{"id":5832,"date":"2026-01-31T21:44:05","date_gmt":"2026-01-31T21:44:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/salkhad-ar\/"},"modified":"2026-04-04T21:08:02","modified_gmt":"2026-04-04T21:08:02","slug":"salkhad-en","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/salkhad-en\/","title":{"rendered":"SALKHAD CASTLE IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image_print\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Gharz-Aldin Mohanad ( <\/em>mohanad.gharzalden@gmail.com<\/em><\/a> )<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(<\/em>P\u00e1zm\u00e1ny P\u00e9ter<\/em> Catholic University,<\/em> <\/strong>Budapest, Hungary<\/em>)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201eLand adjacent to the land of Hawran from the outskirts of Damascus.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 a fortified fortress and a large nice state, attributed to the wine.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Y\u0101q\u016bt al-\u1e24amaw\u012b, Mu\u02bfjam al-Buld\u0101n, vol. 3, p. 401)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this simplified article, I shall try to briefly talk about one of the most important military castles in the Levant during the Medieval period, which had enough role in keeping the Crusaders away from Damascus and observing the surrounding areas, as well as passing through the Fatimid, Ayyubid, Zengid, and Mamluk periods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Salkhad castle, which is in the governorate of Swaida, in southern Syria\u200f.\u200f is one of the most important medieval sites in Syria. It has never been subjected to a serious study. Despite being one of the best-preserved medieval fortresses, it has no ground plan and general documentation produced, neither detailed study of its historical, architectural, or archaeological importance. All this although this fortress was the most important defensive centre near Damascus. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The history of the castle begins in the historical sources from the Nabataean period in the first century BC, and Salkhad was continuously used as a military site until the French occupation of Syria in 1920.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The description of all parts is going to be produced \u200e\u200etogether with a study on the possible functions of the individual spaces, with \u200ethe \u200econstruction materials and techniques.\u200e This study is not going to be limited to the castle only, \u200ebut also its immediate vicinity. The \u200ecastle was closely attached to a neighbouring suburb, \u200ewhich also has many remains on the \u200esurface.\u200e Another main aim is to reconstruct the role \u200eSalkhad played in the wider region as an \u200eadministrative centre and the top of the settlement \u200epattern in this part of Syria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords<\/strong>: castle, medieval, fortifications, Salkhad, Syria, Levant, period, Ayyubid, Mameluk, Damascus, Crusaders, military, architecture.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Geographical location<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Salkhad is located in the southern part of present-day Syria, in the province of Swaida. It is located on a hill in the so-called al-Arab mountain. It is located 30 km south of Swaida and 145 km south of Damascus, 22 km east of Bosra in Daraa Province and about 20 km north of the Jordanian border, (Fig 1). It is located at an altitude of 1350 m above sea level in the al-Duruz highlands, (Fig 2). The climate of the area is cold and semi-arid (1). One of the most important features of the region is that there is more rain in winter. It has many water sources and in prehistoric times volcanic eruptions have created good topsoil here (2).\"Diagram\n\nDescription<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. The historical background<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The first mention of the city of Salkhad is found in the Old Testament, where King Auij speaks of the mountain east of Adriaa (Daraa) and Ashtaroth, which included the cities of the Bashan plain, Adriaa and Ashtaroth between Mount Shaykh and Salkha (4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      By the end of the 1st century BC, the Nabataeans from the south had established their kingdom in what is now Jordan and made Bosra their second capital, their first capital having been Petra. The Nabataeans were famous for their trade and economic life and therefore had fortified trade routes to Damascus (5).  The fortification of Salkhad was very important, as the Nabateans wanted to control the surrounding area from here and oversee the road linking Damascus to their capital Petra. Damascus was controlled from the hills of al-Arab on the one hand and from Salkhad, which controlled the Bosra-Damascus route, on the other. The Nabataeans established a cult site on the high hill adjacent to the city of Salkhad and decided to build their fortress, including the temple of their gods, Lat, which dates from 40-50 BC (6). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In the early first century AD, Syria came under Roman rule. They followed the same policy as the Nabateans. They paid great attention to trade methods and the strengthening of trade routes (7).  They took a keen interest in Salkhad, which was the first barrier against nomadic tribes attacking water sources and trade routes (8).