Open this page in a new tab

Omrit

Horvat Omrit - View of the Temple Complex Horvat Omrit - View of the Temple Complex

Stern et al (2008)


Names
Transliterated Name Source Name
Omrit Hebrew אומריט
Horbat Omrit Hebrew הורבט אומריט
Introduction
Introduction

Omrit, located in the foothills of the Hermon range ~4 km. SW of Banias was at the crossroads of the Tyre-Damascus and Scythopolis-Damascus routes and on the border between the Galilee and Iturea (J. Andrew Overman in Stern et al, 2008). Overman in Stern et al (2008) suggests that the Temple at Omrit may have marked the entrance to Iturea or the related region of Banias. Excavations have revealed Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine remains along with a brief transient occupation in the 13th century CE (J. Andrew Overman in Stern et al, 2008).

History and Excavations

Ḥorvat Omrit is located in the foothills of the Hermon Range, 4 km southwest of Banias and east of the modern city of Qiryat Shemona. It stood near the crossroads of the ancient Tyre–Damascus and Scythopolis–Damascus routes, and on the border of Galilee and Iturea. Topographically, it is situated on the eastern side of the Ḥula Valley, where the terrain rises toward the Hermon, several kilometers southwest of the Damascus Pass. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Omrit was part of the disputed and somewhat unruly region of Iturea (Strabo Geog. 16.2, 18). The temple at Omrit may have marked the entrance into Iturea or the related region of Banias. This rugged, mountainous area changed hands several times during the first century BCE. After the Battle of Actium, Augustus handed it over to Herod, who was charged with restoring order to it. With his characteristic brutal hand and equally audacious building program, Herod brought the region under his and Augustus’ control (Josephus, Antiq. XV, 344).

Archaeological excavations began at Ḥorvat Omrit in 1999, under the direction of J. A. Overman, with the support of Macalester College of St. Paul, Minnesota. A preliminary probe of the area had been conducted in 1974 by a team headed by G. Foerster of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Distinguishable on the site were substantial structures with numerous architectural features still standing, some in situ, as well as an extensive complex with multiple buildings, a colonnaded way, and an ornate, extremely well-preserved temple-like building. Five seasons of excavations have been completed so far, focusing primarily on the temple complex.

Aerial Views, Plans, and Illustrations
Aerial Views, Plans, and Illustrations

Aerial Views

  • Omrit in Google Earth
    Omrit in Google Earth

    click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
  • Omrit on govmap.gov.il
    Omrit on govmap.gov.il

    click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Plans and Illustrations

Site Plans

  • Plan of Horvat Omrit Site
    Horvat Omrit, Plan of the Site

    Stern et al (2008)
    from Stern et al (2008)

Area Plans

Temples I and II

Normal Size

  • Reconstruction of the
    Omrit (Hebrew: חורבת עומרית, romanized: Horvat Omrit) is the site of an ancient Roman temple in the northeast corner of the Hula Valley in Israel, near the modern moshav of She'ar Yashuv. It is believed that Omrit was built by Herod the Great in honor of Emperor Augustus around 20 BCE.

    Picture is from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem

    Click on Image to see magnifiable high res version in a new tab

    Tom Bahar - Wikipedia - CC BY-SA 4.0
    Temple at Omrit from Wikipedia
  • Plan of Temple I (late 1st century BCE)
    Temple I - late 1st century BCE

    Stern et al (2008)
    from Stern et al (2008)
  • Plan of Temple II (early 2nd century CE)
    Temple II - early 2nd century CE

    Stern et al (2008)
    from Stern et al (2008)
  • Fig. 15 - Temple I & Temple II
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    Nelson et al (2015)
    site plan from Nelson et al (2015)
  • Fig. 15 - Closeup on Wall WF4
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    JW: Closeup on Wall WF4. WF4 is oriented N-S

    Nelson et al (2015)
    in Temple I&II site plan (Fig. 15) from Nelson et al (2015)

