains of the northern gate could be observed. In the northwest quadrant, late antique structures have been remodeled for a thirteenth-century lime kiln . In the area of ​​the camp village ( vicus ) there were no signs of Islamic structural use.
Middle Ages to modern times Over the centuries, local nomadic tribes and probably also traveling Islamic pilgrims invasively encroached on the entire ruin area, since their dead were buried there. [2]

Stratigraphic Relationships between el-Lejjun and other outposts

Traces of the border structures between the legionary camp and the fort
Name/Location Description/Condition
Kirbet Thamayil/Khirbat ath-Thamayil Within two nested, walled enclosures forming a closed square, a rectangular tower-like ruin borders on the southwestern inside of the inner enclosing wall. The outer wall was 36.70 × 27 meters, the inner 26 × 16.50 meters. The tower-like central building was 7.70 × 10 meters in size [61] and still about five meters high. [62]The enclosing walls of both outer structures are mainly of large unhewn limestone and basalt stones, with some additional megalithic ashlar blocks, and are laid in two rows about a meter wide. Inside the complex there are several depressions that apparently come from cisterns. In the southeast, a large terraced area borders the outside of the enclosing wall. The complex is situated on a hill approximately 750 meters high and overlooks a wadi system to the west, south and east. Immediately in front of the south-west wall of the outer enclosing wall, the terrain drops about 20 meters steeply into Wadi ar-Ramla.

In addition to Parker's Limes Arabic Project, the historian and biblical scholar James Maxwell Miller also investigated the Kirbet Thamayil with his Archaeological Survey of the Kerak Plateau , which took place from 1978 to 1982. Miller reported that during his field visit, mostly Iron Age II pottery fragments surfaced as surface finds. He was also able to identify two Nabataean sherds and one late Roman sherd. [63] Between July and August 1992, the most thorough investigation to date was carried out. They took place as part of the Moab Marginal Agriculture Project , which Canadian archaeologist Bruce Routledgedirected. Routledge, who identified Kirbet Thamayil as the most significant Iron Age II site in his area of ​​study, made two sonde cuts in addition to a thorough planum survey. The archaeologist and his team were able to collect 1180 ceramic fragments, of which only 16 did not belong to the Iron Age, but were dated "Byzantine" as surface finds. [64] The site was probably an Iron Age fortification and was reused to a limited extent in the Nabatean and late Roman-early Byzantine periods. Parker collected 120 sherds of pottery and eight stone tools during his investigation, but these have not yet been identified. The following is an analysis of Parker's pottery finds. [65]The chronological periods and dates follow Parker's 2006 account. [66]

Number Period Dates
107 iron age II ca. 900–539 BC Chr.
6 early Roman-Nabataean about 63 BC -135 AD
6 late Roman-early Byzantine circa 135-502
1 modern

The watchtower Rujm el-Merih, which Parker regarded as a late Roman foundation, [67] which was built about 1.60 kilometers east of Kirbet Thamayil, may have succeeded it. [68]

Watchtower, Limes Arabic project, field find no. 198 At this site there is a square, 7.70 × 7.70 meter tower-like structure within a brick enclosure. [69] The building was built of large, roughly hewn blocks of limestone and is located at the highest point of the Jebel-esh-Sharif mountain range, which adjoins the Jebel Abu Rukba with the late Roman watchtower Qasr Abu Rukba to the north- west . [70]From its exposed summit location on Jebel-esh-Sharif, the small fort dominated the country to the north and east - so many other sites, including el-Lejjun, were visible. Parker assumed that this structure was an Iron Age watchtower later used by the Nabataeans. After a long period of vacancy, limited use seems to have taken place again during the late Roman-early Byzantine era. Along with Parker, Miller also visited this site. A total of 86 sherds of pottery were picked up by the employees of the Limes Arabicus Project . In addition, three previously undated stone tools were found. [71] [72]
Number Period Dates
22 iron age ca. 1200–539 BC Chr.
43 early Roman-Nabataean about 63 BC -135 AD
10 late Roman-early Byzantine circa 135-502
11 indefinite

A little less than four kilometers west of this site was the large settlement of El-Mureigha, an Iron Age foundation that flourished during the Nabatean, Roman and Byzantine periods. [73]

Rujm el-Faridiyyeh [74]

Possible predecessor earthquake in the early 4th century CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Lain and Parker (2006:144) report that a beaten earth floor and ash layer in Room A.13 which ante-dated the 1st earthquake (Stratum VI-VB) was chock-full of tile fragments suggesting an apparent roof collapse due to an unknown cause. Such "collapse" debris was not found in any other excavation areas. The floor would have been built after initial construction of the fort which Parker (2006) dates to around 300 CE based on ceramic evidence.