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      After the Islamic conquest, several Arab tribes, including that east of Salkhad, invaded the southern Levant. Compared to the Roman-Byzantine period, the new peaceful era seems to have obscured Salkhad from exploration. Here historians do not mention the important events that took place in the region during the early Islamic period and the Umayyad dynasty. The city was a less important centre during the Umayyad and early Abbasid periods (9). Unified into a large, unified empire, it formed a trade route from Damascus to the Arabian Peninsula via Bosra and Salkhad and became a major route for pilgrims, a mixture of nomadic tribes who had converted to Islam and ethnic groups who had settled in civilised areas. The region was stable and peaceful, far from conflict (10). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The 10th-century conquest of Syria by the Fatimids resulted in the incorporation of Salkhad into their new state. The city, and most probably its ancient fortress, was used as a military base from which to control nomadic tribes such as the Bani Sakhir and Bani Amr. In addition, they launched attacks here and in other parts of the Levant to the east11).  They also aimed to eliminate the rival Abbasids state, which was in a period of decline and weakness. However, the presence in the region of nomadic tribes unwilling to bow to the rule of the Fatimids prevented them from achieving their goals (12). They, therefore, sought to antagonise the Bedouin tribes by creating conflict and problems, and at other times by cooperating with them to enlist their help in the later war against the Qaramites in the north.  In addition to wars with the Bedouin, the area was often hit by natural disasters such as epidemics and locust infestations (13). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Fatimids left no significant traces in the city of Salkhad, except for the castle built by Hassan bin Mismar al-Kalabi (14).  This castle was of importance during the Fatimid period, as it is mentioned that the Fatimids appointed Hassan bin Mismar al-Kalabi (15) to Salkhad during the reign of al-Mustansir Billah, who ruled from 1031-1094. Hassan built a castle here, dating from 1073 AD, and on the archway of its gate is inscribed: ‘The construction of this fortress was ordered by the prince of the Arab age, Izz al-Din Fakhr al-Dawla al-Mustansir, the ruler of Egypt (16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      From the 1140s, the warlord Imad al-Din Zinki and his Mosul-based heirs established their power in Syria. The Zinkid state emerged as an extension of the Seljuk state. The two dynasties are singled out in Islamic history for their jihadist role against the Crusaders and for uniting the ranks of Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Medieval sources mention that in 1147 AD, Sayf al-Din al-Tuntash, ruler of Salkhad, contacted the Crusaders, who encouraged him to revolt in Damascus against Muein al-Din Unur and in return for their support, they, in turn, supported him. They decided to take control of the castle of Salkhad (17).  So the crusaders moved towards the castle and at the same time, Muein al-Din Unur sent a request for help to Nur al-Din Mahmud Zinki, who sent a large army to Bosra. He fought a war against the crusaders and succeeded in defeating them, but the rulers of Bosra and the castle of Salkhad remained in contact with them (18).  The high degree of autonomy of these fortresses posed a real threat to Damascus because of their distinctive geographical location and economic role. Hence, in 1154 AD, Nur al-Din Zinki conquered Damascus and all the southern territories that depended on it. This marked the beginning of a period of stability (19).  He also did much to curb the expansionist ambitions of the Crusaders. The fortresses of Bosra and Salkhad were of paramount importance in guarding the southern half of the Muslim territories (20).  The importance of Salkhad is reflected in the fact that in 1160 AD Muhammad (21), son of Nur al-Din, was appointed commander of the castle (22). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In 1173 AD, Nur al-Din Zinki died of illness in Damascus (23).  He was succeeded by his son, 11-year-old al-Malik al-Salih Ismail (24).  In the same year, it was Salah al-Din (Saladin), the leader of the Ayyubids, who overthrew the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt and took power (25). He assured al-Salih Ismail of his obedience in exchange for keeping him in power in Egypt and moved him to Aleppo to take power there (26).  However, this situation helped Saladin to take advantage of the circumstances and attacked Homs and Damascus in 1174 AD (27).  During Saladin’s reign, he was able to reunite the Islamic states against the Crusaders (28). Salkhad is mentioned in his time only in connection with his taking it without a fight in 1187 AD (29).  Saladin did not live long, as he died unexpectedly in Damascus (30) around 1194 AD at the age of 57 (31).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Saladin had a son, al-Afdal Ali Nur al-Din, who owned Damascus, the coast, Salkhad, Bosra and Banias, in addition to many areas of the Levant. He went with his family to settle in Salkhad (32).  He ordered the castle to be modernised and after a short time, no more than two years, he handed over the castle and the city to Zayn al-Din Quraya, one of his father’s princes and vassals. He left Salkhad with his family and mother and never returned to the castle (33). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Abu al-Fadl Izz al-Din Aybak was given the castle. He saw through the situation in the region and re-fortified Salkhad because of its strategic location. He defended the state of Ayubida and the city of Bosra from the nomadic tribes (34). