The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report 9781407307633, 9781407337562

Table of contents :
55-68.pdf
cp1.pdf
cp2.pdf
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
The Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Graphs
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Chapter One: Omrit as Part of the Roman East
Chapter Two: The Temple at Omrit: A Study in Architectural and Political Iconography
Chapter Three: A Preliminary Review of the Architecture of Omrit: The Temple Area
Chapter Four: Pottery from Selected Loci at Omrit
Chapter Five: Wall Painting Fragements from Omrit
Chapter Six: Small Finds and Inscriptions from Omrit
Chapter Seven: The Potential for Earthquake Damage to Temple Two Architecture at Roman Omrit
Preliminary Conclusions
Appendix A
Appendix B

Citation preview

BAR S2205 2011

The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit

OVERMAN & SCHOWALTER (Eds)

An interim report Edited by

J. Andrew Overman Daniel N. Schowalter

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT

B A R

BAR International Series 2205 2011

The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit An interim report

Edited by

J. Andrew Overman Daniel N. Schowalter

BAR International Series 2205 2011

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2205 The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2011 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407307633 paperback ISBN 9781407337562 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307633 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2011. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] PHONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

The Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... vi Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 J. Andrew Overman and Daniel N. Schowalter Chapter One Omrit as Part of the Roman East ............................................................................................ 7 J. Andrew Overman Chapter Two The Temple at Omrit: A Study in Architectural and Political Iconography ......................... 19 G. Mazor Chapter Three A Preliminary Review of the Architecture of Omrit: The Temple Area .............................. 27 Michael C. Nelson Chapter Four Pottery from Selected Loci at Omrit .................................................................................... 45 Débora Sandhaus Chapter Five Wall Painting Fragments from Omrit ................................................................................... 55 Silvia Rozenberg Chapter Six Small Finds and Inscriptions from Omrit ............................................................................. 73 Daniel N. Schowalter Chapter Seven The Potential for Earthquake Damage to Temple Two Architecture at Roman Omrit ........ 85 Gregory W. Stoehr Preliminary Conclusions .................................................................................................... 101 J. Andrew Overman and Daniel N. Schowalter Appendix A Omrit – The Coins (1999-2001) ......................................................................................... 105 Danny Syon Appendix B Coins from Omrit (2002-2006) .......................................................................................... 118 Gabriela Bijovsky i

List of Figures Fig. 00.01 Upper Galilee with sites mentioned in text ........................................................... 2 Fig. 00.02 Site plan with excavated squares........................................................................... 3 Fig. 03.01 Topographic Plan ................................................................................................ 27 Fig. 03.02 Preliminary Reconstruction of the front facade of Temple Two ......................... 28 Fig. 03.03 Podium Profiles of the Early Shrine, Temple One and Temple Two .................. 28 Fig. 03.04 Square C6, Archaeological Section of North Balk.............................................. 29 Fig. 03.05 Early Shrine, state plan ....................................................................................... 30 Fig. 03.06 Early Shrine, north podium wall (from north), 2006 .......................................... 30 Fig. 03.07 Early Shrine, stylobate, steps, platform, and temenos wall (from west), 2009 ................................................................................................................................ 30 Fig. 03.08 Early Shrine, temenos wall with red panel fresco (from west), 2009 ................. 31 Fig. 03.09 Structure F, east face with preserved fresco (from east), 2006 ........................... 31 Fig. 03.10 Early Shrine, south frescoed base of the platform (from northeast), 2009 ................................................................................................................................ 32 Fig. 03.11 Early Shrine, façade reconstruction .................................................................... 32 Fig. 03.12 Early Shrine, pilaster capital, 2006 ..................................................................... 33 Fig. 03.13 Early Shrine, wall block with stucco relief acanthus flower, 2006 ..................... 33 Fig. 03.14 Early Shrine, Doric triglyph and metope and cornice reconstructed in excavation storeroom, 2006........................................................................................ 33 Fig. 03.15 Temples One and Two, State Plan Drawing Legend; wF = foundation wall wP = podium wall CP = column plinth .......................................................................... 34 Fig. 03.16 Foundation Wall wF4, west face (from northwest), 2006 ................................... 34 Fig. 03.17 Temple One, steps (from east), 2005 .................................................................. 34 Fig. 03.18 Altar Area, state plan .......................................................................................... 35 Fig. 03.19 Temple Two, west end of south podium wall (double wythe ashlar construction), (from west), 2003 .................................................................................... 36 Fig. 03.20 Temple Two, cella foundation walls wF1 (foreground), wF2, and wF3 (background), (from south) 2003 .................................................................................... 36 Fig. 03.21 Temple Two, fallen cornice blocks, 2003 ........................................................... 37 Fig. 03.22 Temple Two, photo, fallen corner pilaster capital (shown upside down), 2002 ................................................................................................................................ 37 Fig. 03.23 Colonnaded Way, north end of stylobate with in situ column bases (foreground), (from east) 2008 ....................................................................................... 38 Fig. 03.24 Temple Two, preliminary plan reconstruction .................................................... 39 Fig. 03.25 Temple One, preliminary plan reconstruction..................................................... 39 ii

Fig. 03.26 Byzantine remains in the area of the temple, state plan ...................................... 41 Fig. 03.27 Marble floor in Byzantine building (from north), 2002 ...................................... 41 Fig. 03.28 Temple, state plan, 13th century CE remains ....................................................... 43 Fig. 04.01 Pottery from Loci L.F6.014 + L.F6.016 Late first century BCE – First half of first century CE ........................................................................................... 46 Fig. 04.02 Pottery from loci L.G7.9 + L.G7.10 Second half of the first century CE (50 – 68\70 CE) .............................................................................................................. 47 Fig. 04.03 Pottery from loci Sp04.107 + Sp04.106 Mid first century CE to early second century CE .......................................................................................................... 48 Fig. 04.04 Pottery from locus M.23.12 Mid first century CE to mid second century CE............................................................................................... 50 Fig. 04.05 Pottery from loci Sp04.114 + Sp04.112 Late first – early second centuries CE............................................................................................... 51 Fig. 04.06 Pottery from loci Sp04.179 End of the first century BCE to the First half of first century CE ................................................................................. 52 Fig. 05.01 Fine quality plaster fragment .............................................................................. 56 Fig. 05.02 Rough quality plaster fragment ........................................................................... 56 Fig. 05.03 Fragment with incised line .................................................................................. 56 Fig. 05.04 Plaster fragment with incised corner ................................................................... 56 Fig. 05.05 Block with Masonry Style decoration ................................................................. 56 Fig. 05.06 NW face of Early Shrine with Masonry Style decoration ................................... 57 Fig. 05.07 Plain yellow plaster fragment ............................................................................. 58 Fig. 05.08 Ocher hue plaster fragment ................................................................................. 58 Fig. 05.09 Dull yellow plaster fragment............................................................................... 58 Fig. 05.10 Simple red plaster fragment ................................................................................ 58 Fig. 05.11 Pale red plaster fragment..................................................................................... 58 Fig. 05.12 Pale red plaster fragments ................................................................................... 59 Fig. 05.13 Dull dark red plaster fragment ............................................................................ 59 Fig. 05.14 Purple-red plaster fragments ............................................................................... 59 Fig. 05.15 Purple-red plaster fragments ............................................................................... 59 Fig. 05.16 Plaster fragment with pinkish hue ....................................................................... 59 Fig. 05.17 Marble imitation plaster fragment with bright pink ............................................ 59 Fig. 05.18 Block with marble imitation plaster with bright pink ......................................... 59 Fig. 05.19 Plaster fragments with green tones ..................................................................... 60 Fig. 05.20 Plaster fragments with green tones ..................................................................... 60 Fig. 05.21 Plaster fragment with green tones ....................................................................... 60 Fig. 05.22 Plaster fragment showing green field with white and purple-red stripes ..................................................................................................... 60 Fig. 05.23 Plaster fragments with remains of dark blue color .............................................. 61 Fig. 05.24 Plaster fragments, black with white lines ............................................................ 62 Fig. 05.25 Black plaster fragments ....................................................................................... 62 Fig. 05.26 Plaster fragment, black with white line ............................................................... 62 Fig. 05.27 Plaster fragment with red/purple-red and yellow ................................................ 63 Fig. 05.28 Plaster fragments with black and red .................................................................. 63 Fig. 05.29 a&b Polychrome plaster fragment including green ............................................. 64 Fig. 05.30 Marble imitation plaster fragment with yellow background and red veining ............................................................................................................... 64 iii

Fig. 05.31 Marble imitation plaster fragment with yellow background and red veining ............................................................................................................... 64 Fig. 05.32 Marble imitation plaster fragment with red/pale red background and dark red veining ....................................................................................................... 65 Fig. 05.33 Plaster fragment with white marble imitation panel, black stripe and dark red panel above green field .............................................................................. 65 Fig. 05.34 Marble imitation plaster fragment with cream background and red veining ............................................................................................................... 65 Fig. 05.35 Plaster fragment with light background, red and orange drawing ....................... 66 Fig. 05.36 Plaster fragments with light background and orange drawing ............................ 66 Fig. 05.37 Plaster fragment with light background and orange drawing .............................. 66 Fig. 05.38 Block with lozenge pattern ................................................................................. 67 Fig. 05.39 Plaster fragments with architectonic design ........................................................ 67 Fig. 05.40 Plaster fragments with architectonic design ........................................................ 68 Fig. 05.41 Inner wall of structure F ...................................................................................... 68 Fig. 06.01 Omrit Excavations Grid Plan .............................................................................. 73 Fig. 06.02 Inscribed altar fragment ...................................................................................... 74 Fig. 06.03 Figurine fragment, female ................................................................................... 74 Fig. 06.04 Figurine fragments, human faces and krater ....................................................... 74 Fig. 06.05 Figurine fragment, human face ........................................................................... 75 Fig. 06.06 Piriform glass vessel (unguentarium), complete ................................................. 75 Fig. 06.07 Piriform glass vessels (unguentarium) ................................................................ 75 Fig. 06.08 Glass leg or portion of base................................................................................. 76 Fig. 06.09 Marble sphinx figure, restored ............................................................................ 76 Fig. 06.10 Marble sphinx figure, prior to mending .............................................................. 77 Fig. 06.11 Marble figure of slain beast, fragmentary ........................................................... 77 Fig. 06.12 Marble figure with lower body of human ........................................................... 78 Fig. 06.13 Marble plaque with male figure and column ...................................................... 78 Fig. 06.14 Marble plaque with male figure, close up ........................................................... 78 Fig. 06.15 Marble relief of crowd at the circus Circus of Constantine, Istanbul .................. 79 Fig. 06.16 Basalt fragment of wing pattern .......................................................................... 79 Fig. 06.17 Omrit inscription 200106ART0001 .................................................................... 79 Fig. 06.18 Omrit inscription 200106ART0002 .................................................................... 80 Fig. 06.19 Omrit inscription 200306ART0003 .................................................................... 80 Fig. 06.20 Omrit inscription 200306ART0014 .................................................................... 81 Fig. 06.21 Omrit inscription 200306ART0014, with other pieces of beveled conglomerate surface .................................................................................... 81 Fig. 06.22 Omrit inscription 200306ART0012 .................................................................... 82 Fig. 06.23 Omrit inscription 200406ART0035 .................................................................... 83 Fig. 06.24 Omrit inscription 200406ART0034 .................................................................... 83 Fig. 07.01 Location Map ...................................................................................................... 89 Fig. 07.02 Sequenced Rubble at Bet Shean along Cardo ..................................................... 90 Fig. 07.03 Sequenced Rubble at Bet Shean along Silvanus Street ....................................... 90 Fig. 07.04 Basilica Interior, Hippos ..................................................................................... 91 Fig. 07.05 Rubble Loci North of Temple Two Podium (Red = 13th Century Rubble, Green = Byzantine Rubble, Blue = Unidentified/Undated Wall, Magenta = 13th Century Graves, ..................................................................................... 91 iv

Fig. 07.06 Rubble Loci West of Temple Two Podium ........................................................ 92 Fig. 07.07 Rubble Loci West of Temple Two Podium ........................................................ 92 Fig. 07.08 Secondary Rubble Pile in Temenos .................................................................... 92 Fig. 07.09 Column Pile near Colonnaded Way .................................................................... 92 Fig. 07.10 Elevated View of Podium ................................................................................... 93 Fig. 07.11 Fallen Anta Capital ............................................................................................. 93 Fig. 07.12 Temenos/Stair Crack ........................................................................................... 94 Fig. 07.13 Displaced Podium Top Course and Cracked Stylobate....................................... 94 Fig. 07.14 Ain Herscha (From Krencker and Zschietzschmann, Römische Tempel in Syrien (Berlin 1938) Figure 393 (on p. 254) ................................. 95

List of Tables Tab. 07.01 Ancient Earthquakes near Omrit, 300 CE-1300 CE ........................................... 88 Tab. 1 Total coins from site ............................................................................................... 107

List of Graphs Graph 1 ............................................................................................................................... 106 Graph 2 The Numismatic profile at Omrit (including coins not from the excavations)................................................................... 107

v

Acknowledgements Archaeology is a collaborative discipline. There are many people and institutions that have made our work possible. Andy Overman is the founding Director of The Macalester College Excavations at Omrit. Jack Olive served as Field Director from 1999 until 2005. Michael Nelson and Dan Schowalter are Co-Directors, and Michael is the project Architect. The Omrit excavations depend on a very talented and dedicated group of staff and volunteers. Nanette Goldman has served the excavations in a broad range of ways, especially as Educational Coordinator and an exemplary square supervisor. Gary Lindstrom has been a stalwart team member for us throughout the project. He was a leader in the field and teacher to both students and staff. Charlie Reagan is our registrar, and Ron Levy has helped with surveying, transportation, and other tasks. Among our Israeli colleagues pride of place must go to Gaby Mazor of the Israel Antiquities Authority. He has helped us in many ways, not least in seeing parallels in and lessons for our work at Bet She’an and other sites in the region. Walid Atrash of the IAA has helped our excavations at critical moments. He is a talented architect, scholar, and archaeologist who has contributed significantly to the excavations. Débora Sandhaus is our ceramicist. Her precision, dedication, and genuine good cheer have been a great boon for the entire team. Danny Sion of the IAA and Gabriela Bijovsky at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have handled our coins. The coins from 1999-2001 were analyzed by Dr Sion and 2002-2007 by Bijovsky. Moti Aviam showed Andy Overman the site in the summer of 1998. He has been a constant friend and supporter of our team for over twenty years. Grete Tal, Alisa Yatziv, and Ruthie Lehrer have worked tirelessly to make Kfar Szold our home away from home, and since 2006 we have benefited greatly from our association and friendship with Tziona and Jonny Grossmark. Through Tziona, we have come to develop important relationships with other colleagues at Tel Hai College and beyond. Among the Israel Antiquities Authority we thank past Director, the late General Amir Drori. He supported the work at Omrit and understood immediately the importance of this site in many dimensions. Zvi Gal was Director of the North for the IAA when the Omrit excavations began. He was extremely helpful and supportive of our work in its early and critical stage. We would like to thank especially current IAA Director-General Shuka Dorfman for his ongoing assistance, along with Uzi Dahari, Gideon Avni, Zvi Greenhut, Dror Barshad, Dina Avshalom-Gorni, Moshe Hartal and Enno Baron for their active support. Our friends from the Israel Museum, Jerusalem have been a constant source of wise counsel and practical assistance. Thanks to the efforts of Dudi Mevorah, Curator of Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods, a number of important pieces from Omrit have been taken to the museum for preservation and display. Sylvia Rozenberg, has worked tirelessly to clean and analyze fresco fragments, and her fine work is seen in Chapter Five below. Lastly, Victor Uziel has done wonders with preservation of plaster and other finds in the field. Uki’s work will ensure that the treasures of Omrit will be long available to future generations of visitors to the north. vi

We are especially indebted to a long list of donors who have given generously to our efforts. Among these, special mention goes to Harry Lerner, Jeff and Janet Larson, Paula Turner Grasso, Charles and Beverly Reagan, Larry and Sophie Cripe, Ivan Eckholm, Joyce Schowalter, and William Loughner. Finally, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Omrit excavations would never have succeeded without the tireless support of Eugene and Emily Grant. They have stood by us through the ups and downs of international work and research. Many students’ experiences and lives have been enriched by their generosity. Our work has been strengthened and enlivened through friends such as these. From the outset, the excavations have been sponsored by Macalester College. The College has consistently supported this project amid the vicissitudes of Mideast politics. We are very fortunate to have an institution so thoroughly committed to international research and collaboration backing our work. Past President Michael McPherson and former Provost Dan Hornbach along with current President Brian Rosenberg and Vice President Tommy Bonner have made it possible to house this distinctive international project at a liberal arts college in the Midwestern United States. Since 2004 we have also received significant financial support and student participation from Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin. President F. Gregory Campbell, former Vice President for Academic Affairs Kurt Piepenburg, and former Vice President for College Relations, Jim Unglaube, have made outstanding contributions. We thank them all. Lastly the Omrit team wants to thank the numerous volunteers who have given of their time and resources to join us in our work. Greg Stoehr, Theresa Vogel, Susie Helft, Jason Schlude, Ben Rubin, Rachel Urowitz, Emily Dufflemeyer, Kate Larson, Amy Fisher, and Erin Gibbs have served as square supervisors for two or more seasons, and in 2008 Greg Stoehr served as Field Supervisor. Kyle Olive and Jeremy Schowalter were supervisors and served in a number of important capacities. Paul Coey has been a very effective square leader and he also helped with the editing of this volume. All of the students and volunteers who have picked up hoes and filled guffas at Omrit have been exemplary in their dedication, discipline, and willingness to take on any task at hand. We have been proud to work with you all. Although you have gone off to far-flung programs and places around the globe, you will always have a home at Omrit and our deepest admiration and gratitude. As we send this manuscript to press, we are saddened by the recent death of our colleague and good friend Gary “Termite” Lindstrom. For over thirty years, Gary traveled to Israel and volunteered on a series of important excavations in Galilee and the north. Thanks to Gary’s patience, strength, and skilled hands, he also became well-known for his restoration work on buildings and other monuments. Gary was not only a dedicated worker, but he also took the time to share his experience and knowledge with everyone around him. His collegial spirit and love of humankind made him a pleasure to work and socialize with. In the end, as he was dying of cancer, Gary made the arduous trip from Oakland, California to New Orleans, Louisiana, site of the 2009 annual meetings for the American Society of Oriental Research and the Society of Biblical Literature. This allowed many of us to have a few last days with Termite, to reminisce about so many wonderful stories and memories of work in the trenches together. As the meeting drew to a close, Gary passed away, surrounded by friends covering all of his thirty-year labor of love excavating in Israel. Gary was an essential part of the Omrit excavations from their inception in 1999 through the 2006 season. His infectious spirit of good will was felt by hundreds of volunteers and his encouragement and wise counsel was enjoyed by everyone involved. We can never repay the debt of gratitude we owe to Gary Lindstrom, but he will always be in our thoughts, and we dedicate this volume to his memory.

vii

viii

INTRODUCTION J. Andrew Overman and Daniel N. Schowalter This volume details the excavation of a Roman temple complex in northern Galilee. The site is known as Omrit, although the origin of the name is uncertain.1 Found between the Druze holy site of Nebi Yehuda and the well-known hill, Tel Azaziyat, the Omrit temple is a remarkable discovery. The temple foundations are verywell preserved and many of the original architectural features are still on the site. Along with on-going excavations and preservation of the site, the long-range plans for the expedition include a partial reconstruction of the temple. The finds, data, history of the excavations, and the architectural complexity of the temple are presented in this volume in the form of an interim report.2

of the land of the modern Kibbutz Kfar Szold in northern Israel. A 19th-century traveler to the area refers to the temple remains and surroundings.

Along with archaeological information, this book includes a discussion of the setting, history, and developments occurring in northern Galilee during the period of activity at the Temple. The discovery of such a prominent and ornate temple complex dating to the very start of the Roman imperial period in Galilee poses a wide range of questions for those interested in understanding the history, culture and politics of the region. The authors of this volume aim to place the significance of the site and the finds in a historical and cultural context that allows Omrit to augment the history of what is after all a very important location in the ancient Mediterranean world. This book includes both archaeological information and an historical and cultural synthesis of northern Galilee in the Roman period. The majority of this volume was written after a study season during the summer of 2005. Wherever relevant, however, we have included updated information based on the results of subsequent seasons of excavation.

Reverend Thompson’s comments about columns and capitals around the site are confirmed by surface finds as well as excavation. Work in the field has also begun to illustrate his observations about the dense population of the area.

But the most remarkable remains are the ruins of ancient temples on a hill called ‘Amery, about sixty rods east of these tombs. They are utterly demolished, and the columns and capitals lie scattered about the base of the hill on which they originally stood… Farther north, on a high natural mound, are the ruins of ‘Azeizat, once a very considerable place; and all about are manifest indications of a former dense population (Thomson 1874, 233).

The Omrit site is roughly equidistant (40 km) from Tyre on the Mediterranean coast to the west and Damascus to the east, and it appears to lie on the ancient Roman road connecting these two great ancient cities. [Fig. 00.01] Portions of that major trade route are still visible today.4 Omrit is on the eastern slope of the Hulah valley in the low foothills of the Mount Hermon range, near the headwaters of the Jordan River and NE of the so-called Lake Hula. The lake is now drained but was apparently much more substantial in antiquity (J.W. 4.2-3). The region is fertile and boasts fresh water in relative abundance. Control of this region was vital for competing regional powers from at least the Bronze Age, and this competition continued throughout the life of the Omrit temples in the Roman period.

Omrit is located four kilometers SW of Banias/Paneas at coordinates 2123 (x) and 2915 (y),3 on the northern extent

Excavations at Omrit have been conducted primarily in the area of the temple complex, along the colonnaded

1 A French Mandate map from the early 20th century refers to the area of the temple as Kh. ǯUmeirƯ. 2 Initial work at the site under the direction of Gideon Foerster in 1978 was reported in a brief note in the Israel Antiquities Department Archaeological Newsletter (Foerster, 65-66). 3 The site is located at 33.22° N and 35.66° E.

4

While the road has not yet been located in the immediate vicinity of the temple, sections are visible within a few kilometers in either direction.

1

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 00.01 Upper Galilee with sites mentioned in text

way to the north, and at the point where the colonnade abuts the north wadi. [Fig. 00.02] The grid plan for the site shows excavated areas, and also reveals that inside the temple complex, initial square coordinates eventually

gave way to structural designations within the temple podiums. Square C8 becomes Space 1 (SP1), C9 and D9 become SP2, D8 and E8 along with D9 and E9 become part of SP4, and F7, G7, F8, G8 become SP5. Wherever 2

J.A. OVERMAN & D.N. SCHOWALTER: INTRODUCTION

Fig. 00.02 Site plan with excavated squares

structure dates to c. 40-30 BCE. Not long after the Early Shrine was built, it was partially disassembled and buried by a tetrastyle Roman podium temple which we refer to as Temple One. This monument dates to the time of the first Roman Emperor, Augustus, and his client king in the region, Herod the Great (c. 20 BCE). Ceramic evidence indicates that Temple One was expanded in the later part of the first century CE. This reconstruction featured a hexastyle peristyle design and is referred to as Temple

possible, in this volume, we have used both labeling systems, and Figure 00.02 provides reference points for these relationships. At this point in the excavations we can say that the earliest occupation at Omrit dates to the middle of the last century before the Common Era. At the highest point of the hill, we have uncovered a small (5 x 8 m) ornate, frescoed shrine or heiron. We believe that this intriguing 3

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Two. The chapters on architecture and ceramics will discuss the temple designs, identification, and dates in greater detail.

center. Banias also flourished precisely during these periods. Building blocks from the temple were taken and used in nearby structures as well as at Banias. It appears that some sort of structure, a simple platform comprised of stones retrieved from the temples, was built on the remains of the temple complex. Evidence from 2007 also indicates that in the Byzantine period there was a small apsidal building constructed east of the temple and south of the altar.

Omrit is in the region of Caesarea Philippi. This is the area around Banias which was raised to greater status in 2 BCE during the rule of the Herodian tetrarch Philip (J.W. 2.168).5 Josephus tells us that Philip’s father, Herod the Great, built a temple to Augustus in this very region (Ant.15.363), and under Philip, the name Caesarea Philippi comes to refer to the area around this important temple. Josephus notes that the temple was built in the “territory of Zenodorus,” an Iturean king, and that the territory was given to Herod by Emperor Augustus presumably in the belief that Herod would bring stability and submission to the region (J.W. 3.443; Eusebius H.E. 6.16-17). In the Gospels, Caesarea Philippi is the site of Peter’s famous confession in Mark and Matthew.6 Mark (8:27ff.) refers to “the villages of Caesarea Philippi,” while Matthew (16:13ff.) refers to the “district” (ȝȑȡȘ) of Caesarea Philippi. Both authors associate Caesarea Philippi with a broader region.

In the early seventh century, activity at Omrit seems to have ceased. A modest thirteenth century installation does appear at Omrit on top of and around the temple podium and in other areas. Excluding this last thirteenth century activity, Omrit is most notable for the large and striking Roman imperial temple complex, and a settlement around it that appears to have lasted about seven-hundred years. The appearance of such a substantial Roman imperial temple complex at Omrit signaled something new for this region. Galilee had not witnessed the emergence of such a clear architectural expression of Roman cultural and political influence. How Omrit interacts with and reflects the serious social changes in northern Galilee in the first centuries of the Common Era is a major question. Developments at Omrit provide an excellent view of how the Galilee was first exposed to Roman forms and cultural conventions. These developments may have been new under the reign of Herod the Great, but they were changes that people in the region would live with for a long time.

When Josephus refers to the original construction of the temple, he also mentions a broader territory, but he does not mention the later designation of Caesarea Philippi. “Herod erected to him [Augustus] a very beautiful temple of white stone in the territory (ʌȜȘıȓȠȞ) of Panias” (Ant. 15.364). With this nomenclature, Josephus is utilizing an earlier toponym for the region, Panias or Panaeas.7 Today, there is a popular assumption that the site of Panaeas (Banias) is coterminous with Caesarea Philippi. These ancient references, however, indicate that the term should be applied to a region rather than a single location. In spite of modern signage to the contrary, it is certainly possible that Herod built his northern Augusteum outside the confines of Banias, and that the district of Caesarea Philippi extends well beyond the Banias site. The Omrit excavation team, along with other archaeologists working in the region, believes that Temple One at Omrit is most likely the Augusteum mentioned by Josephus. To date there is no other adequate candidate for this temple in the region.8 As will be seen in the chapters below, we do not have decisive evidence for this identification, but we can muster significant circumstantial evidence for this conclusion.

This topic of cultural and political change in the region is considered specifically by Andy Overman in Chapter One, and again as part of Gaby Mazor’s study of Architectural and Political Iconography in Chapter Two. Michael Nelson will discuss the architectural evidence for the Omrit temples in Chapter Three. In Chapter Four Débora Sandhaus considers ceramic findings. We are very excited to include as Chapter Five the excellent analysis of fresco material from Omrit provided by Silvia Rozenberg of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. In Chapter Six, Dan Schowalter reviews small finds and fragmentary inscriptions, and Greg Stoehr considers evidence for earthquake damage at Omrit in Chapter Seven. The final chapter reviews the stratigraphic evidence and offers preliminary conclusions about dating and identification of the distinct phases of construction at Omrit.

Sometime after mid fourth century CE, the temple complex at Omrit collapsed. This may be the result of a substantial earthquake in the year 363 CE (see Stoehr, Ch. 7 below). During the late Roman and early Byzantine periods Omrit remained an industrial and commercial

As our work in the field has advanced, it has become obvious that what today appears to be only pasture land was in the past, a thriving community and at various times a center of religious and commercial activity. We are grateful to everyone who has made it possible for us to investigate this important ancient site, we anticipate many more years of work in the region, and we are happy to present this interim report on our efforts. We look forward to responses and suggestions from colleagues who like us are committed to gaining a better understanding of how this important site played a role in the development and maintenance of the Roman East.

5 For an extended discussion of the site and region see John Wilson (2004, 5-9). On the Itureans see Overman 2004, 287-89. 6 In Luke (9:18-21) the Confession story is set close to the Sea of Galilee, apparently in the same location as the “Feeding of the 5000.” 7 Wilson 2004, 19. 8 There is an area in the Banias Nature Preserve marked as the site of the Augusteum, but serious questions remain about the evidence for a structure at Banias which would make a suitable candidate for Herod’s Augusteum. See Maoz, 1996; Wilson 2004, 16; Overman et al. 2003; Berlin 2003; Netzer 2003; Aviam 2004, 14-15; Netzer, 2006, 57, 21822, and Overman et al. 2007, 177-98.

4

J.A. OVERMAN & D.N. SCHOWALTER: INTRODUCTION

Contemporaries. In A.J. Avery-Peck et al. (eds). When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini, 287-98. Leiden, Brill.

Bibliography AVIAM, M. 2004. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee. Rochester, NY, University of Rochester Press.

OVERMAN, J.A., OLIVE, J., and NELSON, M. 2003. “Discovering Herod’s Shrine to Augustus. Biblical Archaeology Review 29/2, 40-49, 67-68.

BERLIN, A.M. 2003. Where Was Herod’s Temple to Augustus? Banias is Still the Best Candidate. Biblical Archaeology Review 29/5, 22-24.

OVERMAN, J.A., OLIVE, J., and NELSON, M. 2007. A Newly Discovered Herodian Temple at Khirbet Omrit in Northern Israel, in Kokkinos, N. (ed). The World of the Herods. 177-98. Munich, Franz Steiner.

FOERSTER, G. 1978. Israel Antiquities Department Archaeological Newsletter. 4, 65-66. MAOZ, Z. 1996. Banias, Temple of Pan-1993. Excavations and Surveys 15, 1-5.

THOMSON, W.M. 1861. The Land and the Bible; or Biblical Illustrations Drawn from the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and Scenery of the Holy Land. Edinburgh and New York, T. Nelson and Sons.

NETZER, E. 2003. A Third Candidate: Another Building at Banias. Biblical Archaeology Review 29/5 25. NETZER, E. 2006. The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.

WILSON, J. 2004. Caesarea Philippi: Banias: The Lost City of Pan. London, I.B. Taurus.

OVERMAN, J.A. 2004. The Importance of the Iturean Principality according to Josephus and His

5

Chapter One OMRIT AS PART OF THE ROMAN EAST J. Andrew Overman Interest in Roman cultural and imperial influence in Galilee has developed steadily over the last generation. The reasons for this are several. First, this interest is a consequence of greater scholarly focus on the eastern provinces as a whole.1 Rome had eyed the more prosperous and cultivated east for a long while, and Judea and Galilee were necessarily caught up in this Roman expansion. The only kingdom to hold a measure of political autonomy in the history of Israel following the Babylonian conquest in the sixth century, the Hasmoneans, became a hellenized client kingdom of Rome by the late second century BCE. Whatever relative autonomy the Hasmonean kings enjoyed this was a result of tacit Roman approval and the regional, and increasingly diminishing, support of Seleucid rulers.2 The Hasmoneans struck a treaty with Rome which read precisely like treaties from other Hellenistic kingdoms in the region in both form and content (I Macc. 8:21-30). The eastern Hellenistic kingdom of the Hasmoneans was like other eastern client kingdoms who had become “friends and allies of Rome.” They were in fact part of Rome’s growing eastern regime which had been gaining momentum and political articulation from at least the early second century, as Polybius so clearly details.3 A sign of the increasing importance of this region of the east in the Roman view is that by the time of Pompey the Great and the waning years of the Republic (c. 65 BCE) a clear way to win political support at home was to be militarily and diplomatically successful in the east. Careers were made and lost in the expanding Roman east.4

Cities beyond the Adriatic from Istria eastward became regions where Rome practiced and perfected its own imperial forms. However these were not merely conquered or annexed regions. As is now widely recognized the east became a source of learning and cultural dynamism for Rome. That is, in architecture, art, language, philosophy, literature and drama the influence of the east upon the Roman west is demonstrable. Over time, the gravitational pull of the east re-centered the empire. What was initially a philosophical and cultural reorientation finally manifested itself geographically. A long list of impressive cities and centers in the east became the gates through which trade and political discourse with the vigorous Persian Empire beyond the Euphrates – and through them with Bactria, India and China – was conducted.5 Galilee, as with other principalities in the east, was caught up in these dynamic changes. Developments in Galilee in the Roman period reflect the eastern evolution of Roman imperial influences and interests. Roman imperial building is a major feature of these developments.6 The temple complex at Omrit and its development over time is itself an important regional expression of Roman imperial building and statesmanship.7 Interest in Roman imperial presence in Galilee is also certainly a function of the subsequent importance and vitality of two Galilean movements which emerged in late antiquity as Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. At their earliest and formative stage these two enduring related movements were Galilean. While both movements demonstrate considerable hellenistic influence given their location in a well-traveled part of the Greek east, they were also distinctly Jewish in their commitment to a single God, the importance of the Temple in Jerusalem,

1 Two of the most influential works in this regard are Freyne (1980) and Millar (1993). Ball (2000) discusses Rome’s interests in the region of the western Levant but extends much further east across the Euphrates. And still more recently Sartre (2005) which covers in impressive detail much of the same region as Millar but with a focus on greater Syria. 2 Among the many sources on this discussion see especially Gruen’s (1998) chapter on “Hellenism and the Hasmoneans.” 3 Polybius 3.2.6; 1.3.6. [All citations from ancient literature are from the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise specified] See Derow 1979. 4 The legal maneuvering of the late Republic, and that of Gabinius and Pompey in particular with respect to legislation which gave both men unusual powers in the east, captures clearly this reality for aspiring

Roman politicians and for those subjects living in the Roman east. See Sanford (1939), and Downey (1951). 5 These more eastern regions are a focus especially of Ball (2000). 6 Among a very wide range of literature, Mitchell (1987); Segal (1997); Ward-Perkins (1970); MacMullen (1959). 7 Jones, (1931); Overman, (2004).

7

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

and a fundamental though contested legal tradition that was emerging in precisely this period. Greek language was part of the Galilean milieu at this time, along with more localized Aramaic, Greco-Roman conventions and developments such as philosophy, art, and architecture. These Hellenistic tendencies had surrounded the region of Galilee for some time. The two movements which became Judaism and Christianity were themselves Roman period religions and from their beginnings in Galilee owed much to Roman influence and to various attempts at resistance to that influence.

associated primarily with his increase of the Jewish tax or fiscus.9 On the occasion that Roman distrust or outright rejection of Christian practices emerged it is usually associated with seeing Christianity as a new religion distinct from Judaism. The famous correspondence between the Governor Pliny in ancient Turkey and the Emperor Trajan around the year 110 CE captures what is for Rome a new problem and potential conflict with the “superstition” of the Christ followers.10 In earlier phases of the movement, there were various Jewish groups aligned with Jesus of Nazareth. There is no reason to assume these different groups held a single view on the question of allegiance and submission to Rome. Some writers and the communities behind them supported or ignored Rome, while other early Christians saw themselves as set against Rome and her rule in Galilee. Where Jesus himself stood on this matter cannot be recovered from the literature. The Roman form of his death, a narrative obviously deeply embedded within traditions about Jesus, demonstrates that Roman officials in the region understood popular leaders like Jesus, and local movements such as his, as a threat to order.

As in other locales Roman symbols, institutions, and personnel would mingle with local populations and traditions. In the case of Galilee this mingling provoked some disturbance, then resistance, and finally outright revolt. In the history of Galilee and in the development of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, the first Jewish revolt against Rome in 66 CE was a major and transforming event. This event profoundly influenced the two religions. For Rome the 66 revolt was a relatively minor occurrence. It is barely mentioned by Roman writers beyond Josephus. The revolt in Judea and Galilee did play an important role in Flavian propaganda from the early seventies to the early nineties CE. Emperors Vespasian and Titus relied on the revolt and their crushing of it to establish their clear right to rule over other rivals, especially the Vitellians. The defeat of the Jews was celebrated on Flavian coins and recorded in imperial, court literature. The famous arch of Titus in Rome still stands as a hyperbolic expression of the miraculous feat of putting down the Jewish revolt as well as perhaps of Flavian insecurity.8

Rabbinic literature mentions Rome in passing but Rome does not form a major theme in early Rabbinic works. Roman architecture, tax, and cultural influence does make its way into some passages. These passing references are rarely positive. Bavli Shabbat 31b recounts an exchange between three rabbis which offers a critique of Roman presence, especially as felt through Roman urban institutions. The passage reveals awareness on the part of these Galileans that they are caught up in an imperial expansion effort that does not bode well for them. The conclusion of this pericope asserts a decidedly negative assessment of Roman imperial developments in the cities of the early rabbis. The Mishna tractate Pirke Avot in one of the triads typical of that book associated with Shemaiah states, “Love work, hate authority, and be not known to the government” (1:10). A memorable and significant exchange appears in the extra-Mishnaic tract The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. In this passage Vespasian is confronted with the great leader Yohan ben Zakkai during the siege of Jerusalem. Yohan prophesies that Vespasian will be Emperor, and Vespasian, understandably pleased with the omen, offers Yohan anything he would like. Yohan asks that Vespasian save Yavneh (Japha) so that he can start a school of learning there. This is the foundation myth for the beginning of Rabbinic schools in the post 70 CE period.11

Early Christian and Rabbinic literature does not focus on Romans and Roman influence to a considerable extent. However, Roman presence and pressure is evident. Several logia attributed to Jesus focus on Rome. The most familiar is the question about paying tax to Caesar (Mark 12:14-17//Matt. 22:19-21). The response to the question, “whose image is on the coin,” assumes the presence of what must have been a city coin with the profile of the emperor minted on it. This is an early indication of the problem honors to the Emperor would pose in a predominately monotheistic setting. Provincial honors to the Roman Emperor were a prominent part of urban life and ritual in the Roman east. The tradition of civic honors to the Emperor, including architecture and temples dedicated to him, developed in the east. Imperial honors were more problematic for early Christians than for Jews. This is related to the protracted and uneven process of Christianity’s separation from Judaism across the Empire. Romans were aware of and by and large sensitive to age-old Jewish traditions and sensibilities. There was periodic Roman anti-Semitism but this was not the norm in the Empire. Jews in Rome experienced such an occasion under the Emperor Claudius when they were expelled from the city in 42 CE. Jews living under the last Flavian ruler, Domitian, were treated in similarly harsh ways. Domitian’s brutality toward Jews is

A similar prediction occurs in Josephus toward the close of the siege of Jotopata (J.W. 3.400ff.). Josephus does not request a school here but does claim to be a prophet and predict that Vespasian will be emperor. Josephus’ version of this story serves primarily to punctuate his own authority and insight as well as to explain how a 9

Goodman 1989. See the analysis by Schowalter 1993. 11 Schäfer 1975, Saldarini 1975. 10

8

Edwards 1992; Overman 2002.