1st Earthquake - 355 CE - 384 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Lain and Parker (2006:130) established a terminus post quem of 355 CE in the aedes where architectural installations from a rebuild after the 1st earthquake included a new floor. Underneath the new floor was a layer which yielded Early Byzantine pottery and two coins dated to 330-340 CE and 355 - 385 CE. A terminus ante quem comes from Room A.13 where Lain and Parker (2006:149) report on a 0.25-0.33 m thick beaten earth floor which was constructed from fill and leveled after the first earthquake. In an intrusive pit (A.13.009), a coin hoard was discovered with 249 bronze coins all dated from 326 to 383-384. The latest coin (Coin #461) was an issue of Arcadius dated to 383-384 which provides a terminus ante quem of 384 CE. This earthquake appears to have struck between 355 and 384 CE indicating that it is probable that the southern Cyril Quake was responsible for the seismic damage.

2nd Earthquake - ~450 - ~530 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Parker (2006:120) dates underlying Stratum IV to the 5th century CE however noted a relative scarcity of 5th century coinage - something he characterized as a regional phenomenon. Only a few early 5th century coins were recovered and none dated from 450-491 CE. Thus, the terminus post quem for this earthquake is 450 CE. It appears that the legion was demobilized in ca. 530 CE - as suggested by Procopius - according to Parker (2006:121). The latest closely dateable Byzantine coins [in overlying Stratum III] [] are issues of Justinian I dated 534-565 (Parker, 2006:121). There were signs in Stratum III of demobilization and conversion to civilian use such as dumping of debris on the via praetoria which Lain and Parker (2006:157) characterizes as an absence of normal military discipline, the relative dearth of evidence underneath the earthquake debris of the 3rd earthquake in the principia suggesting an orderly and systematic evacuation of the headquarters complex (Lain and Parker, 2006:157) and a corpse interred in Room N.2 something Parker (2006:121) characterizes as a clear loss of military discipline. Thus, the terminus ante quem for this earthquake is ~530 CE. The earthquake struck between ~450 and ~530 CE.

3rd Earthquake - ~530 - ~750 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Parker (2006:121) describes the last phase of significant occupation as follows:
The later phase (ca. 530-51) of Stratum III began with the demobilization of the legion ca. 530, as suggested by a passage in Procopius (Anecdota 24.12-14). It is notable that the latest closely dateable Byzantine coins from el-Lejjun are issues of Justinian I, dated 534-65, exactly what one would expect if Procopius' assertion were true. Some structures like the principia, were completely abandoned. Others, like the church, were extensively robbed. Large amounts of trash were dumped in barrack alleyways and even in major thoroughfares, such as the via praetoria. In Area N the rooms rebuilt rebuilt after 502 afterward witnessed little actual occupation. It is especially telling that a human corpse was interred in one room (N.2) that opened directly onto the via principalis a clear sign of the absence of military discipline.

Some inhabitants, perhaps discharged soldiers and their families or civilians from the surrounding countryside, continued to live within the fortress, however. The discovery of a human infant within the northwest angle tower in the debris of the earthquake of July 9, 551, implies that families were now living in the fortifications. The earthquake of 551 was a major catastrophe.

The numismatic finds and demobilization evidence described above provide a terminus post quem of ~530 CE for seismic destruction and final abandonment of the fortress at el-Lejjun. A terminus ante quem is not so well defined because after the 3rd earthquake, there is a Post Stratum Gap that lasted until 1900 CE. Parker (2006:121) notes that there is some evidence of camping and limited reoccupation of the domestic complex near the north gate in the Umayyad period (661-750 CE). Sherds and coins of Ayyubid/Mamluk (1174-1516) and Ottoman periods [also] attest [to] occasional later use of the fortress. Because Groot et al (2006:183) report discovery of a nearly complete Umayyad Lamp in Square 4 of Area B (Barracks) in the Post Stratum Gap, the Umayyad period (661 - 750 CE) is the terminus ante quem for this earthquake and the date for this earthquake is constrained to ~530 - 750 CE. deVries et al (2006:196) also found Umayyad sherds in the Post Stratum Gap in Rooms C.3, C.4, C.6, and C.7 of the northwest Angle Tower along with an Umayyad coin dated to 700-750 CE in locus C.4.018.