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In 1247 AD, Izz al-Din Aybak al-Malik al-Salih was removed from Salkhad (35) by Izz al-Din Aybak al-Malik al-Salih, and in 1248 he was arrested for his son Ibrahim, imprisoned in Damascus and transported to Cairo, where he died in 1249 AD (36).  A year later his remains were transported to Damascus and buried there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      After a short period, the House of Ayyubid began to fall apart due to hatred within the ruling house and widespread disagreements between the governors. At the same time, the power of the Mamluks began to emerge, and in 1250 the formation of the Mamluk state was announced. In the same period, the Mongol invasion of the Middle East began, sweeping across the country, flooding cities with fire and blood, destroying the economy, culture and all other forms of life (37). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      During the first half of the Mamluk rule, Salkhad entered a period of political stability and economic prosperity. The first years were difficult because of the Mongol invasion. After the Mongols burnt Damascus in 1260, they headed south and, under the command of general Katibgha, captured the castle of Salkhad (38), who destroyed it and the other fortresses to prevent their enemies from returning and using them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      During this Mongol invasion, al-Zaher Baybars took over the sultanate in 1260. He resisted the Mongols and restored the fortresses (39), including the castle of Salkhad, and prepared them for resistance. His name can still be read on the northern walls. He also rebuilt mosques in the Mamluk state because of their role in inspiring people to fight and raising their morale. The mosque in the city of Salhkad is one of the mosques that have been restored (40). The building was consecrated in 1270 by Bilban al-Afram, who left Mamluk inscriptions alongside the statue of the Mamluk panther.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Between 1279 and 1290 was the reign of Sultan al-Mansur Sayf al-Dawla Qalawun, who drove out the Crusaders and stopped the Mongol threat. As Salkhad and its castle played a prominent role in the defence of the southern territories against the Mongols, the Sultan appointed two trusted figures in 1283: Sayf al-Din Basiti and Izz al-Din al-Hamawi, the military officers who commanded Salkhad (41). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Ottoman rule, which began in 1516, did not bring any significant long-term changes to Salkhad, whose territory remained neglected. When the German consul Wertstein visited the town in the mid-19th century, he found a run-down settlement devoid of inhabitants (42).  People had built new houses from the ruins of the abandoned castle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      With the start of the great Syrian revolution against the French occupation in 1920, groups of revolutionaries were stationed and hiding in Salkhad. As a result, the French bombed and destroyed most of the castle. They captured it and built a military barracks there, increasing the size of the structure. Many alterations were made to accommodate the French headquarters. Rooms were built for the command, stables for the horses, barracks for the soldiers and stores for the weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Description of Salkhad Castle<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        The fortified section suffered extensive destruction and rebuilding during the recent French occupation, so in the absence of an accurate topographical survey, it is difficult to identify the monumental forms, except for some fragments of the castle wall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In later periods, human intervention has played a particularly important role in distorting the details of the castle, due to the lack of archaeological and scientific knowledge of its historical values. This distortion resulted from the displacement and removal of parts, stones and inscriptions used by the inhabitants of the area to build and decorate their houses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The castle was built on a basalt hill at an altitude of 1450 m above sea level (Fig 2). It is made up of basaltic rock in its western foothills and red tufa on its southern and eastern edges, which can be easily worked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        At the top of the hill is a high castle with a semicircular building, (Fig 3). As seen from the southeast, the castle was surrounded by an outer wall, which was the first line of defence. This has been largely destroyed by the wartime destruction of the castle and the scattering of stones. On the south-eastern side of the castle, the foundations are cobbled and the stones are carefully carved. Old photographs of the castle show that its outer walls were reinforced by semicircular towers, (Fig4). These appear on the north-eastern part of the outer wall (Fig5) but disappeared over time due to the French occupation and the successive destruction of the castle. Much destruction was also caused by the inhabitants of the area immediately after the French troops left. After the French troops withdrew in 1946, during a period of peace and tranquillity, they demolished some sections of the walls to rebuild their homes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Fig 4, The outer wall and its towers (43).