Content uploaded by Alon Margalit
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alon Margalit on Dec 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-018-0227-9
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Dierential earthquake footprints
onthemasonry styles atQal’at al-Subayba
(Nimrod fortress) support thetheory ofits
ancient origin
Alon Margalit*
Abstract
Qal’at al-Subayba (Nimrod Fortress), one of the largest medieval fortresses in the Middle East, is strategically located
above the city of Banias on the ancient highway from Tyre to Damascus. Scholars have attributed the founding of the
fortress to different rulers and periods. Current theory attributes the fortress founding to the Ayyubids. Although the
Ayyubic theory is widely accepted, it relies primarily upon alternative interpretation of historical sources rather than
firsthand observations. The fortress was constructed using distinctively different masonry styles. The primary styles,
Massive, Crusader, Ayyubic, and Mamluk, are characterized here. Some of these masonries carry earthquake footprints
and findings show that the damage is correlated with the specific masonry rather than geographical or other con-
straints. The Massive masonry sustained the greatest damage. The Crusader masonry was damaged to a lesser extent
and the Ayyubic and Mamluk were spared. Based on these findings, it is concluded that the fortress was hit by two
powerful earthquakes, the one of A.D 749 and the one of A.D 1202. The earthquake of A.D 749 devastated the Massive
masonry, prior to later constructions. As this masonry has Hellenistic characteristics, it is suggested that the fortress
was founded by the Greco-Syrians.
Keywords: Historical earthquakes, Seismic, Fortress masonry, Hellenistic period, Medieval ages
© The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat iveco mmons .org/
publi cdoma in/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Introduction
Qal’at al-Subayba, one of the largest medieval fortresses
in the Middle East, is located on the foothills of Mount
Hermon, four kilometers east of Banias, 33° 15′ 10″ N,
35° 42′ 53″ E on the DNS. e fortress is situated on a
narrow ridge, 120 m wide and 430 m long, about 800
meters above sea level, and is naturally protected by steep
slopes on its southern, western, and eastern faces, and
by a deep ravine to the north. It is strategically located
on the ancient road from Tyre to Damascus [1–3]. It
dominates the ancient city of Banias (formerly Paneas
or Caesarea Philippi) and oversees a vast area, from the
Hula marshes to the Ayun Valley (Fig.1). e only road
to the fortress comes from the east and passes below its
eastern curtain wall. Its donjon is situated on the highest
point of the ridge facing east. e donjon is protected by
inner curtain walls and a moat to the west. A schematic
description of the fortress compounds and layout is pro-
vided in Fig.2. Although the fortress bears distinct earth-
quake footprints, many of its sections remain, providing
a very fine example of medieval fortress design. Different
masonry styles were used in construction. is feature is
unique and is not found in other medieval fortresses in
the region. Nimrod fortress was declared a National Park
in 2003 and is considered an international heritage site
and a major tourist attraction.
e first European explorer to visit the site was Ulrich
Jasper Seetzen in January 1806. Later, it was visited by
numerous explorers, among them John Lewis Burck-
hardt, Lawrence Oliphant, and Edwin Hodder. e
famous nineteenth century explorers, Edward Robinson
Open Access
*Correspondence: alonmarg@telhai.ac.il
Department of Libraries, Tel-Hai College, Upper Galilee, Israel
Page 2 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
and Sir Charles William Wilson, who each visited the
site in the mid-19th century, described Qal’at al-Sub-
ayba as a strong fortress built using different masonry
styles from ancient to medieval times [2, 4]. Paul Des-
champs explored the fortress in the early 1930s. Des-
champs did not subscribe to the ancient origin of the
fortress; he argued that the entire fortress is Medieval
with typical Templar characteristics [5]. Ronnie Ellen-
blum, in his manuscript “Who Built Qal’at al-Subayba?”
proposed that the fortress was established in the post-
Crusader era between A.D 1220 and 1230 by the Ayyu-
bic ruler of Banias, Al-Malik Al-Aziz ‘Uthman [3]. e
Ayyubic theory gained wide popularity and is currently
accepted by most scholars [6–9]. However, it is based
on an interpretation of historical texts, rather than on
firsthand observations or archaeological findings [7].
In addition, the theory does not explain why and how
a local ruler constructed such an impressive fortress
in a time of war, far from the front, when the neces-
sary resources and professional human workforce were
scarce.
A current day visitor to Qal’at al-Subayba cannot ignore
the wealth of different masonry styles at the site. Each
style has its unique characteristics, from stone size and
stone dressing to architectural design. Some of the styles
are stratified, one upon the other. As masonry and archi-
tecture styles are oftentimes linked to a specific histori-
cal era and/or ruler [10], these observations suggest that
construction was carried out by different masons during
different historical times and under different rulers.