Although Parker (2006) attributed the 3rd earthquake to the 551 CE Beirut Quake, this is unlikely as the epicenter was far away - near Beirut. One of the sources for the 551 CE Beirut Quake (The Life of Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain) states that damage was limited south of Tyre and there are no reports of earthquake destruction in Jerusalem which is 121 km. closer to the epicenter than el-Lejjun. The most likely candidate for this earthquake is the Inscription at Areopolis Quake which struck Aeropolis - a mere ~12 km. from el-Lejjun - in the late 6th century - before 597 CE.

4th Earthquake - ~600 CE - 1918 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Groot et al (2006:183) report discovery of a nearly complete Umayyad Lamp in Square 4 of Area B (Barracks - B.6.038) in the Post Stratum Gap - above and later than the 3rd earthquake layer. Above the Ummayyad lamp was a 0.7 m thick layer of tumble containing some roof beams and many wall blocks (Groot et al, 2006:183). They note that the basalt roof beams found embedded in the lowest tumble level (B.6.032) suggests initial massive destruction rather than gradual decay over time. The wall blocks, found in the upper layer of tumble, contained one late Islamic (1174-1918 CE) and one Ayyubid/Mamluk (1174-1516 CE) sherd indicating a significant amount of time may have passed between the possibly seismically induced roof collapse and the wall collapse which was not characterized as necessarily having a seismic origin. This opens up the possibility that one of the mid 8th century CE earthquakes or a later earthquake may have also caused damage at el-Lejjun. deVries et al (2006:196) suggests that Umayyad abandonment of the northwest tower was probably triggered by further major collapse. In the North Gate, deVries et al (2006:207) found evidence of full scale destruction in layers above 3rd earthquake debris and post-earthquake occupation layers which contained Late Byzantine/Umayyad and Umayyad sherds. Subsoil/tumble was found in C.9.008 (north room), C.9.009 (south room) and C.9.005 (stairwell) bear ample witness to the destruction of the rooms, perhaps in the Umayyad period. Although Late Byzantine sherds were found in Post Stratum layers in the North Gate, if one assumes that the 3rd earthquake was the Inscription at Aeropolis Quake which struck before 597 CE - probably within a decade of 597 CE, one can establish an approximate and fairly conservative terminus post quem for this earthquake of ~600 CE. While the terminus ante quem is the end of the post stratum III gap (1918 CE), it is probable that that the earthquake struck much earlier.

Seismic Effects
Introduction to Seismic Effects

While there are many photos in the Final Report which suggest seismic effects (e.g. cracked lintels, tilted walls, secondary use of building elements, cracked staircases, displaced walls, etc.), only seismic effects described by the authors that appear to be reasonably well dated are listed in the sections below.

Possible predecessor earthquake in the early 4th century CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Lain and Parker (2006:144) report that a beaten earth floor and ash layer in Room A.13 which ante-dated the 1st earthquake (Stratum VI-VB) was chock-full of tile fragments suggesting an apparent roof collapse due to an unknown cause. Such "collapse" debris was not found in any other excavation areas.

1st Earthquake - 355 CE - 384 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Parker (2006:120) describes the seismic effects of this earthquake as follows:
At el-Lejjun, this earthquake had a profound impact on both the fortress and the vicus. The original limestone barracks in praetentura and possibly elsewhere in the fortress were leveled to their foundations. New chert barracks, only about half their former number, were erected along a slightly different alignment in both the praetentura and in the latera praetoria south of the principia. Rows of barrack-like rooms were erected on either side of the northern via principalis. The principia also seems to have suffered extensive damage, requiring some portions to be completely rebuilt, such as the interior of the aedes, the rooms in the official block north of the aedes, and the rooms north of the central courtyard [of the principia].