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        When we approach the building, a trench more than six metres deep and about 10 metres wide appears. The remaining length is 25 metres. It should be noted that the trench has been filled in with rubble and stones from successive collapses of the castle wall. At present, it appears that the defences did not completely enclose the entire castle and it is possible that certain zones of the castle, where steep slopes impeded access, made it unnecessary to dig the trench.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The inner wall of the castle was built in the Ayyubid period and rebuilt in the Mamluk period. It was the main defensive line of the castle. It is equipped with many of the defensive techniques known from other fortifications of the Ayyubid period. Despite the extensive deterioration of the wall, especially in the eastern and south-eastern sections (Fig6), the northern and north-western walls give a clear picture of the construction and fortification techniques (Fig7). The lower part of the castle wall is covered by a huge masonry glacis (steep masonry slope) to protect the castle body and make a possible siege more difficult. The slope is about 60 steps inwards, the stones carefully carved smooth to make climbing the wall more difficult. The upper part was built vertically, with many long arrows. The construction technique of the upper section of the wall was such that, looking up from below, one feels that the wall is going to lean on top of it. The builders also took into account the fact that parts of the northern face of the wall are covered with huge boulders, which made it unnecessary to cover them with glacis. On the other walls, especially on the west and northwest sides, you will notice that the mortar filling with small stones appears behind the missing capstones on the outer face of the glacis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        The access road is located on the south side of the castle and consists of two sections. It starts eastwards for about 30 steps, then turns westwards for about 20 steps and widens slightly at the end (Fig 8).\"A<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The staircase continues north, and on going up we arrive at a building that would have been the official complex of the castle (the red colour in the attached plans). The walls are still visible in most places, being about one meter thick and supported by circular towers. This structure extends to the western side of the castle. There are also remains of a spiral staircase in the central part of the castle. There is also a portico or corridor in front of the building and patio. In the central part of the castle, there is a building consisting of six adjacent rooms. This may have been reconstructed during the French presence in the castle, and the walls of its rooms were plastered with cement mortar, and by analyzing the history of the castle in the late Mamluk period at the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth century, perhaps these rooms were a collection of offices for managing citizens\u2019 affairs and collecting taxes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Next to the entrance to the castle is an elevated room, accessed by a rectangular staircase. Perhaps this room was a control and reception centre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

         To the west of this room, there is a large rectangular building consisting of two floors, the upper one being two rooms with thick walls, and advancing to the east a terrace overlooking the large courtyard of the official complex. The lower floor (in blue colour in the attached plans), is a rectangular hall with a large area and a vaulted ceiling, its entrance is from the southeast wall, and, in the north wall, a gate opens to a narrow cave that heads north and turns east to reach two large water tanks. This hall, the cave and the water tanks may have been used during the siege periods, but despite the usual shape of the building, the stones used in its construction are not regularly carved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

         The complex as a whole contains five water tanks, one of which dates back to the French period in the northern section of the complex. In addition, there are small basins cultivation next to the curved staircase. (Figs. 9,10,11).\"Diagram\n\nDescription<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Entering the eastern part of the castle, it should be noted that the two parts are separated by an open portico with two walls of ordinary stone. In my opinion, the eastern part of the castle was the service area, and this is evident from the design of the rooms and their partitions. The service complex was divided into three sections in the plans<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The northern part (S3) consists of a staircase overlooking a long hall. It is flanked by two large halls, one of which reveals circular stone blocks used to grind wheat. This room is rectangular in shape and has a relatively large floor area. Its roof has an arched opening in the centre of the square to allow light and air to flow through. The floor of this room has a deep pit that can be used to store wheat. Three walls of the hall contain a stone balcony. This could have been used by workers or soldiers as a seat and it could have been created from stones removed during demolitions. Plus smaller rooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The southern part consists of two blocks separated by a semicircular arched passage. On the western side (S1), there is a long arched passage with a water tank and rectangular rooms, this section is probably the resting place and sleeping quarters of the soldiers. To the east (S2), there are several additional rooms of more regular architecture and this section connects with the eastern towers of the castle. In the analysis of the service complex, it must be noted that the vaults were built in different periods, as we notice from the ceilings of the rooms and designs that there are clear differences, such as the one-arch ceilings as in S1, and the four-arched ceilings as in S2, and in the corridor that connects the two sections S1 and S2 We note that it is semi-arched because S2 was built in a later period, as the wall was demolished and a wider hall reconstructed. And in S3 the same thing, as in the western room we notice that it is the four-arched ceiling. (Figs 12,13,14,15).