Magnified

  • Fig. 15 - Temple I & Temple II
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    Nelson et al (2015)
    site plan from Nelson et al (2015)
  • Fig. 15 - Closeup on Wall WF4
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    JW: Closeup on Wall WF4. WF4 is oriented N-S

    Nelson et al (2015)
    in Temple I&II site plan (Fig. 15) from Nelson et al (2015)

Archaeoseismic Chronology
Stratigraphy

Inside the Temenos

Phase Period Date Description
Pre-ES Late Hellenistic 125-100 BCE
  • "The phase is represented by an in-situ plaster floor (Locus SP5-5.15) discovered in SP5."

  • "Loci 2011.SP55.15–17 are the only clean Late Hellenistic loci recovered from the Temple complex and they date the plaster floor firmly to 125–100 BCE."
ES1 The Early Shrine —
  • "The Early Shrine had two sub-phases. ES1 was a podium-based monument of which only the podium survives. However, it was altered in the next phase (ES2) and therefore its original form and purpose are unknown."
ES2 The Early Shrine 50 BCE - 50 CE
  • "ES2 was a small sanctuary that consisted of a podium-based pseudoperipteral temple built according to the Corinthian order, a surrounding temenos wall (Structures F and M), an ashlar-built platform that connects the temenos wall doorway with the front staircase of the temple, two frescoed pedestals, a small fixed altar (Structure P), and a small fixed statue base (Structure N)."

  • "From 50 BCE to 50 CE, two architecturally impressive building events occurred at Omrit: the remodeling and enlargement of ES1 to become ES2 and the building of Unfortunately, due to the extensive T2 excavation and fill¬ing operations of T1's podium, very few clean loci were noted for these two building events and none were discovered for the founding of the ES1. Since the same ceramic horizon, 50 BCE-50 CE, dominates readings for both ES2 and T1, the foundation of ESi must be pushed toward the early part of that range and certainly after the demolition of the Late Hellenistic building. It is obvious from the in-situ architecture that the ES2 preceded T1 because the latter destroyed, covered, and obviated the former. However, more precise dating of this event than the loo-year span could not be pinpointed from the recovered ceramics."
T1 Temple One (T1) 50 BCE - 50 CE
  • "The construction of T1 destroyed ES2; the new temple was built directly on top of and completely concealed the earlier building's remains. T1 was a podium-based pseudoperipteral Corinthian temple with a staircase on its east facade."
T2 Temple Two (T2) 53/54 CE - 80/81 CE
  • "T2 remodeled and enlarged Tl. It was a podium-based peristyle Corinthian temple with a broad staircase on its east facade. The in-situ remains include: its four podium walls, portions of its staircase and the flanking parastade walls, and portions of its stylobate.Hundreds of fallen and displaced architectural blocks and block fragments belong to T2. Also included in this phase is the basalt-paved temenos, the altar (Structure A), and two statue bases (Structures B and D)."

  • "Since the niche in the ES2 west temenos wall and ash-and-bone deposit were part of the overall filling operation of T2, the city coin of Tyre (54/53c E) provides a terminus post quem for the construction of T2. The pavement inscription east of the T2's north parastade wall is dated to 8o/810E and provides a terminus ante quem for T2. These two parameters serve to sharpen the ceramic horizon pro¬vided by the stratigraphies observed in F6 and SP3, and the ash-and-bone deposit in SP4. Based on this evidence, construction of T2 can be dated to the third to fourth quarter of the ist century CE."
— — 4th to 5th Century CE
  • "In the 4th to 5th century, T2 was altered or remodeled. A new floor, partially composed of reused T2 wall blocks, was installed and replaced the original T2 cella floor, and the eastern doorway into the cella was blocked. Several small structures (H and J) had been built against the south podium wall of T2 and all of them re-used T2 architectural blocks."
— — Early 7th Century
  • "A small, single- and external-apse chapel may perhaps have been built immediately to the south of and partially atop the altar in this phase."
— — 12th to the 13th Century
  • "Aside from a small concentration of 9th century ceramics found in square M4 (Appendix, Table 25), occupation activity in the temenos dropped dramatically and there may have been a lengthy period of abandonment before it was resettled in the 12-13c. At this time, any standing remains of T2 had probably already fallen and lay beneath centuries of accumulated soil. Nonetheless, the new community scavenged building materials, built at least four small dwellings, and as time passed buried their dead nearby, some with precious possessions."