Fig. 1 Fortress location and strategic position. The landscape description reflects medieval times; strongholds along the Tyre-Damascus road are
indicated
Page 3 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
e fortress compound bears clear and distinctive
earthquake footprints [9]. ese footprints were attrib-
uted to a single earthquake, that of A.D 1762 [3, 6].
However, close examination of the earthquake marks
on the different masonry styles reveals that they were
affected differently. While some constructions were
severely damaged or even collapsed, others were dam-
aged to a lesser extent, sustaining partial collapse and
cracks. Yet others were unaffected and have no vis-
ible earthquake marks. ese observations lead to the
hypothesis that the fortress was constructed over a long
period and struck by at least two different earthquakes.
According to this hypothesis, the fortress chronology
can be divided into three periods, early (before the first
earthquake), middle (between the first and the second),
and late (after the second earthquake). Associating the
different masonry styles to these chronological periods
and identifying the relevant earthquakes based on the
historical earthquake record might provide a better
understanding of the fortress history and when it was
founded.
Characterization ofthedierent masonry
styles andtheir earthquake footprints atQal’at
al‑Subayba
Although the wealth of masonry styles is a recognized
feature of Qal’at al-Subayba [2], scholars have gener-
ally overlooked its significance. is study focused on
the different styles, characterizing each according to
stone size, stone dressing, architecture, and similarity
to masonries in other fortresses. Using these criteria,
it was possible to identify four primary styles, Mas-
sive, Crusader, Ayyubic, and Mamluk. e description
of each style together with its earthquake footprint is
provided below.
Fig. 2 Schematic description of the fortress and its major sections. The Keep is circled. Locations of the Ayyubic inscriptions are indicated with
arrows and lettered, according to Fig. 6. A panoramic view of the fortress, from the south, is shown in insert
Page 4 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
Massive masonry
e Massive masonry is restricted to the Northwestern
Tower and adjacent stone wreckage (see Fig.2 for loca-
tion). is masonry is characterized by rusticated, trap-
ezoid ashlar of 2–5m width, 1–2m height, 1–2m depth
block, weighing between five and 30 tons each [6]. e
outer face of the stones’ surface is rough, but their con-
tours are delicately and accurately cut and each stone was
carved individually to fit snuggly to its neighbors (Fig.3a,
b). e black line under one of the stones in Fig.2a meas-
ures 5m length. e quality and precision of the stone
dressing are outstanding and, despite their size, each
stone was individually fashioned for distinctive shape and
role [6].
Notwithstanding its immense size and durability, the
Massive masonry sustained earthquake damage on a
catastrophic scale, as most of the tower’s western face,
as well as internal sections utterly, collapsed [9]. e
Fig. 3 Massive masonry. a Massive building blocks with single block length indicated. b The ‘secret passage’ postern, single block height indicated.
c Typical trapezoid ashlar, northern face of the northwestern tower. d Substantial curtain wall destruction, eastern face of the northwestern tower
with single block height indicated. e Inside the ‘secret passage’. f Large archer slit at the ‘secret passage’. g Gigantic monolithic fragment of spiral
staircase, western wreckage. h. Panoramic view of western wreckage piles
Page 5 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
northern (Fig.3c) and the southern (Fig.3d) faces were
better preserved, indicating that the horizontal earth
motion was south-west. Of the inner sections, a long
and narrow corridor termed the ‘secret passage’ was vir-
tually preserved (Fig. 3e). Interestingly, the two battle-
ments along this corridor are not of the medieval type
with narrow arrow slits for crossbow archers, but rather
large arrow slits designed to accommodate arrow ballis-
tas (polivolos katapeltes) of the type common in antiquity
(Fig.3f).
e huge wreckage piles to the west are the best evi-
dence of the earthquake’s destructive force. e scatter-
ing of the stones reaches a radius of about 30m and the
piles cover a very large area on the western slope (Fig.3h).
Although many of the stones were removed during mod-
ern reconstruction activity, the scattering provides quite
a good impression of the radius and size of the wreck-
age. Smaller wreckage piles are located to the east and
the north; however, many of the stones were removed
or replaced. Sections from a monolithic spiral staircase
found among the western wreckage (Fig.2g) suggest that
this section served as a watchtower. e black line in the
middle of the image measures 1m length.
e Massive masonry encircles an inner tower built
in a different masonry style, namely Crusader masonry.
Hartal maintained that the Massive masonry was a later
addition by the Mamluk ruler Badr ad-Din Bilik, [6].
e current observations do not support this view and
suggest that the Massive masonry preceded the other
masonry styles at the northwestern tower. is conclu-
sion is based on the following: (1) the Massive masonry
sustained the lion’s share of the damage while other
masonries in the same location were only moderately
affected; (2) the wreckage piles comprise only Massive
building blocks which would not be possible if both Mas-
sive and Crusader masonry constructions existed at the
site when the earthquake hit; (3) this type of masonry
requires special skills, know-how, resources, time and a
huge working force. It is unlikely that these were available
to a local ruler.