\"Diagram\n\nDescription<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Fig 14, S1, Gharz-Aldin Mohanad<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Fig 15, S2, Gharz-Aldin Mohanad<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In the centre of the castle, there is a large basement with a single vaulted ceiling. According to oral data, this basement was built in the Ayyubid period and was used to store weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Its entrance is from the western side and in the southern wall there is a closed room due to the destruction, but it is expected that it is connected to the previously mentioned cave from the northern side, and perhaps that is not correct. (Figs 12,16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        As for the fortifications, the castle almost entirely followed the medieval fortification pattern, with its rock-cut ditches, glacis, arrow-head towers, and perhaps a patio on top from which the defenders could pour hot oil on attackers. In the 13th century, sieges were characterised by the intensive use of catapults and torpedoes, and historical sources also mention the use of catapults to bombard the castle of Salkhad. The castle likely had artillery, as this is essential for castles of the importance and size of Salkhad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The large structure, which I have called an official complex, was reinforced by several circular towers, the foundations of which were visible on the surface of the castle. The western tower, located near the north-western corner of the office building, is considered the most spectacular of the others. The method of construction was rubble stone bonded with heavy mortar and covered with a regular stone pavement of stone carvings. There were two circular towers in the centre of the vaulted interior and near the eastern part of the building, but nothing remains of these except the circular base. These two towers may have served the same function as the western one, but they appear narrower on the ground plan of the castle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The first castle’s tower is on the north-eastern side of the castle wall and was destroyed in earlier periods. It was large and rectangular in shape. Above the base was a cylindrical body, probably over 35 m high.  It has a rectangular room which was used to house the guards. This tower may date from the Seljuk period (44) (Figs 17,18).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Fig 17,  NO1: the northeastern tower, NO2: the eastern tower, NO3: the northwestern tower, Gharz-Aldin Mohanad, Yovitchitch Cyril (2007)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Fig 18, the northeastern tower, Gharz-Aldin Moahanad.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The small tower to the east, which dates from the pre-Mamluk period, is fifteen metres from the building. The small square tower, 5.55 m wide, has a semicircular vaulted vestibule. Its front wall is made of large stone blocks sealed with a mixture of mud and mortar. On the left side, a sloping seating area was formed on which soldiers could sit (Figs 17,19).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The great tower on the north-western side of the castle is undoubtedly the most important building in the castle and is over 12 m wide. It dates from the Mamluk period but is now destroyed and only part of the northern wall remains (45). The tower rises to a height of more than 20 m and is built of large basalt stones with carvings on it. The foundation of the lower level, a rectangular piece, is still visible. Its vaulted ceiling is supported by two pillars. Two arrow slits can be observed on the north wall of the tower, which still remains (Figs 17,20).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Other towers can be seen in the southeast and southwest of the castle, which will require deeper and more detailed archaeological excavation (Figs 21,22).  In addition, arrow-slits are placed on the wall of the castle to contribute to the process of defending it, as it is noted that there are remnants of archers on the eastern and northwestern facades.  All of them were built in the Mamluk period, given that the Mamluks restored the castle and its wall after the Mongol invasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In the next step, it is necessary to describe the destruction that befell the castle and highlight the manifestations of the destruction suffered by the castle by the three causes (earthquakes, wars, and the seizure of the castle stones by the inhabitants). This topic is based on historical sources that mentioned the earthquakes that occurred in southern Syria in general and the area of Salkhad and its castle in particular.