  • "Activity in this final occupational phase of the temenos includes more than 20 graves and four small structures. Most of the graves were cist-built using reused limestone blocks and partially worked basalt blocks, inserted among the collapsed T2 architectural blocks and accumulated soil to the north and east of T2."

Temple I repair earthquake

Figures

Figures

  • Fig. 15 - Temple I & Temple II
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    Nelson et al (2015)
    site plan from Nelson et al (2015)
  • Fig. 15 - Closeup on Wall WF4
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    JW: Closeup on Wall WF4. WF4 is oriented N-S

    Nelson et al (2015)
    in Temple I&II site plan (Fig. 15) from Nelson et al (2015)
  • Fig. 22 - Different building
    FIGURE 22

    wall wF4 (from east)

    Nelson et al (2015)
    phases on wall wF4 from Nelson et al (2015)

Discussion
Discussion

References
Notes by JW

Nelson et al (2015:5) reports the following:

At some point during T1’s use phase, wall wF4 needed a repair (Fig. 15
FIGURE 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

JW: Closeup on Wall WF4. WF4 is oriented N-S

Nelson et al (2015)
). It was originally built as a bonded cross-wall of P1 to support the east cella wall of T1. Later it served the same purpose for T2. However, the wall’s masonry exhibits two phases of construction, or rather, one phase of construction, followed by one phase of repair (Fig. 22
FIGURE 22

wall wF4 (from east)

Nelson et al (2015)
). The southern half was built with P1 style masonry of dry-laid ashlars with tight fitting joints between both blocks and courses. The northern half was built with P2 style masonry of roughly-chiseled, marginally-drafted ashlars laid with a bit of mortar. In addition, there was a change in course height for the upper courses in the northern half which resulted in an awkward series of horizontal and vertical joints running down the middle of the wall.

Thus, wall wF4 apparently failed at some point in time but the cause of the failure must be left to speculation. An ashlar block or two within wF4 may have cracked and crushed along an unnoticed internal fissure in the stone. A fire may have caused the collapse of the roof tree or its trusses which pulled down a cella wall or two. Or, an earthquake severely jolted the building which perhaps knocked down its superstructure. Regardless, because of an internal failure or an external destructive force, wall wF4 needed a repair. The timing of this building activity is not precisely known but it may have occurred with the construction of T2 because the new blocks used in the repair were shaped and assembled in the manner of P2 masonry rather than imitating the masonry of P1. In addition, small repairs with mortar and chinking stones were made here and there on the inner faces of P1.

Temple II earthquake - 363 CE ?

Figures

Figures

  • Fig. 15 - Temple I & Temple II
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    Nelson et al (2015)
    site plan from Nelson et al (2015)
  • Fig. 15 - Closeup on Wall WF4
    Figure 15

    T1 and T2 state plan.

    JW: Closeup on Wall WF4. WF4 is oriented N-S

    Nelson et al (2015)
    in Temple I&II site plan (Fig. 15) from Nelson et al (2015)

Discussion
Discussion

References
Notes by JW

Nelson et al (2015:6 footnote 19) reports that Stoehr (2011:ch 7) discusses potential earthquake damage to T2. Stoehr (2018:127-130) reports on damage to the third Temple which appears to be the same as T2:

The third temple was built to encase and mimic the second temple, which itself duplicated many of the features of the first temple, but on a larger scale.

... At some point near the end of the fourth century the third temple was severely damaged, likely the result of the large earthquake of 363 CE.