Crusader masonry
Crusader masonry is the predominant masonry of the
fortress and can be identified throughout the compound.
is masonry is characterized by medium-sized, rus-
ticated rectangular blocks (roughly 100 × 75 × 75 cm).
e central portions of the blocks are roughly dressed
and surrounded by flat rims (Fig.4a). e stone dressing
displays precise and fine workmanship and the stones fit
snuggly together. e black line that crosses one of the
stones in Fig.4a, measures 1m length. e stones are
shaped in a uniform design with the exception of those
used for gates, archery slits, and windows. e curtain
walls have three layers, outer and inner ashlars sand-
wiching rubble fill. e walls were built according to the
prevailing crusader fortress structural design that char-
acterizes other crusader fortresses in the region, such as
Sahyun and Krak des Chevaliers [11]. Deschamps first
noted the resemblance of this style to Crusader masonry
[5]. Ellenblum maintained further that the masons at
Qal’at al-Subayba were locals who served later rulers as
well [3].
e Crusader masonry bears clear earthquake marks,
but it was not damaged on a catastrophic scale. Although
inner sections suffered from substantial destruction
(Fig. 4b–d), the curtain walls, in general, survived the
earthquake with the exception of large vertical cracks
evident everywhere in the eastern and western sec-
tions (Fig. 4e–g). Partial structural collapse and stone
wreckages found in close proximity to the walls can be
observed to the south (Fig. 4h, i). e wreckage piles
and scattering radius are smaller than those of the Mas-
sive masonry. e wreckage location to the south and the
location of the vertical cracks on the eastern and west-
ern curtain walls suggest that the surface motion of this
earthquake was in a different direction than the earth-
quake that hit the Massive masonry (i.e., south-north).
Of the inner sections, only the western wall of the
Eastern Hall was partially preserved (Fig. 5, see Fig. 2
for location). erefore, it is the only place in the castle
where one can observe the inner compound architecture.
Although the compound suffered severe damage, one
can clearly identify rib vault (cross vault) elements. Rib
vaults are classical Gothic architecture elements and are
found in many Frankish constructions across the region
[12]. Since these elements are symbolic, representing the
shape of the cross [13], they were not adopted for use by
the Muslims.
In conclusion, the Crusader masonry has distinct and
typical characteristics of Frankish architecture and car-
ries earthquake footprints that are singularly different
from those on the Massive masonry. ese footprints
indicate that the earthquake damaging the Crusader
masonry was of lesser severity and that the earth motion
was south–north rather than east–west. Based on these
observations, it can be concluded that the earthquakes
that hit the Massive and Crusader masonries were differ-
ent and that the earthquake that hit the Massive masonry
occurred prior to the Crusader masonry construction.
Ayyubic masonry
e Crusaders captured the city of Banias in A.D 1099.
During the Crusader reign, the city was the site of fierce
fighting and went from hand to hand until it was taken in
A.D 1164 by Nur ad-Din Zengī, the Muslim Governor of
Damascus. e Ayyubids ruled the region from A.D 1179
Page 6 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
to 1260. According to Ellenblum’s theory the local ruler
of Banias, Al-Malik al-Aziz Uthman, founded the fortress
in A.D 1227 [3]. Ayyubic inscriptions that were found at
the fortress attribute constructions primarily to this ruler
[5, 14]. At least seven inscriptions have been recorded, of
them four are embedded, insitu, in walls or other con-
structions. Stones with the remaining inscriptions were
found on the ground [14]. As the extent of Ayyubic con-
struction is questioned in this work, the term Ayyubic
masonry, herein, refers only to construction that bears
Ayyubic inscriptions. e inscriptions were character-
ized and deciphered by Reuven Amitai [14].
e first inscription, dated A.D 1227 (Inscription I,
Amitai R. 1989), is located on a curtain wall at the west-
ern face of the Southeastern Tower (Fig.6a and insert;
see Fig.2 for location). e wall appears to be a newer
addition to a previously existing, partially ruined sec-
tion built in Crusader masonry style. e ashlar was
made from mid-sized, uneven, roughly-dressed stones.
e stones do not fit well and small stones are wedged
between the larger ones. is style, resembling Ayyubic
fortifications at Hunin, Ajloun, and Msaylha fortresses, is
a fine example of the Ayyubid fortification strategy, which
was not dependent upon fortified strongholds and placed
minor importance on masonry quality [15]. is type of
low-quality masonry is considered to be highly suscepti-
ble to earthquake damage. Nevertheless, the curtain wall
bearing an Ayyubic inscription was preserved and carries
no visible earthquake damage albeit the clear earthquake
footprints on the Crusader masonry upon which it leans.