\"A\"A<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        At first, the wars played a major role in the destruction of the outer walls of the castle in particular, where it mentioned in the history of the castle several battles that took place next to the castle and the siege of the castle during the Mamluk period and hit it with a catapult, it’s visible on the north-west wall of the castle, the hole created by the catapult projectile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Besides, during the French invasion of Syria, there was a group of fighters who were stationed in the castle because of its strategic location, but the reasons prevented them from repelling the French attack on the castle, and later the castle was occupied by the French army, which changed some of the features of the castle and rebuilt several guard rooms and an observing tower.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        As for the violations of the inhabitants of the castle. Many people who considered evidence, mentioned that the inhabitants of the city after the departure of the French occupation, dismantled many of the castle walls and used the stones in the construction of their houses because most of the stones of the external walls were carved and trimmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The earthquakes that occurred in the castle, are not predictable unless many geophysical and technical studies are carried out to realize the causes of destruction, but by investigating historical sources and seeing with the naked eye. Some aspects of the destruction can be distinguished and try to determine the period during which the earthquake occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The historian Abu Shama mentioned in his book al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn al-Nuriyya wa al-Salihiyya about an earthquake that occurred in 1152 AD. The earthquake hit areas south of Damascus, including Bosra and Hawran, and led to great destruction and was followed in the same year by another earthquake in the same region, knowing that the earthquake extends to large areas but the centre was in south Damascus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        He also mentioned as in 1156 AD. A larger earthquake occurred and was followed in the following year by another earthquake (Fig 23), and these two earthquakes are considered two of the most destructive historical earthquakes as mentioned in the sources, where Ibn al-Athir talked about it saying that this earthquake destroyed large areas in Mosul, The Syrian Djazirah, Hama, and Bosra in addition to the Syrian coast, and destroyed many castles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In addition to Ibn Kathir, who added some details, he mentioned the Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian coasts, and mentioned that the impact of the earthquake reached Cyprus and the Arabian Peninsula. In the year 1170AD (Fig 24), the Levant experienced strong earthquakes again and destroyed many castles and perhaps also The Castle of Salkhad was among the ruined castles, and it is worth noting that also the Crusader castles were destroyed, so there were no military events, where the powers went away in reconstruction and refortification. In 1261 AD. Another earthquake occurred in The Levant and the historian al-QalaqshandI mentioned that it reached Egypt, Karak, Shawbak, and Iraq, where the earthquake was largely devastating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        In (Figs 25,26,27), a brief explanation of the sequence of architectural layers had to be provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        We notice in Phase No. 1<\/strong> that the stones are bluish-black basalt, not well carved, and they are different in size. In phase No. 2<\/strong>, we notice the continued use of basalt stones with a different colour (brown basalt), and they are well sculpted and have similar sizes. Phase No. 3<\/strong>, appears to be a later built phase, irregularly constructed using varying sizes stones, without the use of mortar as in phases 1<\/strong> and 2<\/strong>, so this wall could have been built during the presence of the revolutionaries or the French occupation in the castle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In describing the destruction, we note that there are two main damages activities according to the stratigraphy reading of standing walls in the castle.  The first damage can be constrained between phase 1<\/strong> and 2<\/strong> where phase 2<\/strong> was built as a reconstructed phase after collapsing walls of phase 1<\/strong>. The second damage occurred after phase 2<\/strong> and caused collapsing some phase 2<\/strong> were then there was no reconstruction evidence. It most likely caused the abandonment of the castle. It is noteworthy that the observed damage was a result of strong earthquakes. Based on the scale of EAEs, we can infer the severity of the damage, ranging from VIII-IX intensity. However, the historical sources, that talked about the earthquakes that occurred during the lifetime of the castle, did not mention the strong effect at \u00d1alkhad castle on this scale. Therefore, it is probably that there were earthquakes are not mentioned in the available historical sources, and this requires subsequent field study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Other observed damages can be seen (Fig 28) (46), such as the complete collapse of the eastern wall, and in the same case with many walls in the castle (Fig 29) (47), similar damages were described by Marco et al (2003) in different places in Levant area and attributed to earthquakes damages (48)(Fig 30). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        1. THE CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          The strategically important site of the extinct volcano in \u200eSalkhad was used as a military outpost from at least the Nabatean period. Although no clear \u200eremains of any Greek or Roman constructions were discovered until now, the site was very \u200elikely fortified further during the Roman period when it was a key point to control the nomads \u200eof the neighbouring desert. The almost complete lack of mention of the site during the early \u200eMuslim centuries might mean that its importance has decreased to some extent or was not \u200eaffected by main military events. From the disintegration of the Caliphate, the castle started to \u200ehave an important role again in controlling the fertile area and its main commercial routes in the \u200eturbulent centuries of the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk periods. The main development of the \u200epresent site seems to have been due to the Ayyubid efforts as many still standing elements show \u200ea clear similarity of better survived and studied sites of the period. Although being a military \u200estrongpoint foremostly, the castle might have had several residential buildings of the \u200egovernor. The Mongol wars in \u200ethe second half of the 13th century caused serious damage and consequent reconstruction \u200eduring the Mamluk period from which era many of the finds retrieved during the limited \u200eexcavations date. The later periods were characterized by marked neglect in the military use of \u200eSalkhad until the coming of the French mandate when the alien troops used the site again for \u200emilitary reasons further accelerating its destructions. The limited number of excavations were \u200enot enough to clarify the precise layout of the castle which is planned to start someday with \u200enew fieldworks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. Tlas Mustafa, al-Mujam al-Jughrafiyy lilqutur al-Arabiyy al-Suriyy<\/em>, V4, (Markaz al-Dirasat al-Askariyya, Damascus, 1992), 141.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          2. Hamza Nazih, Tarikh Madinat Salkhad mundz Ahid al-Anbat hatta Nihayat Asir al- Mamalik<\/em>, (Wizarat al- Thaqafa, Damascus, 1996), 213.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          3.  Old Testament, Deuteronomy 5<\/em>, 3:10.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          4. Syrian Arab Republic and Region Reference map.online <https:\/\/www.unocha.org\/syria>. 2022. Jan. 09 <\/li>\n\n\n\n
          5. Miller Naomi, \u02baBosra fi Bilad al-Arab\u02ba, AAAS<\/em>,  V36-37,  (1987), 132-143.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          6. Ali Jawad, Tarikh al-Arab Qabil al-Islam, <\/em>V2, (Matbaat Dar al-Ilim, Beirut, 1971), 326.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          7. Ali Jawad, Tarikh al-Arab Qabil al-Islam<\/em>, 327.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          8. Kurd Ali,  khutat al-Sham,<\/em> V6, (Maktabat al-Nuri. Damascus, 1983) 435.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          9. Kurd Ali, khutat al-Sham<\/em>, 275.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          10. Hamza Nazih, Tarikh Madinat Salkhad mundz Ahid al-Anbat hatta Nihayat Asir al- Mamalik<\/em>, 47.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          11. al-Minnawi Muhammad,  al-Wizara wa al-wzaraa fi al-Ahid al-Fatimi<\/em>, (Dar al-Maarif, Cairo 1970), 187.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          12. Hatum Nur-aldin, Dzikra Marakat Hittin<\/em>. (Wizarat al-Thaqafa, Damascus, 1987), 52.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          13. Hamza Nazih, Tarikh Madinat Salkhad mundz Ahid al-Anbat hatta Nihayat Asir al- Mamalik<\/em>, 49.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          14. Kurd Ali, khutat al-Sham<\/em>, 225.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          15. Asfahani al- Imad al-katib, Jaridat al-Qasir wa Jaridat al-Asir<\/em>, Ed, Faisal Shukri, (al-Matbaa al-hashimiyya, Damascus, 1968), 181.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          16. Taghi Birdi, al-Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa\u2019l-Qahira<\/em>, V2, Ed, Muahmmad Husin Shams\u02bcldin, (Wizarat al-Thaqafa. Cairo, 1963), 275.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          17. al- Asali Bassam, al -Aiyyam al-Hasima, <\/em>(Dar al-Nafaiis, Beirut, 1980), 79.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          18. Kurd Ali,  khutat al-Sham<\/em>, 27.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          19. Abu Assaf Ali,  al-Athar fi jabal Hawran<\/em>, (al-Adib, Damascus, 1997), 102\u2013103.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          20. Abd al-Haq Adil, \u02baMasrah Bosra wa Qalaatuha\u02ba, AAAS<\/em>, V14, (1964), 5-23.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          21. Ibn al-Ibri, Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Dwal<\/em>, Ed, Antun Salhany al-Yusaai,( Beirut, 1992), 182.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          22. Abu al-Fidaa, al-Mukhtasar fi akhbar al-bashar<\/em>, V2, Ed, Mahmud Daiyyu, (al- Matbaa al- husayniyya al- Masriyya, Cairo, 1932), 29.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          23. Ibn Khaldun,  al-Ibar wa Diwan al-Mubtadaa wa al-Khabar,<\/em> Ed, Abu Suhayb al-Karami,  (Bayt al-Afkar al-Dwaliyya, Amman, 2009), 1383.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          24. Ibn Khaldun,  al-Ibar wa Diwan al-Mubtadaa wa al-Khabar<\/em>, 1384.