8

J.A. OVERMAN: OMRIT AS PART OF THE ROMAN EAST

supposed rebel leader from Galilee ended up working for the imperial family back in Rome. These are both stories rooted in a larger and more general tradition that the ruler of Rome would come out of the east. Most writers who reiterated this tradition took this to mean that a Roman leader would become emperor while in the east (J.W. 6.312; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13.4). This tradition says less about the omen than about the prominence of the east in the minds of many Roman elite and literati in the early empire. Even in the early years of the empire Roman elite understood the influence of the east upon their decisions and their leaders.

holdouts and dealt with them decisively. These may not have been enormous battles but with the aid of Flavian historians and iconographers the battle with the Jews became the stuff of late first century CE imperial lore. In discussing the build up to the revolt and in recounting Rome’s vanquishing of the same we learn a great deal about Galilee and about Roman contact with the eastern provinces in which Galilee was situated. One of the most important client lords in the entire Roman east was from Judea. Herod the Great was a powerful regional sovereign who successfully courted the Emperor Augustus’s favor and support. Rome ruled a global empire through a careful but cut-throat selection of appropriate regional leaders and client Kings. Herod is arguably the most famous of these clients.

When we encounter the occasional reference to Roman imperial presence within early Christianity and Judaism, we are observing two new, related religious movements with deep roots in Galilee trying to determine their relationship to the dominant power in their setting. Early traditions from Jewish and Christian writers suggest that early on in their development, these movements were not sure how they were to relate to Roman power and presence, and they certainly did not speak with a single voice. It took several centuries for these movements to construct a modus vivendi with Rome. What became two broad and ultimately distinct religions constructed quite different relationships with the reality of Roman power and control. However, while very different, these two different ways of getting along helped in no small way to provide for the survival of both traditions coming out of the Roman period.

It is primarily through Josephus that we learn about Herod and the Herodian family, including his close relationship with Augustus, and his unparalleled building projects across the east. Josephus, though in many respects biased and self-serving, tells us a great deal about Roman administration of the east and the focus on border lands between the Greek east and the Parthian empire and threat. Josephus helps to connect a small and formerly localized Galilee with larger Roman imperial developments. It was during the time of Omrit, the early and middle years of Roman imperial expansion that Galilee and other regions of the east grew in importance and strategic value. Finally, there is new knowledge and data from Roman Galilee based primarily on the material remains and culture. The archaeology of the Galilee is a relatively new endeavor. Scientific and systematic excavation and analysis of Roman period sites in Galilee is little more than a generation old. Yet in that short period of time, archaeological information has flowed steadily out of Galilee. This new archaeological information is having a substantial impact on our picture of Galilee and its place within the broader context of the Roman east. New information from the field has added immensely to our knowledge of Roman Galilee. This volume makes a contribution primarily in this last regard by providing in an interim manner the evidence we currently possess from an emerging, important site on the border of Galilee, Iturea, and greater Syria.

Interest in Roman Galilee is also due to the popularity of the most widely published author on the subject – the aforementioned Flavius Josephus. In his autobiography Josephus claims he was sent to Galilee to dissuade the population there from revolting against Rome (Life 28). Josephus’ voluminous work, and extended scholarly explication of it, has thrown considerable light on the Roman period and influence in Galilee. Josephus portrays Galilee as the center of the first revolt. Rebel resistance and Roman action against the rebels was focused in Galilee and environs, including places like Gamla in the Golan. A northern corridor of defense against the Romans was strung out west-east across Galilee according to Josephus. Places chosen for defense were already fairly well fortified towns. They were near the commercial routes and roads that followed the valleys cutting through Galilee. According to Josephus, they were centers aimed at holding out against Roman sieges and waging a guerilla war against Rome.12 Josephus says he was biding time hoping Galilean rebels would realize the futility of their struggle. If here Josephus is to be believed we can say that he did not prevail. The revolt went forward and Rome crushed the Galilean rebels. It is true that much of Galilee did not participate in the revolt. The two larger Galilean cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias did not resist Rome at all. One city, Sepphoris, was renamed “city of peace” precisely because of Sepphorian cooperation with Rome.13 Vespasian and Titus found the few rebel 12 13

Recent advances in archaeological research in Galilee have provided both a significant expansion of our knowledge and an important impetus for further study. The last generation of research in Galilee has provided new knowledge and data that heretofore is unmatched. The material world of Galilee, in art, architecture and archaeology, has been substantially revealed over a generation. This advance has provoked a kind of interdisciplinary work involving historians, literary critics, architects, art historians and archaeologists and other students of material culture. This collaboration has led to a renaissance of work in Roman Galilee which values the contribution material and archaeological research can make both in its own right and to larger

A number of these sites are discussed by Aviam (2004). Meyers 1999.

9

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

historical and cultural questions pertaining to the Roman east.14

The principality of Iturea which was centered near Mount Hermon and the Beka valley in Lebanon emerged as a vital region in the East in the first century BCE. The site of Omrit rested on the fluid Galilee-Iturean border. The Itureans actually began expanding south and east in this period. The Hasmonean government had collapsed as result of an internal struggle over leadership. Rome intervened in the dispute from Damascus. The Roman General Pompey seized control of the whole region including Jerusalem. The Greek East including the sliver of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River was strategically too important to allow for a descent into civil war. Israel, including the northern region of Galilee and Iturea, was now under the direct control of Rome and her regional Governor. Pompey along with his General Gabinius are credited with reorganizing much of the Greek East including the Levant. Pompey selected larger local cities as seats of government and courts known as Sanhedrin (ıȪȞȘįȡȓĮ; cf. Ant.14.90). These local centers of modest authority worked under the eye of Rome and reported to the appropriate Roman authorities in the large urban centers of the Greek east in Damascus, Antioch in Syria, or Tyre and Berytus on the coast. Previous boundaries that discriminated between local groups or tribes now blurred under the broad imposition of Roman regional rule. Such was the case with Iturea and northern Galilee.18

NORTHERN GALILEE AND ITUREA BEFORE AUGUSTUS In the closing years of the Roman Republic, Galilee was a land caught between competing interests. In the years following the death of Alexander the Great and the dissolution of his Empire, Galilee was caught between two surviving diodochies. The Seleucids to the north and the Ptolemies centered in Alexandria competed with one another. Palestine and the Syrian border region was a land in between and a bone of contention in the immediate post-Alexander years.15 This means that the area of Omrit has long included a trade route and a battle field. This feature of the site obtains even to the present. The region of Panium is first mentioned by Polybius in his Histories (16.18.2-6). Around the year 200 BCE, according to Polybius, Syrian troops engaged Ptolemaic Egyptian troops near Tel Azaziyat, the hill immediately north of Omrit. Somewhere between Tel Azaziyat and the waters of Banias the decisive battle between Seleucid and Ptolemaic forces occurred. The Egyptian troops were led by one Scopus while the Syrians were led by Antiochus III. According to Polybius the Syrians and Antiochus triumphed over the Egyptians by use of many elephants that created havoc among the Egyptian troops. Some of the coins of Antiochus have elephants on the obverse in apparent reference to this important victory. Following the battle, Seleucid forces controlled the Omrit region until the period of Hasmonean expansion following the Maccabean revolt in 165 BCE.16

By the mid-first century BCE Itureans had expanded south. Pompey had destroyed key Iturean strongholds in the mid sixties as he made his way to Damascus to establish his brand of order in the East (Ant.14.39). The Itureans did not gravitate to urban or monumental centers. Since they were not a settled people, whatever Pompey destroyed had little impact on the strength and resilience of the Itureans. Dubbed as warriors, archers, robbers and stubborn fighters by both Strabo and Josephus, the Itureans expanded their presence in the region in the intervening years of 60-40 BCE (Strabo, Geography 16.2.20). Iturean centers were strung north up the Beka valley to Chalcis and Baalbek, east toward Damascus, SE to Abila, and south into Galilee at Ulatha and Paneas. The Iturean region in this period certainly included the northern Hulah Valley but may have extended even further south.19

In the second half of the second century BCE, Hasmonean expansion to the north reached the region of Omrit. Maccabean literature depicts Hasmonean expansion in the north as a reclaiming of the region for traditional Jewish beliefs. Portions of the population in northern Galilee were returned to Judaism. Some people were circumcised by newly established Hasmonean authorities in the region (I Macc.5:5ff.). The principality bordering northern Galilee, Iturea, was converted to Judaism by force. Their traditional beliefs were actively discouraged by the expanding Maccabean government. The traditionally unruly Iturean region was brought into the Hasmonean political orbit (Ant.13.318). Hasmonean-Iturean clashes characterized the closing years of Hasmonean rule in the north. Alexander Jannaeus continued the Hasmonean control and push in the north. The southern Hermon region including Omrit to Paneas was caught up in the struggle. From the available evidence it appears that the Hermon – including Paneas – but not the majority of the Hulah, remained Iturean.17

During the mid first century, Iturea was under the control of Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus (85-40 BCE) who, according to Josephus, secured the region by means of a bribe to Pompey (Ant.14.40). The Iturean ruler Ptolemy was a formidable regional power. The people of Damascus were worried enough about his power and the potential Iturean threat that they petitioned the Nabatean King Aretas to protect them from Ptolemy (J.W. 1.103). His rule lasted for over forty years and during this time the Itureans expanded south well into Galilee. Ptolemy’s son Lysanias assumed control (40-34 BCE). Following Lysanias, Cleopatra was given control of the land by Mark Anthony. She leased the territory to Zenodorus.

14

For example Edwards and McCollough (1997); Levine (1992). Some of these developments are reviewed in Overman (1993). 15 A description offered some time ago by Hengel in his monumental work (1974, 6ff). 16 Discussed in Wilson 2004, 4-9. 17 Discussed in detail now by Hartal (2005, 369-84); Schottroff (1982).

18 The discussion of the region during the late Republic and early Principate in Bowersock (1983, 28-58). 19 Jones 1931.

10

J.A. OVERMAN: OMRIT AS PART OF THE ROMAN EAST

Iturean rulers, as their coins suggest, were allowed to promote themselves and maintain use of typical authoritative titles such as tetrarch and high priest. These regional client titles were employed with at least the tacit approval of Rome and were passed from one ruling generation to another. The small amount of Iturean iconography that has survived points to a synthesis of Nabatean, Parthian and traditional Syrian beliefs. Iturean temples were “high-places” which sacralized the mountainous setting of their largely itinerant existence in the eastern Lebanon and Hermon.20 That Itureans largely resisted urbanization in the Roman fashion and seemed to have made their livelihood off of being warriors and robbers is no reason to discount them as a substantial regional force and a source of consternation for Roman clients and leaders in the province; on the contrary. These were precisely the kind of bandits or Lestai that the Roman Senate sent Pompey to the east to extinguish.21 The Iturean/Galilee border became a crucial geopolitical region in the years of Roman civil war in the late Republic. This importance continued well into the early years of the Empire and beyond.

Euphrates as the natural and agreed upon border between Rome and Parthia in 55. But it was Crassus in 54 BCE who was ultimately responsible for the greatest Roman defeat and trauma when he lost the Roman standards at Carrhae in 53 BCE. The impact of this event loomed large over the Roman consciousness for a long time. These defeats also emboldened the Parthians to move further west and occupy lands that had formerly been solidly in Roman hands. Western Syria including Damascus, the hill country of the Itureans, parts of Galilee and Judea were either occupied by Parthians or were sympathetic to Parthia between the years 53-31 BCE. The instability of the greater region around Galilee and Iturea is an important backdrop to understanding the role of Herod and his relationship with Augustus after the battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Stability and control needed to be re-established, as seen in the building projects patronized by the emperor and his client.22 The Roman defeats at the hands of the Parthians in the fifty years between Sulla and Anthony had substantial repercussions across the region. The humiliating loss of troops, honor, and the Roman standards encouraged regional inclination toward Parthia. Dio suggested that the defeat of Crassus promoted pro-Parthian sentiment in Syria, Lebanon and the Hermon region. Local people saw this as a sign of Roman weakness relative to their nearby Parthian neighbors. This episode was justifiably viewed as a chink in the Roman imperial armor. Dio further observed that some Parthian leaders were popular with the average person. This was especially the case with the well-known Pacorus who was regarded as “just and mild” (Dio 49.119). Pacorus and the Parthians enjoyed support throughout the Syrian countryside. For Roman leaders, who had come to the east to expand their empire and make a name for themselves, good relations with the indigenous people was much more of a challenge.

The Roman civil war of the late Republican years also had an impact on the Iturean and Galilean portions of the Greek East. This is not the appropriate place to discuss this development in detail. However, the region was greatly disturbed by the conflict between competing Roman personalities and interests. During this time, and perhaps due to the instability in Rome and among Roman leaders, the Parthians made a substantial push into the Levant. They controlled much of the new Roman province of Syria and by the 40’s of the first century BCE controlled Judea. It was rare for Parthians to make such incursions across the Euphrates. There is little evidence for Parthian initiated violence against Rome. Even Plutarch records the Parthian observation that “Rome had a difficult time recalling the terms of their treaties [with Parthia]”(Crassus,16); that is to say, even Plutarch sees Rome as the aggressor in their conflicts with Parthia which controlled so much of Roman foreign policy from early in the first century BCE. Dio Cassius later echoes Plutarch’s same theme (Dio 40.12-13).

It was now patently obvious that Rome and Roman notables were taking great interest in the Anti-Lebanon region, especially the southeastern end which places Omrit squarely in the midst of the late Roman Republican and early Augustan action. As F. Millar has pointed out, “an inner frontier” as crucial as any limes along the fringe of the empire had developed from the Beka’a Valley to Damascus and reaching south from the headwaters of the Jordan to the Golan Heights and the hills of Galilee.23 The political changes and military engage-ments in the Greek east and along the Parthian border in particular are at once global events in the Roman world but also events with clear local and regional implications. The Roman civil wars, the tensions between Parthians and Romans between the time of Pompey and Augustus, local unrest and banditry, and the development of new buffer zones

Rome had fixed her eyes on the Parthian region east of the Euphrates from at least the time of Sulla (c. 92 BCE) when he, according to Plutarch (Sulla 5), arrogantly crossed the Euphrates, would not settle for peace with Mithridates II, and finally attacked and lost to the Parthians. Pompey’s General, Gabinius, also rejected the 20

Dar 1993. The problem of brigandage is well-documented in the area of northern Galilee and Iturea. According to Josephus some bandits were running a protection racket of sorts by the middle of the first century CE (Life 7778) and had made farming a difficult undertaking in the northern Galilean town of Gischala, for example (J.W. 4.84). Along the GalileanIturean border the activities of the Lestai, headed in this instance by John of Gischala, did spill over into armed rebellion or anarchy. Josephus actually says these bandits were drawn from a wide geographical area in the north, what would have been both Iturean and Galilean villages; J.W. 2.588; 625; Life 94, 101, 233, 371-72. See Horsley 1981. 21

22 For this period involving Rome, Parthia and the Herods see; Sullivan 1990; a longer discussion of the Roman missteps vis-à-vis Parthia and its impact on Galilee is found in Overman (forthcoming); also the helpful discussion in Richardson (1996, 113-28). 23 Millar 1993, 17-18; reiterated in Wilson 2004, 8.

11

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

between Rome and the East were events that impacted Rome and Roman politics more broadly, but they also greatly influenced the region that is the focus of this volume. Iturea, northern Galilee, Paneas, and Omrit were quite suddenly important locales in a manner they had not been before. Their strategic value and signifi-cance in terms of commerce and maintaining stability were vaulted to a new prominence that was unknown prior to the mid first century BCE.

preservation and statesmanship Herod made haste to the Island of Rhodes following Anthony’s defeat and with his diadem conspicuously absent, successfully pleaded with Augustus to let him keep his life and his job (Josephus, J.W. 1.388-392//Ant. 15.187-194). In the new working relationship between Augustus and Herod, Josephus makes explicit that Augustus was Herod’s euergetês; the term suggests both his lord but also his patron in finance and public enterprise.27 Eight years later, “when Herod had completed the seventeenth year of his reign (20 BCE),” according to Josephus, Augustus came to Syria.28 By this time, the relationship between Augustus and Herod had been wellcemented. Herod had already built his port city Caesareaon-the-Sea to honor Augustus and Roma, and establish a new southern port and trade route across Palestine. The sister city to Caesarea, Samaria-Sebaste was finished, and Herod was acting as Augustus’ primary client lord in the region. Both cities contained prominent imperial cult temples leaving little doubt about the devotion of Herodian sites to Augustus.

THE OMRIT REGION AFTER ACTIUM Augustus, formerly Octavius, emerged from the Roman civil wars of the first century BCE as Emperor. The Roman Republic had given way to the Empire with Augustus as the first and probably most influential of Emperors. Among his most pressing tasks was the restoration of public trust and stability. After so many years of civil strife the task was nothing short of monumental. Augustus used imagery, coins, buildings, ideas related to morality and family, traditional values, and constructed public rituals all in an attempt to reunite an extremely fractured Roman world. His actions included the constructions of civic organizations to maintain and improve the architecture and urban space, as well as the well known Augustan iconographic and propaganda programs.24 It has been said recently that in the face of protracted civil conflict during the dissolution of the Republic, Augustus actively and intentionally embarked on what can now be called “the politics of restoration,” and this seems now obviously to be the case, not just inside Rome but across the Greek east.25 Augustus reconstituted the Res Publica, those public things that engendered order and confidence in his rule and in the broader, global Roman imperium. That Augustan rebuilding project had as a focus the religion and rituals of Roman people. And as Eric Olin has demonstrated, a central focus of this project centered on Roman temples. Augustus boasts that in the year 28 BCE alone he “rebuilt eighty-two temples of the gods in the city by authority of the senate…” (Res gestae 20).26 Temple maintenance and temple building was a substantial aspect of the Augustan program of renewal and reordering Rome, at home and abroad.

One would not know this from Josephus’ summary of the Augustus’ Syrian trip, but the objective of coming to Syria was to retrieve the Roman standards lost by Crassus thirty years earlier. This is the not place to rehearse all the ways in which the return of the standards to Rome by Augustus was celebrated. This has been done by others, most notably C.B. Rose. The standards were secured in 20 BCE. They were returned to Rome by 19. The standards were installed in a new circular temple of Mars Ultor on the Capitoline. From June of 19 BCE a range of coin issues were minted celebrating the signis receptis in Spain, Pergamon, Asia and elsewhere. There are more coin types devoted to this event than any other campaign of the Augustan period.29 Images and echoes of the return of the standards are found on sculpture and in architecture in Rome but also in the east, in Pergamon and Antioch in Pisidia. A long line of notable Roman authors deal with the remarkable event of Augustus securing the standards and the peace with Parthia without so much as single battle. Thirty years after being lost, the Roman standards along with certain Roman prisoners were returned in what must have looked to most Romans as a powerful display of Augustus’ authority and statesmanship. He was granted a triumph upon his return to Rome even though there was no battle associated with his Parthian engagement. He was voted Imperator. And while the return of these powerful symbols was really a result of a Parthian initiative or détente, Augustus made this episode into a central feature of early imperial iconography and his propaganda of restoration. Parthia won a place in the center of Rome, as C.B. Rose has recently demonstra-

Augustus wasted little time in establishing his presence and his program of restoration in the East. This included the appointment of his people in the appropriate client positions in crucial parts of the empire. King Herod of Judea was among the first and most important of Augustan clients in the East. Herod had fled Judea for Rome during the Parthian incursions into Palestine. But prior to Actium, Herod was back as King of the Jews. As an eastern client king Herod actually was an advocate and ally of Mark Anthony. But in a famous show of self-

27

24 Reviewed still most convincingly by Zanker 1990; and for a balanced review of Augustus’ building and municipal activities in Rome, Favro 1992. 25 Articulated persuasively by Severy 2003. Bowersock (1965) remains an indispensable source. 26 Orlin 2007.

See Richardson 1996, 171-73. A note in Marcus and Wikgren LCL translation of Ant. 15.354 states that Dio places the visit during the consulship of M. Apuleius and P. Silius, which would make the visit to the northern region in the year 20 BCE. 29 Rose 2005, 23. 28

12

J.A. OVERMAN: OMRIT AS PART OF THE ROMAN EAST

ted.30 Augustus built the Temple of Mars Ultor in his own Forum in celebration of the return of the standards from Parthia (Dio 54.8.3). The message that Augustus brought home to Rome was that all the world, including the long time nemesis of Rome, Parthia, was at peace. Augustus had restored peace, order, and Roman rule around the world.

projects under construction before escorting him to the sea, as Josephus says.33 When Caesar Augustus left Syria and departed for Rome, Herod escorted him to the Mediterranean coast. When Herod returned to the Omrit region and the Syrian border, Josephus writes, “Herod erected to him (Augustus) a very beautiful temple of white stone in the territory of Zenodorus, near the place called Paneion” (Ant. 15.363). This course of events, and this very passage, represents the establishment of the cult of the Emperor in the northern region of Galilee, Iturea, and the area around Omrit. It is not surprising that Herod should choose to honor Augustus in this manner. Herod did not ingratiate himself to Augustus overnight. He had established a consistent pattern of celebration of and largesse toward the Emperor. Cult and rituals that developed around the Emperor and his family were a pivotal part of Augustan imagery and power. Herod also established two other Imperial cult cities in the region – Samaria-Sebaste in Judea and Caesarea on the Sea, along with numerous other architectural celebrations of Augustus. According to Josephus, “in short, one can mention no suitable spot within his realm which he left destitute of some mark of homage to Caesar” (J.W.1.407).

Josephus discusses Augustus’ eastern visit mostly in terms of how it affected Herod. Not surprisingly Josephus pays little attention to Roman domestic issues, if in fact he was aware of such things during the Augustan era. Josephus seems much more knowledgeable about Flavian domestic policies given his status as an historian of the Flavian court.31 During this eastern trip Augustus gave Herod the considerable territory of Zenodorus which would have included all of Iturea, Trachonitis, Paneas and its region. He also gave the Procurators of Syria instruction to seek the permission of Herod before they made any significant decisions. It is while reciting Augustus’ visit to the region that Josephus issues the claim that “after Agrippa, there was no one Caesar held in greater esteem than Herod” (Ant. 15.360-361). From the point of view of Roman writers the eastern trip of Augustus was noteworthy for returning the lost standards and securing peace with the Parthians. For understandable reasons to the veritable who’s who of Augustan age literati who deal with the return of the standards Herod is not relevant. But with Herod functioning effectively as Governor of Syria under Augustus at this time, and given Herod’s own history with the Parthians, and that of his father Antipater, it is not unreasonable to think that Herod may have helped organize the meeting between Augustus and the Parthian Phraates, who, according to Dio, was all too eager to get these standards off his hands (54.8.1). Since Actium, Augustus had used Herod on occasion for diplomacy. For example Augustus used him for support when traveling through Phoencia and Egypt (J.W. 1.394-397) and later Herod was sent to Syria to settle a dispute between a Cappadocian King and the then Governor of Syria (Ant. 16.270). Herod also showed his loyalty to Augustus in 25/24 BCE when he supported a major expedition into Arabia in an attempt to secure Roman control of the peninsula and the Sabeans in Yemen (Strabo 16.4.22-24; Ant. 15.317). Herod’s mastery of the region would have made him a valuable resource for Augustus and a most useful, if not most notable, member of his eastern retinue in the year 20.32 Richardson is correct in pointing out that Herod would have entertained Augustus at the very least during his trip to Syria. It is clear from Josephus and Dio that Augustus stopped in Herod’s northern territory in 20 BCE. He may have entertained him near Paneas as Richardson suggests and showed him the imperial

As early as 29 BCE Provincials were granted permission to consecrate precincts to Roma and the Emperor (Dio 51.20.6-8). B. Severy notes that in many eastern locations celebrations of the Augustan family were also part of the emerging system of imperial honors and ritual.34 Oaths of allegiance were soon part of liturgies of the emerging Imperial cult in the East. Oaths were sworn and honors offered on the altars of imperial temples and temple precincts in Pisidia, Narbonne, Pergamon, Ephesus, Nicea, and around the early empire.35 It can be said with confidence that Herod himself played a formative role in the development of the Imperial cult and honors to the Emperor in the East. We are not dependent on the testimony of Josephus in this claim. Recent archaeology in Israel has shown the remarkable contribution of Herod to the emergence of the Augustan cult. The excavated sites of Samaria, Caesarea Maritima, regions of the temple in Jerusalem rebuilt by Herod, and now, most likely, Omrit in northern Israel are archaeological sites that have shed tremendous new light on the emergence of Sebastea and imperial cult buildings in Israel.36 The entire program of Herod’s building projects has been recently reviewed and analyzed by D. Roller.37 Herod’s formative contribution to the Imperial cult in the East was not limited to architectural innovation. As important as the remarkable building projects initiated by Herod in honor of the Emperor were, his example of the Client-Emperor relationship became

30

2005. Highlighted persuasively in Sievers and Lembi 2005. 32 Herod’s diplomatic activities were due to both his own office and his close relationship with Augustus. Herod’s many building projects outside his own kingdom, must be counted among these activities. See Richardson 1996, 197-205. Herod’s relationships with Jewish communities across the Empire, and also in Parthia, were a source of political advantage for him and the subsequent Herodian rulers. See here the recent dissertation by Wilker 2007, 319-76. 31

33

1996, 234. 2003, 114. 35 Lewis and Reinhold 1990, 620-25. 36 \Crowfoot, \Kenyon and \Sukenik 1942; Netzer 1987, 97-105; Holum, 1999, 13-40; Jacobson 2002, 18-27, 60-61; Overman, Olive and Nelson 2007; Overman, 2008. 37 1998. 34

13

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

parallels in Israel from the early Roman period. This broadly comports with the archaeological evidence which shows the shrine possesses two distinct building phases.

the model of what Rome would come to expect throughout the provinces. In his expansive expression of Imperial devotion, Herod helped promote the sacral as well as the political importance of the Emperor that was not self-evident in the early years of Augustus’ reign. Augustus acquired titles and honors gradually. Perhaps the most potent and cherished title acquired by Augustus was Pater Patriae. This significant title was granted to Augustus, according to the Res Gestae, during his thirteenth consulship, in the year 2 BCE, at the age of sixty-one years old. This helps demonstrate an important notion concerning worship of and honors to the Emperor. Augustus along with the empire grew into and developed the various roles for Emperor as his reign progressed. It is true that Augustus was described in many ways and utilized many titles in early Roman imperial literature as evidenced by such writers as Ovid or Horace (Fasti 2.122; Odes 3.24). The trappings and potential for a full-blown, imperial cult were latent in many early imperial literary and architectural expressions. But it still took time for the Senate and people of Rome to accept the new form of government, the extraordinary honors, and the virtual monarchy that Augustus embodied. Provincial lords like Herod, and arguably especially Herod, promoted imperial honors so completely and decisively that the cult around the Emperor had little chance for failure. Long before Augustus officially accepted the title “Father of the Fatherland” in 2 BCE, imperial honors and devotion to the Emperor were well ensconced in the civic life of the east, including Israel. The archaeology of these notable imperial cult precincts demonstrates this most forcefully.

We know from our review of the historical context that this was a provocative time in Iturea and northern Galilee. Iturea was tending to support Parthia over against Roman leaders like Crassus or Mark Anthony. Two Iturean leaders lost their lives around this period. And we know the region still suffered from brigandage and heavy taxes. Who controlled the region of Omrit in the time of the establishment of the “shrine” is unclear. The building is small, but highly ornate with finely crafted upper and lower course molding, striking painted plaster on the exterior, and it is in a podium style. It may be a mausoleum, a memorial, a small temple like those on Mount Hermon but in more of a Roman style. This question is taken up by M. Nelson when he discusses the architectural designs of the different Omrit temple phases. The Temple that was built around the shrine dates to the last quarter of the first century BCE. By this time, it is much less of a mystery to determine who was in charge of the Iturean, northern Galilee, Hermon region. Augustus had prevailed at Actium by this time. He secured Herod’s role as ruler of Galilee, Iturea, and Trachonitis. Herod was also in effect Governor of Syria since Augustus insisted that Roman Procurators in that region needed to clear all their actions and decisions with Herod himself. At the same time, Herod was well into his various building projects aimed at cementing his relationship with his chief patron as well as promoting his own career and eastern provincial network.

The region of Omrit appears to have been one of the early and prominent architectural expressions of the imperial cult in the east. The building was known through literature but never identified archaeologically. Herod was part of a provincial phenomenon associated with the development of the Imperial cult. Herod helped to define an architectural form that came to be associated rather distinctly with the Emperor cult. As noted above, Augustea/Sebastea, temples built to honor the Emperor and promote devotion to the Emperor and imperial family, were first built in the east. Herod was an early forerunner of a provincial effort to promote an architectural form and with it the very act of imperial civic honors and devotion.

Temple One at Omrit can be characterized as an Augusteum in form. Augustea/ Sebastea in this model developed in the early and mid years of Augustus’ reign in Pompeii, Pula, Gaul, Israel and throughout the east.38 It is on a podium rising two meters above the walking surface. Like the shrine before it, Temple One has lower and upper course molding. The temple is made of a fine, white limestone. The exterior of the podium was frescoed as evidenced by a small piece of faux-marble fresco still preserved on the SW corner of the podium of Temple One. The earliest phase of the temple was prostyletetrastyle in form. It was rather narrow but tall (25.24 x 13.16 m foot print with an approximate column height of 10 m). The order was Corinthian of a distinctive variety.39 The height of the Temple was quite impressive (Fig. 03.11). The Omrit temple obtained a prominent place on a high hill overlooking the main W-E Tyre-Damascus Roman road. This is the same terrain where two hundred years earlier Ptolemies and Seleucids engaged in the

THE AUGUSTEUM AND TEMPLE COMPLEX AT OMRIT The earliest building at Omrit to date is the so-called shrine which appears to have been founded in the middle of the first century BCE. The article in this volume by Sylvia Rozenberg of the Israel Museum details the dates of the frescoe and stucco materials from the shrine. In the main these derive from two periods. The first is the mid 1st c. BCE and has parallels from late Hellenistic sites in the region. The second phase of fresco material comes from early in the Herodian period and has numerous

38

See the superb treatment by Hänlein Schäfer 1985, 53-55; 59-64; 8183; Overman, Olive and Nelson (2007) discuss other Augustea which architecturally parallel Temple One at Omrit. Notable among these are the Augustea at Pula (Fischer 1996) and Narona, (Marin 2001). 39 The capitals at Omrit are discussed by Nelson (ch. 3 below). See also Fischer (1990) where some of the Corinthian capitals at Omrit are treated. For the most part Fischer is dealing with the capitals relating to Temple Two at Omrit which he now dates to the Flavian period.

14

J.A. OVERMAN: OMRIT AS PART OF THE ROMAN EAST

famous “elephant battle” that resulted in the region passing to the Seleucids until the Maccabean revolt of 165 BCE. The Temple can be seen from a high point at Banias four kilometers up the Hermon foothills to the NE as well as from the famous Crusader fortress Nimrod further up the Hermon. Approaching from the west Omrit can also be seen from the hills of upper Galilee on the western slope of the Hulah Valley as far away as the Roman temple and fortress at Qeren Naftali. The ornate materials from the site include cornice blocks with rosette inlays, bossed architraves including dressed portions with a floral design (Fig. 03.13). The Corinthian capitals from Omrit are beautifully designed and without parallel in the region except for the Decapolis cities. Fragments and remnants of altars, and inscriptional evidence relating to both deities and emperors, discussed in this volume by Schowalter (Ch. 6), all point to the obvious presence of a Roman imperial temple.

specifically in the region that emerged as so crucial to Roman policy and control at the dawn of the Augustan era. Over the next few centuries Omrit and its region emerged as important in the first revolt against Rome, in the development of early Christianity and Judaism, the reforms under Diocletian, a region that was host to postConstantinian Christian communities, Mamluk and ultimately Frankish and Muslim combatants.43 The site of Omrit itself offers material remains for all of these periods. But the temple complex at Omrit, existing as it does in three distinct buildings, offers new and important evidence for a precise and formative period for the region and for eastern Roman provincial developments. Bibliography AVIAM, M. 2004. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, Institute for Galilean Archaeology. Rochester, NY, University of Rochester. BALL, W. 2000. Rome and the East: The Transformation of an Empire. London, Routledge. BOWERSOCK, G.W. 1965. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford, Clarendon Press at Oxford. BOWERSOCK, G. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, Harvard University. CROWFOOT, J.W., KENYON, K., and SUKENIK, E.L. 1942. Samaria-Sebaste I: The Buildings. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. DAR, S. 1993. Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Herman, Israel: Iturean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, BAR International Series, 589. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports. DEROW, J. 1979. Rome and the East. Journal of Roman Studies 69, 1-15. DOWNEY, G. 1951. The Occupation of Syria by the Romans. Transactions of the American Philological Association 82, 149-63. EDWARDS, D. 1992. Religion, Power, and Power Politics: Jewish Defeats by the Romans in Iconography and Josephus. In J.A. Overman and R.S. MacLennan (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism, 293310. Atlanta, Scholars Press. EDWARDS D.R. and McCOLLOUGH C.T. (eds.) 1997. Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods. Atlanta, Scholars Press. FAVRO, D. 1992. Pater urbis: Augustus as City Father of Rome. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51, 61-84. FISCHER, G. 1996. Das römische Pola: Eine archäologische Stadtgeschichte. Munich, Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. FISCHER, M.1990. Das korinthische Kapitell im Alten Israel in der hellenistischen und römischen Periode. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern.

The architectural form is of particular interest here because we see in Omrit the beginning of the codification of an Augusteum form aimed at identifying and promoting honors to the Emperor. During the reign of Herod in the north of Galilee and the Iturea-Hermon region we see the adoption of an architectural form which though early in its development is intended to denote Imperial presence and devotion. Scholars have believed for some time that the temple mentioned by Josephus built by Herod to honor Augustus has survived in a coin minted by Herod’s son the tetrarch Philip who assumed control of the Omrit region following the death of Herod in 4 BCE. The coin depicts a prostyle-tetrastyle temple reminiscent of Omrit Temple One. The coin is presented in Wilson (2004), along with a photo of the complex at Omrit. Wilson correctly observes that the reconstruction of Temple One at Omrit bears a striking resemblance to the Temple portrayed on the coin.40 Herod may well have been an early promoter and even articulator of a dominant Augusteum form. But we see it also throughout the Greek East beginning in this period. Herod is surely credited with certain architectural innovations of smaller varieties though perhaps not of consequence. He is likely responsible for stylistic innovations concerning capitals.41 Herodian frescoes have several distinct phases and are justifiably renowned. His adoption and modification of certain Pompeian styles has been recognized for some time.42 But here we are addressing a complete architectural form for the Roman temple that should be associated with the new Augustan politics and program of “restoration.” Herod may not have invented the form but he contributed mightily to establishing a dominant architectural form associated with Augustea in his region. The archaeological site called Omrit presents new information and images that add to our picture of Roman development and material statements in the east, but more 40

2004, 86ff, where plates and photos of the Augusteum at Pompeii, the coin, and a photo of Omrit are presented. 41 Fischer 1993. 42 Fittschen 1996, 139-62; Foerster 1995.

43

Wilson (2004) offers a most useful survery of each of these periods in the northern Hulah region centered on Banias.

15

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

MEYERS, E. 1999. Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (67-68 CE): Archaeology and Josephus. In E. Meyers (ed.), Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Culture, 109-22. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.

FISCHER, M. 1993. A Judean Contribution to Roman Decoration: An Ornamented Stone from the Temple Mount Reconsidered. Israel Exploration Journal 43, 235-40. FITTSCHEN, K. 1996. Wall Decorations in Herod’s Kingdom: Their Relationship with wall Decorations in Greece and Italy. In K. Fittschen and G. Foerster (eds.), Judea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, 139-62. Göttingen, Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.

NETZER, E. 1987.The Augusteum at Samaria-Sebaste: A New Outlook. Eretz Israel 19, 97-105. ORLIN, E. 2007. Augustan Religion and the Reshaping of Roman Memory. Arethusa 40, 73-92. OVERMAN, J.A. 1993. Recent Advances in the Archaeology of the Galilee in the Roman Period. Currents in research: biblical studies 1, 35-58.

FOERSTER, G. 1995. Masada V: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Art and Architecture. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society.

OVERMAN, J.A. 2002. The First Revolt and Flavian Politics. In A. Berlin and J.A. Overman, eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, 213-20. New York, Routledge.

FREYNE, S. 1980. Galilee: From Alexander the Great to Hadrian. Wilmington, Michael Glazier. GOODMAN, M. 1989. Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus, and Jewish Identity. Journal of Roman Studies 79, 40-44.

OVERMAN, J.A. 2004. The Importance of the Iturean Principality According to Josephus and His Contemporaries. In A.J. Avery-Peck et al (eds.), When Judaism and Christianity Began, 287-98. Leiden, Brill.

GRUEN, E. 1998. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley, University of California. HÄNLEIN SCHÄFER, H. 1985. Veneratio Augusti: Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers. Rome, Giorgio Bretschneider.

OVERMAN, J. 2008. Horvat Omrit. In E. Stern, ed. New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Vol. 5, 1987-89. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society.

HARTAL, M. 2005. The Land of the Itureans. Qatzrin, Golan Studies.

OVERMAN, J.A. 2009. Between Rome and Parthia: Galilee and the Implications of Empire. In Z. Rodgers (ed.), A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne, 279-299. Leiden, Brill.

HENGEL, M. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism, trans by J. Bowman. Philadelphia, Fortress Press. HOLUM, K. 1999. The Temple Platform: Progress Report on the Excavations. In K. Holum, A. Raban, and J. Patrich (eds.), Caesarea Papers 2, (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 35; Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology) 1340.

OVERMAN, J., OLIVE, J., and NELSON, M. 2007. A Newly Discovered Herodian Temple at Khirbet Omrit in Northern Israel. In N. Kokkinos (ed.), The World of the Herods, 177-96. Frankfurt am Main, Franz Steiner.

HORSLEY, R. 1981. Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt Against Rome. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43, 409-32.

RICHARDSON, P. 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia, S.C, University of South Carolina.

JACOBSON, D. 2002. Herod’s Roman Temple. Biblical Archaeology Review 28, 18-27, 60-61.

ROLLER, D. 1998. The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley, University of California Press.

JONES, A.H.M. 1931. The Urbanization of the Iturean Principality. Journal of Roman Studies 21, 265-75.

ROSE, C.B. 2005. The Parthians in Augustan Rome. American Journal of Archaeology 109, 21-73.

LEVINE, L.I. (ed.), 1992. The Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York, Jewish Theological Seminary. LEWIS, N. and REINHOLD M. (eds.) 1990. Roman Civilization, Vol. I, The Republic and the Augustan Age. New York, Columbia University.

SALDARINI, A.J. 1975 Johanan ben Zakkai’s Escape from Jerusalem: Origin and Development of a Rabbinic Story. Journal for the Study of Judaism 6, 189-204.

MacMULLEN, R. 1959. Roman Imperial Buildings in the Provinces. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64, 207-35.

SANFORD, E.M. 1939. The Career of Aulus Gabinius. Transactions of the American Philological Association 70, 64-92.