Fig. 4 Crusader masonry. a Typical ashlar, east face, southern tower (tower 2). b–d Examples of severe destruction of inner compounds, different
locations. e–g Examples of vertical cracks on curtain walls, different locations. h, i Examples of collapses and wreckages, different locations, eastern
face
Page 7 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
e second inscription, dated to A.D 1230 (Inscrip-
tion V, Amitai R. 1989), is located at the top of the outer
face of the Western Tower (Fig.6b and insert; see Fig.2
for location). e masonry style is similar to that of the
southeastern tower, characterized by uneven, roughly-
dressed stones that do not fit very well together. Again,
this section bears no visible earthquake footprints.
e third Ayyubic inscription, dated to A.D 1230
(Inscription II, Amitai R. 1989), is located on the western
gate of the Northwestern Tower. In contrast with the pre-
viously described Ayyubic sections, the masonry at this
portion of the site is of higher quality and displays the
characteristics of Crusader masonry. It also bears clear
earthquake marks (Fig.6c and insert; see Fig.2 for loca-
tion). Based on this observation it is concluded that the
Ayyubids carved the inscription on a pre-existing, dam-
aged section of masonry.
e fourth Ayyubic inscription, located above the
fountain near the southwestern gate, is attributed to the
Ayyubic ruler al-Malik al-Sacid Fakhr al-Din in A.D 1240
(Inscription VII, Amitai R. 1989). e inscription is in
an undamaged section of the fortress displaying charac-
teristic Ayyubic masonry. In addition, it was apparently
carved on a pre-embedded table, as some of the letters
were extended from the table to the frame (Fig.6d and
insert; see Fig.2 for location). Ayyubic masonry charac-
teristics, described herein, are found at other locations in
the fortress that do not carry Ayyubic inscriptions.
Mamluk masonry
e Mamluk Sultanate ruled Syria from A.D 1247 to 1517.
e Mamluk reconstruction at Qal’at al-Subayba is quite
extensive and was carried out predominantly during the
rule of Sultan al-Malik al-Ẓāhir Rukn al-Din Baibars al-
Bunduqdar by the local ruler of Banias, Badr ad-Din Bilik
[16]. e exact extent of Mamluk construction at the for-
tress is under dispute and the Massive masonry has been
attributed by some scholars to the Mamluks [3, 6]. It is gen-
erally accepted, however, that the Beautiful Tower (Fig.7a,
b; see Fig.2 for location), the Large Reservoir (Fig.7c; see
Fig. 2 for location), the Southwestern Tower (Fig. 7d–f;
see Fig. 2 for location), the Northern Tower (Fig. 7g, h;
see Fig.2 for location), and the Eastern Gate (Fig.7i; see
Fig.2 for location) are fine examples of Mamluk masonry
[3]. e masonry of these structures is similar, character-
ized by a finely-dressed, medium-sized ashlar, resembling
the Crusader. However, the large square halls with their
high, arched vaults with no supporting arches (Fig.7c, h),
Fig. 5 The Eastern Hall. Rib vault elements at the western wall. Insert: rib vault element at the Hospitaller Fortress (Knights’ Halls), Acre
Page 8 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
Fig. 6 Ayyubic masonry. a Ayyubic inscription from the year A.D 1227 (625 after hijra, A.H) on the external face of the southwestern Tower. Insert
focus on the inscription. b Wall containing Ayyubic inscription from the year A.D 1230 (627 A.H) on the external face of the Western Tower. Insert
focus on the inscription. c Ayyubic Inscription from the year A.D 1230 (627 A.H) above the western gate. Insert focus on the inscription. d Ayyubic
Inscription from the year A.D 1230 (627 A.H) above the water fountain near the Western Tower
Page 9 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
characterizes Mamluk fortifications throughout the region
[15]. is style of architecture is considered to be sensitive
to earth motion and unable to withstand even moderate
earthquakes [17]. Surprisingly, the Mamluk compounds
were preserved and have no visible earthquake footprints.
e beautiful tower is a good example of this phenomenon.
Its main hall is built around a central stone ledge pier that
curves outward to support a domed ceiling. e pier blocks
are held together by cement with no additional support.
Although this architecture is susceptible to even moderate
earthquakes it is undamaged, while adjacent constructions
were damaged significantly. Based on these observations,
it is suggested that the Mamluk masonry was set after the
earthquake(s) and represents the late period of the fortress
chronology.