Reported seismic effects are summarized in the table below:
Location Source Description
praetentura Parker (2006:120) The original limestone barracks in praetentura and possibly elsewhere in the fortress were leveled to their foundations.
principia Parker (2006:120) The principia also seems to have suffered extensive damage, requiring some portions to be completely rebuilt, such as the interior of the aedes, the rooms in the official block north of the aedes, and the rooms north of the central courtyard [of the principia].
The mansio in the western vicus Parker (2006:120) The mansio in the western vicus was destroyed in 363 and never rebuilt.
principia Lain and Parker (2006:131) The earthquake brought down tile roofs throughout the principia
principia Lain and Parker (2006:131) The west arcade between the central courtyard and the cross hall of the principia fell while the major walls were left standing.
A.7 Lain and Parker (2006:133) Three engaged half and quarter columns with Nabatean style capitals were found in the earthquake debris
Wall A.8.003 in principia Lain and Parker (2006:151) The wall contains a substantial crack running through the center of its eastern end

2nd Earthquake - ~450 - ~530 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Parker (2006:121) describes the seismic effects of the earthquake as follows:
At el-Lejjun, the earthquake is best attested stratigraphically in the Area B barracks. Some barrack rooms, such as B.4, collapsed and were permanently abandoned. Others, such as the B.1 storeroom in the centurion's quarters, partially collapsed but were reused.
Reported seismic effects are summarized in the table below:
Location Source Description
Area B Barracks Parker (2006:121) Some barrack rooms, such as B.4, collapsed and were permanently abandoned.
Area B Barracks Groot et al (2006:185) Room B.1 suffered collapse of two of it's three roofing arches
Figure 8

Two fallen roof arches caused by earthquake in the barracks, from the north.

Parker (1982)

The B.1 room was backfilled to cover the collapsed roofing arches prior to laying a new floor and re-using the room for storage after the earthquake.
principia and other buildings in the fortress Parker (2006:121) The earthquake damaged the principia and many other buildings within the fortress.
Area N Schick (2006:233) Rooms severely damaged
Roofing system of rooms N.1 and N.3 collapsed completely

3rd Earthquake - ~530 - ~750 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Parker (2006:121) describes seismic effects from this earthquake as follows:
At el-Lejjun, the seismic shock severely affected most parts of the fortress, including the principia, the barracks, the northwest angle tower, the church, and the rooms along the via principalis. Those structures attached to the deep foundations of the curtain wall, such as the horreum and the bath, seem to have better weathered the shock of 551, but even these structures partially collapsed. The fortress was apparently then almost completely abandoned.
Seismic effects are listed in the table below:
Location Source Description
principia Lain and Parker (2006:132) toppled original architecture which had survived the previous two earthquakes and created heavy architectural tumble from walls and installations.
principia Lain and Parker (2006:132) the direction of architectural collapse was from south to north and that much of the material fell in aligned patterns
groma - square A.7 Lain and Parker (2006:132) drums and capitals dislodged from half and quarter columns lay in aligned rows.
groma - square A.7 Lain and Parker (2006:132) ashlar limestone and chert blocks from adjacent walls tumbled into the groma's southwest corner
groma - square A.7 Lain and Parker (2006:132) The guardroom that adjoined the gate hall was filled with upended basalt roof beams
Square A.1 Lain and Parker (2006:132) arches of the south portico collapsed in aligned rows between piers of the colonnade
Square A.2 - officium Lain and Parker (2006:132) The entire south wall of the room had toppled northward to fill the officium with 18 rows of aligned
wall blocks,
Pl 4.11

Collapsed south wall of the A2, officium within the aedes. The wall fell in the earthquake of 551. View to the west.

Parker (2006)
representing collapsed courses of the wall. The fallen wall overlay roof tile debris that yielded Late Byzantine pottery.
aedes Lain and Parker (2006:132) first the roof tile caved in.
aedes Lain and Parker (2006:132) Next, the three sided podium collapsed, with blocks from its flagstone surface and barrel-vaulted substructures rolling down into the center of the shrine
aedes Lain and Parker (2006:132) Finally the aedes walls toppled, creating a sloping stratum of jumbled limestone wall blocks.
aedes Lain and Parker (2006:132) The debris from both the tumbled podium and the collapsed walls of the aedes yielded Late Byzantine pottery.
A.15 Lain and Parker (2006:134) A subsoil tumble layer in A.15.003 covered the entire square and exhibited marked declivity from south to north, contained ashlar limestone blocks, chert blocks, and basalt roof beams arrayed in patterns indicative of seismic collapse. The basalt beams were concentrated in the south end of the square above the sidewalk. The beams measured 1.75 m in length, and all lay with their short ends oriented north-south. The limestone and chert blocks lay in two fairly regular rows and extended east-west across the square, along the same line as the A.15.008 curb
A.13.007 Lain and Parker (2006:154) Collapsed Walls in tumble layer
Areas B and L Groot et al (2006:185) collapse of most of the remaining barrack rooms still standing in Areas B and L
Northwest Angle Tower - C.3 and C.7 deVries et al (2006:196) collapse of upper floors and ceilings
Pl 6.1

The northeast room (C.3) within the Angle Tower. The two meter sticks rest in the window. Note the arch springers to the left and right. In the foreground is the lower layer of tumble within the room. View to the south.