... The Omrit temple was not repaired, presumably because the social environment had changed, and instead a small Christian chapel was later constructed in the temenos, and much of the material from the temple quarried away. This chapel, about 25 feet long, had an apse on one end. It was built to incorporate the remains of the temple’s large altar as the foundation of its north wall. It is of uncertain date.

Another new structure, probably also a church, was under construction but likely never completed. It utilized most of the remaining temple podium. It appears to have incorporated some still-standing remnants of the original cella and colonnade, but replaced the floor which had most likely been damaged beyond repair by the earthquake of 363 CE. The floor was primarily rebuilt with items in secondary use, including spolia that probably came from the original temple such as an interior column base and pieces of marble revetment. In fact, ceramic and numismatic evidence indicates that the Byzantine builders actually excavated the fill out of some parts of the temple's substructure, before replacing it with their own fill that largely consisted of basalt boulders. This may have been because they wanted to assess the structural integrity of the foundations prior to starting new construction. A range of coins found in this later fill suggest a date of sometime around the second half of the fourth century.

... An architrave block which had evidently fallen was used to block the original temple door. The date for this modification is unclear, but perhaps a new entrance and orientation for the building was planned. Alternatively, this may have been an attempt to block access to a dangerous building, the original temple.

... Industrial facilities such as wine or olive presses, as well as other unidentified buildings, were constructed within the temenos. Some of these later facilities were built up against the side of the temple podium.

... Some temple blocks, such as corner pilaster capitals, fell onto the remains of these later buildings, after these later buildings had themselves already been largely quarried away. The find-spots for such fallen blocks are virtually the same as the original placements for the blocks in the Roman temple. They seem to have simply fallen from the higher courses of walls. Whatever the large new building on the podium might have been (or might have been intended to be) it likely incorporated recognizable temple components in their original positions, implying that a large section of the original building was intact and had been used in more-or-less its original state.202 The hybrid building was still standing, almost certainly in a partial state, into medieval times.

Quarrying over a long period of time is evident. Temple blocks, and columns from the propylaea of the temple, were found by the excavators in isolated small piles at other locations within the temenos. They give the appearance of having been loosely sorted by type, suggesting ongoing quarrying activity.203 The quarrying of materials at Omrit seems to have been a perpetual activity going into the thirteenth century. It thus seems best to characterize the final fate of the Roman temple at Omrit as "conversion to an active spoliation site."

Because the original intention seemed to be to Christianize the site, and because the work to this end (on the foundation and stylobate of the temple) began shortly after the earthquake, this also seems to be an example of a temple converted to a church. In fact, the evidence suggests that the cella was incorporated into the new building, a relatively unusual occurrence in Palestine.

Earthquake in the mid 8th century CE

Discussion

Discussion

References
Notes by JW

Overman in Stern et al (2008) reports that an earthquake in the middle of the eighth century CE appears to have brought about the final destruction of the site and its abandonment.

Archaeoseismic Effects
Temple I repair earthquake

Effect Location Image(s) Description(s)
Displaced Walls Temple I - wall wF4
FIGURE 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

JW: Closeup on Wall WF4. WF4 is oriented N-S

Nelson et al (2015)
FIGURE 22

wall wF4 (from east)

Nelson et al (2015)
At some point during T1’s use phase, wall wF4 needed a repair (Fig. 15) - Nelson et al (2015:5)

Temple II earthquake - 363 CE ?