Discussion
Association ofearthquake footprints withdierent
masonries
Different masonries at Qal’at al-Subayba have been
reported by scholars [5]. However, this is the first study
to define four different masonry styles, provide a chrono-
logical order for these masonries based on stratification,
and to characterize the earthquake footprints associated
with each style. A primary finding of this work is that the
severity of earthquake damage is strongly associated with
and confined to only two of the four masonries, namely
the Massive and the Crusader. e Mamluk and the
Ayyubic masonries are devoid of earthquake marks. It is
currently assumed that the damage resulted from a sin-
gle quake, namely the earthquake of 1759 [3, 6]. It should
be taken into account, however, that in 1759 there were
two earthquakes. e one that devastated Tiberias and
Safed was different from that which devastated Baalbek,
and the EQ that had the potential to affect the fortress
was that which ran along the Serghaya Fault [18]. Based
on this record and others, the intensity of this EQ in the
Golan Heights cannot explain the damage to the for-
tress. In addition, on that date, the fortress was already
deserted (Wilson FC, Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost
City of Pan, pp 163–164). By that time, the whole region
had gone into obscurity; hence, supporters of damage
Fig. 7 Mamluk masonry. a Entrance to the Beautiful Tower. b Internal hall, the Beautiful Tower. c The large reservoir. d The western outer face of the
Southwestern Tower. e The main hall, Southwestern Tower. f The cour tyard, Southwestern Tower. g Entrance to the Northern Tower. h The main hall,
Northern Tower. i The northern outer face of the Northern Tower. j The eastern gate
Page 10 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
caused by an EQ in 1759 need to account for the tre-
mendous labor and resources required for the extensive
restoration seen at the fortress. e discovery that the
Ayyubic and Mamluk masonries were not damaged rule
out possible association of post-medieval era earthquakes
with the damage. A single earthquake can cause minor to
major damage or even complete destruction. e extent
of damage is highly correlated to magnitude and distance
from the source but is also attributed to other factors,
such as local surface motion, geological micro and macro
constraints, masonry style, architecture, building height
and more [19]. Focusing on masonry styles and architec-
ture, it is well established that light buildings, low-quality
masonries, and specific architectural designs are more
susceptible than others [17, 20, 21]. Hence, if the fortress
was hit by a single earthquake, then one would expect
that the Ayyubic and the Mamluk masonries would have
sustained the most damage and the Massive masonry the
least. However, the opposite is found. While the Mam-
luk and the Ayyubic masonries harbor no earthquake-
associated damage, the Massive masonry was devastated.
is is even more striking when taking into account that
trapezoid ashlars composed of massive block are known
for being highly resistant to earthquake damage [22]. e
more plausible explanation for this paradox is that the
Ayyubic and Mamluk construction took place after the
earthquake(s).
At the northwestern tower, the Massive masonry took
the hardest hit, while the Crusader masonry at the same
location sustained milder damage. is evidence, in
addition to the observation that the stone wreckages are
composed of only Massive elements, leads to the con-
clusion that the Massive masonry destruction preceded
the Crusader masonry construction. Taken together, the
fortress was hit by at least two major earthquakes, rather
than one. e first earthquake caused the destruction
of the Massive masonry while the second damaged the
Crusader masonry. e Ayyubic and Mamluk masonries
were built after the second earthquake.
Historical earthquake record andits implication
onthefortress chronology
e Middle East has a long and continuous history of
devastating earthquakes. Although no direct measure-
ments of earthquake magnitude could have been taken,
indirect geological and archaeological evidence, together
with historical documentation, provide relatively accu-
rate information for the date, site, epicenter, radius, and
severity of these earthquakes. Current studies by Ben
Menachem and Sbeinati provide a detailed description
of the earthquakes recorded over the last 3000years [23,
24]. Although there are some discrepancies between
these reports with regard to time and severity, the
discrepancies are insignificant. e illustration of earth-
quake chronology and severity in Fig. 8 is based on
Sbeinati etal. [24].
e observation that the Mamluk masonry was spared
rules out the association of the fortress’ damage to the
earthquakes of A.D 1546, 1759, and 1837. e 1759
earthquake epicenter was far from Banias [24], further
evidence that this earthquake did not damage the for-
tress. e earthquake most likely accountable for the
damage is that of A.D 1202. Since this earthquake hit
prior to the reign of Al-Malik Al-Aziz ‘Uthman, it rules
out the Ayyubic theory of foundation and also provides
an explanation as to why the Ayyubic masonry was prin-
cipally spared. e Ayyubic inscription on the northwest-
ern gate (Fig.6c) appears to be carved on a section of
Crusader masonry. According to Reuven Amitai [14], the
terminology used in this Ayyubic inscription is ‘imara,’
meaning reconstruction or renewal, rather than ‘insha’
or ‘bina,’ the terms for establishment or construction.