MARIN, E. 2001. The Temple of the Imperial Cult (Augusteum) at Narona and its Statues: An Interim Report. Journal of Roman Archaeology 14, 80-112.

SARTRE, M. 2005. The Middle East Under Rome. Cambridge, Harvard. SCHÄFER, P. 1975. Die Flucht Johanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Gründung des ‘Lehrhauses’ in Jabne. Aufstieg Und Niedergang Der Romischen Welt II.19.2, 43-101.

MILLAR, F. 1993. The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337. Cambridge, Harvard University. MITCHELL, S. 1987. Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Provinces. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91, 333-67.

SCHOTTROFF, W. 1982. Die Ituräer, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 98, 1215-1252.

16

J.A. OVERMAN: OMRIT AS PART OF THE ROMAN EAST

SULLIVAN, D. 1900. Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 BCE. Toronto, University of Toronto.

SCHOWALTER, D. 1993. The Emperor and the Gods: Images from the time of Trajan. Minneapolis, Fortress.

WARD-PERKINS, J.B. 1970. Roman Architecture. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

SEGAL, A. 1997. From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia. Oxford, Oxbow.

Imperial

WILKER, J. 2007. Für Rom und Jerusalem: Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Frankfurt am Main, Verlag Antike.

SEVERY, B. 2003. Augustus and Family at the Birth of the Empire. New York, Routledge.

WILSON, J. 2004. Caesarea Philippi: Banias the Lost City of Pan. London, I.B. Taurus.

SIEVERS, J. and LEMBI, G. (eds.) 2005. Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. Leiden, Brill.

ZANKER, P. 1990. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.

17

Chapter Two THE TEMPLE AT OMRIT: A STUDY IN ARCHITECTURAL AND POLITICAL ICONOGRAPHY G. Mazor – Israel Antiquities Authority And when he returned home after escorting Caesar to the sea, he erected to him a very beautiful temple of white stone in the territory of Zenodorus, near the place called Paneion (Josephus. Antiquities 15.363-64) The site at Omrit is situated about two miles southwest of Paneas and occupies a small hill overlooking the Hula Lake (Semachonitis lacus). A prominent Roman temple erected within a well-set temenos was recently revealed at the site by the Macalester College expedition.1 The location of the temenos along a Roman highway approaching Paneas from the Hula Lake is marked by a structure composed of large limestone masonry, a small distance away from the entrance into the temenos. In between the road and the temenos runs a narrow stream once spanned by a bridge, the supports of which are still partly visible. From here a paved street, c. 60 m long, 9 m wide, lined with a portico on its western side, leads southward into a spacious temple compound. In its distinctive location, remarkable architecture, and stages of evolution, the temple site at Omrit reflects an integrated cultic, as well as a strategic and political point of reference. The analysis of that temple site and its raison d’être, as studied throughout the region’s historical chapters, might shed some light on the interwoven ties reflected in an architectural phenomenon, manifested as a political statement.2

The Roman road network in the region, based on several longitudinal highways connected by secondary transverse arteries, has one of its main crossroads (capita viarium) located at Paneas. The Scythopolis-Damascus road intersects here with the Tyre-Paneas road and continues northeast towards Damascus.3 This regional network is a well-integrated local segment of a far wider network, constructed all over the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire. As a sophisticated network, it enabled reliable military and administrative control over the region and therefore served as an efficient means of ruling and a mechanism of highly strategic value. It also served the region’s economic infrastructure, connecting eastern trade centers with the Mediterranean ports. Along one such main highway, a monumental temple was erected as a prominent border landmark between Galilee and Ituraea. At the center of a small hill, the impressive remains of a monumental shrine, the nature and reconstructed superstructure of which are as yet incomplete, were revealed.4 The rectangular structure, built out of well cut limestone ashlars (c. 7.5 x 5 m), was erected over a c. 1.5

1 For site location see Omrit (Nebi Huda) in Tsafrir et al., 1994, Site 195. The expedition work at the site conducted since 1999 under the auspices of Macalester College is directed by A. Overman, field director J. Olive and architect M. Nelson. G. Mazor accompanies the expedition as consultant and coordinator on behalf of the IAA. I would like to thank the Macalester expedition for their invitation to write the following chapter of the interim report, which is widely based on the collective research and analysis of the excavation results. 2 As the excavations are not yet finished, and the data is therefore incomplete, the current architectural study and historical research is of a

preliminary nature and merely marks important points of interest for further analysis. 3 Roll 1999, 109-13; Roll 2002, 215-30. The earliest milestone referring to the Scythopolis-Damascus road is dated to 128/129 CE (Fuks 1983, 115, n.46), though the road, a main highway in the region, is most probably earlier than that. 4 See expedition report accompanied by plans and photos of the Early Shrine in Ch. 3 below.

19

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

m high podium that was well preserved at its northern and eastern sides. It has an elegant base and cap molding, the profile of which consists of a delicately carved cyma recta set between ovolo and astragal and covered by white fresco. The dado is plastered by a white fresco imitating the Late Hellenistic fine masonry style. The west end of the inner part of the podium is divided by an accurately-constructed wall of limestone ashlars into two uneven compartments roofed by basalt stone slabs, over which a concrete floor of the main room was laid. From the superstructure very little was preserved apart from the first course of its northern wall. The monument was thus adorned by white fresco on the outside podium walls and colored frescoes over its inner room walls. Both are dated by style and site stratigraphy to c. 50 BCE.5 Architectural elements that were found in the fill seem to indicate that its superstructure was surrounded by columns presumably of the Doric order.

‘altars,’ though for other scholars as Th. Wiegand and E. Will the term of preference would be mausolea.7 Whatever its specific nature really was its location over a prominent hilltop between Galilee and Ituraea seems to be highly significant. Its architectural nature is rather alien in origin to either Hellenistic or Ituraean architectural tradition known from the region. Built over a high podium with profiled base and cap moldings, the nature of its frescoes and the possibility of it being built in the Doric order rather point to Early Roman architectural trends that are more consistent with Late Republican sites in Northern Syria, Asia Minor and in the west than with Late Hellenistic or Ituraean sites in the east. It might therefore find its closest parallels in similar structures, usually associated with Early Roman temples that were found all over Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and Mt. Hermon. At Hössn Sfiri Temple C integrates an altar (4.13 x 4.13 m) in its cella foundations. At Kalat Fakra a tower-like altar (15 x 15 m) was found in the temenos next to the Temple of Atargatis and at Hössn Suliman an altar (7 x 7 m) was found within the temple court. All of those monuments seem to be contemporary in date with the early tower-like altar, which was integrated within the court of Jupiter Temple at Baalbek in its first construction stage that presumably took place sometime after 16 BCE.8

It seems that at its first stage the Early Shrine was an inaccessible white plastered monument, erected over a high podium overlooking the valley, and seen from afar as a monumental landmark along a main highway. Not too long after its construction a grand staircase with plastered banisters and a tetrastyle façade were added at its eastern side altering the earlier monument into a small shrine and obviously changing its function. Along its western side and a short distance away from it a colored fresco wall was partly revealed that may have partially surrounded the shrine at its second stage. In between the podium and wall a paved passage was discovered covered by a substantial layer of ash that contained a considerable number of animal, bird and fish bones along with some complete pottery vessels that might have some bearings on the nature of the shrine at its later stage.

The monument at Omrit was constructed at the northeastern border of Galilee, since 64/63 BCE a Roman province, and the south-western extent of Ituraea, its principality now under Roman control. On his way towards Damascus, Pompey annexed several Ituraean centers like Chalcis and Heliopolis. Some time later, when Provincia Syria was established and regional territorial and political rearrangements were set, the north-western Gaulantis territory and Hula Valley were granted to Ptolemy son of Menaeus.9 Perhaps Pompey’s appointed Proconsul to Syria (Gabinius or Crassus) initiated the construction of a dedicatory monument at this significant point between Provincia Syria and Ituraea in order to mark Rome’s territorial and political rearrangements in the region. It is also possible that Ptolemy constructed the Early Shrine to emphasize Ituraean political inclination. In either case, the obscuring of the earlier monument under the naos floor of Temple One, points to the reasonable assumption that the Early Shrine was partly dismantled and deliberately buried as a declarative statement. Due to the absence of descending steps and insufficient height between the Early Shrine and the Temple One floor, it appears that the Early Shrine

The significance of the Early Roman monument’s location at that prominent hilltop along the main highway and next to an important crossroad on the way to Damascus seems to be obvious. It may have been first erected as a dedicatory monument, either a heiron, a mausoleum, or a monumental altar. Later it was developed as a small shrine and the identity of its dedicant and initiator are still unknown. In the Early Roman period, the northern part of Provincia Syria in general and the region of Lebanon and Mt. Hermon in particular were known to contain numerous temples. This phenomenon distinguishes the region from any other in the Roman east, though its reasons are still obscure. Mt. Hermon and Paneion were already known for their sanctity during the Hellenistic period, and in other sites, such as Dan, became prominent even earlier. Yet any religious or cultural continuity in the region would be rather difficult to establish.6

7

Ward-Perkins 1981, 314-25. Similar towers were also found at Palmyra identified as mausolea. Wiegand 1932, 77ff.; Will 1949, 258313. 8 For the Syrian temples see Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, 2034, Fig. 49, Pl. 16; 40-55, Fig. 79, Pl. 22; 87-8, Fig. 121. The construction of the temple precinct at Baalbek must have followed the founding of the Roman Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Heliopolitana at c. 16 BCE. See Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth I (1937), 95 ff; Wiegand (ed.) 1921-3. 9 The new territory was granted to Ituraea in order to strengthen the buffer zone against Parthia. See Josephus, Ant. 14.40; Appianus, Mithridaticus Liber, 106, 499; Eutropius, Breviarium ab Urbe Condita, VI, 14, 1; Orosius, Historiae adversum paganos, VI, 6, 1. Later on it was granted by Augustus to Herod.

Similar monuments that were found in the region were termed in the past by J.B. Ward-Perkins as tower-like 5 See S. Rozenberg’s report in Ch. 5 below on the various fresco fragments found in the excavations, their stages and dating. 6 Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938; Dar 1993; Dar 1984, 42-50; Maoz, Forthcoming; Biran 1994.

20

G. MAZOR: THE TEMPLE AT OMRIT: A STUDY IN ARCHITECTURAL AND POLITICAL ICONOGRAPHY

had no functional significance for the Temple One builders and therefore was not meant to be approached from within the temple.

so was its grand entrance propylaeum. This customary setting was denied from the temenos planning at Omrit due to its topographical location in relation to the Roman road that stretches to the north. That type of temple is rather common in the region, and reflects a widespread distribution during the Early Roman period, though all its references seem to be later in date than Temple One at Omrit, which might have set the type already at 20 BCE.12

Temple One was thus erected on top of the hill, incorporating within its naos the foundations of the Early Shrine. Temple One was set at the center of a wide temenos surrounded by a wall and presumably paved by basalt stone slabs. It was approached from the nearby road by a paved street and entered by a propylaeum set along the temenos northern wall. In front of the temple, on its central axis line and some distance away to the east from its staircase a free standing altar was erected surrounded by basalt stone pavement. The temple, an oblong structure (30.2 x 13.3 – 120 x 75 R.F.), was built over a ca. 2 m high podium that was plastered by white fresco imitating marble. The well-preserved podium was constructed out of accurately cut limestone ashlars set with no mortar in four alternating courses of headers and stretchers. Its lower and upper courses that protrude out of the wall have a base and cap profiled molding that includes a delicate cyma recta set between a lower plain ovolo and an upper plain astragal. A wide staircase in between antae approaches the temple from the east. The temple, of the prostyle tetrastyle type, erected over a high podium, was presumably of the Corinthian order. A considerable number of its architectural elements, carved in soft limestone (travertine) and delicately plastered were found buried under the floor foundation of Temple Two. Those included column drums covered by white stucco and many fragments of Corinthian capitals including a complete marble one. The entablature consisted of delicately carved cornices and architrave members richly ornamented by colored fresco along with frieze members adorned by white stucco depicting elaborate floral patterns. Its inner walls were adorned by a colored fresco while its outer walls carried a white fresco imitating marble. All of those were dated by architectural style as well as by the fresco and stucco style to Herod’s reign, c. 20 BCE.10 The temple inner division to pronaos and naos is not yet clear as its inner walls foundations were later dismantled, once the second stage temple was erected.

Josephus states that Herod accompanied Augustus on his way back to the coast after Caesar successfully recovered the captured standards from Parthia (ca. 20 BCE). On his way back he built for Caesar a temple of white stone in the territory of Zenodorus, near the place called Paneion.13 The Macalester expedition, recently excavating the temple at Omrit, correctly refers to it as the most likely candidate, in the Paneas region, for the Augusteum (Sebasteion) built by Herod and dedicated to the genius of Caesar.14 If this identification is correct, then this is one of three temples erected according to Josephus by Herod and dedicated to the emperor. The other two were built in newly founded cities that bear Augustus’s titles: Sebaste (Ant. 15.298) and Caesarea (Ant. 15.339). The Augusteum at Sebaste, most probably the earliest of the three, was erected ca. 27 BCE within a monumental elevated temenos, approached by a wide staircase, with the temple set on the temenos axial line. In front of the steps the remains of a tower-like altar were revealed and nearby a torso of a marble cuirassed statue depicting an emperor was found.15 Nothing survives from the superstructure of the Augusteum at Caesarea, but the temple was built at the center of a spacious colonnaded temenos facing the harbor.16 Out of the three temples erected by Herod in honor of Caesar, the Augusteum in the region of Paneas seems to be the only one for which contemporary graphic evidence survives. The northern Augusteum is usually thought to be depicted on a coin minted by Herod’s son Phillip, the founder (ktistes) of Caesarea Phillipi (ca. 2 BCE). The temple depiction on the coin seems to reflect Temple One at Omrit as it 12 See the temples at Niha, Hossn Niha, Kasar Neba, Beka and Serain, all Roman temples of the same type, though their precise dates, either first or second centuries CE, cannot be always confirmed. Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, Pls. 117-18. The earliest Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek was erected some time later than 16 BCE or, at the latest, the early first century CE. The temples at Gerasa and Scythopolis are not earlier than the early first century CE. 13 The event known as the Parthian settlement of 20 BCE was of immense significance to Rome and Augustus. In his achievement report (Res gestae divi Augusti) it is widely referred to and Augustus was given a triumph for the return of the standards, although no actual battle was won. The event was also described by Cassius Dio: Augustus received (the standards and prisoners) as though he had defeated the Parthians in a war; he was proud, declaring that what had earlier been lost in battles he had won back without striking a blow. Thus supplicationes in honor of his achievement and a temple of Mars Ultor on the Capitol for the reception of the standards in imitation of that of Jupiter Feretrius, were decreed on his order and carried out by him. Moreover, he entered the city on horseback and was honored with an arch bearing trophies (54. 8. 23). See Rich 1998, 71-9. 14 See A. Overman, Ch. 1 above. 15 See Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942; Barag 1992; Netzer 1987. 16 Apart from some of the platform nothing else of that monumental temple survived. Kahn 1996; Kahn 1998.

The construction of a temple at the center of a rectangular temenos follows a deep rooted and customary Hellenistic tradition in the region that is well reflected in the Jupiter Temple at Baalbek, Jupiter Temple at Damascus, Artemis Temple at Gerasa and a few others.11 In most cases the temple was set at the central axis line of the temenos and 10 See S. Rozenberg, Ch. 5 below. All limestone blocks covered with red, black and yellow fresco were found in secondary use integrated into the second stage temple inner foundation walls including some crow step elements covered by red or black fresco. It seems that the temple’s classical cornice was capped by a parapet of crow step merlons in the old Persian manner as one can find in Bel Temple at Palmyra (Seyrig, Amy, and Will 1975, Pl. 141), the rock cut tombs at Petra (Browning 1973) and in some of the temples in the Syrian region (Ward-Perkins 1981, 321-22). 11 The origins of the monumental temenos with a central temple set on the compound axis line and approached by a grand propylaeum were first found in Ptolemaic Alexandria, though they rapidly spread to Asia Minor as well as to the west. Lyttelton (1974, 84-96, 204-54) refers to the monumental temenos as a typical Baroque style feature.

21

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

represents a tetrastyle temple facade of the Corinthian order erected over a podium with a wide staircase set in between antae. This type of temple reflects Rome’s temple influence and was therefore well chosen by Herod. Its best parallels outside of the region were found at Pula and Narona on the Dalmatian coast, at Nîmes (Colonia Augusta Nemausus) in southern France and at Pisidian Antioch.17

There is a clear political statement in Herod’s enterprises in the region, which concur with Augustus’s arrangements and Rome’s political and economic interests in the east, and last but not least with Herod’s political agenda. Founding Caesarea as the largest deep water harbor on the Mediterranean coast, affirming Sebaste as a buffer stronghold in northern Judea, and granting Ituraean territory to Herod secured Rome’s as well as Herod’s interests in Galilee and Ituraea. Declaring Caesar, by name, as founder (ktistes) of both cities and erecting in them temples dedicated to the ruler cult is a profound statement of Herod’s loyalty to his patron. While the temples at Caesarea and Sebaste were built in an urban context, the northern temple, whether it was located at Omrit or Banias, was set in a more rural area. The site at Omrit, however, is at a strategic point of reference for Rome’s interests in the region and Herod’s control. The Augusteum is first and foremost a declaration of Herod’s loyal friendship with Caesar. Josephus states that:

Rome’s policy in the east did not change radically after Pompey’s pact with Ptolemy son of Menaeus inaugurated Ituraea as a buffer zone against Parthia. Following Crassus’s campaign against Parthia, that ended at Carrhae in a colossal disaster of captured legions and lost standards, Julius Caesar planned and Marc Antony attempted another campaign against Parthia. The failure of this mission once again compromised Rome’s interests in the east.18 Following Actium, the shift to an empire ruled by a princeps marked a profound change in Rome’s foreign policy. As observed by Kennedy, from the Parthian point of view: “the Parthians were no longer confronted by competing and rotating generals acting with or without the approval of Senate and People but by a far more predictable foreign policy of a monarch and an empire.”19

Altogether he (Herod) reached such a height of good fortune that as for the two who ruled the mighty Roman Empire, Caesar and next to him Agrippa, to whom he was devoted, there was no one after Agrippa whom Caesar held in greater esteem than Herod, while Agrippa gave Herod the first place in his friendship after Caesar. (Ant. 15.361)

The Parthian settlement of 20 BCE is therefore a clear manifestation of Augustus’s attitude and objectives regarding his eastern policy. It peacefully regained Rome’s honor, though it now became clear to Augustus that new arrangements were required in order to pacify the region and consolidate Rome’s interests in the east. To that end he found in Herod a real asset (Ant. 15.361). The Ituraean principality was thus disintegrated. The Phoenician coast came under Roman control and major urban centers (autonomous poleis) such as Tyre, Byblos, Heliopolis, Chalcis and Abila gradually annexed growing territories (ȤȫȡĮ). In the south, Herod acquired the territories of Bashan, Hauran and Trachon and soon after Zenodorus death, as Josephus stated: “Caesar therefore gave his territory, which was not small, to Herod. It lay between Trachonitis and Galilee, and contained Ulatha and Paneas and the surrounding country” (Ant. 15.360).20

Yet it seems that the Augusteum at Omrit carries another declarative meaning. Besides being a temple dedicated to the ruler cult, a symbol of friendship and loyalty to the genius of Herod’s patron, it may also be a trophy temple, declaring Herod’s greatness and achievements, as it is erected at the border of the territory taken from the late Zenodorus and given to Herod.21 While building the Augusteum at Omrit, Herod deliberately dismantled and buried within its foundations the Early Shrine, which might have commemorated Republican Rome’s aggressive policy in the east. Thus building a temple on this spot can be seen as a declarative act that symbolically marks Augustus’ most celebrated political achievementthe signis receptis. The Herodian period temple was later renovated and turned into a larger peripteral temple (35.5 x 22.2 m – 120 x 75 R.F.).22 A new podium was built surrounding the former one from three sides and new antae and a wider staircase were erected on the fourth. The new podium is of the same height, masonry and construction method as the former one and it has the same base and cap molding profiles. The temple was thus rebuilt, reusing the earlier

17 Lyttelton 1987, 38-49; Fischer 1996; Martin 2001, 80-112; Balty 1960; Amy and Gros 1979; Mitchell 1983, 9-11. 18 In 92 BCE Sulla reached the Euphrates (Plutarch, Sulla 5) and met with embassies sent by Mithridates II. He refused to recognize the land between the Tigris and Euphrates as Parthia’s western border and thus marked for centuries to come Rome’s policy towards Parthia. According to Plutarch “Rome had a difficult time recalling the terms of treaties with Parthia” (Life of Crassus 16). It is not clear how far the Iturean expansion in Galilee really reached, though Cassius’s retreat from Carrhae after the death of Crassus brought him to Tarichaeae on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Ant. 14.120). This might indicate Iturean control over the northern Galilee region, prior to Herod. As for the Iturean policy see Schürer 1973-1979, 216-18, 561-73; Jones 1931, 26375; Kasher 1988, 18-19, 42-5, 48-84, 110-22; Hartal 2005. 19 Kennedy 1996, 82. The change also shifted the balance of power, as unlike former campaigns launched by governors or generals assembling a limited number of legions now Parthia was confronted with the entire might of the Roman Empire. 20 According to Josephus (B.J. i. 399) Augustus appointed Herod “procurator of all Syria” though it seems that Coele Syria should be

read. See Jones 1931, 263-75. Kasher 1984, 18-41; Dar 1984, 42-50; Dar 1991, 3-11. 21 Herod was not the first to present the ruler cult to the region. Julius Casesar constructed buildings known as Caesarea in both Alexandria and Antioch. (Sjoqvist 1954, 86-108; Ward-Perkins and Balance 1958, 137-94). The quadriporticus compound with the basilica that Herod built on the temple mount at Jerusalem closely resembles the Caesareum prototype and might reflect a meaningful architectural influence (Foerster 1976, 971-1006). 22 See plan and order reconstruction of Temple Two in Nelson, Ch. 3 below.

22

G. MAZOR: THE TEMPLE AT OMRIT: A STUDY IN ARCHITECTURAL AND POLITICAL ICONOGRAPHY

stage masonry blocks in its inner stylobate foundation walls and it now integrates in its outer face walls masonry constructed pilasters. The surrounding colonnade and parallel pilasters are of the Corinthian order constructed with stucco fluted column drums. The entablature was richly decorated, its profile and floral ornaments deeply carved into the stone and then designed in white stucco. Both inside and outside wall faces were covered with frescoes. Inside the temple a 1.5 m wide wall with a centralized door divided the inner space into a pronaos, ca. 10 m long, 7.80 m wide, and naos, ca. 9 m long, 7.80 m wide. At the back of the temple some stylobate foundation walls were revealed indicating that an adyton, ca. 4.5 m long and 7.80 m wide was raised from the naos floor by some steps, presumably adorned by columns and a canopied gabled entablature. The surrounding temenos was paved with heavy basalt stone pavers, set diagonally to the temple steps. In front of the temple, on its central axis line several new altars were constructed. During that stage the paved street that led into the temenos was presumably renovated as well and a colonnaded portico was erected along the street’s western side.

arched canopy is customarily adorned by a colonnaded façade of the Corinthian order. It is divided into three segments by perpendicular columns, which carry a richly decorated entablature with a Syrian-type pediment.27 Its most elaborate versions were best preserved in the Temple of Bacchus at Baalbek and Temple A at Niha. The raised canopied adyton was also observed in various temples in the Syrian region as Temples A and B at Hössn Sfiri, the Temple of Atargatis at Kalat Fakra, and several other temples that were found at Kasr Neba, and Medjdal Andjar. In some of Mt. Hermon temples as at Nebi Safa, Hibbariya, Der el Ashair and Ain Hersha that type of adyton was found as well.28 As J.A. Overman already pointed out, the policy of Rome in the east, throughout the Flavian period did not basically change from that of the Augustan era.29 Urban centers all over Provincia Syria flourished, developed and expanded. A process evident as well at the urban centers of the former Ituraean principality, as for instance at Baalbek, Abila and Paneas. It is most likely that at the same time the Augusteum in the region of Paneas was monumentally renovated as well, possibly initiated under Ulpius Traianus, the father of the future emperor Trajan. G. Bowersock observed a similar process in Palmyra and a shift in political power from Nabataean Jordan towards the north and Provincia Syria, as evidenced by the development of Gerasa and Bostra.30

The type of a monumental, peripteral temple, erected over a podium in the lavish Corinthian order, reflects Rome’s imperial temple architecture at its best. The Corinthian capitals, both of the free standing columns and the pilasters and the type of frescoes were analyzed and subsequently dated Temple Two to the second half of the first century CE, i.e. the Flavian period.23 Pottery and glass finds related to that stage collaborate that dating. The Flavian stage temple at Omrit was presumably destroyed three centuries later by the earthquake of 363 CE.24

During the Flavian period, Rome was concerned with empire-wide unrest following the civil war. While Titus was left to conclude the war against the Jews, Vespasian focused on the persistent Parthian threat.31 Assisted by Ulpius Traianus, Vespasian negotiated alliances with Parthia and Armenia while Lesser Armenia was annexed and Cappadocia became a consular province holding two legions. At the time, Pliny reports that southern Syria (Galilee) and Ituraea remained an even more crucial buffer zone between the Roman east and Parthia (NH 5.88). As stated by J.A. Overman “Vespasian was well aware of the importance of this region in terms of winning the civil struggle to emerge as Emperor and to maintain the Pax following his ascension.” According to G. Bowersock, Ulpius Traianus’ appointment as governor of Syria during the years 73/74-77/78 seems to be part of Vespasian’s eastern policy.32 As stated by R. Syme “Traianus may have been Vespasian’s principal agent in the ordering of the whole frontier and its defenses, from the Armenian mountains to the desert of Arabia.”33 In his panegyric to Trajan, Pliny the Younger (Pan. 16.1) states that the emperor’s father received the ornamenta triumphalia for his services in Syria. He also mentions a

Temple Two, a hexastyle, peripteral temple, erected over a high podium in a monumental Corinthian order, approached by a wide staircase set in between antae, is quite a common type in the region. It represents the new imperial architectural evolution of the late first and second century CE that is well characterized in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire by its monumental baroque style. At Baalbek this new architectural trend reaches its peak in the monumental temple of Jupiter and its elaborate court. In Jordan it is best represented at Gerasa in the Temple of Zeus and at Philadelphia in the Great Temple.25 In the regions of Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and Mt. Hermon similar presentations of the type were found in both temples A and B at Hössn Sfiri, and in the temples at Der el Ashair and Medjdel Andjar.26 Apart from the basic and quite common plan the main characteristic feature of those Lebanese temples is their distinctive interior with their highly articulated canopied adyton, constructed over a raised platform and approached by a wide staircase. That

27

For the characteristics of the type see Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, 285-90; Ward-Perkins 1981, 322-23; Wilson 2000, 55-6. 28 Schulz and Winnefeld, Taf. 17; Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, Taf. 18, 21, 55, 66, 74, 85, 112, Abb. 392. 29 Overman 2004. 30 According to Bowersock, Traianus as the governor of Syria might have been involved in the regional economic and cultural development (Bowersock 1973). 31 Overman 2004,287-98; Bowersock 1973, 133-40. 32 Overman 2004, 287-98; Bowersock 1973, 134-35. 33 Syme R. 1958. Tacitus P.31.

23 Fischer 1990, 59-61. As for the fresco dating see Rozenberg, Ch. 5 below. 24 Russell 1980, 47-64. 25 Lyttelton 1974, 84-96, 204-54; Krencker, von Lupke, and Schulz 1923; Kraeling 1938; Kanellopoulus 1994. 26 Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, 20-34, Taf. 15, 18, 182-91, Taf. 74, 256-64, Taf. 112.

23

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Parthica laurus. The possibility of joint forces between the kings of Commagene and Parthia against Roman interests in the region resulted in the annexation of Commagene by Rome. Its city at the river crossing became Flavia Samosata, and the headquarters of the XVI Flavia legion.34 Rome also rapidly sends Titus to the east, following the suppression of the Jewish revolt, in order to negotiate with Parthia and restore the status quo.

between Galilee and Ituraea for over three more centuries. It seems that it was finally destroyed by a severe earthquake on May 363 CE never to be rebuilt. Bibliography AMY, R. and GROS, P. 1979. La Maison Carrée de Nímes. Paris, Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

For the Emperor Trajan, who accompanied his father in the Flavian efforts to consolidate and pacify the east, it became clear that an aggressive change of policy and emphasis was required in order to fulfill Rome’s “grand strategy” in the east. Under Trajan, a military campaign against Parthia that intended to acquire and annex territory beyond the Euphrates was initiated. At the same time some administrative and strategic rearrangements were required in the eastern region of Provincia Syria. The Nabataean kingdom was annexed in 106 CE and Provincia Arabia was established with its capital at Bostra, also serving as a legionary camp.35 The construction of the Via Nova Traiana connected Aila with Damascus and provided a crucial and strategic highway along Transjordan limes. Finally, Ituraea was strongly affiliated with Damascus, Bostra, and Provincia Syria. The thoroughly prepared campaign of 114-17 CE took Roman legions beyond the Euphrates. It gained Trajan four imperial salutations in 115 while the capture of the Parthian capital Ctesiphon gained him the title Parthicus. At Dura-Europus a triumphal arch was built to commemorate his achievements and coins were issued with the legend PARTHIA CAPTA. Dio states that while looking across the Persian Gulf towards India, the emperor regretted his old age that prevented him from following in Alexander’s footsteps (Dio 68.29.1). The eastern provinces were rearranged and between the Tigris and Euphrates the new province of Assyria was established. Yet rising seeds of revolt in the newly acquired territories, as well as in the old ones, required the emperor’s attention and an immediate retreat from Parthia. Trajan’s death at Selinus in Cilicia, on his way back to Rome, in August 117 CE marked the end of his Parthian expedition and thus his ambitious eastern policy. His successor, Hadrian, known to have a different approach towards Pax Romana, removed Roman legions from Parthia and entirely altered Rome’s aggressive policy in the East, resurrecting in the years to come the more moderate policy of the Augustan era.

BALTY, J.Ch. 1960. Études sur la Maison Carrée de Nímes. Brussels, Latomus. BARAG, D. 1992. Herod’s Royal Castle at SamariaSebaste. Eretz Israel 23, 293-301 (Hebrew). BIRAN, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. BOWERSOCK, G.W. 1970. The Annexation and Initial Garrison of Arabia. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 5, 37-47. BOWERSOCK, G.W. 1971. A Report on Arabia Provincia. Journal of Roman Studies 61, 219-28. BOWERSOCK, G.W. 1973. Syria Under Vespasian. Journal of Roman Studies 63, 133-40. BOWERSOCK, G.W. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. BROWNING, I. 1973. Petra. London, Chatto & Windus. CROWFOOT, J.W., KENYON, K.M. and SUKENIK, E.L. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria. London, Palestine Exploration Fund. DAR, S. 1984. Mount Hermon – An Iturean Stronghold. Cathedra 33, 42-50 (Hebrew). DAR, S. 1991. The Geographical Region of the Hasmonean-Iturean Encounter. Cathedra 59, 3-11 (Hebrew). DAR, S. 1993. Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel. (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 589). Oxford, BAR Publishing. FISCHER, G. 1996. Das römische Pola: eine archäologische Stadtgeschichte. Munich, Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. FISCHER, M. 1990. Das korinthische Kapitell im Alten Israel in der hellenistischen und römischen Periode. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern.

The temple-site at Omrit, presumably a monumental manifestation of architectural and political iconography of Rome’s foreign policy in the East, was still standing throughout as a prominent landmark on the border

FOERSTER, G. 1976. Art and Architecture in Palestine. In S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.). The Jewish people in the first century. Historical geography, political history, social, cultural and religious life and institutions II, 971-1006. Assen, Van Gorcum.

34 As stated by Bowersock “The subjugation of Commagene, the annexation of Lesser Armenia, and the strengthening of Cappadocia are manifestly parts of a single policy of establishing firm Roman control west of the Euphrates.” He also argues that Traianus’s triumphal decoration for the Syrian command and the Parthian laurel might imply some degree of military confrontation with the Parthians, though its extent is difficult to deduce (Bowersock 1973, 135). 35 Cassius Dio 68.14; Bowersock 1970, 37-47; Bowersock 1971, 21928; Bowersock 1983. As for Trajan’s Parthian war, see Lepper 1948; Lightfoot 1990, 115-26.

FUKS, G. 1983. Scythopolis-A Greek City in EretzIsrael. Jerusalem, Yad Yitshak Ben-Tsvi (Hebrew). HARTAL, M. 2005. Land of the Itureans. Qazrin, Institute of Golan Research (Hebrew). JONES, A.H.M. 1931. The Urbanization of the Iturean Principality. Journal of Roman Studies 21, 26375. 24

G. MAZOR: THE TEMPLE AT OMRIT: A STUDY IN ARCHITECTURAL AND POLITICAL ICONOGRAPHY

KAHN, L.C. 1996. King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima. In A Raban and K.G. Holum (eds.). Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millennia, 130-45. Leiden-New YorkCologne, Brill.

NETZER, E. 1987. The Augusteum at Samaria-Sebaste: A New Outlook. Eretz Israel 19, 97-105 (Hebrew). OVERMAN, J.A. 2004. The Importance of the Iturean Principality According to Josephus and his Contemporaries. In A. Avery-Peck et al., When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of A. J. Saldarini, 278-98. Leiden, Brill.

KAHN, L.C. 1998. King Herod’s Temple to Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima. In A. Ovadiah (ed.). The Harvard Gilman International Conference I. Hellenistic and Jewish Arts: Interaction and Renewal, 123-42. Tel-Aviv, Ramot.

RICH, J.W. 1998. Augustus’s Parthian Honors, The Temple of Mars Ultor and the Arch in the Forum Romanum. Proceedings of the British School at Rome 61, 71-9.

KANELLOPOULUS, C. 1994. The Great Temple of Amman. Amman, American Center of Oriental Research.

ROLL, I. 1999. The Roads in Roman-Byzantine, Palestine and Arabia. In M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds.), The Madaba Map Centenary 1897-1997, 10913. Jerusalem, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.

KASHER, A. 1984. Jews and Itureans in the Hasmonean Period. Cathedra 33, 18-41 (Hebrew).

ROLL, I. 2002. Crossing the Rift Valley: The Connecting Arteries Between the Road Network of Judaea/ Palestina and Arabia. In P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema, and B. Hoffmann (eds.), Limes XVIII. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1084. I:215-30. Oxford, BAR Publishing.

KASHER, A. 1988. Edom, Arabia and Israel. Jerusalem, Yad Yitshak Ben-Tsvi (Hebrew). [In English: Jews, Idumaeans, and ancient Arabs: relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the nations of the frontier and the desert during the Hellenistic and Roman era (332 BCE – 70 CE). Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 18. Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr.]

RUSSELL, K.W. 1980. The Earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238, 47-64.

KENNEDY, D. 1996. Parthia and Rome: eastern perspectives. In D. Kennedy, ed. The Roman Army in the East, 67-90. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Sup. 18) Ann Arbor, Journal of Roman Archaeology.

SCHULZ, B. and WINNEFELD, H. 1921. Baalbek I-II. Berlin, de Gruyter.

KRAELING, C.H. 1938 Gerasa City of the Decapolis. New Haven, American Schools of Oriental Research.

SCHÜRER, E. 1973-1979. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). Revised and Edited by Vermes, G. and Millar, F. Edinburg, Clark.

KRENCKER, D.M. and ZSCHIETZSCHMANN, W. 1938. Römische Tempel in Syrien. Berlin-Leipzig, de Gruyter. KRENCKER, D., von LUPKE, Th. and SCHULZ, B. 1923. Baalbek II. Berlin and Leipzig, de Gruyter.

SEYRIG, H., AMY, R. and WILL, E. 1975. Le Temple de Bel a Palmyre. Paris, Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner, Pl. 141.

LEPPER, F.A. 1948. Trajan’s Parthian War. London, Oxford University Press.

SJOQVIST, E. 1954. Kaisareion. A Study in Architectural Iconography. Opuscula Romana 1, 86-108. TSAFRIR, Y., Di SEGNI, L. and GREEN, J. 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani (Judaea Palestina). Jerusalem, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

LIGHTFOOT, C.S. 1990. Trajan’s Parthian War and the Fourth-Century Perspective. Journal of Roman Studies 80, 115-26. LYTTELTON, M. 1974. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. London, Thames and Hudson.

WARD-PERKINS, J.B. 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture. 2nd ed. London, Harmondsworth, Middlesex; New York: Penguin Books.

LYTTELTON, M. 1987. The Design and Planning of Temples and Sanctuaries in Asia Minor in the Roman Imperial Period. In S. Macready and F.H. Thomson (eds.). Roman Architecture in the Greek World, 3849. London, Society of Antiquaries of London.

WARD-PERKINS, J.B. and BALANCE, M.H. 1958. The Caesareum at Cyrene and the Basilica at Cremna. Proceedings of the British School at Rome 26, 13794.

MAOZ, Z.U. Forthcoming. Paneion I: Excavations at the Sanctuary of Pan at Caesarea Philippi 1988-1993. IAA Reports. Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority.

WIEGAND, Th. (ed.) 1921-23. Baalbek. Berlin-Leipzig, de Gruyter. WIEGAND, Th. 1932. Palmyra. Berlin, H. Keller.

MARTIN, E. 2001. The Temple of the Imperial Cult (Augusteum) at Narona and its Statues: An Interim Report. Journal of Roman Archaeology 14, 80-112.

WILL, E. 1949. La tour funéraire de la Syrie et les monuments Apparentés. Syria 26, 258-313. WILSON, J.M. 2000. Principles of Roman Architecture. New Haven, Yale University Press.

MITCHELL, S. 1983. Survey at Pisidian Antioch. Anatolian Studies 33, 9-11.

25

Chapter Three A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA Michael C. Nelson

Fig. 03.01 Topographic Plan (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) though at times only trickles, and over the centuries has cut deeply into the underlying basalt bedrock of the ridge especially to the south and east of the temple complex. To the west and just below the ridge, the wadis converge and eventually drain into the fertile Hula Valley. The topography to the south and west of the plateau drops off rapidly while to the north and beyond the wadi, the land steadily rises up to Tel Azzaziyat.

THE SETTING AND HISTORICAL OUTLINE The Roman temple area of Omrit is situated on a flat plateau at the west end of a low, finger-like ridge that stretches down westward from the Golan Heights towards and overlooking the Hula valley [Fig. 03.01].1 The ridge is bounded on the north and south by two wadis. The north wadi is seasonal and usually dries up by the high point of summer. The south wadi constantly flows,

The first monumental building, the Early Shrine, was quite small in comparison to the later temples and had a footprint of approximately 8.38 x 5.13 meters. Temple

1

The site of Omrit is located at NIG 25222/79153 (New Israeli Grid), or, 33.218367° latitude north and 35.662737° longitude.