Parker (2006)
Northwest Angle Tower - C.3 and C.7 deVries et al (2006:196) destruction of all arches except the southern ones in Room C.3
Northwest Angle Tower - C.7 deVries et al (2006:192) collapsed ceiling caused by arch collapse- deVries et al (2006:192) notes that the earthquake which collapsed the ceiling must have been quite a force to destroy something so sturdy
Angle Tower - C.7 deVries et al (2006:193) The skeleton of an infant found in Angle Tower
Pl 6.6

Skeleton of a human infant found in the northwest room (C.7) of the angle tower. The infant apparently was a casualty of the 551 earthquake.

Parker (2006)
who apparently fell to his/her death from an upper story
Room N.2 Parker (2006) Collapsed Arches and Roofing slabs
Pl 8.7

View of Room N.2, with collapsed arches and roofing slabs, probably from the 551 earthquake. View to the south.

Parker (2006)
in room N.2 which probably fell during this earthquake
Horreum Crawford (2006:238) Stratum III occupation ended in all three rooms with massive wall collapse, perhaps resulting from the 551 earthquake

4th Earthquake - ~600 CE - 1918 CE

Maps and Plans

  • Plan of the Fort at El-Lejjun
    Plan of el-Lejjun fortress with excavation areas
    1980-89

    modified by JW from Parker (2006)
    modified from Parker (2006)
Location Source Description
Barracks - Room B.6 Groot et al (2006:183) 0.7 m thick layer of tumble containing some roof beams and many wall blocks where the basalt roof beams found embedded in the lowest tumble level (B.6.032) suggests initial massive destruction rather than gradual decay over time
North Gate deVries et al (2006:207) full scale destruction in layers above 3rd earthquake debris and post-earthquake occupation layers which contained Late Byzantine/Umayyad and Umayyad sherds. Subsoil/tumble was found in C.9.008 (north room), C.9.009 (south room) and C.9.005 (stairwell) which bear ample witness to the destruction of the rooms, perhaps in the Umayyad period

Intensity Estimates
Possible predecessor earthquake in the early 4th century CE

Effect Description Intensity
Displaced Walls Reported Roof collapse would be accompanied by wall displacement. VII +
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VII (7) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

1st Earthquake - 355 CE - 384 CE

Effect Description Intensity
Collapsed Walls The original limestone barracks in praetentura and possibly elsewhere in the fortress were leveled to their foundations. VIII +
Collapsed Walls The mansio in the western vicus was destroyed in 363 and never rebuilt. VIII +
Displaced Walls The earthquake brought down tile roofs throughout the principia
Roof collapse indicates displaced walls or arch damage		 VII +
Arch damage The west arcade between the central courtyard and the cross hall of the principia fell VI +
Displaced masonry blocks in columns Three engaged half and quarter columns with Nabatean style capitals were found in the earthquake debris VIII +
Penetrative fractures in masonry blocks The wall contains a substantial crack running through the center of its eastern end VI +
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

2nd Earthquake - ~450 - ~530 CE

Effect Description Intensity
Collapsed Walls Some barrack rooms, such as B.4, collapsed and were permanently abandoned. VIII +
Collapsed Arches Room B.1 suffered collapse of two of it's three roofing arches
Figure 8

Two fallen roof arches caused by earthquake in the barracks, from the north.

Parker (1982)
VI +
Displaced Walls Roofing system of rooms N.1 and N.3 collapsed completely
Rooms [N.1 and N.2] severely damaged
Roof collapse implies Displaced Walls and/or Arch damage		 VII +
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

3rd Earthquake - ~530 - ~750 CE

Effect Description Intensity
Collapsed Walls toppled original architecture which had survived the previous two earthquakes and created heavy architectural tumble from walls and installations VIII +
Displaced masonry blocks in columns drums and capitals dislodged from half and quarter columns lay in aligned rows VIII +
Collapsed Walls ashlar limestone and chert blocks from adjacent walls tumbled into the groma's southwest corner VIII +
Damaged Arches arches of the south portico collapsed in aligned rows between piers of the colonnade VI +
Collapsed Walls The entire south wall of the room had toppled northward to fill the officium with 18 rows of aligned wall blocks,
Pl 4.11

Collapsed south wall of the A2, officium within the aedes. The wall fell in the earthquake of 551. View to the west.