Hence, the association of the damage to the A.D 1202
earthquake is not contradicted by the Ayyubic texts.
Historical records provide further support for the pre-
Ayyubic origin of the fortress. e Muslim historian
Ibn-Chadded (1145–1234) described the construction
by the Franks of a fortress above the city of Banias [5].
In his work, e Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, the
Muslim historian Ibn Al-Qalanisi (1107–1160) described
the handing over in A.D 1128 of the frontier fortress of
Banias to the Ismaili sect (Assassins) by Toghtekin, the
Seljuk ruler of Damascus. According to the text, the for-
tress was partially destroyed [25]. Based on the current
observations, the Franks had a central role in the fortress’
later construction. is conclusion is in agreement with
by Deschamps who claimed that the fortress carries Hos-
pitaller characteristics [5]. Ellenblum did not reject this
notion; he claimed that the masons were locals who uti-
lized the same technologies when building for the Cru-
saders, as well for their predecessors [3]. Although this
hypothesis is not based on the historical record, it might
seem sound. Nevertheless, some of the Frankish architec-
tural characteristics were not adopted by the Muslims in
their building. For example, basilica-like building designs
and rib vaults, both symbolize the cross. e central hall,
at the keep, might have basilica-like characteristics. How-
ever, since it was levelled to the ground the association is
not definite (not shown). By contrast, rib vault elements
can be clearly seen in the Eastern Hall (Fig.4), providing
direct evidence that this section was constructed by the
Franks. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that
the Crusader masonry is Frankish and that the earth-
quake damage to this masonry was the result of the A.D
1202 quake. is earthquake has been linked to the dam-
age of several crusader castles in the region, including
Page 11 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
Vadum Jacob (Ateret), studied by Ellenblum and Marco
[26–28].
e Massive masonry of the Northwestern Tower
requires special attention. It appears to be the earliest
section built and its destruction predated other construc-
tions at the site. Based on the extent of damage and the
scattering radius of the stones, the earthquake that hit
must have been of exceptional magnitude and ‘devas-
tating’ intensity [29, 30]. Of the earthquakes described
by Sbeinati etal. [24], the only earthquake of such scale
is the A.D 749 quake, with an estimated intensity of XI
on the European macroseismic scale. If this is the earth-
quake that struck the Massive masonry, then the fortress
chronology is pushed back to, at least, 500years. Previ-
ous publications have associated the Massive masonry to
the Mamluks [3, 6]. is association was made based on
a Mamluk inscription found at nearby wreckage [6] that
could well be associated with the northern tower, which
is known to be Mamluk. In addition, no other examples
for such masonry in Mamluk construction have been
documented for the entire region. Hence, this association
of the massive masonry to the Mamluks seems to lack
supporting evidence.
The ancient origin ofthefortress
Massive stone masonry is a very complex and expen-
sive. It requires sophisticated architectural knowledge,
highly skilled stone dressers, professional masons, special
instruments and a large workforce to move and maneu-
ver the stones [22]. Although this masonry was never
common, there are fine examples of it in antiquity [31].
Locally, however, with the exception of Jerusalem, this
type of masonry is found only at Qal’at al-Subayba. In
ancient time, massive masonry relied heavily upon slave
labor. It was abandoned in the early medieval period and
replaced by more efficient and less laborious methods.
e Mamluks were highly skilled masons [32]. Never-
theless, they did not have the knowledge or the means to
utilize this technology. If they did have such skill, as sug-
gested by Hartal [6], there should be examples of massive
masonry at other Mamluk sites [15].
e Massive masonry at Qal’at al-Subayba resem-
bles Hellenistic fortifications rather than Herodian or
Roman [33]. Greco-Hellenistic masonry, characterized
by trapezoid ashlars, can be seen in Hellenistic fortifica-
tions in Asia Minor [34]. e large slits for arrow ballistas
(polivolos katapeltes) in the secret passage (Fig. 3f) are
also found in other Hellenistic fortresses. Edward Rob-
inson (1856), the 19th century explorer, recognized these
characteristics and suggested that Qal’at al-Subayba was
established in ancient times, either by the Phoenicians or
the Greeks [2].