27

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 03.02 Preliminary Reconstruction of the front facade of Temple Two (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 03.03 Podium Profiles of the Early Shrine, Temple One and Temple Two (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

One, built in the late 1st century BCE, partially destroyed and completely concealed the Early Shrine. Temple Two was built in the late 1st century CE and both enlarged Temple One with the addition of a peristyle and reconfigured the interior cella space. Each temple was

canonically Roman in elevation and for ease of discussion I break down the elevation into three basic parts: foundation, podium and superstructure, or the temple proper [Fig. 03.02]. The foundations survive intact for all three temples. They were founded directly 28

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

Fig. 03.04 Square C6, Archaeological Section of North Balk (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

podium wall. The area to the north and east of Temple Two seems to have been set aside as a cemetery at this time.

on bedrock and supported the podium. In each temple’s finished state, either a packed dirt surface or a stone slab pavement concealed the foundations from view. In profile, the podium of each temple consisted of a base molding, a dado course composed of one or two ashlar courses, and a crown molding [Fig. 03.03]. The podiums were discovered in various states of preservation, but sufficient evidence survives to reconstruct their plan and elevation. Above the podium sat the superstructure which was the portion of the elevation beginning with the stylobate, or temple floor, and included everything above it up to the cornice and raking cornice. The topmost element in the elevation, the cyma, has not been found for any of the three temples. The superstructure suffered the worst in antiquity and for the most part it is now missing from the podium of each building phase.

The following discussion presents a preliminary overview of the architecture of the temple area at Omrit.2

THE EARLY SHRINE COMPOUND: THE IN SITU ARCHITECTURE The Early Shrine Compound is not yet fully excavated and although it was significantly destroyed when the later foundation wall, wF4, of Temple One was inserted, its foundations and podium are astonishingly well preserved [Fig. 03.05]. The foundations, which consist of two courses of ashlar masonry, sit directly on the unworked and uneven bedrock [Fig. 03.06]. Chinking stones were used to compensate for the irregular bedrock surface and to level the first course of blocks.

Occupation continued in the temple area after the Roman period with two discernible building periods: Byzantine (mid-late 4th to 7th century CE) and 13th century CE. Temple Two, particularly its podium, was partially standing in both periods and therefore provided an easily reusable and adaptable structure. Its fallen blocks and block fragments also offered a ready supply of building material. Most telling of the long history of Omrit are the three discernible pavements discovered on the south side of the temple podium near its west end. As seen in the stratigraphic elevation of the excavated square C6 [Fig. 03.04], three paved surfaces superimposed one atop the other, correspond to the major occupation phases at Omrit: Roman (coinciding with Temple Two), Byzantine and 13th century. Elsewhere, a small, single apse church was built in the area of the altar and portions of Temple Two were re-used in the Byzantine period. In the 13th century, two, perhaps, three small structures were set within the porch and cella area of Temple Two and another one erected immediately to the south of its south

Wall wF4 essentially cut the Early Shrine into two pieces. On the west side of wF4, the west and south walls of the podium stand to the height of the base molding, and the east and north walls stand to the height of the crown molding.3 The walls were built as shell walls with an outer and inner face of ashlar masonry encasing a core of rubble and mud. A thin layer of white plaster was applied to the outer face of the entire podium. Over the dado 2

The temple architecture of Omrit will be treated in detail and exclusively in a forthcoming volume. Byzantine activity occurred in the area of the temenos of Omrit and this will also be surveyed in greater detail in a later publication. 3 The long axis of each of the three temples aligns more or less northwest-southeast. For ease of discussion, I rotate the long axis 45 degrees counter-clockwise so that the temples’ northeast side becomes its north side, the southeast side becomes the east side, and so forth.

29

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 03.05 Shrine, state plan (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) slightly larger than B because wall wP0-5 does not divide the interior space of the podium equally into two halves. The wall is approximately 2.16 m. long and at its eastern end, a doorway or passage pierces the wall and connects the two chambers. Basalt spanning slabs and a poured concrete floor, ca. 0.12 m thick and serving as the stylobate, cover the chambers.

course, the plaster was molded into raised relief panels which give the visual impression of marble veneer or white marble ashlar blocks with drafted margins [Fig. 03.06]. The stucco is so well preserved that the string lines used by the stuccoists to lay out the vertical and horizontal lines of the panels can still been seen in the white plaster. This type of wall decoration executed in the same manner has been found in Late Hellenistic domestic structures at Tel Anafa4 and Tel Kedesh.5

The portion of the podium on the east side of the wall wF4 is completely intact, from the base molding up to the crown molding [Fig. 03.07]. Here too the plaster and stucco of the podium walls are preserved entirely. The stylobate on this side, also consisting of poured concrete bounded on all fours sides of the podium with a single course of limestone blocks, is largely intact aside from the destruction caused by wall wF4. Whether or not a chamber or set of rooms exist underneath the floor is unknown.

Fig. 03.06 Early Shrine, north podium wall (from north), 2006 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) This portion of the podium, which supported the now missing cella that stood above it, contains two chambers (labeled A and B in Fig. 03.5) separated by an ashlar wall of single wythe (wP0-5) construction. Chamber A is

Fig. 03.07 Early Shrine, stylobate, steps, platform, and temenos wall (from west), 2009 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

4

Herbert 1994, 64. 5 Herbert and Berlin 2003: see sections on the Hellenistic building.

30

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

Above the stylobate, the superstructure, or temple proper, of the Early Shrine is missing save for one Attic-style column base and the lowest course of blocks of the cella’s north wall.6 However, numerous blocks belonging to the superstructure have been recovered in the excavations and are discussed below.

currently visible, the wall consisted of three parts in elevation: a foundation, a dado, and a superstructure. The foundation is 1-2 centimeters thicker than the dado and consists of a single course of ashlar masonry leveled with chinking stones. The dado consists of three ashlar courses. The lower two courses were set double wythe and the upper course set single wythe, that is, the slabs of the top course span the entire thickness of the wall. Fragments of white plaster still adhere to the west face of the foundation. The superstructure was thinner than the dado and was built of ashlar set double wythe, but a portion of the east face consists of rubble masonry which suggests that it may have been repaired or rebuilt during its lifetime. The west face of the superstructure does not survive, but a preserved plastered lip indicates a missing course of ashlar blocks. The east face survives, although in a poor state of preservation, and it was covered completely in fresco [Fig. 03.09]. Evident from the in situ fragments, a white horizontal stripe below a red panel was painted on a predominantly black background.7

A raised platform was built against the east face of the Early Shrine’s podium [Figs. 5 and 7]. It was constructed of ashlar blocks used as a facing for a core of basalt rubble. The platform extends a little more than four meters to the east of the shrine where it abuts the threshold of a doorway piercing a temenos wall. The threshold consists of two large limestone slabs. Door pivots were sunk into the top of each slab just inside, or west of, the flanking jambs. The door was double-leaf and swung inwards towards the front of the Early Shrine.

Fig. 03.09 Structure F, east face with preserved fresco (from east), 2006 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) Fig. 03.08 Early Shrine, temenos wall with red panel fresco (from west), 2009 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Two fresco-covered statue or basin bases were built into the north and south face of the platform [Figs. 03.07 and 03.10]. The south base is preserved to its full height, about 80 cm above the floor of the platform. It is square in plan and its elevation consists of a beveled foot molding, a dado and a beveled crown molding. All four sides of the base were coated in fresco bearing a faux marble pattern. Fragmentary white plaster on the top surface of the base preserves a circle-shaped raised lip that indicates a missing basin of some sort with a circular foot or a statue with a similar footprint. The north base is missing its upper blocks including its crown molding, but it too was frescoed in the same manner as its southern counterpart.

The temenos wall was built with ashlar blocks, set double wythe, with both faces of the wall covered in frescoes. Several coats remain on the wall faces, which were obviously applied over time as continual maintenance or updating. A solid red panel, edged with faint white lines was frescoed on the west face of the preserved portion of the temenos wall south of the threshold [Fig. 03.08]. Another portion of the temenos wall, Structure F, was discovered on the west side of the Early Shrine. It is not yet fully excavated and therefore its entire length is unknown. The south end of the wall was destroyed or dismantled apparently for the construction of the podium of Temple One. The north end is currently concealed by unexcavated earth, but most likely ran up to and beyond the north podium wall of Temple One. From the portion

A staircase was built both on top of the platform and against the east wall of the Early Shrine’s podium [Fig. 03.07]. The staircase has three limestone steps terminated on the south and north by ashlar anta walls, or parotids. The parotids were built of stacked ashlar blocks, all

6

The column base was removed from the podium and the site for safekeeping in the excavation storerooms.

7

31

See Rozenberg, (Ch. 5 below).

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

nicely cut to create tight joints between courses and individual blocks, and coated entirely in white plaster.

Fig. 03.11 Early Shrine, façade reconstruction (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) Fig. 03.10 Early Shrine, south frescoed base of the platform (from northeast), 2009 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

excavations immediately to the east of the podium. A thin coat of white plaster survives about its entire circumference with no fluting of any sort, either incised or molded. A Corinthian capital was found sitting directly on the north podium wall. Key blocks of the entablature have also been recovered: architraves, friezes, cornices and pediment blocks. The frieze was pulvinated and its sculptural program of a continuous floral scroll was executed in molded stucco. The profile of the cornice was typical of the Corinthian order, however, it lacked dentils. This omission is characteristic of the cornice of the later temples at Omrit as well. The cornice blocks show various states of finishing and indicate that the Early Shrine’s last phase may not have been completed before it was destroyed or dismantled for Temple One. In the cornice’s finished state, four-pedal rosettes occupied the coffers, but on some blocks, the flowers had only been simply roughed out to look like raised disks or tongues while on other blocks the rosettes had been fully carved. Four of the six pediment blocks have been found. All four preserve their original stucco relief sculpture although it is in very poor condition. It is clear that there was a broad-pedaled flower in the center of the composition with flanking acanthus leaves or winged creatures of some unknown sort.8

THE EARLY SHRINE COMPOUND: PRELIMINARY RECONSTRUCTION At this time in the excavations at Omrit, reconstruction of the Early Shrine Compound must be considered preliminary. This small building underwent two phases of construction. During its first phase, it seems to have been simply a podium-based structure with no obvious means of access or approach. What this building actually looked like in its finished state is difficult to determine because nothing survives above the podium and the podium itself shows evidence of reuse or reconfiguration associated with the Early Shrine’s second phase. In the second construction phase, the platform, temenos wall and staircase were added. The platform literally created a bridge between the doorway in the temenos wall and the Early Shrine. These additions transformed the building into a formal temple compound built for periodic use. In the Shrine’s second or last phase, the elevation of the front facade can be reconstructed from the architecture discovered both in situ and contained within the fill covering and surrounding the podium [Fig. 03.11]. The column base found in its original position and fragments of plaster still surviving on the stylobate indicate a tetraprostyle plan for the Shrine’s second and last phase. The interaxial dimension between the two central columns on the façade was slightly longer than the interaxial between the corner columns on both the front and the flank. The architectural order of the building was Corinthian. One column drum was recovered in the

Other recovered blocks indicate the exterior flank walls of the cella incorporated pilasters, unfluted like the freestanding columns, with Corinthian capitals cut with floral compositions matching those of the column capitals [Fig. 03.12]. The exterior walls seem also to have bore stucco relief decoration, such as acanthus flowers [Fig. 8

In the reconstruction drawing, the central flower is shown, but the flanking reliefs are not.

32

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

Structure F’s foundation and superstructure could comfortably support a wall rising one story in height, or 2.5 – 3 meters high. The top of the wall was finished with a formal entablature of an epikranitis supporting alternating triglyphs and metopes crowned with a simple cornice [Fig. 03.14]. Finally, merlon blocks, each frescoed in a solid color of red, black or ochre, capped the entablature.

Fig. 03.12 Early Shrine, pilaster capital, 2006 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 03.14 Early Shrine, Doric triglyph and metope and cornice reconstructed in excavation storeroom, 2006 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) TEMPLE ONE, IN SITU REMAINS The foot print of the podium of Temple One is ca. 25.24 x 13.16 meters10, which is more than seven times larger than its predecessor, the Early Shrine [Fig. 03.15]. The podium and its foundations are in very good condition and the walls of both were built as shell walls with an inner and outer face of ashlar masonry and a core of rubble and mud, similar to the walls of the Early Shrine. On the south side, the foundation wall supporting podium wall wP1-3 runs five courses deep and sits directly on bedrock.11 The podium’s profile is typical with a base molding, a dado of two ashlar courses, and crown molding [Fig. 03.03].

Fig. 03.13 Early Shrine, wall block with stucco relief acanthus flower, 2006 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

The construction of the podium also included a cross wall, wF4, which bonds with the south (wP1-3) and north (wP1-1) walls. It was built in the same manner as the podium walls, with two faces of ashlar masonry, and was also founded directly on bedrock. As seen on the west face, the masonry of wF4 is not uniform [Fig. 03.16]. The south portion was finished similar to the interior faces of Temple One’s podium walls, that is, roughly chiseled flat and even across the entire wall’s surface. The blocks of the north portion were hammer finished with roughly chiseled drafted margins characteristic of the interior faces of the Temple Two’s podium. A lime-based mortar or grout was used in this portion of the wall as well. The different finishing states indicate a later repair to or rebuilding of wall wF4 perhaps coinciding with the construction of Temple Two.

03.13]. The interior cella walls were frescoed and built with the same entablature as the exterior: architrave, frieze, and cornice. However, the interior architraves were frescoed in multiple colors, predominately red, and the cornices gilded. The thickness of the rear podium wall and a number of arched architraves indicate the interior of the cella incorporated a semi-circular, semi-domed apse at the west end. The arched architraves were also frescoed; the fascias were painted in separate colors, including red, black and a purplish color. The temenos wall probably completely enclosed the Early Shrine. It was frescoed both on its interior and exterior face and the surviving plaster on Structure F suggests that plain white plaster coated the exterior while the interior was frescoed with faux marble panels.9 The width of

10 9

11

See Rozenberg in Ch. 5 below.

33

This measurement does not include the temple’s steps. Excavations were carried down to bedrock in square F6.

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 03.15 Temples One and Two, State Plan Drawing Legend; wF = foundation wall wP = podium wall CP = column plinth (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 03.16 Foundation Wall wF4, west face (from nort-west), 2006 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit north)

Fig. 03.17 Temple One, steps (from east), 2005 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

On the east, the steps of Temple One still stand partially intact [Fig. 03.17]. They do not extend the full breadth of the front façade, but are slightly narrower, and abut the podium’s east wall (wP1-4). The staircase consists of three parts: a supporting core composed of rubble and mud leveled at various elevations with thin layers of concrete or grout; two ashlar walls at the south and north ends which served as retaining walls for the core material; and limestone treads. The core matrix and the staircase retaining walls include fragments of blocks taken from the Early Shrine. The masonry of the south side retaining wall has been exposed and consists of two

courses of ashlar blocks laid in an alternating header and stretcher fashion. The headers served as tie-backs; the core material held the stretchers in place while at the same time they resisted the outward pressure of the core. The average height of each stair tread is ca. 0.21 meters and the tread width, or run, varies, but seems to follow a pattern of two short treads and one long. Above the podium nothing survives of Temple One. Portions of the stylobate remain in situ, but these may belong to Temple Two. Temple One’s original plan and elevation are discussed below.

34

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

Fig. 03.18 Altar Area, state plan (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

were built with ashlar masonry enclosing a core of rubble and mud.

Temple One sat within a basalt slab-paved temenos. In situ pavement can be seen in Fig. 03.17 abutting the steps of the Temple One. An altar was built to the east of the podium and aligned on its central long axis. It is in a poor state of preservation [Fig. 03.18]. Following what seems to have been the norm for the temple builders of Omrit, the altar was founded on bedrock and consists of a foundation and a superstructure. Basalt pavement originally concealed the foundation walls entirely. Much of the pavement remains intact and therefore the exact dimensions of the foundations cannot be measured. On the west, where the pavement was ripped out sometime in antiquity, the foundations run two courses deep with the lowest one sitting on bedrock and leveled with chinking stones. In its original form, the platform rose as a threestepped pyramidal structure. Two steps partially survive on the west and south sides, and weathering lines here indicate a third step. The steps enclosed a core of rubble and mud and the footprint of the altar, measured at the pavement level, is 5.57 by 5.61 meters. The superstructure of the altar is completely missing.

TEMPLE TWO AND ITS TEMENOS: IN SITU AND FALLEN REMAINS The podium (walls wP2-1, wP2-2, wP2-3 in Fig. 03.15) of Temple Two and its supporting foundations were constructed in a different masonry style than either of its predecessors. Ashlar shell walls, with an inner and outer face of ashlar blocks, typical of the Early Shrine and Temple One were not used in this building phase. Instead the walls were built double wythe ashlar, that is, they had an outer face of stacked ashlar blocks abutting an inner face built in the same manner. The blocks were dry laid though some lime mortar was applied in the vertical and bedding joints at the rear of the blocks. The exposed exterior face was finished smooth (chiseled and then rubbed with an abrasive) while the interior was left quarry-, or hammer-, finished. Today, the podium of Temple Two looks much weathered, especially in comparison to the podiums of either of its predecessors. Temple Two stood exposed for a much longer period of time than the Early Shrine and Temple One and therefore suffered a greater amount of sun, wind and rain erosion and the wear-and-tear of pedestrian traffic.

Flanking the altar on the west, south and east sides are the remains of statue plinths (Structures E, D and B) [Fig. 03.18]. Structure E, partially founded on bedrock, was contemporary with the altar’s construction, while Structures D and B may be later and concurrent with Temple Two. Only the lowest course of Structure E survives in situ and it is composed of roughly worked slabs and chinking stones. This was the leveling course meant to receive the blocks of the upper courses which are now missing. Structures D and B are a bit better preserved and stand two courses in height. Structure B was built with a formal foundation whose slabs are broader than the walls they support. Both plinths D and B

The foundations of Temple Two sit directly on bedrock as usual and the space between the new foundations and podium and the old ones of Temple One was filled with a heavy mixture of rubble and mud. At various intervals, the heavy matrix was leveled with a thin layer of grout which both stabilized the fill and provided intermittent working surfaces for the masons and other laborers

35

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

during the construction process. The podium is best preserved on the north side where it stands to the full height of the crown molding for just about its entire length. The profile is typical with a base molding, a twocourse ashlar dado, and a crown molding [Fig. 03.03]. The west and south sides suffered the most, and at the southwest corner, the podium survives only up to its base molding. Here, the double wythe ashlar construction can be seen most clearly [Fig. 03.19]. The builders of a Byzantine structure abutting the podium in this area may have intentionally destroyed it or pulled down the dado and crown course.

ashlar masonry with the blocks of each course, nearly isodomic, set in an alternating header and stretcher fashion. Rubble and mud was then dumped between the two faces. Wall, wF2 [Fig. 03.20] stands 10 courses in height. The new walls abutted the existing podium of Temple One, but bonded together in alternating courses and together the three walls formed a very stable set of supports for the new cella configuration of Temple Two.

Fig. 03.20 Temple Two, cella foundation walls wF1 (foreground), wF2, and wF3 (background), (from south) 2003 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 03.19 Temple Two, west end of south podium wall (double wythe ashlar construction), (from west), 2003 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Portions of Temple Two’s stylobate survive in situ, especially on the northeast corner of the podium and over wall wF4 [Fig. 03.15]. As mentioned above, some of the stylobate may actually belong to Temple One, but at this point in the excavations, it is best to associate the preserved superstructure with Temple Two. The column base plinths were built as part of the stylobate and at the northeast corner, five plinths still remain. They consist of two large rectangular blocks, which protrude about 15 centimeters above the level of the floor. Over foundation wall wF4, the stylobate slabs are also quite large and span the full width of the wall. Filling in between the plinths and composing the remainder of the stylobate are smaller rectangular slabs of no uniform size. The stylobate of Temple Two measures 25.240 meters long by 19.662 meters wide.

Temple Two incorporated and used the steps of Temple One, but extended them to the full breadth of the façade by abutting new treads to the south and north ends [Fig. 03.14]. Walls wP2-1 and wP2-3 of the podium were extended eastward to form projecting anta walls or parotids for the steps of Temple Two. The south anta wall is preserved only to the height of the base molding and the north one stands to the height of the dado course.12 A semi-circular niche was sunk in this wall’s east face; a square mortise was cut into the floor of the niche that once secured a pedestal for a basin or statue. The building of Temple Two included the construction of a new set of walls within the podium of Temple One [Fig. 03.20]. These were built of re-used ashlar blocks taken from the remains of the Early Shrine and its enclosing temenos wall, including Structure F. Fragments of reserved plaster and fresco from the earlier period still cling to many of the blocks. The construction of the new walls was well planned and executed. First a foundation course was laid directly upon the bedrock and leveled with chinking stones, rubble and broken block fragments. To insure greater stability, the thickness of the foundation course was made greater than that of the wall it was built to support [Fig. 03.15]. Second, above the foundation course, the walls were constructed with two faces of

All of the architecture above the stylobate, except for one standing orthostate on wF4, has either fallen away or was purposely removed. Survey and excavation have recovered few wall blocks. However, a good majority of the decorative blocks and column drums lie scattered about the podium: some lay nearby while others have rolled down the slopes to the west and south. Among the fallen blocks are those which compose the entire freestanding Corinthian Order [Fig. 03.02]: Attic-style column bases, column drums with shallow Ionic fluting, richly carved capitals13, architraves, frieze blocks, cornices [Fig. 03.21] and raking cornices. Column drums

12

13

It is not yet fully excavated.

36

A few of the Omrit capitals were studied by M. Fischer 1990, 59-61.

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

were short and average 0.62 meters in height. They were fluted with molded stucco and pinned together with dowels. The capitals were richly and uniquely carved. Some were sculpted from a single block while others were composed of two halves with the joint usually falling close to the lip of the kalyx. Three types of architraves have been identified. The first has a simple beveled crown molding atop the usual tripartite fascia. The second has a molded crown composed of a cavetto and half round. Eggs and darts applied in molded stucco relief adorned the half-round and a repeating floral pattern, also molded in stucco relief, adorned the cavetto. The third type was composed of two blocks: a tripartite fascia and a crown molding. Aside from a small crown molding at the top edge, the decoration of the frieze blocks was molded entirely in stucco relief. Two frieze blocks preserve fragments of sculpted relief and stucco: one has an acanthus leaf and the other block, a rosette, acanthus leaf and a kalyx. The frieze of Temple Two therefore probably bore a continuous floral and acanthus scroll interspersed with small rosettes.14 The cornices too were richly carved and sculpted. Their consoles were cut with spirals on their vertical faces and leaves on their underside. Their coffers, framed with egg and dart borders, contained a central flower [Fig. 03.21]. A thin layer of stucco completely covered the cornice blocks and perhaps served as a medium for paint. Several blocks retain single, Greek letter (e.g. K and Ȇ) mason’s marks which were used by the masons and builders to identify each block’s position in the cornice course. Only one cornice block among the 25 so far recovered was cut with a lewis mortise on its upper surface. It may have been the last block of the cornice course lifted into place.

pilaster shafts were also stucco fluted. The heights of the recovered pilaster blocks average 0.73 meters, which also indicates an average course height for the wall blocks of the cella. A Corinthian anta capital (A1041), which capped the south cella wall’s east end, now sits on the south wall of Temple Two’s podium. It measures 1.298 m. long by 0.998 meters wide by 1.088 meters high.

Fig. 03.22 Temple Two, photo, fallen corner pilaster capital (shown upside down), 2002 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) Other recovered blocks, which probably belong to the reconfiguration of the cella interior, include small column drums and bases, curved architraves, and niche blocks. The drums measure 0.52 meters in diameter, which is about half the size of the exterior columns. Together with the curved architraves, the columns may have been used to articulate the interior space of the cella. Niches, framed with simple crown and sill moldings, may have been built into either the exterior or interior, or both faces, of the cella walls. The paved temenos and altar of Temple One continued in use with Temple Two, though in the latter phase the temenos was enlarged with more basalt slab pavement. Portions of the temenos have been excavated on the south side of the podium and east of the steps [Fig. 03.17]. The pavement was well laid; the top face was finished flat and the joint faces were roughly worked and cut with anathyrosis to insure tight jointing. Slab lengths varied, but widths remained consistent throughout an entire course. The bottom face of each slab was left quarry finished. This type of paving, especially with basalt, was quite common among the sites and cities of the Roman East, especially those of the Decapolis, such as the Roman Forum at Hippos – Sussita15 and the streets of Scythopolis, Gerasa and Gadara.

Fig. 03.21 Temple Two, fallen cornice blocks, 2003 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Additionally, tumbled Corinthian pilaster bases, pilasters, and pilaster capitals, including corner and anta capitals, indicate that the cella walls were quite ornate [Fig. 03.22]. The order of the pilasters, and their individual moldings and ornament, match that of the freestanding columns in size and general detail, and likewise the

15 The Roman period forum at Hippos – Sussita is dated stylistically according the architecture of its colonnade to the second half of the 2nd century CE. Segal et al. 2004, 16.

14

The frieze relief is strikingly similar to the frieze of the temple at Rimet Hazam (Dentzer-Feydy 1998, Fig. 03.17).

37

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

The limits of the temenos and any formal delimiting temenos wall have not yet been found, but aerial photographs seem to indicate an open space measuring approximately 83 x 67 meters. The topography to the south and west of the temple drops quickly [Fig. 03.01], and here the temenos pavement was probably supported by terrace walls which have now collapsed or were looted sometime in antiquity. To the north an Ionic colonnade flanking a paved street, partially excavated in 1999, 2000 and 2008, runs approximately north-south and once certainly provided a monumental entrance into the temenos [Fig. 03.23]. Twelve column bases of the colonnade remain in situ and sit upon a continuous stylobate whose length measures more than 40 meters.16 In square M23, near the north wadi, the stylobate is supported on a foundation composed of two courses of limestone ashlar blocks. These were set on bedrock and leveled with chinking stones. At the south end of the colonnade two basalt thresholds were found in situ and they align approximately with the projected intersection of the colonnade and the supposed north limits of the temenos. However, the elevation difference between the two thresholds is about 30 centimeters and the elevation of both thresholds is a meter or more above the temenos pavement suggest that they were part of a later building, perhaps a later basilica whose nearly monolithic columns lay tumbled just to the northeast.

described above. The column shafts were composed of multiple drums and their height in Fig. 03.02 is estimated. A corner cornice, having fallen and now resting upside down just to the south of podium’s south wall and near its eastern end, provides the pitch of the raking cornice. The plan of Temple Two can also be reconstructed easily from the surviving in situ evidence namely with its podium and preserved stylobate. Several interaxial distances can be measured from the five in situ plinths [Fig. 03.15]; for the reconstruction presented here, an ‘ideal’ spacing of 3.006 m and 3.128 m is adopted for the flank and façade interaxials respectively.17 Temple Two was peripteral with six columns on the façade and ten on the flank [Fig. 03.24]. The column spacing on the façade leaves a fairly wide distance between the central two columns and therefore an arch was probably needed for this span [Fig. 03.02]. Pilasters, following the same interaxial as the freestanding columns, adorned the cella’s exterior walls. Anta walls, capped by Corinthian anta capitals, projected eastward from the cella into the pronaos. The configuration of the foundation walls (wF1, wF2, wF3 and wF4) within the earlier podium [Fig. 03.15] reflects the position of the original walls or column courses standing above the stylobate. The cella contained one large room, serving as an anteroom, which gave access to three smaller rooms (adyta) at the rear or west end. Three in situ stylobate blocks were cut with a step and indicate a change in floor level between the anteroom and the three adyta.18 Finally, cuttings in the stylobate over the north end of wF4 indicate a second doorway that gave access to the cella. Two mortises, Lshape and spaced about 1.12 meters apart, once secured wooden, upright blanks used as protective door jambs. In order to reconstruct Temple One, it is necessary to illuminate Temple One’s influence on the design and construction of Temple Two, because it is obvious that Temple Two incorporated many built features of Temple One, particularly its podium. Further and perhaps most intriguing regarding the building phases is whether Temple One was standing in its entirety and was simply wrapped with a new peristyle, thereby creating Temple Two, or Temple One was demolished or had been destroyed by some other means, and the builders of Temple Two started afresh. The repair of wall wF4 may have coincided with the construction of Temple Two. As discussed above, the wall’s south end was constructed and finished like the podium walls of Temple One [Fig. 03.16]. Its north end was constructed and finished in the same fashion as the podium walls of Temple Two, with quarry-finished, marginally-dressed ashlar masonry laid with lime mortar between joints near the face of the block. The coursing from one end of the wall to the other does not align; this is particularly evident in the first two courses below the stylobate where there is a difference in course height of about 10 centimeters. Although visually

Fig. 03.23 Colonnaded Way, north end of stylobate with in situ column bases (foreground), (from east) 2008 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) PRELIMINARY RECONSTRUCTIONS OF TEMPLES ONE AND TWO It is best to begin preliminary reconstructions of the two temple phases with Temple Two because it was the last one built in the Roman period and for that reason, it should be assumed that the majority, if not all, of the fallen blocks strewn about the temple podium belonged to this building. Reconstruction of the elevation is straightforward because it follows the principles of the Corinthian Order for both freestanding columns and pilasters [Fig. 03.02]. The Attic column bases lack plinths, but these were incorporated in the stylobate as 16

17 The dimensions and proportions planned and calculated by the architect for any building rarely match the actual, built architecture. In this discussion, ideal is used to represent the intentions of the architect. 18 These blocks were removed in 2005 in order to safely excavate the Early Shrine.

Approximately 8.5 meters of the stylobate have been excavated.

38

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

Fig. 03.24 Temple Two, preliminary plan reconstruction (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 03.25 Temple One, preliminary plan reconstruction (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) awkward today,19 the change in course heights was necessary to maintain the level of the stylobate. If the repair did in fact coincide with the construction of Temple Two, the builders took the opportunity to excavate the podium of Temple One and insert a new set of foundations walls for a new cella configuration.

maintained the podium height established by Temple One [Fig. 03.03]. Temple Two used the existing stairs of Temple One but expanded them to the full breadth of new podium. Temple Two also utilized the existing podium of Temple One as a foundation for parts of its superstructure. Column plinths CP-01 an CP-02, which are part of Temple Two’s stylobate [Fig. 03.15], sit directly on and align with the north podium wall of Temple One. Temple Two also reused wF4 as the foundation for its east cella wall.

However, regardless of the state of Temple One at the time of the construction of Temple Two, the former entirely governed the design and construction of the latter. The height of the top of the podium’s crown molding for both Temples One and Two is exactly the same, that is, the builders of Temple Two purposely

Most influential on the design of Temple Two was the reuse of Temple One’s interaxial dimension, or the distance measured between the centerpoint of two adjacent columns. The interaxial distance measured from the in situ plinths of Temple Two fit the dimensions of both

19

In Temple Two’s finished state, the change in masonry style would have been concealed beneath the temple stylobate.

39

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Temple One and Two’s stylobate, each of which can be reconstructed accurately from the surviving in situ evidence. An interaxial of 3.006 m repeated on the flank dimension of Temple One’s stylobate results in nine evenly spaced columns. Therefore, it is clear that the interaxial determined and executed by the builders of Temple One was used in the construction of Temple Two. The plan of Temple One was tetraprostyle [Fig. 03.25]. A recently discovered epikranitis block cut within an arch on one face suggests that the interior of the cella had an apse at its west end. Whether or not it had engaged pilasters representing the interaxial of the flank is not known at this time. The order was probably Corinthian and some of the recovered capitals appear stylistically earlier than Temple Two and may have belonged to Temple One.

of the new temple is dramatic, both in the physical size of the new building and the required work force to build it. The blocks used in the Early Shrine could have been quarried, transported, shaped and assembled with a few skilled masons, a dozen laborers and some wooden scaffolding. The second and third building phases (Temples One and Two respectively) required an organized and sophisticated work force which included quarry gangs, wagon and sled transports, surveyors, masons, sculptors of Corinthian flora, laborers, and heavy lifting machines. In addition, all column drums and capitals, including the pilaster capitals, were hoisted and set in place with lewis irons and cranes, which required the expertise of an engineer. Another significant and equally dramatic change is the style of religious architecture. The earlier composite style disappears and a new combination is introduced: Roman imperial architecture with perhaps one lingering eastern element – an arched entablature. The podium-based, tetraprostyle temple plan is not unusual for the wider region about Omrit,27 but the early use of the Corinthian Order is. In the 1st century BCE, the canonical Corinthian Order of the west, particularly with capital decoration, makes its appearance in the East.28 Perhaps Temple One was part of this architectural migration.29 Eastern traditions are present too, at least in the 3rd phase of construction (Temple Two), with the arched central columns on the façade30 and articulated wall niches. The tripartite division of the rear of the cella is both western and eastern, though the latter examples tend to be much more elaborate with emphasis on decorative architecture (such as freestanding bases, columns and entablatures) and a central adyton.31 As the standing foundations and the recovered blocks indicate, the cella of Temple Two must have been as well appointed as the cellas of the Palmyra and Baalbek temples to the north.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE Firm conclusions about the Early Shrine’s original form and function should be considered preliminary because the Early Shrine has not been fully excavated and because of its fragmentary state. Its architecture is akin to several types of small structures in the pre-Roman and Roman East. The underground chambers, built below the base molding, suggest hypogea and perhaps the building served as a small funerary monument.20 The combination of Doric triglyphs and merlons conforms to the ‘composite building style’ traced by Butcher, which combines classical with Near Eastern decorative elements; the merlons crowning the supposed temenos wall about the Early Shrine and elsewhere may have an Assyrian origin.21 Similar combinations can be seen in tomb façades at Hegra and Petra22 and more appropriately in freestanding monuments, such as the tower-like building and altar at Kalat Fakra in Lebanon.23 Another parallel can be drawn with the small shrine just inside the West Gate at Samaria.24 Little remains of its superstructure, but the superbly executed stone-carving and dimensions of its base molding bear a striking resemblance to those of the Omrit shrine. The excavator dates the Samaria structure to the Hellenistic-Early Roman period.25 Also, at Samaria, J. Magness posits a Hellenistic shrine which preceded the later, Herodian temple, and which incorporated merlon blocks.26 Like Omrit, the West Gate shrine and the early merlon building, were situated near roadways and their functions may have been partially connected with cult activity and travelers.

THE TEMPLE AREA IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD In the Byzantine period, Omrit was a thriving industrial town. Excavations, both in the temple precinct and the area to the north of the temenos, have revealed numerous remains of post-Roman buildings and industrial installations. The Byzantine builders took advantage of the Roman period buildings, a common practice at many ancient sites in Palestine, and either re-used existing Roman structures and modified them to suit specific needs or quarried the Roman remains for their abundant and ready supply of cut stone. As a result the Byzantine walls are easy to identify among the remains; they

In the next building phase at Omrit, the architecture undergoes a major transformation. The increase in scale

27

Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938 and Ball 2000, 336. Fischer 1990, 12-20. 29 Based on stylistic analysis, Fischer (1990, 59-61) dates the Omrit capitals to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. However, he is careful to point out the early, Augustan period features of the capital decoration, especially in the area of the abacus and the central flower. 30 The ‘Arched Entablature’ or ‘Syrian Pediment.’ See Lyttelton 1974, 196-97 and McKenzie 1990, 90. 31 Ball 2000, 342, Butcher 2003, 358-59 and Gawlikowski 1989.

20

Butcher 2003, 297-300; Ball 2000, 364-67. 21 Butcher 2003, 289-92. 22 Anderson 2002, 170-73. 23 Also, transliterated as, Qal’at Faqra. Butcher 2003, 290, 355-56; Ball 2000, 335; Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, 48-55. 24 Crowfoot 1942, 53-54. 25 Crowfoot 1942, 54. 26 Magness 2001.

28

40

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

Fig. 03.26 Byzantine remains in the area of the temple, state plan (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

between walls wF4 and wP1-2, was laid with re-used marble veneering and revetment [Fig. 03.27]. The former doorway of the old cella may have been blocked up entirely. An architrave block was re-used and set up next to, or to the north of, the sole standing orthostate block [Fig. 03.15]. The old stylobate over wall wF4, was chiseled away on its west edge to make room for more reused blocks which once composed the west face of the wall. Most of them are missing, but two large limestone blocks, again re-used from an earlier building, were found in situ. It appears then that the cella portion of Temple Two was standing in the Byzantine period and converted into a building whose function is not known.

combine re-used limestone blocks and block fragments harvested from Roman period buildings with newly quarried and roughly shaped basalt blocks. A full report on Byzantine Omrit must await further excavations. The following is a brief survey of the Byzantine remains in the temple hill area. The Roman period colonnade and street continued in use in the Byzantine period. However, the colonnade was essentially closed up with rubble walls inserted between individual columns. Some of the new walls were pierced with narrow doorways which provided access to numerous small shops that fronted the street. In one shop, in square L15, near the south end of the street, the remains of a wine press were discovered, and in another shop at the opposite end of the street, a cistern-like vat was found partially preserved. More industrial features have been excavated farther north and to the east of the north wadi and include a large basalt olive crushing stone and a small building whose contiguous plaster-lined walls and floor suggest another type of liquid processing installation. In the temenos area, a good portion of Temple Two, perhaps only its cella seems to have survived and was reused, however, in what capacity is unknown [labeled Structure K in Fig. 03.26]. With limestone ashlar blocks taken from an earlier Roman building, the floor of the cella was raised to the level of the surviving top step which separated the old antechamber and the three adyta. The floor in the southeast corner of the cella, in the angle

Fig. 03.27 Marble floor in Byzantine building (from north), 2002 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) 41

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

A two-room building [labeled Structures H and J in Fig. 03.26] was constructed against Temple Two’s south podium wall at its west end. For structure H, a new floor was laid with re-used and now badly worn limestone blocks pilfered from earlier structures. The north wall is missing but must have either re-used Temple Two’s south podium wall or rebuilt this wall with re-used blocks. One block of the west wall, a re-used cornice block from the earlier temple, survives in situ. The south wall is missing entirely except for one block at its west end and the east wall’s lowest course of blocks still stands in place. The builders excavated down to the Roman period basalt pavement which provided a firm footing for these walls. Roughly chiseled into the upper surface of one floor slab is a circular ring with a channel leading to the edge of the block which served as the bottom portion of a small rudimentary olive press. A similar press was carved into the altar. Structure J is not as nicely preserved as its neighbor. Its floor is higher than that of structure H but composed of the same sort of reused limestone slabs. The east wall is not fully excavated but appears to have been built also of large architectural elements taken from the temple. Next to the Roman period altar, a small, single apse chapel was built [Fig. 03.18]. It re-used the south wall of the altar as the foundation for its north wall and therefore the chapel more or less followed the same alignment as the earlier structures. The chapel also re-used the existing basalt pavement of the Roman period as its floor although in the northwest corner it had to be replaced. Two doors, whose thresholds survive in situ, provided access to the building: one opposite the apse and the other through the south wall near its west end. The latter was blocked up with rubble before the chapel went out of use. The interior furnishings are now missing, but one Doric-style capital was found on the floor of the chapel and may have been part of a chancel screen.

building erected about 20 centimeters above the Byzantine floor. Only one wall of this new building survives [labeled L1 in Fig. 03.28]. In the porch of the cella, a small domestic dwelling was set up. By this time, the Roman period stylobate of the porch was missing and a new floor was laid with re-used limestone blocks. The blocks were now badly worn, but still usable as simple paving slabs. The new building appears to have consisted of two rooms. Wall L2 served as the west wall and wall L3 divided the house into two rooms. A badly preserved wall, in part composed of a reused column base and podium block, served as the building’s south wall. A large tabun, or terracotta oven, with a diameter of more than 80 centimeters was found on the floor in the north side of the north room.33 A new building was set up over the Byzantine structure J. All that survives is a new floor built of reused limestone slabs. The size and footprint of the building cannot be reconstructed; only a dozen slabs were found in situ and their orientation and state of preservation provide too few clues to imagine the structure’s original form.34 The area immediately north and east of the Roman period temple podium was set aside as a cemetery [Fig. 03.28]. So far, 26 burials have been either excavated or identified and await further excavation.35 The burials were dug to or built at various depths, which suggests that at the time of the cemetery’s use, earth began to accumulate and mound up over the temple and temenos remains. Nonetheless, the 13th century gravediggers were aware of and utilized the remains of the earlier temple, both in situ and fallen. In one burial, in square H7, the gravediggers hacked away a portion of a temple step to inter the body and lay it out fully extended. Two types of burials occurred at Omrit: pit and cist. For pit burials, earth was simply scooped out of the ground, often between the small cavities and caves created by the tumbled and tightly packed architectural elements from the Roman temple. The body was then laid within and covered with earth. In some pit burials, the bodies were fully extended. In other pit burials, the skeletons were found incomplete and not articulated in any apparent fashion. These types of burials may have been secondary. For cist burials, a pit was dug first within the earth and then, second, lined with re-used basalt slabs set upright. These formed a walled cist. Third, the body was laid to rest within and fourth, basalt cover slabs were laid to span the lateral walls and seal the tomb. Both burial types were completely concealed by earth and no evidence has yet been found that would indicate above-ground tomb markings.