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          25. al-Umari,  Masalik al-Absar fi mamalik al-Amsar,<\/em> V27, Ed, Kamil al-Juburi, (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Bayrut, 2010), 57.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          26. Ibn Khaldun, al-Ibar wa Diwan al-Mubtadaa wa al-Khabar<\/em>, 1385.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          27. Ibn al-Athir,  al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, <\/em>Ed, Abu al-Fidaa al-Qadi, V9, (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Bayrut, 1987), 124.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          28. al-Nwayriyy, Nihayat al Arab fi Funun al- Adab<\/em>, Ed, Najib Mustafa Fawwaz, V28, (Dar al- Kutub al- Ilmiyya, Beirut, 2004), 374.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          29. al- Maqriziyy, Kitab al- Suluk li Maarifat Dwal al- Muluk<\/em>, Ed, Muuammad Abd al- Qadir Ata, V1, (Dar al- Kutub al- Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1997), 209.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          30. Ibn Khaldun, al-Ibar wa Diwan al-Mubtadaa wa al-Khabar<\/em>, 1427.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          31. al- Maqriziyy, Kitab al- Suluk li Maarifat Dwal al- Muluk<\/em>, 228.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          32. Hamza Nazih, Tarikh Madinat Salkhad mundz Ahid al-Anbat hatta Nihayat Asir al- Mamalik<\/em>,  64.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          33. Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh<\/em>, V12, 106.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          34. al-Dimashqiyy,  al-Daris fi Tarikh al-Madaris, <\/em>Ed, Ibrahim Shams al-Din, V1, (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1990), 423.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          35. al-Maqdisi, al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn al-Nuriyya wa al-Salahiyya<\/em>, Ed, Ibrahim al-Zaybaq, V5, (Muaassasat al-Risala, Beirut, 1997),  276.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          36. al- Maqriziyy, Kitab al- Suluk li Maarifat Dwal al- Muluk<\/em>, 431<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          37. Kurd Ali,  khutat al-Sham<\/em>, 56.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          38. al-Nwayriyy,  Nihayat al Arab fi Funun al- Adab<\/em>, 263.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          39. Kurd Ali, khutat al-Sham<\/em>, 56.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          40. \u200e<\/strong>Kurd Ali, khutat al-Sham<\/em>, 57.\u200e<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
          41. Abu Aassaf Ali, al-Athar fi jabal Hawran<\/em>, 104.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          42. Aerial Archaeology in the Middle East: Castle of Salkhad. Closer view of the picturesque castle. Online: <https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/apaame\/12829914403> 2022.Feb.9<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          43. Abu Assaf Ali, al-Athar fi jabal Hawran<\/em>, 105.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          44. Yovitchitch Cyril, Forteresses Ayyoubides de la Principaute de Damas<\/em>, V3, Text, (Sorbonne university, Paris, 2007), 531.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          45. Yovitchitch Cyril, Forteresses Ayyoubides de la Principaute de Damas<\/em>, 536.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          46. J. Imbricated arrangement of the western wall of the Um el Kanatir synagogue, which fell westward (right side in the photo). Two earthquakes hit the site in 551 and 749 AD (Wechsler et al., 2006b). This arrangement cannot form where walls collapse by slow protracted deterioration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          47. K. Collapsed wall of the northern watchtowers of Kal’at Nimrod lay in disarray at the bottom of a steep slope. The large ashlars fell in 1759.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          48. Marco Shamuel, \u02baRecognition of earthquake-related damage in archaeological sites: Examples  from  the  Dead  Sea  fault  zone\u02ba, Tectonophysics<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>V 453,<\/a> 2008, 148-156.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n


            Citation<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Gharz-Aldin, M. (2026). Salkhad Castle in the Medieval Period. Swaida Intellectual Digital Magazine, 1(2).\u00a0https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.19422981<\/a>

            <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            Gharz-Aldin Mohanad ( mohanad.gharzalden@gmail.com ) (P\u00e1zm\u00e1ny P\u00e9ter Catholic University, Budapest, Hungary) \u201eLand adjacent to the land of Hawran from the outskirts of Damascus.  a fortified fortress and a large nice state, attributed to the wine.\u201d (Y\u0101q\u016bt al-\u1e24amaw\u012b, Mu\u02bfjam al-Buld\u0101n, vol. 3, p. 401) In this…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[237,235],"class_list":["post-5832","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-landmarks-and-sites","tag-landmarks-ans-sites","tag-235"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5832","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5832"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5832\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6337,"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5832\/revisions\/6337"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaidamag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}