Parker (2006)
representing collapsed courses of the wall. 		VIII +
Collapsed Vaults the three sided podium collapsed, with blocks from its flagstone surface and barrel-vaulted substructures rolling down into the center of the shrine VIII +
Collapsed Walls Finally the aedes walls toppled VIII +
Collapsed Walls A subsoil tumble layer in A.15.003 covered the entire square ...The limestone and chert blocks lay in two fairly regular rows and extended east-west across the square VIII +
Collapsed Walls A.13.007 - Collapsed Walls in tumble layer VIII +
Collapsed Walls collapse of most of the remaining barrack rooms still standing in Areas B and L VIII +
Collapsed Walls Northwest Tower - collapse of upper floors and ceilings
Pl 6.1

The northeast room (C.3) within the Angle Tower. The two meter sticks rest in the window. Note the arch springers to the left and right. In the foreground is the lower layer of tumble within the room. View to the south.

Parker (2006)
VIII +
Arch Damage Northwest Tower - destruction of all arches except the southern ones in Room C.3 VI +
Arch Damage Northwest Tower - collapsed ceiling caused by arch collapse- deVries et al (2006:192) notes that the earthquake which collapsed the ceiling must have been quite a force to destroy something so sturdy IX + (upgraded to IX based on deVries et al (2006) observation
Arch Damage Room N.2 - Collapsed Arches and Roofing slabs
Pl 8.7

View of Room N.2, with collapsed arches and roofing slabs, probably from the 551 earthquake. View to the south.

Parker (2006)
in room N.2 which probably fell during this earthquake		 VI +
Collapsed Walls Horreum - Stratum III occupation ended in all three rooms with massive wall collapse VIII +
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of IX (9) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

4th Earthquake - ~600 CE - 1918 CE

Effect Description Intensity
Displaced Walls Barracks Room B.6 - 0.7 m thick layer of tumble containing some roof beams and many wall blocks where the basalt roof beams found embedded in the lowest tumble level (B.6.032) suggests initial massive destruction rather than gradual decay over time
Roof collapse caused by either displaced walls or arch damage
Note: Wall block tumble interpreted as coming from a later time and not necessarily seismically induced		 VII +
Displaced Walls North Gate - full scale destruction in layers above 3rd earthquake debris and post-earthquake occupation layers which contained Late Byzantine/Umayyad and Umayyad sherds. Subsoil/tumble was found in C.9.008 (north room), C.9.009 (south room) and C.9.005 (stairwell) which bear ample witness to the destruction of the rooms, perhaps in the Umayyad period VIII +
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Notes and Further Reading
References

Articles and Books

Campbell, D. B. (2006). Roman Legionary Fortresses 27 BC–AD 378. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury USA.

Kennedy, D.L. and Riley, D.N. 1990: Rome’s Desert Frontier from the Air, London, 131

Kennedy, D.L. 2000: The Roman Army in Jordan, London, 146–50 - open access at archive.org

Lander, J. and Parker, S. T. 1982: ‘Legio IV Martia and the legionary camp at El-Lejjun’, Byzantinische Forschungen 8, 185–210 - open access at archive.org

Parker, S.T. 1986: Romans and Saracens. A History of the Arabian Frontier, Winona Lake, 58–74 - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Excavation Reports

Parker, S. T. (1982). "Preliminary Report on the 1980 Season of the Central "Limes Arabicus" Project." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(247): 1-26.

Parker, S.T. 1988: ‘Preliminary Report on the 1985 Season of the Limes Arabicus Project’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 25, 131–74

Parker, S.T. 1990: ‘Preliminary Report on the 1987 Season of the “Limes Arabicus” Project’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 26, 89–136

Parker, S.T. 1991: ‘Preliminary Report on the 1989 Season of the Limes Arabicus Project’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 27, 117–54

Parker, S.T. (ed.) 1987: The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985, BAR International Series 340, Oxford

Parker, S.T. 2006: The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, Washington - The final report refers back to Interim Report on some issues of dating and phasing and suggests that a complete report is to be had from both the Interim and Final Report

Websites

legionaryfortresses.info page for El-Lejjun

El-Lejjun on APAAME flickr.com

Betthorus at Pleaides

Wikipedia pages

Wikipedia page for Legionary Camp Betthorus (in German)

  • from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab and then use your browser to translate the page


Wikipedia page for Betthorus



Wikipedia page for Limes Arabicus