Effect Location Image(s) Description(s)
General Damage Temple
Figure 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

Nelson et al (2015)
  • At some point near the end of the fourth century the third temple was severely damaged - Stoehr (2018:127-130)
Damaged Floor Temple
Figure 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

Nelson et al (2015)
  • the floor which had most likely been damaged beyond repair by the earthquake of 363 CE - Stoehr (2018:127-130)

  • The floor was primarily rebuilt with items in secondary use, including spolia that probably came from the original temple such as an interior column base and pieces of marble revetment. - Stoehr (2018:127-130)
Fallen columns Temple
Figure 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

Nelson et al (2015)
  • The floor was primarily rebuilt with items in secondary use, including spolia that probably came from the original temple such as an interior column base and pieces of marble revetment. - Stoehr (2018:127-130)
Displaced Walls suggested by fallen architrave block Temple
Figure 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

Nelson et al (2015)
  • An architrave block which had evidently fallen was used to block the original temple door. The date for this modification is unclear, but perhaps a new entrance and orientation for the building was planned. Alternatively, this may have been an attempt to block access to a dangerous building, the original temple. - Stoehr (2018:127-130)

Archaeoseismic Deformation Maps
Temple I repair earthquake

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 15 from Nelson et al (2015)

Archaeoseismic Intensity Estimates
Temple I repair earthquake

Effect Location Image(s) Description(s) Intensity
Displaced Walls Temple I - wall wF4
FIGURE 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

JW: Closeup on Wall WF4. WF4 is oriented N-S

Nelson et al (2015)
FIGURE 22

wall wF4 (from east)

Nelson et al (2015)
At some point during T1’s use phase, wall wF4 needed a repair (Fig. 15) - Nelson et al (2015:5) 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).

Temple II earthquake - 363 CE ?

Effect Location Image(s) Description(s) Intensity
Fallen columns Temple
Figure 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

Nelson et al (2015)
  • The floor was primarily rebuilt with items in secondary use, including spolia that probably came from the original temple such as an interior column base and pieces of marble revetment. - Stoehr (2018:127-130)
 V+ or VIII+
Displaced Walls suggested by fallen architrave block Temple
Figure 15

T1 and T2 state plan.

Nelson et al (2015)
  • An architrave block which had evidently fallen was used to block the original temple door. The date for this modification is unclear, but perhaps a new entrance and orientation for the building was planned. Alternatively, this may have been an attempt to block access to a dangerous building, the original temple. - Stoehr (2018:127-130)
 VII+
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VII (7) or 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

Nelson, M. C., et al. (2015). The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: Volume 1: The Architecture, Brill.

Overman, J. A., et al. (2021). The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: Volume 2: The Stratigraphy, Ceramics, and Other Finds, BRILL.

Overman, J. A. and D. N. Schowalter (2011). The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report, Archaeopress.

Stoehr, Gregory. 2011. Chapter Seven: The Potential for Earthquake Damage to Temple Two Architecture at Roman Omrit in Overman, J. A. and D. N. Schowalter (2011). The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report, Archaeopress.

Stoehr, Gregory. 2018 The End of Pagan Temples in Roman Palestine PhD Dissertation University of Maryland

Excavation Reports

Nelson, M. C., Schowalter, D., & Overman, J. A. (2015). The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: Volume 1: The Architecture. Brill.

Overman, J. A., Schowalter, D. N., & Nelson, M. C. (2021). The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: Volume 2: The Stratigraphy, Ceramics, and Other Finds. Brill.

Websites

Omrit at biblewalks.com

Omrit Excavation info at IAA

Horbat Omrit at the Jewish Virtual Library

blog on excavations at Omrit - 2008

blog on excavations at Omrit - 2009

blog on excavations at Omrit - 2010

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (2008)

G. Foerster, Archaeological Newsletter 4 (1978), 65–66

M. L. Fischer, Das korinthische Kapitell im Alten Israel in der hellenistischen und römischen Periode: Studien zur Geschichte der Baudekoration im Nahen Osten, Mainz am Rhein 1990

BAR 29/1 (2003), 57

J. A. Overman (et al.), ibid. 29/2 (2003), 40–49, 67–68; id., When Judaism and Christianity Began (A. J. Saldarini Fest.

Suppls. to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 85

eds. D. Harrington et al.), Leiden 2003

id., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 10 (2004), 192–194.

Wikipedia pages

Omrit

Herodian architecture