One can argue that if Qal’at al-Subayba is, indeed, of
ancient origin, then it would have been mentioned in
Fig. 8 Ancient earthquake chronology. Timeline of major earthquakes with potential to affect Qal’at al-Subayba, as a function of intensity values,
according to the European macroseismic scale (VII, damaging; VIII, heavily damaging; IX, destructive; X, very destructive; XI, devastating). The values
are based on Sbeinati et al. [24]). The earthquakes that hit the fortress are highlighted
Page 12 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
historical records such as Maccabean and Josephus Fla-
vius chronologies. While this assertion is reasonable,
many of the sites mentioned in these records have not
been positively identified. For some, the same geographic
description is given for different names. Yet, for others,
the same name is associated with different geographic
descriptions [35]. Gamla, for example, is described in
Flavius’s e Jewish War IV as an isolated, naturally pro-
tected settlement situated upon a rough ridge between
two deep valleys, and located at the lower Gaulanitis
[36]. However, according to Flavius’s Antiquities of the
Jews 13 [37] and e Jewish War I, Gamla (Gamala) is a
strong fortress on the northern Gaulanitis near a deep
valley called Antiochus Trench (Άντιόχου φάραγγα). is
fortress was taken by Alexander Janneus during his expe-
dition to the north. Polybius, in e Histories, Book 16,
recounts Zeno’s telling of the battle of Panium. Accord-
ing to Zeno, Antiochus III (the Great) was positioned at
the top of Mount Panium on the eve of the battle and his
great victory over the Polemic Army [38].
It is possible to identify Mount Panium with the site
of Qal’at al-Subayba. e fortress is situated on a narrow
ridge with a protrusion resembling a camel hump, and
the Antiochus Trench can be identified with the gorge of
Wadi Sa’ar. It might be, therefore, that the fortress taken
by Alexander Janneus and recorded as Gamla in Flavius’s
Antiquities of the Jews 13 and in e Jewish War I is actu-
ally the earliest record of Qal’at al-Subayba. If this is the
case, the fortress might have been founded by Antiochus
the Great himself. is hypothesis is highly hypotheti-
cal and must be supported by further excavation. e
hypothesis would explain, however, the singular regional
use of the highly complex, expensive, and laborious Mas-
sive masonry at Qal’at al-Subayba.
Conclusion
e characterization of the earthquake footprints on
the different masonry styles at Qal’at al-Subayba indi-
cates that the fortress was hit by two different earth-
quakes rather than one. ese earthquakes were
identified as the one of A.D 749 and the one of A.D
1202. Based on these findings, the fortress chronology
can be divided into three different periods. Early (prior
to the first earthquake), central (between the first and
second earthquakes), and late (after the the second
earthquake). e Massive masonry represents the early
period, the Crusader masonry represents the central,
and the Ayyubic and Mamluk masonries represent the
late. is study provides firm evidence negating Ellen-
blum’s Ayyubic eory. e observation that large por-
tions of the fortress were of Crusader masonry supports
Deschamps’ association of the fortress to the Franks
[5]. However, the study also provides clear evidence
for its ancient origin. Charles W. Wilson, in his A.D
1881 publication, Picturesque Palestine, describes the
fortress as ‘one of the strongest fortresses in the East,
exhibiting the masonry work of every period from early
Phoenician to Crusaders’ [4]. is description accu-
rately encompasses the fortress history.
e question of ‘who built Qal’at al-Subayba’ remains
to be resoved. e Massive masonry carries typical Hel-
lenistic characteristics. erefore, it is suggested that
it was founded by the Greco-Syrians. is hypothesis
must be further investigated and additional archaeo-
logical research is imperative.
Authors’ contributions
The author read and approved the final manuscript
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Yinon Shavtiel, Dr. Ronnie Kamai and Giora Solar for
fruitful discussion.
Competing interests
The author has no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials
The relevant data are presented within the main paper.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was not supported or funded by any means.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Received: 4 July 2018 Accepted: 17 October 2018
References
1. Skolnik F, Berenbaum M, editors. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Thom-
son Gale: Detroit; 2007.
2. Robinson E. Later biblical researches in Palestine, and in the adjacent
regions. A journal of travels in the year 1852. Drawn up from the
original diaries, with historical illustrations, with new maps and plans.
Boston: Crocker & Brewster; 1856.
3. Ellenblum R. Who Built Qal’at al-Subayba? Dumbart Oaks Pap.
1989;43:103–12.
4. Wilson C. Picturesque Palestine. London: G. Virtue; 1880.
5. Deschamps P. Les Châteaux des Croisés en Terre Sainte. Volume II, La
défense du royaume de Jérusalem tle. 1939.
6. Hartal M. The Al-Subayba (Nimrod) Fortress. IAA Report, No 11. Israel;
2001. p. 3–73.
7. Sharon M. Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP), vol. 2.
Leiden: B-C. Brill Academic Publishers; 1999.
8. Wilson CW. Caesarea Philippi and the highlands of Galilee. Pict Palest
Sinai, Egypt. D. Appelton & Co; 1881. p. 336–58.
9. Hinzen K, Schwellenbach I, Schweppe G, Marco S. Quantifying earth-
quake effects on ancient Arches, example: the Kalat Nimrod Fortress,
Dead Sea Fault Zone. Seismol Res Lett. 2016;87:751–64.