Numerous fragments of large basalt doors and large blocks with Christian symbols carved in relief have also been recovered in the excavations around the temple and within the temenos area. In the northeast angle of the supposed temenos limits and the colonnaded way, a single Attic-style column base, whose dimensions do not match any of the known Roman period column bases, and a pile of large column drums have been uncovered and probably belong to a much larger Byzantine period church of the type found, for example, at Hippos.32

THE TEMPLE AREA IN THE 13TH CENTURY CE The temple area of Omrit continued to be a center of building activity in the 13th century. Like the Byzantine builders, the 13th century builders took advantage of the abundant and worked building blocks left over from the previous building phases and re-used them in a few new structures. It is clear that no new blocks were quarried and shaped in 13th century. The Byzantine building within the former cella was abandoned and a new 32

The cemetery area to the north of the temple podium seems to have been delimited by a wall built of stacked, re-used column drums [Fig. 03.28]. The south end of the 33

The 13th CE century constructions built on top of the Roman period temple were all removed in order to excavate and expose the remains of the Early Shrine. 34 These slabs have been removed. 35 In squares: D11, E11, E12, F13, H7, J8, M6, N4, and O5.

Segal 2006.

42

M.C. NELSON: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OMRIT: THE TEMPLE AREA

Fig. 03.28 Temple, state plan, 13th century CE remains (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

west column wall abuts the podium’s north wall; here and in addition to column drums, other architectural elements of the temple period were re-used to build the 13th century wall. The west column wall extends approximately ten meters north where it then turned eastward and ran another nine meters or so. Four burials, all cist tombs, have been discovered within the angle created by the column wall and the north podium wall.36 One cist burial has been found immediately to the north of this makeshift wall which suggests that the cemetery had filled to capacity at some point and then burial continued beyond the limits of the formally delimited cemetery.

a more-or-less southerly direction. Grave goods were minimal. Most burials lacked any sort of grave goods, at least in terms of the surviving evidence; any clothing or other organic material has now perished A few individuals were buried with metal bracelets and beaded necklaces. 39 Although pottery does not appear to have been intentionally deposited with the deceased, many pots and sherds contemporary with the burials were found scattered throughout the cemetery area. Three tabuns were discovered in situ with no associated contemporary architecture in the cemetery areas. The largest, measuring more than a meter in diameter, was built atop the old Roman period altar and partially sunk into its rubble and mud core.40 The artifacts recovered here and in association with the tabun found in the north cemetery area41 include small animal bones and sherds of cooking vessels. Open-air dining may have been part of the burial ritual at Omrit in the 13th century CE.

To the east, the cemetery began right at the temple steps and extended out to and perhaps beyond the Roman period altar and Byzantine period chapel. In Square J8, over the north end of the temple steps, a dozen burials were discovered. Further to the east, in the area of the Roman altar and the Byzantine chapel, more burials were found which included two cist graves built against the apse of the earlier chapel.37

Bibliography

All burials were single interments, except for one: cist tomb M6-D contained two bodies.38 The deceased was generally laid out, fully extended, in an east-west alignment, and turned on their side, and thus they faced in

ANDERSON, B. 2002. Imperial Legacies, Local Identities: References to Achaemenid Persian Iconography on Crenelated Nabataean Tombs. Ars Orientalis 32, 163-207.

36

39

37

40

This area is not yet fully excavated. Burials N4-A and N4-B. 38 Burial M6-D in square M6.

Burials O5-B in square O5 and E11-A in square E11. Discovered in Square M5. 41 Excavated in square E11.

43

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

BUTCHER, K. 2003. Roman Syria and the Near East. Los Angeles, Getty Publications.

Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at Kedesh. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 329, 13-59.

CROWFOOT, J. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria. London, Palestine Exploraton Fund.

KRENCKER, D. and ZSCHIETZSCHMANN, W. 1938. Romische Tempel in Syrien. Berlin, W. de Gruyter.

DENTZER-FEYDY, J. 1998. Remarques sur le temple de Rîmet Hâzem (Syrie du Sud). Syria 75, 201-11.

LYTTELTON, M. 1974. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press.

BALL, W. 2000. Rome in the East: the transformation of an empire. New York, Routledge.

FISCHER, M. 1990. Das korinthische Kapitell im alten Israel in der hellenistischen und römischen Periode. Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern.

MAGNESS, J. 2001. The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Harvard Theological Review 94, 157-77.

GAWLIKOWSKI, G. 1989. Les temples dans la Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine. In Dentzer, JeanM. and Orthmann, W. (eds.), Archeologie et histoire de la Syrie II: La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam. Saarsbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

McKENZIE, J. 1990. The Architecture of Petra. New York, Oxford University Press. SEGAL, A. 2004. Hippos-Sussita: Fifth Season of Excavations (September – October 2004) and Summary of All Five Seasons (2000 – 2004). Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa.

HERBERT, S. 1994. Tel Anafa I, i: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 10.1. Ann Arbor, Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan.

SEGAL, A. 2006. The Churches of Sussita: Interim Report at the End of Seven Seasons of Excavation (2000-2006). http://hippos.haifa.ac.il/hipposchurches. htm, Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa.

HERBERT, S. and BERLIN, A. 2003. A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic

44

Chapter Four POTTERY FROM SELECTED LOCI AT OMRIT Débora Sandhaus consecutive levels excavated in 2004 in the space of square F7. This area had been left unexcavated in earlier seasons since it was capped with a rough tiled surface made of conglomerate veneer pieces. This surface appears to be either a very late stage of remodeling the temple buildings, or part of the Byzantine remodeling project. Neither the heavy fourth-century flooring, nor the bedding underneath it were present in this area. As such, this area cannot be definitive for any phase of construction apart from the rough tiled surface.

The pottery presented and discussed here came from critical loci selected by the expedition team based on stratigraphical criteria. The drafts were drawn by D. Weinblat Krauzand their graphical designs were done in the computer by M. Cima de Villa and D. Weinblat Krauz. In general the pottery assemblages from the Temple area at Omrit are homogeneous and are characterized by large amounts of lamps, miniature cooking pots, fine ware pottery, including Sigillata Ware and different Gray Wares, and sherds of clay figurines. Relatively few cooking vessels and storage jars were found. This pattern is well known from other temple excavations (Berlin 1999, 27-44). The character of the pottery collection changed over time to include more fine wares, lamps and imports suggesting a broader range of population using the building.

Fig. 04.04 illustrates pottery from square M23 at the north end of the colonnade. As such this material can be used to indicate a date for use of the colonnade and certain phases of the road east of the colonnade. The pottery shown in both Figures 04.03 and 04.04 dates from the mid first century CE to the early/mid second century CE. These assemblages are characterized by several types of lamps, including Judaean lamps (“Knife-pared lamps” and “Moulded Lamps”), a local moulded lamp, and a miniature saucer lamp. Exemplars of Eastern Sigillata imitating Roman types are included in the assemblage. A miniature cooking pot is present.

The assemblages below are associated with the following areas of excavation illustrated in Fig. 00.02. Fig. 04.01 illustrates pottery from square F6 in which the podium for Temple One was first discovered in the 2000 season. Work in this square continued to clear between the podia in 2001. The material from F6.14 and F6.16 is dated from the late first century BCE to the first half of first century CE and was recovered within the lowest levels right above bedrock. As part of a sealed locus, this material is definitive for dating the construction of the Temple Two podium.

Fig. 04.05 illustrates pottery from Space 4, loci 114 and 112 (corresponding to the western end of the boundary between squares E7 and E8 on the grid plan). This material came from the area between the west side of the Temple One crosswall (wF4) and the east-facing broken edge of the early shrine. This area seems to have been unprotected by the heavy Byzantine flooring, and must have been exposed for an undetermined period of time. This ceramic collection represents the time of the construction of the peristyle Temple, so-called Temple Two. Here a new type of lamp, the so-called Discus lamp, makes its first appearance at Omrit. The lamps from earlier assemblages are absent. Two small cooking pots and a funnel or some part of a ritual implement are also part of this assemblage. Fig. 04.05 represents an assemblage dated from the late first – early second century CE.

Fig. 04.02 includes material from G7.9 and G7.10. This area was opened by breaking through a heavy subfloor associated with construction of Temple Two. As such, it also represents a sealed locus for dating the Temple Two expansion. This assemblage has a decidedly narrow range of dates: 50 – 68\70 CE. The pottery assemblage includes cooking wares, fine and imported wares, among them “Thin Wall Gray ware” vessels, Eastern Sigillata and an imported lamp. Fig. 04.03 illustrates a selection of ceramic vessels recovered from Space 4 loci 106 and 107. These are 45

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 04.01 Pottery from Loci L.F6.014 + L.F6.016 Late first century BCE – First half of first century CE The small cooking pots have no identical parallels. However, the appearance of this kind of exceptional small pots in cult areas is known from Beth She’an, Athens and Kadesh. In my opinion these vessels have their prototypes in small pots of the classical period identified with the chytra, votive or ceremonial vessels found in late fourth-third centuries BCE contexts.

LATE FIRST CENTURY BCE – FIRST HALF OF FIRST CENTURY CE (Fig. 04.01) Catalogue No. 1: fragment of a grooved rim of a pan. It was made in pinkish gritty white clay. Similar pans were found in Tel Anafa in ROM1B and ROM 1C contexts dated from the beginning of the first century CE to 50 CE (Berlin 1997:Pl. 33, PW297).

Fig. 04.06 illustrates selected pottery from Sp04.010 in an area corresponding to square E8. These items were found immediately west of the early shrine and just below the lower course molding. This assemblage includes a Rhodian amphora, a knife-pared lamp and a Judean unguentarium. The assemblage is dated to the very end of the first century BCE-first half of the first century CE. This deposit also included several fragmentary piriform bottles (Fig. 06.07), and a small, nicely cut limestone base with a socket. Since these pieces lay just below the bottom of the lower course molding, they could represent a deposit buried at some point in the history of the shrine, or its subsequent entombment by the later temple construction and reconstruction.

No. 2: a sherd of a flattened rim pan, made of coarse cooking ware brown core with mica inclusions and red color on the outer surface. A similar type was dated in Tel Anafa to the first century BCE – early first century CE (Berlin 1997:108, Pl. 33, PW 291-292). No. 3: cooking pot with triangular profiled rim. This is the common cooking pot of the late Hellenistic – early roman periods (late second century BCE – early first century CE). No. 4: small fragment of a ridged jug with triangular rim and a ridge on the neck. Very common in the roman period.

46

D. SANDHAUS : POTTERY FROM SELECTED LOCI AT OMRIT

Fig. 04.02 Pottery from loci L.G7.9 + L.G7.10 Second half of the first century CE (50 – 68\70 CE)

* A body sherd of a hemispherical cup belonging to the Eastern Sigillata family was collected together with the aforementioned pottery (not illustrated). These cups are characteristic of the first century BCE – mid first century CE.

No. 5: a sherd of the rim of a Phoenician hole-mouth storage jar, occurring mostly in the northern areas and dated to the Hellenistic period. No. 6: rim of a miniature bowl made in reddish-yellow clay. No. 7: fragment of a casserole lid with sharp walls and an offset rim. Red ware with gray core. A similar type of casserole was found in Tel Anafa in late Hellenistic contexts (Berlin 1997:Pl. 30, PW254-258).

SECOND HALF OF THE FIRST CENTURY CE (50 – 68\70 CE) (Fig. 04.02) Catalogue

No. 8: all the sherds of an amphora were collected (not yet restored). These are jars made of a bright red ware, resembling Phoenician clay. Paralleled jars have been published in Tel Anafa report as “Puffy rim jars” dated to the late first century BCE – early first century CE (Berlin 1997: Pl. 60, PW 497).

No. 1: a sherd of a carinated bowl belonging to the Eastern Sigillata Ware. An Augustan or early Tiberian date was suggested for the first appearance of the type (Hayes 1986:34). Slane concludes that this type 47

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

No. 5: rim fragment of a beaker belonging to the family of the “Thin walled gray ware pottery”. This specific vessel is included in the “Thorn Ware” fabric which first appeared in the second half of the first century BCE to Augustan times (Slane 1997:354, Pl. 29, no. 482). The broad thin wall family continued to be manufactured until the end of the first century CE, but in the area they appeared in the first half of the first century CE contexts.

should be dated from 10 BCE\10 CE to 60 CE (Slane 1997:262, 325). No. 2: cooking pot with long straight neck ending in a small ledge rim. Gritty thin cooking ware. This type first appeared in Tel Anafa in ROM 1C contexts, meaning 40\50 CE and continued into the second and third centuries CE (Berlin 1997:92, Pl. 26: PW217). No. 3: bowl with ledge grooved rim; manufactured in reddish-brown ware, gray outer face, gritty to touch. Similar bowls were published in Tel Anafa as casseroles and dated to the late first century BCE – first century CE (Berlin 1997:Pl. 26, PWS 268272).

No. 6: sherd of a lamp bearing double volutes and two fleur de lis on the nozzle. It was manufactured in pink clay and covered with red slip. These lamps were common in the east. They correspond to Howland Type 50 C, classified as a late degenerate version of “Knidos lamps”, dated to the second or third quarters of the first century CE, or slightly later. (Howland 1958:173, nos. 677-678, Pl. 50; Rosenthan and Sivan 1978:18, no. 38).

No. 4: a small fragment of a carinated rim of a beaker belonging to the “Thin walled gray ware family”.

Fig. 04.03 Pottery from loci Sp04.107 + Sp04.106 Mid first century CE to early second century CE

48

D. SANDHAUS : POTTERY FROM SELECTED LOCI AT OMRIT

16-17, nos. 13-14); in the Galilean area (Aviam 2002:134-137, Fig. 2, nos. 4-13) and Sepphoris (Gertner 1999:32-33, Pl. 3, nos. 10-12; Pl. 4, nos. 1315; Pl. 27) and from the Phoenician zone, known sometimes as “De’baal lamps” after a large amount of them was uncovered in a Tomb at De’baal, 14 km from Tyre (Hajjan 1965:Pls. XX-XXI). The Phoenician type remains in use for about a century or more.

MID FIRST CENTURY CE TO EARLY SECOND CENTURY CE (Fig. 04.03) Catalogue No. 1: sherd of a Galilean cooking pot with two grooves on the rim. Red ware. It is a well known northern type usually named as Khfar Hananya Form 4B, dated from the mid first to the mid second century CE (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:126-128, Balouka 2004:92, Fig. 4, nos. 35-36).

* All the records point to a chronological range between 70 to 135 CE, date based mostly on the absence of this type in destruction levels of 70 CE, and their common appearance in Bar Kokhba Revolt contexts (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:77, Hadad 1997:16).

No. 2: sherd of a cooking pot with straight thick neck and simple rim. Coarse reddish-brown cooking ware. No exact parallels have been found but the form resembles a distinctive late Hellenistic cooking pot. No. 3: nozzle sherd of a lamp corresponding to the “Knife-pared Lamps” type. Light red ware. These lamps are wheel-made and have a knife pared nozzle. This type of lamp is widespread throughout Palestine and is also known in Nabatean sites. It first appeared at the end of the first century BCE, late in Herod’s reign or very soon afterwards, and continued in use until the mid-second century CE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:24-58, Class C).

MID FIRST CENTURY CE TO MID SECOND CENTURY CE (Fig. 04.04) Catalogue No. 1: fragment of a saucer bowl with flanged rim, produced in a reddish yellow ware and a pale brown core. Similar bowls were found in the Temple at Kedesh dated to the third to fifth centuries CE (Berlin 1999:37, Fig. 10). Berlin published parallels for these bowls from several places and different chronological dates have been suggested. From the preliminary study of the pottery from Omrit, we can say that this is a bowl which appears frequently and perhaps at an earlier date. In the future, I expect to be more specific on dating. Recently these bowls have been identified as “Baniyas bowls” in the Baniyas Excavation Report (Israeli 2008: Fig. 4.10:14). The bowls at that site occur in assemblages dated to the second century CE (Israeli 2008: 71).

No. 4: a sherd of a mould-made spatulated nozzle, ending in two projecting volutes; the rim of the lamp bears a high relief vegetal decoration (bunch of grapes). The lamp was made in well levigated gray clay and covered with a dark gray slip. The first serious discussion about these lamps was written by Barag and Hershkovitz in the lamps’ report from Masada (Masada IV). According to their research, the lamps seem to combine the shape and fabric of the gray ware knife pared lamps together with contemporary roman imperial mould-lamps, especially lamps of Broneer type XXII (Broneer 1930:76-78, 171-176, Fig. 37). These lamps are common mainly in Judaea (Masada, Jerusalem), but records from the central coastal plain have been recorded (Gezer, Antipatris, Nahalat Yehuda). At Masada, these lamps correspond to Class D I, found in Zealots contexts, and therefore dated to “the last decade or two before the siege and fall of Masada” (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:49-71, Fig. 18). Barag and Hershkovitz conclude that the lamps seem to have a chronological range between 50 to 66\68 CE (1994:69). Masada’s examples were analyzed by NAA and the results point to Jerusalem as the manufacture centre (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 69).

No. 2: sherd of a closed globular cooking pot with one groove on rim, made in reddish-yellow ware with many black inclusions. The form is well known in the area from the mid first century to the middle of the second century CE (Adan Bayewitz 1993:126-128, Form 4B, Berlin 1997: Pl.24, PW 199, Beth She’an personal comment). No. 3: sherd of a jug with long neck and everted folded rim. Although it was produced in the same ware as the cooking pot aforementioned (reddishyellow with many inclusions), the form is equivalent to Khfar Hanannya Form 4A, dated to the mid first through the second century CE (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:125). At Anafa a similar jug was found and dated to the late Hellenistic period although the sherd came from a ROM1A deposit dated to the late first century BCE – early first century CE (Berlin 1997:144-145, Pl.50, no. 444).

No. 5: sherd of the decorated shoulder of a mould-made lamp made in well levigated reddish-yellow clay with very small black grits covered with red slip. Rich vegetal decoration made in low relief includes a garland of leaves and rosettes. Lamps of this type are known from all around the area, with small variants in clay and decoration, in the Judean realm, Masada, Jerusalem, Qumran (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994, Class F); in the Decapolis cities, Jerash in a potter’s workshop (Kehrberg 1989:86f, Iliffe 1945:24, 155156, no. 5) and Beth She’an (Hadad 2002:Type 6, p.

No. 4: the fragment of the foot of a chalice belonging to the Eastern Sigillata ware. A similar sherd was uncovered at Tel Anafa in a Stratum ROM IB dated to the early first century CE (Slane 1997: PW331).

49

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 04.04 Pottery from locus M.23.12 Mid first century CE to mid second century CE

No. 5: small pot with straight short neck ending in a simple rim. A handle is attached from rim to shoulder. The body is globular covered by ridges. The pot was made in gritty cooking red ware.

LATE FIRST – EARLY SECOND CENTURIES CE (Fig. 04.05) Catalogue

No. 6: fragment of a lamp with a triangular nozzle, made of well levigated pinkish clay and covered with black slip. The lamp corresponds to Broneer type XXII, dated to the first century CE (Broneer 1930:76-78) and Loeschcke’s Type I, dated to the first and second centuries CE (Loeschcke 1919:212-220). Other parallels to this lamp have been published but none from a clear stratigraphical context.

No. 1: votive bowl made of pinkish-red clay with red and white inclusions. Remnants of red slip can be traced on the external wall. A similar bowl was recently published from Baniyas (Israeli 2008:Fig. 4.11:16). The appearance of unique small saucers in temples is a common phenomena. (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:24-58, Class C). No. 2: sherd of a lid with ridged rim made of coarse red clay with white grit and large reddish-brown inclusions. A similar lid was published from Tel Anafa, where it was found in a ROM 1B context (Berlin 1997:120, Pl. 37, PW338).

No. 7: a fragment of an imported “Discus lamp” made of well levigated thin pinkish clay, covered with red and black slip. This well known type is common from the first to the third centuries CE. The imported variants first appeared in the late first century CE (after 70 CE) and continued to be in use during the second century CE (Hadad 2002: 16, 18-20, Type 7, Variant 1).

No. 3: a large amount of sherds was collected belonging to a big open vessel. It resembles open kraters but the fact that no base was found and the inner part of the spout was covered by a thick coat of black plaster we conclude that it is some kind of funnel related to a ritual ceremony. Morphologically it resembles the kraters with outflaring overhanging rims common in the Galilee and the Golan, from the late Hellenistic period through the Roman era. The specific vessel corresponds to the transitional type between the Hellenistic flaring rims to the beginning of the overhanging rim, which is more characteristic of the early roman period. The rim develops into a very pronounced overhanging rim during the third and early fourth century.

* Another fragment of a “Discus Lamp” was found in this locus (not illustrated). * A small fragment of a “Knife-pared lamp” was collected (not illustrated) dated from the end of the first century BCE to the mid-second century CE.

END OF THE FIRST CENTURY BCE TO THE FIRST HALF OF FIRST CENTURY CE (Fig. 04.06) Catalogue No. 1: Unguentarium corresponding to the “Judean Piriform Unguentarium”. According to Bar-Nathan the type appeared as early as 31 BCE in Judea and continued in use during the first century CE (BarNathan 2006:203, Type M-UN2B, Pl. 34:3-7). At Tel Anafa the type appears in assemblages dated to 4 BCE-10 CE (Berlin 1997:67, PW111-116, Pl. 15).

No. 4: small pot with straight short neck ending in a simple rim, a handle is attached from rim to shoulder and a rounded un-ridged body. A groove was set at the bottom of the neck. The pot was manufactured in coarse cooking reddish-brown ware with many grits and traces of organic inclusions.

50

D. SANDHAUS : POTTERY FROM SELECTED LOCI AT OMRIT

No. 2: Rhodian Amphora with a long cylindrical neck, outward rolled rim, ovoid body and a solid cylindrical toe. The handles are attached from below the rim to the shoulder and have a horn-like profile. Pink ware. The type has no stamps. The stamping, which was systematic from the last third of the third century BCE to the first quarter of the first century BCE, became

rare and ended sometime in the first century CE (Grace 1979:Fig. 62; Empereur and Hesnard 1987: 58-61). Finkielsztejn 2006:170). The horn-like profile of the handle has a chronological significance since this kind of profile is typical of the later products imported from Rhodes.

Fig. 04.05 Pottery from loci Sp04.114 + Sp04.112 Late first – early second centuries CE 51

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 04.06 Pottery from loci Sp04.179 End of the first century BCE to the First half of first century CE

The type is one of the last developments of the Rhodian amphorae dated from the last years of the first century BCE-first half ofthe first century CE (Finkielsztejn 2001:50, Pl. C:20; Ariel and Finkielsztejn 2003:138). The lack of stamps also suggest a date in the first century CE (Finkielsztejn 2006:170).

No. 3: nozzle sherd of a lamp corresponding to the “Knife-pared Lamps” type. Light red ware. These lamps are wheel-made and have a knife pared nozzle. This type of lamps first appeared at the end of the first century BCE, late in Herod’s reign or very soon afterwards, and continued in use until the mid-second century CE (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:24-58, Class C).

52

D. SANDHAUS : POTTERY FROM SELECTED LOCI AT OMRIT

Vol. III: Area E and Other Studies, 168-83. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society.

Acknowledgements Drafts drawn by D. Weinblat Krauz. Computer graphical designs by M. Cima de Villa and D. Weinblat Krauz.

GERTNER, Y. 1999. Oil Lamps from the Hellenistic through Mamluk Periods at Sepphoris. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Bibliography

GRACE V.R. 1979. Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade (Excavations at the Athenian Agora, Picture Book 6). Revised edition. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

ADAN-BAYEWITZ, D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press.

HADAD, S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean (QEDEM reports 4). Jerusalem, The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in cooperation with the Israel Exploration Society.

AVIAM, M. 2002. Finds from a Burial Cave at Daburiya. In Z. Gal, ed. Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, 135-40. Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew). BALOUKA, M. 2004. Appendix: the Pottery from the House of Dionysos. In R. Talgam and Z. Weiss. The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, 3546. (QEDEM 44). Jerusalem, Institue of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

HAJJAN, Y. 1965. Un Hypogee Romaine a De’Baal dan le region de Tyr. Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 18, 63-103. HAYES, J. 1985. (G.P. Carratelli ed). Enciclopedia dell’arte antica. Classica e Orientale. Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche. Vol. 2, Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterranean (tardo ellnismo e primo impero). Rome, Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana.

BARAG, D. and HERSHKOVITZ, M. 1994. Lamps from Masada. In Vol. 4 of Masada: The Yigal Yadin Excavation 1963-1965: Final Reports. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

HOWLAND, R.H. 1958. The Athenian Agora, IV: Greek Lamps and their Survivals. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

BERLIN, A. 1997. Tel Anafa II, i: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery: The Plain Wares. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 10.2. Ann Arbor, Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan.

ISRAELI S. 2008. Chapter 4: Area B: Stratigraphic Details and the Pottery from Strata I to IV. In Tzaferis V. and Israeli S. Paneas Volume I. The Roman to Early Islamic Periods Excavations in Areas A, B, E, F, G and H (IAA Reports 37). Jerusalem. 6180.

BERLIN, A. 1999. The Archaeology of Ritual: The sanctuary of Pan at Banias/Caesarea Philippi. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 315, 2745.

KEHRBERG, I. 1989. Selected Lamps and Pottery from the Hippodrome at Jerash. Syria 66, 85-97.

BRONEER, O. 1930. Corinth, IV.2: Terracotta Lamps. Cambridge, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

LOESCHCKE, S. 1919. Lampen aus Vindonissa. Zürich, Beer & Cie.

EMPEREUR J. and HESNARD A. 1987. Les amphores hellénistiques. In P. Lévêque and J.P. Morel (eds.). Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines 2, 7-71. Paris, Belles Lettres.

PEACOCK D.P. and WILLIAMS D.F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy. An Introductory Guide. London/New York, Longman. ROSENTHAN, R. and SIVAN, R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection. (QEDEM 8). Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

FINKIELSZTEJN G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et révisée des eponyms amphoriques rhodiens de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ. Premier bilan (British Archaeological Reports International Series 990). Oxford, Archaeolopress.

SLANE, K.W. 1997. Tel Anafa II, i: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery: The Fine Wares. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 10.2). Ann Arbor, Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan.

FINKIELSZTEJN G. 2006. Imported Amphoras. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982.

53

Chapter Five WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT Silvia Rozenberg, Israel Museum in Jerusalem Many wall painting fragments and in situ remains that seem to have belonged to impressive Roman-era temples built one on top of the other were found in the course of the recent excavations at Omrit in northern Galilee. Remains in situ were found in the outer walls of the Early Shrine and in the inner wall of Structure F, probably connected with it. The external face of the earlier podium in the Early Shrine was covered by a thin layer of white plaster molded into raised panels imitating marble panels with drafted margins in the Masonry Style typical in the region in Late Hellenistic times [Fig. 05.06].1 Some panels still preserved the string lines used by the artists to lay out the straight horizontal and vertical margins. On the other hand the east face of the inner wall in Structure F preserved remains in situ of yellow and red panels on top of a white stringcourse and a black socle, in the Second Pompeian style of decoration, common in the area around 30 BCE [Fig. 05.41].

fragmentary state of preservation, which precludes determination of the fragments’ position within the different zones of the wall decoration or their exact color composition, it is difficult to date the fragments more precisely. A descriptive selective catalogue of examples of the different motifs of the decorated plaster fragments will help us to define the predominant styles of the decoration and their tentative dates.

TECHNIQUE AND COLORS The fragments are painted in white, red, black, yellow, green, and blue, and in marble imitation patterns with various color compositions. The standard of workmanship of the fragments is uneven. Some of them were prepared with great care and are of a high quality. They include two or three layers of plaster of different thickness, the lower layers relatively thick and irregular and with a coarse texture that included gravel and coarse sand. The topmost, painted layer is usually finer in texture [Fig. 05.01]. The specific preparation for the plaster in these fragments seems to be for painting in fresco. The background colors in these fragments – white, yellow, purple-red, black, green and blue – seem to have been also prepared in order to be used on a damp ground. They form a coat homogeneous in texture and they adhere strongly to the plaster.3 There are many parallels to this kind of work in the Herodian period, as at Masada4 or Jericho5, however, the technique of application is less elaborate and seems to be the product of a local workshop, perhaps less experienced than those working in the Herodian palaces. On some of the fragments the painted layer is applied almost directly on top of the stone blocks, without the thicker lower layers.

A large amount of painted fragments were found in the fill between the podiums of the consecutive temples. Some fragments were also found in the area around the later temples. The process of cleaning and preservation of the large quantity of fragments is still in course, and this preliminary report refers only to the material already cleaned. From a stylistic point of view, the majority of the fragments feature the architectonic style of decoration common in the area in the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods: some fragments were decorated with vertical and horizontal incisions and drafted margins on a fine white plaster in imitated drafted masonry, as in examples of the Masonry Style of decoration, similar to the panels found in situ; others feature square and rectangular panels with flat colors or colorful variations of imitation marble designs, similar to those found at other Hellenistic and early Herodian sites in the country.2 Because of their

3

Vitruvius, De arch., vii.3.5–7. Avi-Yonah et al. 1957, 38. 5 Rozenberg 1996, 122–23; Rozenberg 1997, 63–64; Rozenberg 2008, 251ff. 4

1 2

Bruno 1969, 305ff.; Ling 1991, 12; Rozenberg 2008, 283ff. Rozenberg 2006; Rozenberg 2008, 298ff.

55

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 05.03 Fragment with incised line Fig. 05.01 Fine quality plaster fragment On other fragments the plaster layers are very coarse and irregular and they include small fragments of rocks [Fig. 05.02]. The upper layer is painted in hues of reds, yellow, and cream, and the colors, preserving signs of the brushwork, do not shine as the colors in the former examples. The decoration of these fragments include colors not fitted for fresco work, as orange and pink, that seem to have been painted over the plaster in a secco technique. Probably the different techniques are the product of different periods of production.

Fig. 05.04 Plaster fragment with incised corner

Fig. 05.02 Rough quality plaster fragment White fragments A large amount of white burnished fragments, with a shining smooth texture were found in the fill. Many of them are decorated with incised lines (suggesting the joints of construction blocks) or with drafted margins (imitating stone construction work) [Figs. 05.03–05.05]. They are similar to the decoration of the large remains preserved in situ on the external wall of the Early Shrine podium [Fig. 05.06], and they probably were part of a Masonry Style decoration covering its external walls. This style of decoration was prevalent throughout the Mediterranean region and a common feature of wall decoration in the ancient Land of Israel in the Late Hellenistic period.6 Similar examples to the Omrit fragments appear in buildings decorated in the local Hellenistic style of decoration at Jericho, ‘Iraq el-Emir 6

Fig. 05.05 Block with Masonry Style decoration and Tel Anafa.7 On the other hand the plain imitation of ashlar construction survived into the earlier Herodian period, as at the earlier phase of decoration in Herodium8 7 Netzer 2001, Ill. 13; Rozenberg 2008, 298ff; Groot 1983, 76ff.; Gordon 1979, 52–53. 8 The earlier decoration of some of the rooms (Exedra XIV, Gate XII), include relief work imitating simple masonry, see Corbo 1963, 262–63; Corbo 1989, 44–45.

Rozenberg 2008, 283ff.

56

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

first century BCE at Gerasa, Jordan, the exterior of the naos was decorated with stucco work, molded and painted in different colors.14 At the free-standing temple known today as Qasr al-Bint in Petra, probably built at the time of Obodas III (30–9 BCE), the walls of the temple were also covered on both sides with panels of decorative plasterwork in relief in an eclectic style based principally on the Masonry Style Five-Zone scheme.15 The exterior walls are still decorated with fine decorative stucco molded panels, white today but also painted in the original design. The South Great Temple complex at Petra was also decorated in a Masonry polychrome style.16 The early Shrine local plain Masonry Style decoration is remarkable in the use of white burnished and shining plaster instead of a polychrome style for the external walls.

Fig. 05.06 NW face of Early Shrine with Masonry Style decoration

Yellow fragments or Masada. These buildings still sustained the Hellenistic decorative styles and can be considered typical of the first century BCE. This type of decoration almost disappeared after the first century BCE but imitation of stone work was still the custom in funerary architecture in Jerusalem of the Second Temple period. In spite of the fact that it was not usually practiced in interior decoration it still appeared at special buildings.10 In “the Palatial mansion” erected during the Herodian period on the ruins of a Hasmonean house in the Jewish Quarter at Jerusalem, the sumptuous large hall to the west of the courtyard was decorated with white molded plaster, imitating a high socle, broad panels, and stretcher and header string courses of ashlar blocks above and below the panels.11 These were applied over an earlier, richly painted layer. The white retrospective Masonry Style covering an earlier polychrome decoration appears also at a firstcentury CE building in Sepphoris in the Lower Galilee.12 The covering of a colored more modern decoration with a white plaster layer imitating an old-fashioned style, is also known from Pompeii where, because of their association with concepts of restraint and ancient values, First Style decorations were still used in public buildings and in the public spaces of houses, sometimes covering later styles of decoration.13 At Omrit, however, the white fragments are clearly part of an original layer of decoration as in the Hellenistic examples, and not a second layer as in the first century CE later examples. The in situ Masonry Style remains on the external wall of the Early Shrine podium, seem to belong to the Hellenistic period. Temples in this region were decorated with stucco work in Masonry Style from the Late Hellenistic period onwards, but usually in a polychrome decoration. For example in the Hellenistic naos of the 9

There are several yellow tonalities in the Omrit fragments: a plain yellow [Fig. 05.07], a more ocher hue [Fig. 05.08], and a dull yellow [Fig. 05.09]. The yellow color, made usually from earths colored by iron oxides and hydroxides was much utilized in frescoes.17 Yellow panels were typical of Beyen first phase of the Second Pompeian Style (between 80–40 BCE), and they appear for example in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii,18 the Villa Arianna at Stabiae,19 and the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis.20 They are also known, but less common, in later examples of the Second Style, as in the House of the Cryptoportico (I 6, 2) in Pompeii and the House of Augustus at the Palatine, Rome,21 and they become common again in the second phase of the Third Style, around 25 CE.22 In the Land of Israel this is a common color in Herodian examples, appearing essentially as a plain background color in wide and narrow panels and socles, but also – though more rarely – in decorative lines and motifs, and in alabaster and marble imitations, in a variety of tonalities. Appearing in similar patterns, the tonality of the plain and ocher yellows [Figs. 05.07– 05.08] in the Omrit fragments is less brilliant or intense than the colors at Masada23 Jericho,24 the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem,25 Herodium,26 and Sebaste,27 a fact probably 14 Dentzer-Feydy 1992, 228ff.; Eristov, Seigne et al. 2003, 269–98, Figs. 4, 8–14. 15 Kohl 1910, 22ff., 40ff., Figs. 7ff.; Zayadine 1985, 246ff. Figs. 4ff., Pl. LXV; Zayadine 1987, 135–36, Figs. 13–14; McKenzie 1990, Pls. 67, 70–71, 72:c–74; Zayadine, Larché and Dentzer-Feydy 2003, 60ff., 93– 95, 114–16, Ills. 2ff., 54, Pls. 69ff.; Netzer 2003, 78ff., Figs. 87–89. 16 Joukowsky 1999, 214, 221; Egan 2002, 347ff., Figs. 1, 2 and 5. 17 Vitruvius, vii. 7. 1; Pliny, N.H., xxxiii. 56.158–60, xxxv. 12.30. 18 On the Villa of the Mysteries, Cubiculum 16, see Kraus and von Matt 1975, Fig. 294; Guillaud and Guillaud 1990, Fig. 162. 19 Cubiculum 45, see Guillaud and Guillaud 1990, Fig. 158. 20 Rooms 11 and 23, see De Franciscis 1975, Figs. 8, 14–15. 21 Oecus at the House of the Cryptoportico, Baldassarre et al. 2002, 110; Room 15 on Augustus House, see Carettoni 1983, Col. Pl. W. 22 Ling 1991, 56. 23 Yadin, 1971, 79; Foerster 1995, 22, Pl. 4:b. 24 Rozenberg 1996, Figs. 5, 10–12; Rozenberg 1997, 65–66; Rozenberg 2008, 260ff. 25 Rozenberg 2003, Pl. 11.4:14. 26 Corbo 1989, color Pl. II.1. 27 Crowfoot et al. 1942, 32, 34, 42, Pl. XLIX.1, Fig. 13; Rozenberg 1993, 148, Fig. 78.

9 The inner walls of the Western Palace at Masada were plastered white, usually in drafted patterns. See pattern in situ in Netzer 1991, 239, Ills. 374–76 (Room 538), 245ff., Ills. 387–90 (Oecus 521), 249ff. (Room 456), 308ff., Ill. 494–95 (Rooms 482–83), 31, Ill. 52. The Gates were decorated in a kind of Pseudo Masonry Style in a later Herodian phase, see Foerster 1995, 1ff., Figs. 2–22; Rozenberg, forthcoming. 10 Rozenberg forthcoming. 11 Avigad 1983, 95ff., Figs. 84, 86–88, 90, 101, 102; Rozenberg 2008, 372, ill. 444. 12 Area I.14: Strange, Groh and Longstaff 1988, 189. 13 Laidlaw 1985, 45, 307; Mols 2005, 243ff.

57

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Red fragments Red is a frequent color on the Omrit fragments. It appears in different tonalities, – a simple red [Fig. 05.10], a pale red [Figs. 05.11–05.12], a dull darker red [Fig. 05.13], a purple-red [Figs. 05.14–05.15], and a pinkish hue [Figs. 05.16–05.18] – as a background color and as veining lines in marble imitation fragments. Different tonalities of red and a range of compound colors are mentioned by Vitruvius and Pliny,28 the Rubrica and Rubrica Artificiale (Sinopia), natural brown-red ocher or red oxide of iron (hematite) pigments that were suitable for the fresco technique, being the most common in the Roman world. Different tonalities of red were also common in Herodian decoration but from the different hues in Omrit, the only ones similar to the Herodian tonalities are the simple red and the purple-red hue known in Jericho,29 Masada,30 Herodium31 and Sebaste.32 The purple-red is of a high quality and smooth texture and, even if less shiny, really similar to the Herodian examples. Purple-red and reds in imitation marble fragments, were used also in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.33

Fig. 05.07 Plain yellow plaster fragment

Fig. 05.08 Ocher hue plaster fragment

Fig. 05.10 Simple red plaster fragment

Fig. 05.11 Pale red plaster fragment

Fig. 05.09 Dull yellow plaster fragment 28

See Vitruvius, vii. 5.8, 14.1. See also Béarat 1997, 27ff.; Barbet 1987, 156ff. 29 Rozenberg 1996, Figs. 3, 7b, 8a, 13; Rozenberg 2008, 263ff. 30 Yadin 1971, 79, 82; Foerster 1995, Pls. 2:a, 3:b–c, 4:b. 31 Corbo 1989, Col. Pls. I:2, II:1. 32 Crowfoot et al. 1942, 32, 42, Pl. XLIX.1; Rozenberg 1993, 148, Fig. 78. 33 Rozenberg 1993, 151, Frags. 82–89; Rozenberg 2003, Pls. 11.1: 4, 11.7: 31, 32.

related to a less experienced technique. The dull yellow hue [Fig. 05.09] of some of the fragments is different from the Herodian examples. The color is applied in an dissimilar texture, with signs of the brushwork, and it was probably applied in a secco technique.

58

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

Fig. 05.12 Pale red plaster fragments Fig. 05.16 Plaster fragment with pinkish hue

Fig. 05.13 Dull dark red plaster fragment

Fig. 05.17 Marble imitation plaster fragment with bright pink

Fig. 05.14 Purple-red plaster fragments

Fig. 05.18 Block with marble imitation plaster with bright pink The pinkish hue appears in Omrit in two different styles, a bright pink color appears in some of the marble imitations spots [Figs. 05.17–05.18], and a dull pale version appears as a background hue in some marble imitation fragments, painted in a coarse texture, probably in a secco technique [Fig. 05.16]. Pink is a rare color in Herodian material, appearing only in a few delicate ornamental motifs and in marble and alabaster imitations, in hues different from the tonality in the Omrit examples.34 On the other hand, pink seems to have been more Fig. 05.15 Purple-red plaster fragments

34

59

Rozenberg 1997, 68.

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

current in Hellenistic times (as at Tel Anafa,35 Mareshah,36 and Acco)37 and in later Nabataean examples as at the house in Az-Zantur.38 The pink hue on the spots of a huge marble imitation fragment found inside the cella of the Early Shrine [Fig. 05.18] is closer to Hellenistic examples, and it probably belongs to the same period of decoration as the Masonry Style white panels in situ.39 Other tones [Fig. 05.17] seem to be from a later period.

containing glauconite or celadonite as the most suited for fresco work.40 There are many parallels to this color in Hellenistic and Herodian examples. It was used both as a background color and for frames and details at Hellenistic Acco and Tel Anafa.41 In Herodian sites green was usually used as a framing band around orthostats (as in Herodium,42 Cypros,43 a house in Yodefat,44 Masada,45 Sebaste46 and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem)47 or in stripes and bands in rectilinear patterns, as in Jericho.48 On the other hand, as in Omrit it appears in larger areas in a few Herodian examples. A green socle (still in situ) decorated the earliest Herodian layer in Room 6 of the mansion palace at the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem,49 and green panels alternating with red, and black appear at the middle terrace of the Northern Palace in Masada,50 and at the entrance room to the palace in Herodium,51 probably in a similar composition to that of Omrit.

Green fragments Light and dark shades of green appear in some of the fragments from Omrit [Figs. 05.19–05.21]. Green was a common color in ancient decoration, usually appearing in bands or borders. On the other hand the large fragments in Omrit could have been part of green panels. A large fragment includes part of a green panel with vertical white and purple-red stripes on the right side, probably dividing it from an adjacent panel decorated in another color [Fig. 05.22]. Other fragments include green and red alternating panels [Fig. 05.29]. Four types of green are mentioned in the texts of the ancient authors, who mention Creta Viridis, a green earth (terra verte) pigment

Fig. 05.21 Plaster fragment with green tones

Fig. 05.19 Plaster fragments with green tones

Fig. 05.22 Plaster fragment showing green field with white and purple-red stripes 40

Vitruvius, vii. 7.4; Pliny, N.H., xxxv. 29.48. Segal and Porat 1997, table in p. 87; Gordon 1979, 44, 47, 55. 42 Corbo 1989, 52–53, Color Pls. I:2, II:1, 2. 43 Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004, 253ff., Ill. 279. 44 Still unpublished, see Aviam 2000, 19. 45 Avi-Yonah et al.1957, 42; Yadin 1971, 44, 46, 79, 136; Netzer 1991, Ills. 304–06; Foerster 1995, 19ff., Figs . 47, 49, Pls. 1–3, 10–12. 46 Crowfoot et al. 1942, 34; Rozenberg 1993, 149, Fig. 79. 47 Rozenberg 2003, Pls. 11.1: 3, 11.2: 5. 48 Rozenberg 2008, 270ff. 49 The walls of Room 6 still preserve in situ remains of three different layers: the earliest one decorated with red, yellow and black panels and a green socle, a second layer with a black socle and red and yellow panels, and the last one with white masonry imitation. 50 Yadin 1965, 19–20; Netzer 1991, 148ff. 51 Foerster 1969, 123; Foerster 1970, 400. 41

Fig. 05.20 Plaster fragments with green tones 35

Weinberg 1971, 99. Kakoulli 1998, 167. 37 See Segal and Porat 1997, table in p. 87. 38 Kolb and Keller 2000, 362. 39 Rozenberg 2008, Fig. 228; Raeder 1983, Pl. 1. 36

60

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

the fragments from Sebaste at the Rockefeller Museum, the light blue appears on one of the small alternating panels,62 and in one of the rooms at the baths (No. 9) in the First Herodian winter palace at Jericho (constructed before 30 BCE, and excavated by Pritchard)63 fragments painted in blue, yellow, and red were attributed by Pritchard to the upper part of the walls.64 The larger use of blue appears at the Third Herodian Palace at Jericho were dark blue and purple-red panels decorated an entrance room and a courtyard, and large dark blue panels decorated the walls of the principal triclinium imparting a greater sense of depth and monumentality to the room.65 The color was common also in the Nabatean world, where it was used also in ornamental details and in large background panels as in Jericho, for example, at the Temple of the Winged Lions in Petra where it appears as a background color alternating with red in the interior niche panels of the main room,66 and at the South Great Temple complex at Petra, where large dark blue panels like those of Jericho decorate some of the inner walls of the building.67 An expensive color, light blue was used in large panels in examples of the Second and Third Pompeian styles in Italy usually in rooms which play an important role, as in the Villa under the Farnesina,68 and in Livia’s garden room at the Villa of Prima Porta.69 A similar use of the color in public and regal buildings can be suggested in this region, indicating perhaps the importance of the blue decorated building at Omrit.

Blue Fragments Many fragments at Omrit preserve remains of a dark blue, some with a homogenous smooth texture that seems to be part of the plaster layer, as if painted in fresco [Fig. 05.23]. In other fragments the color disintegrates easily destroying the upper plaster layer, but this can be related to local conditions of preservation. The color used as a background color, seems to have been part of larger panels. According to the sources, none of the different types of blue known in antiquity was convenient for painting in fresco,52 and the ancient sources recommended applying the color over the plaster. Nevertheless blue forming part of the plaster appears in many wall paintings from the Hellenistic-Roman periods,53 indicating that the blue color was also applied in the true fresco technique. The color, usually a kind of light caeruleum, was probably the Egyptian blue, or cuprorivaite, a synthetic material made from quartz, calcium carbonate, and a compound of copper, ground together and fired. The technique for preparing Egyptian blue was widespread throughout the Mediterranean area during the Hellenistic period,54 and in the first century BCE a kind of caeruleum known as “puteolanum” was prepared at Pozzuoli, one of the ancient centers of color trade, and then exported in the shape of small pellets.55 On the other hand the raw materials (calcite, quartz, and copper) for its production were also found in Israel, suggesting local production. In Pompeii, the blue on walls (and also the raw pigments found in bowls) was the “azurro egiziano,” a color that is usually not suitable for painting on lime. Augusti explained the presence of this color by suggesting the Pompeian use of a special technique of tempera.56 Blue was rarely used in the Hellenistic examples from Israel (appearing only in a few fragments at Tel Anafa, and Acco).57 On the other hand the blue color is prevalent in Herodian wall paintings, but in most cases it does not seem to have been used over large areas, but only in stripes, small ornaments and architectural details, as in Masada,58 in a Herodian villa at Tel Sera’ in the Negev,59 and in the Temple of Augustus at Caesarea.60 In the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, light blue bands and wavy lines are only part of the panels decorated in marble imitation patterns.61 On the other hand in some Herodian examples, as probably in Omrit, it was also used as a background color, painted over very large areas. In one of

Fig. 05.23 Plaster fragments with remains of dark blue color

52

Vitruvius, vii. 5.8, 9.6, 11.1, 14.2; Pliny, N.H., xxxiii. 57.161–63, xxxv. 12.30, 27.46, 28.47, 31.49. See also Augusti 1967, 62ff.; Barbet 1987, 161ff. 53 Meggiolaro et al. 1997, 114 ff; Kakoulli 1997, 133; Sabrié and Sabrié 2002, 55–56. 54 On Egyptian blue, see Gettens and Stout 1966, 112–13; Ullrich 1987, 323–32; Knauer 1993, 29ff.; Porath (N.) and Ilani 1998, 83. 55 Ling 1991, 208–09, mentions that they were even found in a wrecked ship carrying cargo from Italy to South France. 56 Augusti 1967, 62ff., esp. 65. See also Frizot 1982, 51ff.; Rediscovering 1990, 155, Figs. 16–17; and Béarat 1997, 24. 57 Gordon 1979, 172. See Segal and Porat 1997, table in p. 87 for Acco. 58 Yadin 1971, 82; Foerster 1995, 30–31, Pls. 5:a–b, 6:b, 7:c, 8:a,c, 9:a– b. 59 Oren and Netzer 1974, 266; Oren 1993, 1335. 60 Ringel 1970, 42, 49. 61 Rozenberg 1993, 150–51, Figs. 87–89; Rozenberg 2003, Pls. 11.3: 11, 12; 11.4: 13, 15, 16.

62

Rozenberg 1993, 148, Fig. 78. Pritchard 1951, 8–17; Pritchard 1958, 1ff., 57–58; Netzer 1999, 32ff. 64 Pritchard 1958, 10. 65 Rozenberg 1996, Figs. 4, 7a-b; Rozenberg 1997, 68–69, Pl. Ie; Rozenberg 2008, 268ff., 430ff. 66 Hammond 1977–8, 93, 99–100, Pls. LI:2, LXI:1; Hammond 1982, 233–34. 67 Joukowsky 1998, 304; Joukowsky 1999, 221; Joukowsky 2003, 400– 01; Egan 2002, 349–351. Egan also suggests the possibility of a Herodian influence. Light blue and dark blue bands also decorated the walls of a Nabataean mansion from the 1st century CE on site EZ IV at Az-Zantur, see Kolb and Keller 2000, 362. 68 For the use of blue in the Villa Farnesina and at the Aula Isiaca at Rome, see Barbet 1985, 97; Sanzi di Mino 1998, Figs. 31–37, 41, 81– 82; and Iacopi 1997, 42, 44. 69 Gabriel 1955, 24; Settis 2002, 26, 52. See also examples from Pompei (Maiuri 1947, Fig. 80), Oplontis (De Franciscis 1975, Pls. 13, 17, 24, 25) and Herculaneum (Van Binnebeke 1993, 19, Fig. 4). 63

61

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Black fragments Black appears on a number of fragments at Omrit, usually with a smooth homogenous texture characteristic of fresco work [Figs. 05.24–05.26]. Black was usually used for socles, outlines and inner lines, but also, especially in Second and Third Pompeian Style examples, for panel decoration. According to the ancient texts most of the black pigments – atramentum – were made from carbon. Used with glue, in order to make it compatible with lime it was usually painted in a secco technique and not in true fresco. Nevertheless Vitruvius affirms that it was used for mural painting,70 and at Pompeii for example it was used in a fresco technique, probably ground and mixed with size.71

Fig. 05.25 Black plaster fragments

Fig. 05.26 Plaster fragment, black with white line A dominant color in many wall paintings discovered in Israel, black appears in lines, stripes, socles and narrow and wide panels, for example at Masada,72 Herodium,73 in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem,74 in Sebaste,75 Cypros76 and Jericho.77 In fact, black panels stressing the solidity and impenetrability of the wall, are common in the Herodian sites, such as Masada, Herodium and Jericho and in examples from the Late Second Style and the earlier Third Style, for example at the House of the Epigrams (V 1,18) at Pompeii, in the Villa under the Farnesina in Rome,78 or at the Black Room in the Boscotrecase Villa.79 72

Yadin 1971, 136–37; Foerster 1995, Pls. 2:a–b, 3:b–c, 4:a, 10, 12;c, and Fig. 25. 73 Corbo 1989, Color Pls. I, II, IX:2; Ills. DF41, DF77, DF84. 74 Rozenberg 2003, Pls. 11.1: 2, 4; 11.2: 5. 75 See fragments at the Rockefeller Museum. 76 Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004, 257-58, Ills. 279, 303, 305, Pl. XV. 77 Rozenberg 1997, 69–70; Rozenberg 2004, Pl. 9; Rozenberg 2008, 272. 78 Black panels, smaller and narrower, were also known on examples from the First Style, see Ling 1991, Color Pl. IA. On the House of the Epigrams, Second Style, 10 BCE, see PPM III 1991, 555, Fig. 31. On the Villa under the Farnesina, see Sanzi Di Mino 1998, Fig. 51, and Plates of Triclinium C. 79 On the Boscotrecase Villa (earlier Third Style), see Blanckenhagen and Alexander 1990, Pls. 4–5. Black walls were very common in

Fig. 05.24 Plaster fragments, black with white lines 70 71

Vitruvius, vii 10. 1–4; Pliny, N.H., xxxv. 12.30, xxxv. 25.41–43, 50. Augusti 1967, 108ff.; Ling 1991, 209; Béarat 1997, 25ff.

62

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

COLOR COMBINATIONS From the different fragments and in situ clear that many of these colors were used color compositions, probably part of rectangular panels as those common examples.

remains it is in alternating square and in Herodian

Red and yellow panels

Fig. 05.27 Plaster fragment with red/purple-red and yellow

Red and yellow panels surrounded by black frames on top of a white stringcourse and a black socle are preserved in situ in the inner wall of Structure F [Fig. 05.41], related to the Early Shrine. The combination of red/purple-red and yellow alternating panels in the decoration of domestic and public buildings as in Omrit [Fig. 05.27] was common during the Herodian period, as for example in the Second and Third Herodian palace in Jericho,80 the north-west bathhouse of the summit palace at Cypros,81 Apodyterium XXVII in Herodium,82 the city stadium in Sebaste,83 the first and second layers of decoration (in situ) in the mansion palace at the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, the earlier Herodian decoration of a house in Sepphoris in the Lower Galilee,84 and a Second Style decorated house in Yodefat.85 Red and yellow panels similar to those common in Israel during the Herodian period appear also at a bath complex dated to the end of the first century BCE south of the gateway,86 and at the inner walls of the South Great Temple complex at Petra.87 This color combination was also common in Italian examples, from the Second Style on, for example at houses in Stabia and Pompeii.88 The stylistical parallels of the in situ remains in Structure F indicate an Herodian date, from 30 BCE on, differentiating them from the earlier Hellenistic remains of the Early Shrine. If Structure F is indeed related to the early Shrine as proposed by the excavators, it belongs to a later phase or remodeling in the Herodian period.

Black and red panels Alternating black and red panels, indicated by the fragments at Omrit [Figs. 05.14, 05.28], are also common in Late Herodian and in Second Style examples.89 The combination is known in Herodian examples from ca. 20 BCE, as those at Herodium (to both sides of Gate XII),90 Cypros,91 Masada (Room 205 and Room 212 in Building 8)92 and Jericho (Room B100).93 The combination of black socles and red panels and red socles and black panels, as in Cypros was also common in the initial Third Style.94

examples from the Third Pompeian Style, see Barbet 1985, table III in p. 124. 80 On the Second Palace, see Netzer 1999, 35ff.; Netzer 2001, 175ff., 182, Ills. 264–65. Yellow and purple-red combinations appear at the Third Palace only in the high socle of an elaborated entrance room (B90) and in the inner cubiculum (B81–B87), Rozenberg 2008, 428ff. 81 Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004, 251, Ills. 289–90, Pl. XV. 82 Corbo 1989, 46, Col. Pl. II:1. 83 Crowfoot et al. 1942, 34, 41ff., Fig. 13 and Pl. XLIX:1. The building, dated in general by the excavators to their First phase period (between the first century BCE and 66 CE), is more specifically compared to the pre-Herodian remains (Crowfoot et al. 1942, 42); but its earlier phase was probably Herodian, see Zayadine 1981, 45. 84 Areas 86.1, 85.2. see Meyers, Netzer and Meyers 1987–88, 171; Meyers, Netzer and Meyers 1990, 221; Weiss and Netzer 1994, 28–29; Viloshni 2004, 51ff., Reconstruction Pl. 1. 85 Aviam 2000, 19. 86 Zayadine 1987, 137–38, Figs. 16–21; McKenzie 1990, 41, Pl. 23:b–c, 75–77:a; Netzer 2003, Ill. 179. See also the interior decoration of the naos at Jerash, Eristov, Seigne et al. 2003, 277. 87 Joukowsky 1999, 217. 88 On Stabia, see Camardo et al 1989, Fig.1; on Pompeii, see Kraus and von Matt 1975, Fig. 294. See also the example at Amphipolis, Baldassarre et al 2002, 68. The composition of red and yellow alternating panels continue to be common also in later examples, for example at Fourth Style designs in Ephesus, see Strocka and Vetters 1977, Figs. 42, 71.

Fig. 05.28 Plaster fragments with black and red 89

For an Italian example of red and black panels with green and white frames, dated to the end of the first century BCE, at Milano, see Pagani 1995, 273. 90 Corbo 1989, 45. 91 Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004, 259, Ill. 305. 92 Yadin 1971, 136; Netzer 1991, 189ff., Ills. 304–06; Foerster 1995, 19ff., Pl. 3:b–c, 4:a. 93 Rozenberg 2008, Ill. 503. 94 For example the red socle at Black Room 15 and the black socle at Red Room 16 in the Boscotrecase Villa, Blanckenhagen and Alexander 1990, Pls. 4–5, 21, 26–27.

63

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

a Fig. 05.29 a&b Polychrome plaster fragment including green

b

POLYCHROME ALTERNATING PANELS Some fragments show rests of adjacent black and yellow panels [Fig. 05.07]. A combination of black and yellow alternating panels alone is rare, but Herodian examples of black, red and yellow panels are known, for example at the earliest layer of Room 6 in the Palatial mansion at the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, or the wall of the earlier hippodrome at Caesarea.95 Black, cinnabar red and yellow also decorated the most important room at the Third Palace in Jericho.96 Combinations of white, red and black are also known in Herodian examples as in the Lower Terrace at the Northern Palace in Masada,97 and on the walls between Rooms XVII–XVIII and the cruciform central space at Herodium.98 In fact the different polychrome fragments can belong to more complicated compositions, including green panels [Fig. 05.29] and even marble imitation panels, as in Cypros,99 Masada100 and Herodium.101 The small quantities of blue can indicate that some of the panels, perhaps in a more important area (or a central wall of the building) were decorated in this color, in combinations of red and blue or covering whole walls as at Jericho.102

Fig. 05.30 Marble imitation plaster fragment with yellow background and red veining

Marble imitation Many fragments with colorful variations of imitation marble designs, similar to those found at other Hellenistic and early Herodian sites in the country were found in Omrit. The most common designs are a yellow background marble imitation with veining in red, both creating rounded and oval irregular shapes [Figs. 05.30– 05.31] and a red/pale red background marble imitation with dark red veining [Fig. 05.32]. The irregular red

Fig. 05.31 Marble imitation plaster fragment with yellow background and red veining veining creating adjacent rounded shapes with small similar forms between joints on a yellow background, probably a free imitation of Numidian marble, is a common design in examples of the Second Pompeian Style. It appears for example, at the Villa of Arianna in Stabia,103 at the Villa of the Mysteries,104 and in column painted designs at the Villa of Poppaea in Oplontis and

95 Where the polychrome panels appear in addition to marble and alabaster imitation patterns, see Porath (Y.) 1994, 14; Porath (Y.) 1995, 15–27; Porath (Y.) 2000, 43. 96 Rozenberg 2004, Pl. 9; Rozenberg 2008, Ill. 517. 97 Yadin 1971, 46, 48, 49; Foerster 1995, 13ff., Pl. 10, Figs. 32–33, Pl. 12:c, 15:b. 98 Corbo 1989, 52. 99 Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004, Ill. 279. 100 Yadin 1965, 19–20. 101 Foerster 1969, 123; Foerster 1970, 400. 102 Rozenberg 2008, Ills. 494, 495, 508.

103 104

64

Camardo et al. 1998, Fig. 6. Eristov 1979, Cat. No. 251, 282, Pls. 6a,c; Coarelli 2002, 347.

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

Fig. 05.32 Marble imitation plaster fragment with red/pale red background and dark red veining

Fig. 05.34 Marble imitation plaster fragment with cream background and red veining

the Aula Isiaca in Rome.105 On the other hand, the dark red veining creating adjacent ovoid shapes on a red inconsistent background is similar to the marble imitation examples in Fourth Style socle decorated examples, as in the atrium of the House of Marcus Lucretius (IX 3,5) and in the House of the Vettii, at Pompeii (Vi 15, 1).106 One of the fragments shows two panels with different marble imitation of red veining on yellow and white-and-pink backgrounds, separated by an incised vertical line [Fig. 05.17]. The red veining is different from the Second Style former examples, the ovoid shapes are adjacent one to the other without small shapes in between, of the type common in Fourth Style examples.107 Another fragment including two alternating panels, one in white background marble imitation with black veining separated from an adjacent dark red panel by a black stripe, and below them a green area, perhaps part of the socle, also separated by a black stripe [Fig. 05.33] is also similar to Fourth Style examples.108 A nervous, irregular red veining on a cream unpolished background appearing in many fragments [Fig. 05.34] belongs to the same kind of designs.

A different kind of marble imitation painted in a thin plaster layer decorates one side of a stone block found inside the Early Shrine cella [Fig. 05.18].109 The area is covered by small diagonal long spots in pink and light greenish-blue with a delicate linear veining on a white background. The general feeling of the design is similar to late Hellenistic examples depicting dense uniform variations of breccia, and as suggested above, it probably belongs to the same period of decoration as the Masonry Style white panels in situ. In fact, the various designs of marble imitation belong to different periods. Marble and alabaster imitation were common in wall painting decoration in the ancient world, usually decorating the lower part of the walls. The imitation marble and stone patterns different in their texture from the alabaster patterns, have parallels in the decorative designs of many styles, for example, the Masonry Style, the First, Second and Fourth Styles.110 In Israel marble imitation patterns are known in Hellenistic and Herodian examples, as at Tel Anafa,111 and Maresha,112 but are unusual113 in Herodian wall patterns, where the alabaster imitation was the norm. In contrast to the alabaster designs, which are closer to the Ptolemaic examples, this design points to a western area of influence. However marble imitation design was used to decorate the socle area in a few Herodian examples: a yellow marbling socle below large alternating upper red and yellow panels appears at the city stadium in Sebaste,114 and marble imitation in a socle of a Second Style decoration, appears also at the house in Yodefat.115 From these comparisons it can be suggested that two types of the marble imitation design at Omrit (those with Hellenistic and Second Style parallels) belong to the Late Hellenistic and earlier Herodian period, the 109

See above, on the pink examples. Eristov 1979, 693ff. 111 Weinberg 1971, 98; Gordon 1979, 79, Pl. 10. 112 Still unpublished, see also Kloner 1993a, 88; Kloner 1993b, 951; Kloner 2003. 113 The painted plastered pavement of the theater orchestra at Caesarea, from the first century BCE, was relaid fourteen times, and on each occasion the ornamental motifs were changed. The painted floor was covered with marble slabs in the second century CE, see Frova et al. 1966, 55ff., Pls. II–IV; Albricci 1962, 289–304, Figs. 7–9; and Albricci 1966, 93ff., Figs. 90–92, 105–111. 114 Crowfoot et al. 1942, 34, 41ff., Fig. 13 and Pl. XLIX:1; Zayadine 1981, 45. 115 Aviam 2000, 19. 110

Fig. 05.33 Plaster fragment with white marble imitation panel, black stripe and dark red panel above green field 105

De Franciscis 1975, Pls. 17, 23; Coarelli 2002, 364; Iacopi 1997, Figs. 27–28. 106 Eristov 1979, Cat. No. 206, Fig. 10; Gnoli 1971, Fig. 17. 107 Eristov 1979, Cat. No. 169, Fig. 4; Coarelli 2002, 294. 108 Eristov 1979, Cat. No. 150, 169, Figs. 4, 6.

65

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

third type (with the Fourth Style parallels) can be dated to the end of the first century CE. Drawings in Orange, Red and Black Some fragments in Omrit are decorated with free outlined drawings in orange, red and black on a light yellowcream, white or buff background [Figs. 05.35–05.37]. Orange, a color prepared from lead carbonate or from a mixture of red and yellow pigments, is not a stable color in fresco, and is uncommon in Hellenistic and Herodian examples.116 Usually applied in secco, it appears in the fragments from Omrit as free line drawings of different widths on the different backgrounds. Technically these fragments seem similar to examples from the second century CE, as those of Lod or Sepphoris.117 Further research is needed to understand if they belong to marble imitation designs or to a figurative subject.

Fig. 05.37 Plaster fragment with light background and orange drawing types of marble-imitation in Second Style decorations, have parallels in Herodian examples, and they can belong to the Herodian phase of the Early Shrine, or to Temple One. A date at the end of the first century BCE is clear for some of the fragments, and they clearly belong to the Temple One decoration. ORNAMENTAL PATTERNS Most of the fragments from Omrit indicate that the buildings of the Herodian phase were decorated with a very simple but colorful composition. On the other hand most of the common patterns, especially the curvilinear and floral motifs (including, scrolls, waves, guilloche designs, eggs and darts, astragals, lotuses, and palmettes) appearing in other Herodian examples are absent. From the various rectilinear patterns, only lines, stripes or bands belonging to panel frames and inner lines are present.

Fig. 05.35 Plaster fragment with light background, red and orange drawing

Inner lines Large vertical panels are almost always decorated with inner fine lines framing them. Sometimes painted partly dark and partly light to achieve the illusion of slightly projecting surfaces, or to create illusionistic depth, these lines painted in black and white can primary suggest inner panels or drafting. In Omrit, many fragments preserve inner lines outlined only in white [Figs. 05.14, 05.24, 05.26] probably as a simple decorative device without any relation to real lighting or illusionism. A recurrent feature in the examples of the Second Style and Third Pompeian Styles, inner lines appear in ortho-states and in isodomic blocks, stretchers and headers.118 They are also very common in most of the Herodian examples, for example, at Sebaste, Jericho, Herodium, Masada, and Jerusalem,119 and they probably belong to Temple I.

Fig. 05.36 Plaster fragments with light background and orange drawing Summarizing, from the color composition of the fragments and in situ remains at Omrit, it can be suggested that the walls of the Early Shrine were decorated with Masonry Style white panels (outside) and marbling imitation (inside) probably in the Late Hellenistic period. The large alternating panels painted in yellow, red and black in situ in Structure F can be dated to an early Herodian phase or remodeling of the building. They clearly do not belong stylistically to the same phase of the Masonry Style external walls. Fragments decorated with yellow, red, purple-red, black, green, blue, and some 116 117

118

As for example in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii, the Villa at Boscoreale, the Villa Arianna at Stabiae, the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis, the House of Augustus on the Palatine, and the Villa Imperiale at Pompeii, see Beyen 1938, Pls. 8, 11, 35–36; Kraus and von Matt 1975, Figs. 120, 293–94; Lehmann 1953, Figs. 46–48; Guillaud and Guillaud 1990, Figs. 146, 148, 158, 160; Camardo et al. 1998, 27, Fig. 6; De Franciscis 1975, Fig. 17; Carettoni 1983, Color Pl. V; Ehrhardt 1987, Pl. 18:73. 119 Rozenberg 1993, 148, Fig. 78; Rozenberg 1996, Figs. 7b, 8a; Corbo 1989, Color Pls. I, II ; Yadin 1971, 136; Foerster 1995, 19ff., Pl. 3:b–c, 15:b; Rozenberg 2003, Pl. 11.1: 4, 11.5:19–20; Rozenberg 2008, 437ff.

Porath (N.) and Ilani 1998, 79, 82; Rozenberg 1997, 66. Viloshni 2004, Fig. 13, Pl. 19.

66

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

Herodian examples: one fragment from Masada is decorated with a fluted column,126 tall columns with cast shadows in a flat illusionistic representation of real protruding columns appear in Tepidarium XXVIII at Herodium,127 and different types of columns are depicted in Courtyard B64 at Jericho.128 Painted columns running over the middle and upper zones of the wall are common in examples of the Second Pompeian Style, as for example, in Cubiculum 10 at the House of the Silver Wedding at Pompeii.129 Probably these fragments too belonged to Temple One.

GEOMETRIC PATTERNS A lozenge decorating a stone block [Fig. 05.38], is the only example of the geometric patterns (usually including squares, rectangles, triangles, lozenges) typical of Herodian sites. This motif, known from Hellenistic times, as for example in Thera,120 appears also in earlier examples from the Second Style, as in the Villa of the Mysteries121 and House V 1, 14 at Pompeii.122 The pattern was also known in Second Style decoration at the provinces, for example in Amphipolis, Macedonia,123 or in the “maison aux deux alcoves (XVIII)” and the “portique dorique (XXXII)” at Glanum, France.124 Probably part of the decoration of an orthostat in the lower part of a painted wall the Omrit example is similar to Herodian examples in the Land of Israel. Painted rhombi or lozenge shapes decorated some of the orthostats and pedestals in the Lower terrace of the Northern Palace, Palaestra 101, and Room 215 at the extension of the southern entrance to the storerooms at Masada.125 However, the Omrit lozenge seems different from those of the Northern Palace, and more similar to those of Palaestra 101 and Room 215 dated to the last Herodian phase in Masada, after 20 BCE, suggesting that this fragment too belonged to Temple One.

Fig. 05.38 Block with lozenge pattern

ARCHITECTONIC PATTERNS Some fragments were decorated with architectonic designs: partly shadowed painted columns were depicted on black fragments [Fig. 05.39] and white fragments carried remains of a column in yellow and orange [Fig. 05.40]. Painted columns are known (but not common) in 120

Rooms H and S at the Thera’s Palace, dated to the second century BCE, see Hiller von Gartringen and Wileski 1904, Pls. 1–4; Barbet 1968, 151–55, Fig. 12 (Room S). 121 Maiuri 1947, Figs. 11, 83; Barbet 1985, Fig. 21; Coarelli 2002, 347. 122 Fragments from an early Second Style decoration are preserved in a small room to the rear of the house, see Barbet 1968, 165–66, Fig. 24. 123 Laidlaw 1985, 40–41, note 10; Wesenberg 1990, 557, Pl. 89:3–4; Guimier-Sorbets 1993, 138, Fig. 93; Baldassarre et al 2002, 68. 124 See Barbet 1974, Figs. 5, 12, and Pls. II, XIII. 125 Avi-Yonah et al. 1957, 47ff., Fig. 16:I–I, II–II, Pl. 13:B, C. See also color plates in Yadin 1971, 48, 49; Netzer 1991, 78ff., Ills. 126–27; Foerster 1995, 13ff., Pl. 10, Figs. 32–33; 46,47–48, Pl. 12:d.

Fig. 05.39 Plaster fragments with architectonic design 126

Foerster 1995, 29, 43–44, Pl. 5:b. Corbo 1989, Pl. DF 78, Col. Pl. I:1. 128 Rozenberg 1996, Figs. 19–20; Rozenberg 2008, 452. Columns also appear in fragments from the Jewish Quarter at Jerusalem, see Rozenberg 2003, Pl. 11.8: 54–56. 129 See PPM III 1991, 743, Fig. 145. See also Cubiculum 8 and Cubiculum 16 in the Villa of the Mysteries, Beyen 1938, Pl. 7:13; Pl. 9:16b. See for example Cubiculum l at the House of Trebius Valens (Beyen 1960, Pl. 52:134; PPM III 1991, 356, Fig. 22). 127

67

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 05.41 Inner wall of structure F region, such as the Hellenistic naos at Gerasa and the Nabataean examples, were decorated with stucco work in the polychrome decoration which had a long tradition in the area.133 The use of white plaster in the external walls of the early Shrine at Omrit distinguish it from its parallels, strengthening the comparison with real stone architecture, and making it a prototype for the similar combined decoration of later temples.134

Fig. 05.40 Plaster fragments with architectonic design

Temple One and Two were also painted, but in the present state the fragments are not sufficient to understand their decorative program. The late Second Pompeian Style fragments indicate that Temple One was decorated in the Herodian period, ca. 20 BCE; the Second Style decoration of the inner wall of Structure F seems to indicate an earlier Herodian phase.

CONCLUSION It seems from the different fragments that all the temples at Omrit were decorated with elaborately stuccoed and painted walls, indicating the importance attributed to the visual articulation of the wall in the decoration of the buildings. Some fragments and in situ remains seem to belong to the Late Hellenistic period, others to the end of the first century CE, but most of the fragments belong to the Herodian period.

Abbreviations PPM III 1991. G.P. Carratelli and I. Baldassarre (eds.), Pompei, Pitture e Mosaici III. Rome, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

The fragments from the Early Shrine display a white Masonry Style external decoration, and polychrome interior walls. The idea of adorning a temple with wall painting interior decoration was not new. There are many parallels in Pompeii – as in the Temple of Apollo and the Temple of Jupiter130 – and it seems that this practice was common throughout the Empire. It seems that in Italy the combination of a polychrome interior decoration and a white masonry outside was also common.131 The same seems to be true of Herodian temples in the Land of Israel. The Temple of Augustus at Caesarea was, according to the fragments, decorated inside with wall paintings with geometric motifs in red, blue and green. Since it was built of local stone and needed a protective and decorative layer, it was probably covered with white plaster outside.132 As we saw already, other temples in this

Rediscovering 1990. B. Conticello, A. Stazio and A. Varone (eds.), Rediscovering Pompeii, Exhibition by IBM-Italia in New York. Rome, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Bibliography ALBRICCI, A. 1962. L’orchestra dipinta del teatro erodiano di ‘Caesarea Maritima.’ Bollettino d’Arte 47, 289–304. ALBRICCI, A. 1966. Il pavimento dipinto della conistra. In A. Frova, et al. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima, 93– 120. Rome/Milan, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.

130

The Temple of Apollo, originally decorated on the First Style, and later redecorated in Second and Fourth Styles, but preserving the external plain white masonry decoration, see Mau 1882, 59–60; Mau 1899, 80ff.; Laidlaw 1985, 309, Pl. 61:d; Richardson 1988, 90–94. On the Temple of Jupiter, first century BCE, probably decorated with a Second Style polychrome decoration inside and a First Style more restrained decoration outside, see Mau 1882, 61–62; Mau 1899, 65, Fig. 20; Laidlaw 1985, 310; Richardson 1988, 143. 131 See also the temple of Isis at Pompeii, Mau 1899, 165, 168; Laidlaw 1985, 311; Richardson 1988, 281ff. 132 Ringel 1970, 42, 49. On the temple, see also Kahn 1996, 130–45.

AUGUSTI, S. 1967. I colori pompeiani. Rome, De Luca. AVIAM, M. 2000. Yodefat – 1997. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 112, 18–19. (Hebrew section, 23– 24). 133

See the Temple of the Winged Lions, Hammond 1977–78, 93, 99, 100, Pls. LI:2, LXI:1; Hammond 1982, 233–35. 134 Rozenberg, forthcoming.

68

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

AVIGAD, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville, Thomas Nelson.

CORBO, V. 1963. L’Herodion Di Gebal Fureidis, Relazione Preliminare della due prime campagne di scavo 1962–63. Liber Annuus 13, 219–77.

AVI-YONAH, M., AVIGAD, N., AHARONI, Y., DUNAYEVSKY, I., and GUTMAN, S. 1957. The Archaeological Survey of Masada 1955–1956. Israel Exploration Journal 7, 1–60, Pls. 1–16.

CORBO, V. 1989. Herodion, Gli Edifici della ReggiaFortezza. Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing Press. CROWFOOT, J.W., KENYON, K.M., and SUKENIK, E.L. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria (SamariaSebaste Vol. I). London, Palestine Exploration Fund.

BALDASSARRE, I., PONTRANDOLFO, A., ROUVERET, A., and SALVADORI, M., 2002. Pittura romana. Dall’ellenismo al tardo-antico. Milan, Federico Motta.

De FRANCISCIS, A. 1975. The Pompeian Wall Paintings in the Roman Villa of Oplontis. Recklinghausen, Aurel Bongers.

BARBET, A. 1968. Peintures de second style ‘schématique’ en Gaule et dans l’Empire Romain. Gallia 26, 145–76.

DENTZER-FEYDY, J. 1992. Le décor architectural en Transjordanie de la période hellénistique à la création de la Province d’Arabie en 106. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 4, 227–32.