Page 13 of 13
Margalit Herit Sci (2018) 6:62
10. Mare WH. The archaeology of the Jerusalem area. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House; 1987.
11. Nicolle D. Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1097–1192. Oxford: Osprey
Publishing; 2004.
12. Boas AJ. Crusader archaeology: the material culture of the Latin East.
London: Routledge; 1999.
13. Gaetani A, Lourenco PB, Marcari G. Design and analysis of cross vaults
along history. Artic Int J Archit Herit. 2016;10:841–56.
14. Amitai R. Ayyūbid Inscriptions at al-Ṣubayba (Qalʿat Nimrūd). Dumbart
Oaks Pap. 1989;43:113–9.
15. Raphael K. Muslim fortresses in the Levant: between crusaders and Mon-
gols. London: Routledge; 2010.
16. Wilson JF. Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the lost city of Pan. New York: Tauris &
Co; 2004.
17. Lourenço P. Structural behavior of civil engineering structures: highlight
in historical and masonry structures [Internet]. 2006. http://repos itori
um.sdum.uminh o.pt/handl e/1822/6436. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
18. Zaineh HE, Yamanaka H, Dhakal YP, Dakkak R, Daoud M. Strong ground
motion simulation during the November 1759 earthquake along
Serghaya fault in the metropolitan of Damascus, Syria. J Seismol.
2013;17:1295–319.
19. Jäger W, Bakeer T. The effect of earthquake characteristics on the collapse
of historical masonry buildings: case study of the mosque of Takiyya al-
Sulaymaniyya. WIT Trans Built Environ. 2009;109:385–94.
20. Azevedo J, Sincraian G, Lemos JV. Seismic behavior of blocky masonry
structures. Earthq Spectra. 2000;16:337–65.
21. Wilson JF. Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the lost city of Pan. New York: Tauris &
Co; 2004. p. 156–9.
22. Wright GRH. Ancient building technology, vol. 3. Leiden, Boston: Brill Con-
struction; 2009.
23. Ben-Menahem A. Earthquake catalogue for the Middle East (92 B.C.–1980
A.D.). Boll. di Geofis. Teor. ed Appl. 1979. p. 245–310.
24. Sbeinati, Darawcheh R, Mouty M. The historical earthquakes of Syria: an
analysis of large and moderate earthquakes from 1365 B.C. to 1900 A.D.
Ann Geophys. 2005;48:347–435.
25. Gibb HAR. The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades: extracted and trans-
lated from the Chronicle of Ibn Al-Qalanisi. London: Luzac & Co; 1932.
26. Khamisy R. Archaeological remains of the 1202 earthquake in the Frank-
ish village of Tarphile/Khirbat al-Manḥata1. Levant. 2017;49:333–41.
27. Ellenblum R, Marco S, Agnon A, Rockwell T, Boas A. Crusader castle torn
apart by earthquake at dawn, 20 May 1202. Geology. 1998;26:303–6.
28. Zohar M, Salamon A, Rubin R. Earthquake damage history in Israel and
its close surrounding—evaluation of spatial and temporal patterns.
Tectonophysics. 2017;696–697:1–13.
29. Ambraseys NN. The seismic activity in Syria and Palestine during the
middle of the 8th century; an amalgamation of historical earthquakes. J
Seismol. 2005;9:115–25.
30. Marco S, Hartal M, Hazan N, Lev L, Stein M. Archaeology, history, and
geology of the A.D. 749 earthquake, Dead Sea transform. Geology.
2003;31:665–8.
31. Wright GRH. Ancient building technology/1, Historical background.
Leiden: Brill; 2000.
32. Hamdouni Alami M. Art and architecture in the Islamic tradition : aesthet-
ics, politics and desire in early Islam. London: I.B. Tauris; 2011.
33. Müth S, Schneider PI, Peter I, Schnelle M, De Staebler PD. Ancient fortifica-
tions : a compendium of theory and practice. Philadelphia: Oxbow Books;
2016.
34. McNicoll A, Milner NP. Hellenistic fortifications from the Aegean to the
Euphrates. In: Milner N., editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1997.
35. Hartal M. History from Land of Ituraen [Internet]. Ḳatsrin: ha-Makhon
le-ḥeḳer ha-Golan ;ha-Muzeʼon le-ʻatiḳot ha-Golan; 2005. https ://
www.acade mia.edu/48198 89/Harta l_-Histo ry_from_Land_of_Itura en.
Accessed 13 Jul 2016.
36. Josephus F. The Jewish war. Baltimore Md.: Penguin Books; 1960.
37. Josephus F. Antiquities of the Jews. Dinslaken: Anboco; 2016.
38. Paton W. Polybius, the histories, Volume V: Books 16–27| Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2012.