BARBET, A. 1974. Recueil général des peintures murales de la Gaul I: Province de Narbonnaise – 1. Glanum (27e suppl. Gallia). Paris, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

EGAN, E.C. 2002. Stucco Decoration from the South Corridor of the Petra Great Temple: Discussion and Interpretation. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46, 347–61.

BARBET, A. 1985. La peinture murale romaine: Les styles décoratifs pompéiens. Paris, Picard.

EHRHARDT, W. 1987. Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an römischen Wandmalereien von der späten Republik bis zur Zeit Neros. Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.

BARBET, A. 1987. Qu’attendre des analyses de pigments? In F. Delamare, T. Hackens and B. Helly (eds.), Datation-caractérisation des peintures pariétales et murales, 155–69. Ravello (PACT 17), Centre Universitaire Européen pour les biens culturels.

ERISTOV, H. 1979. Corpus des faux-marbres peints à Pompéi. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome, Antiquité 91, 693– 771.

BÉARAT, H. 1997. Quelle est la gamme exacte des pigments romains? Confrontation des résultats d’analyse avec les textes de Vitruve et de Pline. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier (eds.), Roman Wall Painting, Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996, 11–34. Fribourg, Institute of Minerology and Petrography, Fribourg University.

ERISTOV, H., SEIGNE, J., et al. 2003. Le ‘naos hellénistique’ du sanctuaire de Zeus Olympien à Jerash (Jordanie). Études préliminaires de restitution. In Actes du Colloque International La Syrie hellénistique (Tours, Octobre 2000), Topoi, Suppl. 4, Lyon, 269–98. FOERSTER, G. 1969. Herodium (Notes and News). Israel Exploration Journal 19, 123–24.

BEYEN, H.G. 1938, 1960. Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil, I– II.i. The Hague, M. Nijhoff.

FOERSTER, G. 1970. Herodium. Chronique archéologique. Revue Biblique 77, 400–01.

von BLANCKENHAGEN, P.H. and ALEXANDER, Chr. 1990. The Augustan Villa at Boscotrecase. new ed. Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.

FOERSTER, G. 1995. Art and Architecture.Vol. 5 of Masada: The Y. Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

BRUNO, V.J. 1969. Antecedents of the Pompeian First Style. American Journal of Archaeology 73, 305–317, Pls. 67–70.

FRIZOT, M. 1982. L’analyse des pigments de peintures murales antiques. État de la question et bibliographie. Revue d’archéometrie 6, 47–59.

CAMARDO, D., FERRARA, A. and LONGOBARDI, N. 1989. Stabiae: Le Ville. Castellammare di Stabia, Biblioteca del Clero della Chiesa del Gesù.

FROVA, A., et al. 1966. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Rome/Milan, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.

CARETTONI, G. 1983. Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin. Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.

GABRIEL, M.M. 1955. Livia’s Garden Room at Prima Porta. New York, New York University Press.

CHAMONARD, J. 1922–24. Le Quartier du Théâtre, Études sur l’habitation délienne à l’époque hellénistique. Exploration archéologique de Délos, vols. 8.1, 8.2, 8.3. Paris, E. de Boccard.

GETTENS, R.J. and STOUT, G.L. 1966. Painting Materials: A Short Encyclopedia. New York, Dover Publications. GNOLI, R. 1971. Marmora Romana. Rome, Edizioni dell’Elefante.

CLELAND, L. and STEARS, K. (eds.), 2004. Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World. BAR International Series 1267. Oxford, BAR Publishing.

GORDON, R.L. 1979. Late Hellenistic Wall Decoration of Tel Anafa. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia.

COARELLI, F. (ed.), 2002. Pompeii. New York, Riverside Book Company, Inc. 69

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

GROOT, J. 1983. Wall Decoration. In N. L. Lapp et al., The Excavations at Araq el-Emir. vol. 1 (Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 47), 75–86. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

KLONER, A. 2003. Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70. (IAAR 17) Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. KNAUER, E.R. 1993. Roman Wall Paintings from Boscotrecase: Three Studies in the Relationship Between Writing and Painting. Metropolitan Museum Journal 28, 13–46. KOHL, H. 1910. Kasr Firaun in Petra. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs’sche. KOLB, B. and KELLER, D. 2000. Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at Az-Zantur/Petra: The Tenth Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44, 355–72. KRAUS, Th. and von MATT, L. 1975. Pompeii and Herculaneum, The Living Cities of the Dead. New York, H.N. Abrams.

GUILLAUD, J. and GUILLAUD, M. 1990. Frescoes in the Time of Pompei. Paris/New York, Guillaud Editions. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A. M. 1993. Le décor pariétal. In R. Ginouvès, et al, La Macédoine de Philippe II à la conquête romaine,136–38. Paris, CNRS Ed. HAMMOND, P.C. 1977–78. Excavations at Petra, 1975– 1977. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 22, 81–101. HAMMOND, P.C. 1982. The Excavations at Petra, 1974: Cultural Aspects of Nabataean Architecture, Religion, Art, and Influence. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 1, 231–38.

LAIDLAW, A. 1985. The First Style in Pompeii: Painting and Architecture. Rome, Giorgio Bretschneider. LEHMANN, P.W. 1953. Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Archaeological Institute of America.

HILLER von GAERTRINGEN, F. 1904. Thera, Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in der Jahren 1895–1902. Vol. III. Berlin, Georg Reimer. IACOPI, I. 1997. La decorazione pittorica dell’Aula Isiaca. Milano, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma/Electa.

LING, R. 1991. Roman Painting. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. MAIURI, A. 1947. La Villa dei Misteri, 2 vols. (2nd. ed.). Rome, La Libreria dello Stato. MAU, A. 1882. Die Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji. Berlin, Georg Reimer.

JOUKOWSKY, M.S. 1998. The Brown University 1998 Excavations at the Petra Great Temple. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42, 293–318. JOUKOWSKY, M.S. 1999. The Brown University 1998 Excavations at the Petra Great Temple. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43, 195–221.

MAU, A. 1899. Pompeii: its Life and Art, trans. by F.W. Kelsey. New York, MacMillan Company.

JOUKOWSKY, M.S. 2003. More Treasures and Nabataean Traditions at the Petra Great Temple: The Brown University 10th Campaign, 2002. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 47, 389–406.

McKENZIE, J. 1990. The Architecture of Petra. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 1). Oxford, Oxford University Press. MEGGIOLARO, V., MOLIN, G.M., PAPPALARDO, U., and VERGERIO, P. 1997. Contribution to Studies on Roman Wall Painting Materials and Techniques in Greece: Corinth, the Southeast Building. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier (eds.), Roman Wall Painting, Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996, 105–18. Fribourg, Institute of Minerology and Petrography, Fribourg University. MEYERS, E.M., NETZER, E., and MEYERS, C.L. 1987–88. Sippori (Sepphoris) – 1987–88. Explorations and Surveys in Israel 7–8, 169–73.

KAHN, L.C. 1996. King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima. In A. Raban and K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after two Millenia,130–45. Leiden/New York/Köln, Brill. KAKOULLI, I. 1997. Roman Wall Paintings in Cyprus: A Scientific Investigation of their Technology. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier (eds.), Roman Wall Painting, Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996, 131–42. Fribourg, Institute of Minerology and Petrography, Fribourg University.

MEYERS, E.M., NETZER, E., and MEYERS, C.L. 1990. Notes and News: Sepphoris (Sippori), 1987 and 1988. Israel Exploration Journal 40, 219–22.

KAKOULLI, I. 1998. Late Classical and Hellenistic Monumental Paintings: Techniques, Materials and Analysis. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Oxford University.

MOLS, S.T.A.M. 2005. Il Primo Stile ‘retró’: dai Propilei di Mnesicle a Pompei? In S.T.A.M. Mols and E. Moorman (eds.), Omni Pede Stare. Saggi architettonici e circumvesuviani in memoriam Jos de Waele, 243–46. Naples, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma/Electa.

KLONER, A. 1993a. Maresha – 1990. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12, 88–89. KLONER, A. 1993b. Mareshah (Marisa). In E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 948–57. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society/ Simon & Schuster.

NETZER, E. 1991. The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Vol. 3 of Masada. The Y. Yadin

70

S. ROZENBERG: WALL PAINTING FRAGMENTS FROM OMRIT

Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

RINGEL, J. 1970. Césarée de Palestine. Étude historique et archéologique. Paris, Éditions Ophrys. ROZENBERG, S. 1993. Enchanted Landscapes. Wall Paintings from the Roman Era. Jerusalem, R. Sirkis Publishers Ltd.

NETZER, E. 1999. Die Paläste der Hasmonäer und Herodes’ des Großen. Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.

ROZENBERG, S. 1996. The Wall Paintings of the Herodian Palace at Jericho. In K. Fittschen and G. Foerster (eds.), Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 121–38. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

NETZER, E. 2001 Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Vol. I. Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. NETZER, E. 2003. Nabatäische Architektur. Insbesondere Gräber und Tempel. Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern. NETZER, E., and LAUREYS-CHACHY, R. 2004. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Vol. II. Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. OREN, E. 1993. Sera’, Tel. In E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 1329–35. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society/Simon & Schuster.

ROZENBERG, S. 1997. Pigments and Fresco Fragments from Herod’s Palace at Jericho. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier (eds.), Roman Wall Painting, Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996, 63–74. Fribourg, Institute of Minerology and Petrography, Fribourg University. ROZENBERG, S. 2003. Wall painting Fragments from Area A. In H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II. The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. 302–28, Pls. 11.1–11.8. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society.

OREN, E. and NETZER, E. 1974. Tel Sera’ (Tell EshShari’a). Israel Exploration Journal 24, 264–66. PAGANI, C. 1995. Pittura parietale romana a Milano: alcuni esempi da scavi stratigrafici dell’ultimo decenio. Revue Archéologique de Picardie, no. special 10, 269–76.

ROZENBERG, S. 2004. The Role of Colour in Herod’s Palace at Jericho. In L. Cleland and K. Stears (eds.), Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World. 22–31, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1267. Oxford, BAR Publishing.

PLINY the Elder, Natural History. [Loeb Classical Library, Books XXXIII–XXXV, Vol. 9, trans. by H. Rackham], Cambridge, Massachusetts (1952).

ROZENBERG, S. 2006. Wall Paintings of the Herodian Period in the Land of Israel. In E. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, 350–376. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 117. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.

PORATH, N. and ILANI, Sh. 1998. A Roman Period Palette: Composition of Pigments from King Herod’s Palaces in Jericho and Massada, Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 47, 75–85. PORATH, Y. 1994. Herod’s Amphitheatre at Caesarea. Preliminary Notice. ‘Atiqot (HS) 25, 11–19. (Hebrew).

ROZENBERG, S. 2008. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Vol. IV. The Decoration of Herod’s Third Palace at Jericho. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society.

PORATH, Y. 1995. Herod’s ‘Amphitheatre’ at Caesarea: a Multipurpose Entertainment Building. In J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supp. 14). 15–27. Ann Arbor. PORATH, Y. 2000. The Wall Paintings on the Podium of Herod’s ‘Amphitheatron,’ Caesarea. Michmanim 14, 42–48 (Hebrew, English Summary, 17–18).

ROZENBERG, S. forthcoming. On the Lasting Presence of the Hellenistic Masonry Style in the Land of Israel and Neighboring Countries. In I. Bragantini (ed.), Atti del X Convegno Internazionale sulla Pittura Parietale Antica (AIPMA), Napoli, 17–21 September 2007. SABRIE R. and M. SABRIE, 2002. Le Clos de la Lombarde. Un quartier de Narbonne dans l’Antiquité. Narbonne.

PRITCHARD, J.B. 1951. The 1951 Campaign at Herodian Jericho. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and Baghdad 123, 8– 17. PRITCHARD, J.B. 1958. The Excavations at Herodian Jericho. 1951. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 32–33 (1952–54), 1–58.

SANZI Di MINO, M. (ed.) 1998. La Villa della Farnesina in Palazzo Massimo alle Terme. Milano, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma/Electa. SEGAL, I. and PORATH, N. 1997. Composition of Pigments from the Hellenistic Walls in Acre. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier (eds.), Roman Wall Painting, Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996,

RAEDER, J. 1983. Priene. Funde aus einer griechischen Stadt. Berlin, Mann. RICHARDSON, L. 1988. Pompeii. An Architectural History. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. 71

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

85–91. Fribourg, Institute of Petrography, Fribourg University.

Minerology

and

WEINBERG, S.S. 1971. Tel Anafa: The Hellenistic Town. Israel Exploration Journal 21, 86–109.

SETTIS, S. 2002. Le pareti ingannevoli. La Villa di Livia e la pittura di Giardino. Milan, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma/Electa.

WEISS, Z. and NETZER, E. 1994. Zippori – 1992/1993. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 14, 40–46. WESENBERG, B. 1990. Wanddekoration des zweiten pompejanischen Stils in Griechenland. In Akten des XIII. internazionalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988, 576–78. Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.

STRANGE, J.F., GROH, D.E. and LONGSTAFF, T.R.W. 1988. Sepphoris (Sippori), 1987. Israel Exploration Journal 38, 188–90. STROCKA, V.M. and VETTERS, H. 1977. Die Wandmalereien der Hanghauser in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos VIII/1). Vienna, Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

YADIN, Y. 1965. The Excavation of Masada 1963/64. Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 15, 1– 120.

ULLRICH, D. 1987. Egyptian Blue and Green Frit: Characterization, History and Occurrence. Synthesis. In F. Delamare, T. Hackens and B. Helly (eds.), Datation- caractérisation des peintures pariétales et murales, 323–32. Ravello (PACT 17), Centre Universitaire Européen pour les biens culturels.

YADIN, Y. 1971. Masada. Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ZAYADINE, F. 1981. Les travaux d’Hérode a Samarie. Le Monde de la Bible 17, 41–45. ZAYADINE, F. 1985. Recent Excavation and Restoration at Qasr el Bint of Petra. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29, 239–49, Figs. 1–8, Pls. LV–LXV.

Van BINNEBEKE, M.C. 1993. Decoration and Function: Herculaneum. In E.M. Moormann (ed.), Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting, 18–22. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Ancient Wall Painting, Amsterdam 8–12 September 1992 (BABesch suppl. 3). Leiden, Brill.

ZAYADINE, F. 1987. Decorative Stucco at Petra and other Hellenistic Sites. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3, 131–42.

VILOSHNI, N. 2004. The Wall Paintings of Sepphoris in the 2nd and 3rd century CE. Unpublished MA Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

ZAYADINE, F., LARCHÉ, F. and DENTZER-FEYDY, J. 2003. Le Qasr al-Bint de Pétra: L’architecture, le décor, la chronologie et les dieux, Paris, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

VITRUVIUS, De architectura. [Loeb Classical Library, Books VI–X, vol. 2, ed. and trans. by F. Granger], Cambridge, Mass. (1962).

72

Chapter Six SMALL FINDS AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM OMRIT Daniel N. Schowalter period and later. Of these squares, only C8/SP1 has been cleared to bedrock as of 2005.

This chapter provides a survey of some of the wide variety of small finds that have been recovered in the Macalester College/Carthage College excavations at Omrit. The focus is description, providing information on some of the key pieces that have been found, followed by brief and preliminary interpretive comments.

The small finds will be presented in the following order:

In addition to surface finds, the majority of these objects have come primarily from three areas. Starting from the west, these areas are, C8/SP1, D8 and E8 [Fig. 06.01]. All three locations contained material that seems to have been deposited during construction in the Byzantine

I.

Altar fragments

II.

Figurine fragments

III. Unguentaria and other glass IV. Sculpted figures V.

Inscriptions

Fig. 06.01 Omrit Excavations Grid Plan (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) 73

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

excavated area. The most complete piece (9 cm high) preserves the worn torso and head of a female figure (04ART0051; [Fig. 06.03]).

I. ALTAR FRAGMENTS Up until 2005, three altar fragments have been discovered. These include upper portions of two different altars along with a third fairly complete altar. The latter (A1051) was uncovered in F7 and has since been moved to the pavement on the east side of the temple. It is made of limestone with base measurements of 0.60 x 0.60 m. The height of the remaining portion is approximately 1.40 m. The top was broken and rounded off to facilitate secondary usage. The remaining portion bears no trace of inscription. Given the size of this fragment, it seems unlikely that this was the main altar for the temple. It probably stood as an ancillary dedication in the temple or temenos. The two upper fragments are also limestone. They appear to be similar in style but are different in scale, and clearly represent two separate dedications. Both are fragments of corners preserving portions of a molding crowned with a triangle-semicircular pattern. The first (01ART0013) was uncovered in 2001 from fill in G6/H6 under what would have been the temple 2 stairway. The second (04ART0072) was found in surface cleaning in F4, and was later found to contain a fragmentary inscription […$,26…',26or…/,26] [Fig. 06.02].

Fig. 06.03 Figurine fragment, female (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

The image was a surface find in C9. It is well worn, and details of the face are difficult to determine. The woman’s head is tilted slightly to the right and she is wearing a head covering or a high hair style. It appears that the figure is grasping the locks of her hair, and can thereby be recognized as Aphrodite Anadyomene, wringing the water from her hair after being born out of the sea foam. This pose is similar to a figurine from the Louvre (LIMC, Aphrodite 432), although that example does not have a headdress or high hairstyle. The image of Aphrodite Anadyomene with a headdress can be seen in a bronze from the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore (LIMC, Aphrodite 230).

Fig. 06.02 Inscribed altar fragment (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) It is possible that one of the two upper fragments could be associated with the complete altar described above, but this cannot be tested given the state of the evidence. As with the larger fragment, the two upper fragments come from altars that were not large enough to be interpreted as the main altar of the temple. Since 0106ART13 was found in fill from the area that would have been covered by the stairway of temple two, it is tempting to conclude that it represents an altar that went out of use prior to the construction of temple two. Unfortunately, that fill was not sealed and may have been disturbed during Byzantine or later construction operations.

Fig. 06.04 Figurine fragments, human faces and krater (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Three figurine fragments preserve portions of human faces, but are for the most part unidentifiable. Two fragments were found in 2001 in F6 (01ART0003; [Fig. 06.04]). The piece on the left appears to be the top of a woman’s head showing only part of the forehead and the

II. FIGURINE FRAGMENTS A number of terra cotta figurine fragments have been uncovered from scattered locations throughout the 74

D.N. SCHOWALTER: SMALL FINDS AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM OMRIT

front of her hairstyle. The middle piece is the top half of a male or female head broken at eye level. There appears to be some kind of covering on the head, but the detail is not clear. The piece on the right appears to be a krater or some other vessel. One other fragmentary face shows a head from the eyes down and is again impossible to identify with any certainty (04ART0064). It was found in F8 in 2004 [Fig. 06.05], and appears to be from a male figure, but this is not certain.

Temple One cross wall (wf4) and the broken edge of the shrine to the west of the cross wall.

Fig. 06.06 Piriform glass vessel (unguentarium), complete (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 06.05 fragment, human face (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

III. PIRIFORM BOTTLES AND OTHER GLASS FRAGMENTS Among the many glass fragments, the most numerous are fragments of at least twenty-four small vials used for fragrant oils known as piriform bottles or unguentaria.1 Almost all of these fragments are of the same approximate size (10-13 cms) and feature a waist in the body that produces a double globe effect. The form and size are very close to the “Piriform bottle with waist” shown in Israeli,2 who dates them to the 1st or 2nd century CE. Fig. 06.07 Piriform glass vessels (unguentarium) (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

One complete example survives from the 2004 excavations (04ART0022; [Fig. 06.06]). This piece was found near the end of the season as part of a deposit of at least 18 piriform bottles recovered from the space between the west face of the Temple One cella wall (wF4, see Fig. 03.05) and the broken edge of the Early Shrine. (E8/SP4). In 2001, three other fragments had been found above the shrine in E8 (01ART0007). Of these [Fig. 06.07], however, only one features the double globe design.

The similarity of these vessels and their common location would seem to argue for some kind of ritual activity involving piriform bottles taking place in the area of the shrine. The most likely connection would be a funerary context where perfumes served the dual purpose of being offerings for the dead and air fresheners for the living.3 This association would seem to bolster the argument that at some stage the two-chambered structure below the floor of the shrine was used as a burial site or at least thought to be a burial site.

One additional fragment of the same design was found in E7 in 2002. This means that 22 of 24 fragmentary piriform bottles were found in the area of the early shrine, and the majority were found in the space between the 1 2

3 Allison (2006, 23) stresses that small vessels such as these would have been used in multiple domestic and even medical applications. At the same time, their presence here in a non-domestic setting seems to argue for ritual activity.

Allison (2006, 22) discusses issues of nomenclature. 2003, 210 (#247)

75

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

On the other hand, since no other indication of burials have been found in the chambers, it seems unlikely that they were ever really used as tombs. The two chambers were filled with large boulders that were put in sometime before the cross wall was built. The boulders were broken up and removed from the north chamber during the 2006 season. The partial excavation of the north chamber that followed revealed no indication of a burial.4 So how can we explain the presence of the unguentaria?

IV. SCULPTED OBJECTS The majority of the sculpted marble fragments from the excavation have been recovered from the area of C8/SP1. In this area, fill material was cleared from the secondary foundation walls within the Temple One podium and yielded a wide assortment of broken pieces mixed with architectural fragments, ash, bones, plaster, and glass. The clearing of this area required two partial seasons of work, and also called for the use of heavy equipment to remove some of the architectural elements at the beginning of the 2004 season. It seems likely that the rectangular area between these foundation walls was used for some time as a dump by the occupants of the Byzantine structure on the site. Then after a period of destruction and abandonment, it was again used to hold refuse. Although there was a rough semicircular wall immediately to the north of SP1, there is no indication that later construction covered this part of the temple. Not surprisingly, the majority of inscribed material has also come from this area (cf. part V below).

The diverse mix of materials in the fill around the early shrine indicate that the area was cleared and refilled on at least one occasion. Since there is indication of major repairs on the northwest face of the cross wall (wF4), it seems likely that it may have been necessary to empty the central area of the podium in order to deal with a major structural defect. Michael Nelson argues that this took place at the time of the expansion of the structure into Temple Two (see Ch. 3). Whenever it occurred, clearing the area would have revealed the Early Shrine and the chambers below the floor. Without knowledge of the existence, much less the nature, of the Early Shrine, the people who uncovered it could have taken it to be a tomb and performed appropriate funerary ritual involving unguentaria. This reconstruction of events must remain speculative, but it does serve to explain the presence of these glass vessels, and the date of construction for Temple Two would fall within the dating range of the unguentaria.

The largest piece of statuary recovered to this point is a white marble sphinx mounted on a 90 degree molding bracket. The sphinx was found in SP1 during the 2004 season. It was discovered in three pieces, and a small corner of the base broke off after it was removed from the square. The pieces were cleaned and reassembled in the workroom of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem [Fig. 06.09].

Other glass finds include small lids (200306ART0006), bases for glass bowls (199906ART0005, 0006, 200306ART0008), and jewelry (200406ART0062). One unusual piece appears to be shaped like a leg, either from a small vessel, or perhaps a zoomorphic figure (200106ART0011, [Fig. 06.08]).

Fig. 06.09 Marble sphinx figure, restored (Israel Museum, Jerusalem) Fig. 06.08 Glass leg or portion of base (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

The restored fragments measure 110 cm in height. The head, wings, and lower arms are missing. Both stone and workmanship is of a high quality, and may be the product

4

If the chambers were not used as tombs, their original purpose may have been simply structural support for the west end of the Early Shrine.

76

D.N. SCHOWALTER: SMALL FINDS AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM OMRIT

of an Aphrodisian workshop. Remnants of hair survive on the upper torso of the figure [Fig. 06.10], with distinctive drill work used to cut the channels in the hair.

his signet seal.7 The sphinx is also seen on the obverse of coins, and as a decorative feature on cuirassed images of the first emperor, including the famous Prima Porta Augustus. Among other pieces of sculptural remains, two fragmentary relief scenes appear to be made of similar material, and have the same scale and composition. Unfortunately, due to later reworking they cannot be joined or even related in their current condition. The marble and workmanship are inferior to the sphinx. The first piece was discovered in the west balk of D8 during the 2002 season. The fragment measures 18 cm maximum height, and appears to represent some sort of slain animal, probably a deer, with one leg bent over in a distorted position (200206ART0001, [Fig. 06.11]). Based on the fragmentary remains, it is not possible to determine the cause of the creature’s demise, but the remnants of a shaggy mane may point to a lion as the culprit.

Fig. 06.10 Marble sphinx figure, prior to mending (Israel Museum, Jerusalem)

Israel Museum personnel have suggested that the sphinx was originally part of a table support system. While sphinx carvings have commonly been used for this purpose, the angle created by the figure in the Omrit example, and especially the wings which appear to protrude upwards, make it hard to see where the table would have been attached. The vertical bracket behind the Omrit sphinx is unfinished, and must have stood against a wall, possibly as a one of a pair of decorative details marking an entryway (LIMC, Sphinx 291). In this regard, it is instructive to compare the Omrit sphinx with a set of free-standing sphinxes displayed on either side of a doorway in the British Museum. The museum legend describes the pieces as “2nd century AD, from Upper Egypt.” Further commentary speculates that they “may once have marked the entrance to grave of a Greek inhabitant of Egypt.”5

Fig. 06.11 Marble figure of slain beast, fragmentary (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) The other piece was found in SP1 during the 2004 campaign. It features the lower half of a human body, sprawled forward over an object or an incline (200406ART0066, [Fig. 06.12]). The surviving fragment is 15 cm high. The figure is wearing a pleated skirt and appears to be barefoot. The garment, the position of the legs and the orientation of the figure is reminiscent of the Tauroctones scene in which the God Mithras slays the cosmic bull. There is, however, no trace of either an animal or the torso of the human figure due to later reworking and/or damage of the piece.

There is a long history of sphinx figures used as the guardians of royalty, thrones, temples and tombs in both Egyptian and Greek contexts.6 Given the tripartite division of the west end of Temple Two at Omrit, it is possible that sphinx figures stood at the end of the walls that marked off the central chamber, guarding the divine occupant(s) of that space. In addition to its general royal associations, the sphinx was a particularly important symbol for the emperor Augustus. Suetonius reports that early in his reign, Augustus used the image of a sphinx as

It is possible that these two pieces were once part of a more extensive relief sculpture depicting a battle, or perhaps a hunting scene. Given the current state of evidence, it is not possible to be more certain. In both cases, the figures stand on thick (4-6 cm) bases. They must have been part of a sculptural group(s) that was

5

British Museum, EA 1605. Herrmann and van den Hoek 2005, 294-99. Pausanias (5.11.2) reports that there were sphinxes as part of the decoration of the temple of Zeus at Olympia. My thanks to John Herrmann for sharing his insights after viewing photographs of the Omrit sphinx. 6

7

Aug. 50. According to this passage he later changed to an image of Alexander the Great and eventually used his own image as an official seal.

77

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 06.12 Marble figure with lower body of human (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 06.14 Marble plaque with male figure, close up (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

freestanding, or perhaps part of the pediment sculpture from a small building.

It is possible that the figure’s raised right hand indicates some gesture of cultic or rhetorical importance. The interpretation is complicated, however, by what appears to be a piece of cloth in the figure’s right hand. It may be that this is a mappa, and the figure is poised to wave the flag in order to begin a race, or cheer for a chariot team. A parallel pose is seen in a marble statue of the Consul Stephanos in the Ephesus Archaeological Museum in Selçuk (Inv. No. 1402). The statue shows Stephanos holding a mappa in his raised right hand. The statue is dated to the 6th century CE, and the pose is said to show Stephanos ready “to begin a race or game” of some sort.8

A portion of a relief sculpture was discovered in SP1 in 2003 (200306ART0016, [Fig. 06.13]). The fragment measures approximately 20 x 20 cms, and is of varying thickness (5-7 cms). The left-hand and lower edge may be finished, but it is clearly broken on the top and righthand side. The piece may be part of a relief plaque, or may be broken off from a larger solid piece of marble. The carving is of a poor grade, and depicts a togate male figure with right hand raised, holding some object [Fig. 06.14]. The left hand has been broken off but appears to be thrust forward. The face and feet are damaged. The figure is standing next to a column that does not appear to be engaged with any obvious building. The smooth blank field to the right of the figure suggests the possibility that at one time this figure flanked an inscription and was matched by a similar figure on the other side.

Two statues in the Centrale Montemartini Museum in Rome, one of an older Magistrate and one of a young Magistrate, show the officials in the same position, poised to begin the race.9 These statues are dated to the late fourth and early fifth century.10 Another interesting parallel is seen in a relief on the base of the obelisk of Theodosius (erected 390 CE) in the hippodrome of Constantinople. In the scene, the emperor and his family are watching the chariot races, and in the lower corners of the image, some of the spectators wave cloths above their heads in support of their favorite team (Fig. 06.15). It is possible, then that the Omrit relief is also associated with races or games. Although archaeologists have yet to discover the location of an amphitheater around Banias,11 we know that games were held in the region. Wilson summarizes the evidence for Paneion games, and describes three inscriptions mentioning victory in the Pan games at Banias.12 Josephus reports that Titus held especially bloody games in the region to commemorate the birthday of his brother Domitian after the destruction 8

Erdemigil 1999. 106-7. Inv. Nos. 895 and 896. 10 The legend for Inv. 896 suggests that the older magistrate could be Q. Aurelius Symmachus, a famous orator of the time. 11 Wilson 2004, 52. 12 Ibid., 52, 57, 63-64. 9

Fig. 06.13 Marble plaque with male figure and column (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

78

D.N. SCHOWALTER: SMALL FINDS AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM OMRIT

V. INSCRIPTIONS Prior to the 2008 season, inscribed material from Omrit has been discovered only in very fragmentary form. Not including mason’s marks, ten inscribed pieces have been found, and two of those may be from the same original object. All inscriptions are in Greek, and range from very neatly carved to very rough lettering. All seem to be formal inscriptions as opposed to random graffiti. Five of the nine pieces came to light from the fill in C8/SP1. The inscribed pieces will be discussed in order of discovery. Measurements of objects are indicated parenthetically (M: height/width/depth/letter size).15 200106ART0001 Fragmentary inscribed white marble plaque (M: 12/17.5/3.1/4-7) Find spot: D8.008 (fill beneath Byzantine floor) [Fig. 06.17]

Fig. 06.15 Marble relief of crowd at the circus Circus of Constantine, Istanbul (Photo by Author) of the temple in 70CE.13 We also know that the provision of games was one of the important features of honors offered to the emperor. A bilingual inscription from Pergamon contains a senatus consultum approving the establishment of games related to the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, provided that they are kept on an equal level with those games honoring Augustus and Roma.14 This relief from Omrit may be an indication that games in the region of Banias continued late into the Roman period.

Fig. 06.17 Omrit inscription 200106ART0001 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) ---------Aĭȇȅ ----------

A final piece of carved stone was found early in the excavation during surface cleaning [Fig. 06.16]. Its exact find spot is unknown. The fragmentary basalt stone (200106ART0015) features deep parallel channels carved approximately 4-5 cm apart. At the top of the fragment, smaller curved channels sweep across the long channels. The overall effect appears to be feathers making up part of a wing. This portion of the relief is only 26 x 30 cm, so it is difficult to speculate on the original carving. Certainly the wing of an eagle is possible, as is a cherubim or other winged figure from Byzantine art.

The lower portion of an alpha or lambda is preserved in the line above, and the top of an omicron or theta appears in the following line below the phi. No other trace of the inscription survives. The extant letters are neatly cut. The left edge of the fragment is finished, but the piece is broken on all other sides. Given the surviving letters, it is reasonable to assume a reference to the goddess Aphrodite.16 The vast majority of inscriptions on the PHI data base including these four letters are part of an Aphrodite inscription. Of the 4913 inscriptions catalogued, 3950 have a delta following the omicron. Of course this includes references to the city of Aphrodisias, and the proper name Epaphroditus. In the PHI database for Syria and the East, there are 30 inscriptions including the letter string Aĭȇȅ. Of these, thirteen correspond to the name Aphrodite, three refer to the city of Aphrodisias, and two include the name Ephaphroditus. 15

This system is also found in Gregg and Urman 1996. A small statue of Aphrodite was found in a field not far from the temple site, and is now housed in the Beit Ussishkin museum near Tel Dan. This statue of a nude female figure is identified as Aphrodite, but was certainly not large enough to have been the main cult statue given the scale of the Omrit temple. The statue could also have come from a structure or installation associated with Tel Dan or Banias, where Wilson notes evidence for Aphrodite (2004, 67, 101, 203, n. 88). 16

Fig. 06.16 Basalt fragment of wing pattern (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) 13 14

B.J., 7.37-38. IvP II 269. Schowalter 1998, 236-39.

79

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

More than half of the thirty occurrences would have a delta following Aĭȇȅ. In the Omrit example, however, there is no sign of a delta emerging following the omicron. The spacing between the first four letters is very tight (max. 1 cm), but after the omicron there appears to be at least 2 cms. of space with no sign of a delta appearing. Of course there could be some unusual spacing, but since the inscription is so neatly carved, that does not seem likely. Unless there is some very unusual spacing, it does not appear that a delta follows on that line. If the line ends after the omicron, a delta could stand in the next line below the Alpha, but then the Omicron or theta below the phi does not make sense.

Although the inscription was neatly cut, the surface of this fragment is badly worn and pitted. This makes it difficult to be certain, but the remains of a kappa or chi may stand before the surviving letters in the first extant line, and the right leg of a lambda or mu is just visible at the beginning of the second surviving line. The bottom of the fragment is roughly finished, and could be the base of the original block. All other edges around the inscribed letters are broken.

The spacing issue creates difficulties for reading “Aphrodite” here, but other options have similar difficulties. The remaining references from Syria and the East in the PHI data base all have nu following the omicron. That letter should also be visible given the spacing on the Omrit example. In fact, a tau or perhaps upsilon seem to be the only letters that could follow without leaving a trace in the given spacing. Among all regions in the PHI data base, there are five examples of T after Aĭȇȅ,17 and 30 examples of Y.18 In spite of these difficulties, the connection with the goddess Aphrodite still seems to be most likely.

If the partial letter is a chi, there are other interesting options. The PHI database shows 128 entries for ȤİȡĮ, including 45 for some form of ĮȡȤİȡĮȞȚıIJȒȢ (“the head of a feast or festival”) and 32 for ȤȑȡĮ instead of ȤİȚȡĮ for “hands.”

If the letters in the first line were preceded by a kappa, it is possible that it represents the beginning of some form of the word țİȡȐȞȞȣȝȚ (“to mix”) or țȑȡĮȢ (“horn”).

If the first surviving letter in the second line is a lambda, it is likely that the ȜȚĮȝĮ string represents part of a woman’s name such as ǹȚȜȓĮ ȂĮȡțȑȜȜĮ (IGLSyr 3,1 701). If the partial letter is a mu, the PHI database turns up seven occurrences of forms of șȣȝȚĮȝĮ (“incense”).21 200306ART0003 Fragment of marble slab with inscription (M: 22/21/2.35/4.5) Find spot: C8/SP1.113 [Fig. 06.19]

One final connection to Aphrodite deserves brief mention. Josephus reports that the territory around Omrit was given to Cleopatra VII by Marc Antony, and that the two of them spent time in the region.19 Cleopatra fashioned herself as a new Aphrodite, and even dressed like the goddess to impress Antony.20 There is no way of knowing if Cleopatra could have promoted this Aphrodite association in the region, but it is worth noting this tendency. 200106ART0002 Fragment of limestone block with inscription (M: 16/19/10.5/4.5) Find spot: E9 surface cleaning [Fig. 06.18]

Fig. 06.19 Omrit inscription 200306ART0003 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) [ǹī ]ǹĬ[ǾȉȊȋǾ] [ǹȊȉ]ȅȀȇǹȉȅ[ȇǹȀǹǿȈǹ] [ȇǹȂ]ǹȊȇǾȁǿȅ[ȃǹȃȉȍȃ] [Ǽǿȃȅ]ȊĬ[ǼȅȊȈǼǺǹȈȉȅȊ]

Fig. 06.18 Omrit inscription 200106ART0002 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) ---ƪƵƧ-----յƭƧưƧ---

This marble slab with incised guidelines still visible, bears neatly inscribed Greek letters, but is broken on all sides. The presence of the term [ǹȊȉ]ȅȀȇǹȉȅ[ȇǹ] indicates that the inscription involved an emperor in some

17

All forms of İȜĮijȡȠȢ. Forms of ȉĮijȡȠȢ (7 occurences); forms of ǼʌĮijȡȠȢ (7 occurences); forms of ĮijȡȠȣȡȘIJȠȢ (nine occurrences [four in one inscription]). 19 Ant. 15.79. Cp. 15.92, Plutarch, Life of Antony 36, and Dio Cassius, xlix.32. 20 Plutarch, Life of Antony 26:1-5. 18

21 The string ȚĮȝĮ on its own would seem to be associated with the Greek word group related to ۞ĮȝĮIJos and the healing arts, but the lambda or mu makes this impossible. My thanks to Smaragda Touloupa for her insight on this inscription.

80

D.N. SCHOWALTER: SMALL FINDS AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM OMRIT

way. The reconstruction above identifies that ruler as Marcus Aurelius (161-180 CE), although Lucius Verus (161-169 CE), Commodus (180-192 CE), and several of the Severan emperors also used the nomen Aurelius.22 Association with Marcus Aurelius is supported by significant activity in the region of Banias during his reign. John Wilson describes the Antonine period as the “Golden Age of Banias.” This golden age included the reopening of the mint of Banias under Marcus Aurelius, and an emphasis on Zeus, Pan, and Tyche as the “dominant deities of the city.”23 Wilson suggests that this may also be the time when the Omrit temple was enlarged, and he further posits that it was converted from the Augusteum to a temple of Zeus.24 At present, there is no evidence from Omrit to support this dating suggestion.25

Fig. 06.21 Omrit inscription 200306ART0014, with other pieces of beveled conglomerate surface (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

corner survives with beveling on both sides, so there can be no certainty on the overall size. Because the top surface of these fragments is very even and smooth, and because the front edge where the inscription appears is beveled, this construction is tentatively referred to as a table. There are, however, no signs of cuttings to accommodate legs or other supports on the bottom of any of the surviving pieces. In fact, the bottom side of all the pieces is rather rough and uneven. It is therefore also possible that the flat construction served as some kind of a shelf resting on a platform. It may have functioned as the base for a small sculpture, but again, no cuttings survive to validate this suggestion. A final, somewhat unlikely, possibility is that the fragments are part of a lid covering a large stone box, perhaps a sarcophagus.

The grammatical construction of the inscription provides a clue as to the original use of this marble plaque. The “ȉȅ” at the end of ÐȣIJȠțȡ­IJȦȡ indicates that the case is either genitive, dative, accusative, or vocative. Dative and vocative are ruled out since the surviving portion of the name “Aurelius” has an omicron rather than omega or epsilon. The most likely case is accusative as reconstructed, and this usage would correspond to an image of the emperor—probably a statue--set up as a dedication.26 In this case the inscribed slab would have covered the front of the statue base. Using this type of veneer method meant that the large block of the base could be made of a less expensive material and then covered with marble.

The conglomerate material is made up of many different sized stones, including extremely small pebbles. This may explain the fact that the letters are carved to a rather shallow depth. The stone comes from a vein of conglomerate found across the Hula valley on the west edge of the town of Kiryat Shemona and further north in the area of Kibbutz Kfar Gil’adi. While inferior in quality and not especially suitable for inscribing, the stone does have a marble-like quality and would have had an unusual appearance, especially when dampened or oiled. One other sculpted piece made from this material has been found in the same area as the table fragments.27 This roughly cut pedestal (200306ART0019) is 50 cm high, has a distinct lean to it, and appears to be unfinished. If it was somehow associated with the table, it must have been out of sight.

200306ART0014 Fragment of conglomerate table surface with inscription (M: 5/18/40.5/2.5) Find spot: C8.113 [Fig. 06.20]

The extant inscription is preceded by one or two illegible letters. Immediately before the first complete letter (ȍ), the upstroke of a kappa, chi, or upsilon is visible, but certain identification is not possible.28 The legible letters are cut in a neat hand, especially considering the material surface, and they feature elongated horizontal hastae and distinct serifs. After examining the inscription, L. Di Segni suggested that the lettering was most likely dated to the first century BCE or first century CE.29

Fig. 06.20 Omrit inscription 200306ART0014 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) ---ȍȃǼȃȈǼǺ--This large fragment is one of four pieces that appear to come from the same installation [Fig. 06.21]. Only this piece, however, bears an inscription. It is possible that the inscription was a secondary addition to the construction. The extant fragments do not join at any point, but lined up side by side they measure nearly one meter. One

27 In 2006, two fragments of a large (2 m diameter) basin were found in the wadi north of the temple complex. This basin was also carved from the conglomerate stone. 28 There are also traces of what may be a cross stroke in the same character, which would make it a ligature for țĮ‫ܝ‬, which McLean (2002, 55) describes as “perhaps the most common of all ligatures” used in inscriptions. The mark is faint, however, and may not be part of the original letter. 29 Personal Conversation.

22

McLean 2002, 141-42. Wilson 2004, 43-44. 24 Ibid. 25 Cf. Conclusion, below. 26 McLean,2002, 242-44. 23

81

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

The surviving letters represent an uncommon grouping in the PHI database. One heavily reconstructed inscription contains this string of characters, and seems to refer to Sebaste in Phrygia.30 The first complete letters of the Omrit inscription are ȍȃ, a very common ending for Greek words either as a genitive plural first or second declension noun, a nominative singular of some third declension nouns, or a masculine nominative singular participle. Given what follows, the latter usage may be more plausible. These letters are followed by EN— probably the preposition ȑȞ--and then the three letters ȈǼǺ. These letters could be the beginning of the word for “reverence” or “The object of reverence” (Y®HGX). This connection might strengthen the argument that the flat surface was the cover for a sarcophagus, or otherwise associated with a funerary monument.

marble but features a rather roughly carved dedicatory inscription that identifies the table as a gift to the Savior Asklepios from the island of Cos. “Agathemeros son of Eucharistos of Cos has given the table to Savior Asklepios as he promised.” Unfortunately, the Chania table is not published. The table surface is thinner and not beveled, while the stone is of a higher quality than the Omrit example. None-the-less it provides a potential parallel to the Omrit fragments.36 If the ȈǼǺ on the Omrit table is a reference to the games associated with the Augusteum (YKHGYZK¾G), it is possible that the installation was a votive offering given in thanks for a victory in the contests. Such offerings were made regularly by participants in games, and are especially common in association with the sites of major athletic competitions such as Olympia, Nemea, and even Athens. These sites, however, were not only locations of contests, but rather sacred sanctuaries dedicated to the divinities in whose name the games were held. A model in the museum of Olympia shows that the temple for Zeus was surrounded by numerous offerings dedicated to the King of the gods by victorious athletes. The Omrit temple did not stand at the center of a sanctuary like Olympia, but given its position, it would certainly have stood as the focal point of the surrounding region, and that region must have included as yet undiscovered athletic installations.

It is also possible that these letters are the beginning of some form related to the title YKHGYZ±X, the Greek equivalent of Augustus. This is by far the most frequently occurring form among the PHI database listing of words starting with ȈǼǺ.31 While the evidence cannot be conclusive at this point, it is worth considering the possibility that the inscription refers to someone who had done something “in the Sebasteion,” meaning the temple to Augustus. It is also possible that the inscription referred to someone “in the Sebasteia,” meaning games dedicated to Augustus or one of the later emperors. A related possibility would be a reference to someone doing something in the city of Sebaste (Samaria) to the south, or another city named in honor of Augustus. If the identification of ȍȃ as a masculine participle ending is correct, that someone seems to have been a male. As a nominative, the person would serve as the subject of the sentence, and probably would be mentioned as setting up some kind of votive offering, perhaps the table itself.

As with the other fragmentary inscriptions, more certain analysis has to await the discovery of further information. Nonetheless, the potential reference to Augustus in this inscription is very intriguing. 200306ART0012 Marble fragment with inscription (M: 8.5/4/2.5/2) Find spot: C8/SP1.057 [Fig. 06.22]

If the inscription refers to someone doing something in the Augusteum, then it could be a priest, another cultic official, or someone who made a dedication to the temple or performed some other service related to it. L. Di Segni has suggested that if the letter preceding the ȍȃ is a chi, it could be a dedication by an archon.32 If the surface was an offering table, it would have been set up to hold other gifts and valuables.33 This type of installation is quite common. Examples include a heavy marble table discovered in fragments in the Demeter sanctuary on the north slope of Acrocorinth.34 The base of a table is also preserved in a healing sanctuary dedicated to Amynos on the west slope of the Areopagus in Athens.35 Another interesting parallel comes from an inscribed table on display in the Archaeological Museum of Chania on Crete. This well-preserved table is made of a beautiful 30 Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 601,474[2]. I am grateful to Arietta Papaconstantinou for her assistance with this reference. 31 237 out of 275 occurrences are some form of sebastos. 32 Personal conversation. 33 Gill 1974. 34 Bookidis and Stroud 1987, 345-46. Thanks to Nancy Bookidis for pointing out this parallel and for other bibliographic assistance, as well as to the staff of the Corinth museum who helped me examine the fragments. 35 Gialoures 1973.

Fig. 06.22 Omrit inscription 200306ART0012 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) 36 In 2006, a second piece of inscribed conglomerate material was found in the fill of Space 4. This piece is about five cm thick and closer to the style of the Chania table with clean cut and polished surfaces on both sides. While it is clearly not part of the table described above, the inscribed letters look very similar to the ȈǼǺ table. This piece will be discussed in an upcoming publication.

82

D.N. SCHOWALTER: SMALL FINDS AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM OMRIT

----ǹ------ȁȅȈ-----ȉȍ------ĭ---

Even with the limited evidence, similarities between this fragment and the previous entry (200306ART0012) are striking. Found in roughly the same area, the pieces look to be the same marble type, and the rough back of both pieces indicates that they were each broken off of a larger block. Letter size is similar, as is the uneven carving, in spite of the presence of guide lines. Both fragments contain lunate sigmas, but unfortunately, any comparison of complete letter forms is limited to the omicron. At best one could say there was a similarity of style in the letters. No surfaces join the two pieces, nor do any obvious word connections emerge. At this point, the similarities can only be noted, and await additional evidence.

This piece was found in fill material in C8/SP1. Four partial lines of text are preserved. The back is broken and uneven, so the fragment appears to be from an inscribed block, rather than a marble slab. Scoring lines are visible, but the letters do not conform to the guidelines. The inscription was either done in haste or by an inexperienced worker.37 The limited letters preserved do not lend themselves to any obvious interpretation.

200406ART0034 Marble slab fragment with inscription (M: 4.5/5.5/2/2.5) Find spot: C8/SP1.050 [Fig. 06.24]

200406ART0035 Marble Fragment with inscription (M: 6/6/2.5/2) Find spot: C8/SP1.050 [Fig. 06.23]

Fig. 06.24 Omrit inscription 200406ART0034 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) ---ǹCȉ--The fragment is broken on all sides so no edge is preserved. Unlike the previous two fragments, both sides of this piece are smooth, and so the inscription must have been on a marble slab. Unfortunately, so little of the inscription is preserved that we cannot say anything about the original meaning or function. The trace of a foot of one letter does appear above the A, but it cannot be identified. The letters ACT could be part of the word ıİȕĮıIJȩȢ, but if this were the case, the tight spacing of the letters would dictate that some sign of the Ǻ would be visible in the extant portion.

Fig. 06.23 Omrit inscription 200406ART0035 (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) ----[ȅǿ]------ȃǿǿǺȅ‫܂‬-----[ȅ]ȇOCT--Once again, the back of this piece is uneven and rough, suggesting that it was broken off of a block, rather than being part of a cut slab. The Greek lettering is again uneven, in spite of the presence of scored guidelines. In line two, the double iota is somewhat unusual, since no word begins ǿǺȅȊ… There is the possibility that “II” could be an example of the acrophonic numeral for “two” which is attested into the first and second centuries CE,38 but not enough of the context survives to be certain. Given that the word ȕȠȣȜ (“council”) is one of the most commonly occurring terms in Greek inscriptions, this fragment could indeed refer to an action of a civic council. In some cases, ȕȠȣȜȒ is also used to translate references to the Senate in Rome. Neither reference can be certain given the limited context. The same can be said of the surviving letters in the third line. 37 38

2000406ART0072 Limestone altar fragment with inscription (M: 33/25/14/??) Find spot: unknown [See Fig. 06.02] ---[AIOC]--The partial letters on this altar fragment were not seen at the time of discovery, but only after cleaning during the 2005 study season. The finished edge of the altar is to the right of the final letter. The reading ǹǿȅC is not certain. The first extant letter could be either an A, ȁ, or perhaps ǻ. The second letter could be either I or ĭ, and the third could be either ȅ or Ĭ. ǹǿȅC corresponds with transliterated Latin names such as īĮȚȠȢ, while ǻǿȅC

Cf. McLean’s comments on guide lines (2002, 9). Ibid. 60.

83

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

GREGG, R. and URMAN, D. 1996. Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights: Greek and other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras. Atlanta, Scholars Press.

could be the last part of the Greek form of a Latin name such as Claudius. The possibility that ǻǿȅC is a reference to Zeus is unlikely since the nominative case is usually used to name the dedicator of the altar, rather than the deity to whom it is dedicated. Although it is possible that the sigma is the start of another word. Further analysis will have to await additional evidence.

HERRMANN J. and van den HOEK A. 2005. The Sphinx: Sculpture as a Theological Symbol in Plutarch and Clement of Alexandria. in Anthony Hilhorst and George H. van Kooten, eds. The wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, early Christian, and gnostic essays in honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, 285-310. Leiden, Brill.

Bibliography ALLISON, P. 2006. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii, Volume III: The Finds, a contextual Study. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ISRAELI, Y. 2003. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and other Gifts. Jerusalem, Israel Museum.

BOOKIDIS, N. and STROUD, R. 1987. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Topography and Architecture. Corinth XVIII.3; Princeton, NJ, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

McLEAN, B.H. 2002. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.–A.D. 337). Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.

ERDEMIGIL, S. et al. 1999. Ephesus Museum Catalogue. trans. Christine M. Thomas; Istanbul: Dogü Publications.

SCHOWALTER, D. 1998. The Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple: A Context for Divine Honors. In Helmut Koester, ed. Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development, 236-38. Harrisburg, PA, Trinity Press International.

GILL, D.S.J. 1974. Trapezomata: A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice. Harvard Theological Review 67, 117–37. GIALOURES, N. 1973. Finds from the Amyneion. Archaiologikon Deltion 29, B1. 2–3 (no. 8), pls. 7/8 [in Greek].

WILSON, J. 2004. Caesarea Philippi: Banias the Lost City of Pan. London, I.B. Taurus.

84

Chapter Seven THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT Gregory W. Stoehr tectonic activity in the region, both past and present, indicates that an earthquake in 363 CE probably damaged the Temple Two complex.

The temple complex at Omrit is in a ruined condition. Various destructive events are likely to have punctuated its history. The Early Shrine was impacted by the construction of Temple I. Temple I was evidently partially ruined and/or dismantled in order to accommodate the new construction below the stylobate that we see in Temple Two. Repair work that was carried out at this time on wF4, the foundation for the cella wall of the two Roman temples, suggests some type of cataclysmic damage. A new floor was installed during the Late Roman/Byzantine period; possibly indicating that that the Temple Two stylobate had been ruined and/or dismantled and a new or mostly new building constructed. Like the builders of Temple Two, the builders of this heavy floor engaged in some fairly invasive work below the level of the Temple Two stylobate that seems to be inconsistent with the idea of an intact Temple Two. The entire complex was finally leveled down to the podiumprobably as the result of quarrying activity after the fifth century. Further, there is a gap in the ceramic chronology of the temple complex lasting from the fifth to the thirteenth centuries, suggesting a period of disuse following some discontinuity in building function that happened prior to the fifth century. There is a distinct possibility that earthquakes were involved in some of these transformations of the site.

Stathis Stiros and Emanuela Guidoboni (et al.) have created the most current list of criteria for identifying earthquake impact at archaeological sites. 1 The following features from their lists are relevant to understanding the evidence from the Omrit Temple Two complex: 1. Damage or destruction of isolated buildings or whole sites, for which an earthquake appears the only reasonable explanation 2. Characteristic structural damage and failure of constructions  Several parallel fallen columns  Several fallen columns with their drums in a domino-style (‘slices of salami’) arrangement  Constructions deformed as by horizontal forces (rectangles transformed to parallelograms) 3. Fissuring of floors 4. Absence of any archaeological record for a particular chronological phase 5. Well-dated destructions of buildings correlating with historical (including epigraphic) evidence of earthquakes

The evidence that Temple Two was impacted is particularly good, although quarrying activity has partially obscured evidence for this. In fact, earthquake damage in the fourth century probably rendered Temple Two unusable, creating an opportunity for beginning the Late Roman/Byzantine construction on the podium (which was perhaps never completed) and also allowing for extensive quarrying. Some of the damage that is observed on the Temple Two complex is difficult to understand without considering the effect of earthquakes. Alternative explanations for the damage, citing different geological phenomena or the intentional destructive activity of humans, are unconvincing. What we know of

This list can be compared with the evidence for earthquake activity at Omrit. None of these criteria constitute proof of tectonic damage on their own, but taken together they provide good evidence. Criterion four, for instance, is fulfilled at Omrit by the previously mentioned gap in the ceramic chronology. The gap, however, can be explained without resorting to the effects of earthquakes. The archaeological evidence from Omrit 1

85

Stiros 1996, 152, Guidoboni, Muggia, and Valensise, 2000, 56.

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

has been partially obscured by subsequent activity at the site, although the case for earthquake damage becomes stronger when the archaeological evidence is considered in conjunction with the written historical record.

ideology,4 or a monument might be completely quarried for material needed elsewhere, perhaps for a defensive wall required during a time of armed conflict. Temple wrecking, however, was not usual behavior in fourth century Palestine. It certainly did occur, but there was a significant political disincentive involved. There were still significant populations of polytheists living in Upper Galilee under the Byzantine Empire.5 Emperors engaged in a balancing act between different faiths; destroying the sacred monuments of any of these groups would create potentially dangerous unrest.6 Official efforts to destroy the monuments of pre-existing religious groups seemed to be specifically and carefully targeted; it is questionable that Omrit would have been affected. Unofficial efforts were not widespread. Further, we see frequent instances throughout the empire of temples being ransacked and co-opted for other uses, rather than being leveled to the ground.7

Criterion one is a logical place to start evaluating the case for Omrit. Earthquakes might not constitute the “only” reasonable way of explaining the destruction of Temple Two, but they are the most reasonable. Alternative explanations, citing non-tectonic geological phenomena or intentional human destruction of the temple, seem unlikely. Non-tectonic geological phenomena have the potential to mimic the effects of earthquakes on ancient buildings.2 These phenomena include slope slumping, landslides, and foundation settling, which can damage structures in ways similar to earthquakes by causing cracking, displacement, and collapse. The evidence for earthquake activity at sites can thus be equivocal, even close to the epicenter of wellknown major quakes from antiquity. Such is the case at Hisham’s Palace, an Umayyad structure near the Jericho epicenter of the well-documented 749 CE quake. Cracks in the floor and displaced walls at this site, attributed to earthquake damage by the excavators, might be reevaluated, for example, in terms of problems with foundations placed on unstable fill.3

Constantine, for example, seems to have been unwilling to destroy temples anywhere in the empire except for a handful in the east.8 Eusebius records only four examples in his Vita Constantini. We may take this small number as representative of a real disinterest on the emperor’s part, because it would have suited Eusebius’ agenda (the presentation of a complete Christian victory) to mention as many examples as possible.9 The Imperial cult also seems to have been given special status by Constantine; he built a new temple dedicated to the Flavian gens in Umbria, around 335.10 If Temple Two at Omrit was an Augusteum, Constantine might have wanted to preserve it. The cultivation of loyalty and political validation involved in the Imperial cult was probably still an important part of an emperor’s propaganda machine until late in the fourth century. The official process of obtaining imperial permission for acting against temples also honored the emperor’s authority as Pontifex Maximus, head of official state polytheism.11 The emperors needed to maintain this authority in order to control the armies, the Roman Senate, and large sectors of the population of the empire. It was not until around 382 that Gratian gave up this title, abolished the office, and renounced his claim to polytheistic religious authority.12

Non-tectonic geological phenomena, however, can be ruled out as a means for explaining damage to the temple complex at Omrit. The slope to the south and west of the temple complex is too shallow for significant landslides or slumping, and foundation settling is improbable geologically because of the solid foundation on basalt bedrock. Because of this, the podium of the temple is structurally sound and virtually level even today. Although this last fact might seem to point away from using earthquakes as a means of explanation for destruction, it is in fact consistent with earthquake activity observed elsewhere. The upper parts of a structure are always the most damaged. Further, it is obvious that the ashlar construction of the Temple Two podium is so well set that negligible amounts of mortar were used in its construction. This is significant in this context because mortar can erode with time and contribute to the settling and destabilization of structures.

Despite the political disincentive involved, temples were, however occasionally, destroyed. Whether or not Temple Two at Omrit enjoyed the added protection of being an Imperial temple, we know that it was in fact quarried intensively in the Byzantine period. An interpretation of this activity that involves primary damage by an

Another frequent criticism of using earthquakes for explaining damage at sites is that it overlooks the cultural factor in a site’s destruction. Anthropogenic destruction includes activities such as quarrying, demolition, and neglect. A religious monument might go out of use because of a regional shift in ideology, the reduced number of adherents allowing it to slowly fall apart because of a lack of funds or commitment to maintenance. This would probably leave the bulk of a building standing. In a more cataclysmic scenario, groups of religious zealots or political opponents might deliberately destroy a monument belonging to a rival 2 3

4

A shift in political realities appears to lead to the destruction of the Early Shrine at Omrit. 5 Berlin 1999, 36-40, Dothan 1983, 46. 6 Vita Porphyrii, 26; 41. 7 These include the Maison Carée in Nîmes, and the Temple of Concord and the Pantheon in Rome – all changed into churches. 8 Libanius, Pro Templis 30.6. 9 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.26-27; 3.55-3.56, Bradbury 1994, 123. 10 Bradbury 1994, 130. 11 Caseau 1999, 32. 12 Cameron 1968, 96-102.

Karcz and Kafri 1978, 237-53. Karcz and Kafri 1981, 12-23.

86

G.W. STOEHR: THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT

earthquake, however, might make more sense than suggesting that the temple was destroyed intentionally. Tectonic activity, capable of damaging Temple Two, is a regular occurrence in the region.

north to south. Massive damage to stone buildings in various cities throughout the earthquake’s area of effect resulted.16 Thus, a 50 kilometer radius seems like a good yardstick to use for measuring the proximity of similarly high magnitude quakes which might have been destructive at Omrit.

Tectonic activity in Israel is governed by the major northsouth fault known as the Dead Sea Transform, which accommodates the differential rates of movement between the African and Arabian continental plates. Both are moving to the north, although Arabia moves faster than Africa.13 This type of dynamic relationship between plates is known as strike-slip movement, and also occurs along the San Andreas Fault in California. A 100 to 150 km offset in geological features on either side of the Dead Sea Transform demonstrates the effects of this motion through time. The collision of Arabia with Asia and Europe has caused the uplift of the Zagros range in Iran and the Taurus range in Turkey. The Dead Sea Transform consists of two faults which split into a number of subsidiary faults in the Hula Valley. Two of these, the Kfar Szold and Azaz faults, pass within a kilometer of Omrit along the valley’s eastern perimeter.

Twelve ancient earthquakes, documented by epigraphic and archaeological evidence, damaged sites within 50 kilometers of Omrit during the time frame represented by the ceramic chronology gap in the temple area. At least three of these were of sufficient magnitude to damage Temple Two; the others are of uncertain magnitude. Table 1 gives details about the events. Figure 07.01 may be consulted for locating the sites mentioned. Of the twelve quakes listed in this table, three are of particular interest because Banias is explicitly mentioned by the primary sources. These are the events that occurred at or around 363, 1067-1069, and 1201/1202.17 If Banias, only four kilometers away from Omrit, was significantly damaged by these events, then the probability that Omrit was also significantly damaged is high. Because Omrit was part of the Banias hinterland, the ancient sources might not have even differentiated the two. Based upon the table, the earthquakes of 306 and 363 appear to be good candidates for explaining the damage to Temple Two because of their occurrence during the time frame represented by the rubble surrounding the podium. The earthquake of 363 is the better of the two because it was actually reported to have affected Banias.

According to the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, the largest quake that the Dead Sea Transform is capable of producing is of magnitude 7.5 or 8.14 Based on observations of earthquake damage to modern buildings, a quake with a nearby epicenter and a Richter magnitude over 6.5 would probably damage Temple Two. A 6.5 magnitude event roughly corresponds to Mercalli intensity VIII, an observational measurement of the impact of a quake on the natural and man-made environment. At this intensity the water level of wells might change, ground cracking might be observed, and substantial modern buildings might suffer partial collapse.15 The ground is shaking enough to damage a modern reinforced concrete structure.

The primary source for the 363 earthquake is a document known as Harvard Syriac 99, a nineteenth century document containing a copy of an ancient letter.18 The author portrays the earthquake as one of several signs from God, who was displeased at the Emperor Julian’s desire to rebuild the Herodian temple in Jerusalem. The letter comments on the level of destruction at various cities throughout Palestine, Jordan, and Syria:

A concrete building might be the best modern analogy for Temple Two, which was solidly built and incorporated earthquake resistant features. Multi-drum columns were held together with wooden empolia which allowed the columns to flex rather than break during an earthquake. Similarly, the lead which was poured around the iron clamps between ashlar masonry blocks could flex slightly. The relatively short height of these buildings and their foundation on bedrock would also have made them highly resistant to quake damage.

Now we should like to write down for you the names of the towns which were overthrown: Beit Gubrin – more than half of it; part of Bet Shean, the whole of Sebastia and its territory, the whole of Nikopolis and its territory; more than half Lydda and its territory; about half of Ashqelon, the whole of Antipatris and its territory; part of Caesarea (Maritima), more than half Samaria; part of (untranslated place name), a third of Banias, half of Azotus, part of Gophna, more than half of Petra; Hada, a suburb of the city (Jerusalem) – more than half; more than half Jerusalem, and fire came forth and consumed the teachers of the Jews, part of Tiberias too, and its territory, more than half (untranslated place name), the whole of Sepphoris and its territory, ‘Aina dGader; Haifa flowed with blood for three days; the

A large quake of magnitude 6.5 or greater, with an epicenter within 50 km of Omrit, would probably have had a recognizable effect on the site. The Dead Sea Transform is certainly capable of producing strong enough earthquakes to do this. The magnitude >7 earthquake that hit Palestine in 749 CE, for instance, was felt at intensity level X in an elliptical region centered between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. The region was about 50 km wide east to west and 100 km long

16

Marco et al. 2003, 668. Possibly a single event separated into two sets of reports due to inconsistencies in calendar systems. 18 Brock 1977, 267-286; Russell 1980, 47-64; Hammond 1980, 65-67; Russell 1985, 37-60. 17

13

Garfunkel 2001, 650. Vered 1978, 84. 15 Rapp and Hill 1998, 211. 14

87

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Tab. 07.01 Ancient Earthquakes near Omrit, 300 CE-1300 CE (Adapted from Amiran 1994) Distance: Omrit Richter to Closest Magnitude Affected Site Estimate

Date

Proposed Epicenter(s)

Range of Effects, Mercalli Intensity Estimates (MMS)

306

Possibly multiple quakes. Cypriot Arc and Dead Sea.

Destructive at Tyre and Sidon, Gush Halav; damage to synagogues at Khirbet Shema’ and Nabratein; tsunami at Caesarea, Jerusalem.

27 km to Gush Halav

Data not available

363

Possibly multiple quakes throughout Palestine, Jordan.

Strong earthquake affecting most of Palestine and Jordan. Severe damage at Banias, Capernaum, Tiberias, thermal baths of Hammat Gader, Sippori, Beth She’arim, Beth Shean, Sebaste, Nablus, Gophna, Jerusalem: damage to Temple area, some workmen killed, Caesarea, Aphek, Jaffa, Lod, Emmaus, Beth Guvrin, Ashkelon, Gaza, ‘Avdat, Elat, Petra. Seiche in southern part of Dead Sea.

4 km to Banias

Data not available

502

Possibly multiple quakes. Cypriot Arc and Dead Sea.

Beirut: some houses collapsed; Tyre, Sidon: severe; ‘Akko: destructive; Latrun: destroyed; possibly damage to a church at Shivta in the Negev.

46 km to Tyre

Data not available

551

Possibly multiple quakes. Cypriot Arc, Dead Sea, Jordan.

Many thousands of victims. Much damage at Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, Tripoli, Jerusalem, Jerash, Mt. Nebo, Aeropolis; el-Jejjun fortress east of Kerak destroyed. Petra destroyed and never rebuilt. Tsunami on the coast of Lebanon.

46 km to Tyre

Data not available

34 km to Capernaum

7.1 – 7.6

45 km to Tiberias

Data not available

A swarm of earthquakes, which probably occurred in the Jordan Valley, continued approximately 40 days. A source quoted dates the strongest shock to 10 December 1033. This may correspond to the date given by Klein: 11 Teveth = December 10th, 1033, before sunrise. Ambraseys assesses the intensity as MMS X; the epicentre was probably in the Jordan Valley. Intensity, according to El-Isa, VIII/ IX. One of the later earthquakes occurred on 4 January 1034; the epicentre was in the Mediterranean, off the shore of `Akko, intensity VIII. The earthquake 45 km to Tiberias was felt from Syria to Egypt. Galilee, `Akko: much damage to buildings and loss of life; the port fell dry for an hour due to a tsunami. Tsunami at Jaffa. At Tiberias, buildings apparently collapsed. Half of Nablus and one third of Ramie ' were destroyed. Jerusalem: damage to the city wall, the Temple area and many churches. Hebron: collapse of buildings. Jericho destroyed. Damage at Ashkelon, Gaza and Deir el-Balab. Felt in the cities of the Negev. Jerusalem: the roof of alAqsa mosque collapsed.

7.1 – 7.6

746, 747, 748, or 749

853/4

Time, according to Cedrenus and Theophanes, hora quarta, i.e. about 11 a.m. (local time). Date revised by Tsafrir and Foerster. El-Isa assesses intensity as MMS X. Palestine: disastrous, severe loss of life (according to one source `ten thousands of victims'); Umm el-Jimal; Karin, Capernaum; Kursi: church destroyed; Susita; Arbel: synagogue destroyed; Tiberias: 30 houses destroyed, or according to a different source, 30 synagogues; church on Mount Berenike Possibly multiple destroyed; Hammat Gader thermal baths totally destroyed; Pella, Beth Shean; quakes. Dead Sea to Lod, Jerusalem: severe damage to al-Aqsa mosque, large Omayyad building Sea of Galilee. south of the Temple area destroyed, people fled into the open `and stayed there 40 days'; Kh. el-Mefjer (Hisham's Palace) near Jericho destroyed; Jerash: many of its greatest buildings destroyed; Amman, Mt. Nebo. Tsunami on Mediterranean coast, according to Michael the Syrian; and seiche in the Dead Sea. A different year zero was introduced to the Hebrew calendar around this time, possibly the source of error in our understanding of this event. Sea of Galilee

Tiberias

1033/4

Multiple quakes throughout Palestine, Cypriot Arc.

1067, 1068 or 1069

Possibly multiple quakes throughout Palestine.

Banias, Ramle destroyed, only two houses remained. Jerusalem: damage to the roof of the Dome of the Rock. Yavne, Ashdod, Elat: Tsunami.

4 km to Banias

Data not available

1170

Possibly multiple quakes throughout Palestine, Syria, Cypriot Arc.

Syria, disastrous. Tyre: damage to city walls. Palestine: ‘hundreds perished in the ruins of their houses.' Aftershocks for 3-4 months.

46 km to Tyre

Data not available

1182

Possibly multiple quakes, Dead Sea to Sea of Galilee

Galilee and Judaea: moderate to severe. Nablus: severe.

>50 km to Nablus

Data not available

1201

Possibly multiple quakes in E. Med., Near East.

Iraq and Anatolia to Egypt. Tyre, Safed, `Akko. Nablus destroyed, MMS IX-X, 30,000 killed (?), only the Samaritan quarter escaped damage. This earthquake might be identical to the following one, due to chroniclers using different eras for reporting.

46 km to Tyre

7.1 – 7.6

1202

Possibly multiple quakes in E. Med., Near East.

Syria, Hauran, Egypt, Baalbek, Tibnin, Tyre: MMS VIII, Banias, Hunin, Safed: MMS IX, Beit Jann: MMS IX, `Akko: MMS VIII, severe damage to city walls, Tiberias, Beth Shean: MMS IX, Nablus: MMS VII-VIII, `Nablus completed the ruin,' Jerusalem: MMS V. Severe tsunami on Levant coast, apparently causing serious damage at `Akko.

4 km to Banias

6.6 – 7.1

88

G.W. STOEHR: THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT

Fig. 07.01 Location Map (Figure by the Author)

appearance of the opening section of the letter in a sixth century collection of New Testament pseudepigraphical texts.20 In that context the letter excerpt was sandwiched between correspondence between Herod and Pilate, and the Teaching of Peter in Rome, both considered forgeries. Brock suggests that HS99 was written by someone a generation or so after the time or Cyril, who forged the letter because they felt that Cyril really ought to have commented on the events of 363.21 Conversely, at least one modern author argues convincingly that HS99 is authentic.22 Whether or not Cyril himself wrote the letter, however, is irrelevant to the present argument. The author

whole of Japho perished, part of (untranslated place name). This event took place on Monday at the third hour, and partly at the ninth hour of the night. There was great loss of life here. On 19 Iyyar of the year 674 of the kingdom of Alexander the Greek.19 The letter in HS99 was apparently written by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem during the late fourth century. S.P. Brock, who originally published the letter, feels that the attribution to Cyril is false for a number of reasons. For one, the letter includes several errors in the naming of monuments in Jerusalem and does not appear in later lists of Cyril’s works compiled by authors who ought to have been aware of Cyril’s writing. The letter is at least acknowledged by most scholars to be an authentic document from before the sixth century, because of the 19

20

British Library, Add. 14609, Folio 122a-b. Rare dialectical words in Syriac (h̔ĠaĠa and d’sys) point to such a date for the letter, roughly contemporary with Cyril. 22 Wainwright 1986, 286-93; One of Wainwright’s points is that the apparent toponymic errors in HS99 are actually easy typographical errors to make when writing in Syriac. The letter mentions, for instance, a statue of Herod on the Temple Mount, when in reality there was a statue of Hadrian there. 21

Brock 1977, 276.

89

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 07.02 Sequenced Rubble at Bet Shean along Cardo (Photo by the Author)

Fig. 07.03 Sequenced Rubble at Bet Shean along Silvanus Street (Photo by the Author)

was probably contemporary with, and had access to information about, the events which occurred in 363. Even if the letter were a forgery done at the time of Cyril or shortly thereafter, it would not have been a plausible forgery if it had wildly exaggerated those events. The mentioning of specific cities and degrees of damage gives the sense that the author was compiling information from first-hand sources. One might wonder whether “half of Banias” was really destroyed, but it seems as though somebody, who had been in Banias and seen the damage, communicated their observation to the author of HS99, whoever they were. Despite the uncertain attribution to Cyril and clear generalizations regarding the extent of damage at each city, it seems that Banias, and probably also Omrit, was hit hard by the earthquake of 363.

relative positions that they would have had in the standing structure. These patterns are equivalent to Stiros’ “slices of salami” concept.24 The columns of the arcade are also parallel to each other, another distinctive feature of earthquake damage mentioned by Stiros.25 Further, the fact that the form of the original structure is so well preserved by the rubble implies several things: The entire arcade collapsed simultaneously, the force applied to the arcade was strong and came from a single direction, and each one of the column shafts must have snapped simultaneously. All of this is good physical evidence of earthquake activity. The site of Susita-Hippos, located forty-four kilometers away from Omrit, was also damaged by the earthquake of 749. Fig. 07.04, a photo of the interior of a basilica at Hippos, illustrates the parallel, southern oriented fall of the interior colonnade which makes earthquake activity a likely hypothesis at this site. Some of the smaller columns in this photo are not parallel. They might have been moved after the earthquake, or knocked about during the collapse. Sometimes an earthquake will only destroy portions of a building, and the collapsing pieces will rebound off the still-standing architecture. The ruins of this basilica do, however, generally conform to the list of criteria.

The character of fallen rubble around ancient buildings frequently suggests the impact of earthquakes, and one might expect this to be the case at Omrit. Typical “smoking gun” earthquake rubble exists at many sites around the Mediterranean, including in Palestine. This often consists of “sequenced” or “patterned” architectural collapse. Bet Shean, located seventy five kilometers from Omrit, is commonly accepted to have been damaged by a cataclysmic quake in 749 CE. Sequenced entablature and directional fall can be seen in the patterned rubble left intact in many places by the excavators.23 This gives us an indication of how earthquake destruction loci should look.

Other sites where stereotypical earthquake rubble can be observed include Olympia, where all of the Temple of Zeus’ columns are laid out in parallel with the drums set up like dominoes.26 At Kourion and Acragas walls are laid out flat, as if pushed over by a giant hand.27 The presence of this sort of rubble suggests that many architectural elements fell simultaneously, on account of a strong force that was applied from a single direction. When these sorts of phenomena are observed in a large structure, or over a large area of a site, a catastrophic earthquake is likely. The architectural rubble that

Figs. 07.02 and 07.03 illustrate the diagnostic rubble at Bet Shean resulting from the earthquake of 749 CE. Elements from higher up in a standing building will typically travel further than pieces from a lower elevation. Thus, the pieces of fallen temple architecture in Fig. 07.02 lead away from the building’s foundation (on the right side of the photo), in the following sequence: base, column, capitol, epistyle, frieze, cornice. In Fig. 07.03 we see the same relationship in the ruins of an arcaded street. The keystones of the arches, the column shafts, and the bases of the columns occupy the same 23

24

Stiros 1996, 152. Stiros 1996, 152. 26 Dinsmoor 1985, 105. 27 Soren 1987, 140; Dinsmoor 1985, 105. 25

Tsafrir and Foerster 1989, 3-4.

90

G.W. STOEHR: THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT

Fig. 07.04 Basilica Interior, Hippos (Photo by the Author)

surrounds the temple podium at Omrit, however, does not compare favorably with the stereotypical patterned rubble created by earthquakes elsewhere because of its lack of large-scale systematic patterning. The architectural rubble at Omrit is segregated into two loci. The topmost layer dates to the thirteenth century and is not relevant to understanding the discontinuity in the function of Temple Two. It does not contain many elements that correlate with the Roman temple. The earlier layer corresponds with the destruction of Temple Two. It is here that most of the large architectural elements from the temple may be found, such as epistyle and cornice blocks. Most of these elements are undamaged except for the normal wear that one would expect. This layer lies upon the temenos surface, or at the approximate level of that surface in places where the temenos has been robbed out. The fact that this rubble covers regions where the temenos is missing implies that some quarrying of the walking surface had occurred in the temple precinct prior to the deposition of the large architectural elements from Temple Two. Pottery from the fourth and fifth centuries is associated with the destruction layer. Thus, the destruction of Temple Two probably occurred in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period.

Fig. 07.05 Rubble Loci North of Temple Two Podium (Red = 13th Century Rubble, Green = Byzantine Rubble, Blue = Unidentified/Undated Wall, Magenta = 13th Century Graves, (Figure by the Author)

the Temple Two destruction layer is largely a jumble. Only a few pieces appear to have the expected position relative to one another. The only such pieces found at Omrit are along the western side of the podium. These include a row of four column drums in the foreground of Fig. 07.06, which perhaps had the same relative sequence within a standing column. The top column drum, the two-part Corinthian capital, and the architrave block in Fig. 07.07 are also associated with each other in a way that reflects their relative positions within the standing building. Further, the architrave block is broken in two places, something which would have required a lot of force. There is another broken architrave in the foreground of Fig. 07.06.

Some of the architectural elements in this early layer are in exactly the opposite order that one would expect following an earthquake. At Bet Shean, as well as other sites, material from the upper elevations of a structure is found at the greatest distance from that structure. This leads to sequenced material as seen in Fig. 07.02. Along the north side of the temple at Omrit, however, one sees the exact same pieces in an order reversed from that at Bet Shean. In Fig. 07.05, a sequence of material leads north in the eastern portion of the excavation area. Cornice blocks are adjacent to the podium, followed by a pilaster capital, an epistyle block, and a column capital, all in that order. These pieces are not directly associated with each other in the way that they would have been in the standing building. Instead of the patterned fall that one would expect following destruction by earthquake,

These aligned pieces, however, are isolated. They are not part of anything systematic that reproduces the form of the standing structure. For instance, there are no parallel columns like that at Bet Shean or Hippos. Additionally, the “slices of salami” concept implies a larger quantity of architectural elements in close association. At Omrit there are only the above mentioned, isolated pieces. Significant elements are missing. For instance, one would expect to find a capital to the right of the four sequential column drums. With the exception of the limited amount of

91

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 07.06 Rubble Loci West of Temple Two Podium (Macalester/Carthage College Excavations at Omrit)

Fig. 07.08 Secondary Rubble Pile in Temenos (Photo by the Author) Another one of these piles (Fig. 07.09) consists of columns, perhaps from the colonnaded street which led into the temple temenos. These columns are not in the oriented, parallel pattern that one would expect of in situ earthquake debris. Instead, it looks like the columns were collected together from more widespread locations within a standing structure. In both of these instances, human activity was probably involved.

Fig. 07.07 Rubble Loci West of Temple Two Podium (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) material on the west side of the podium, the rubble which corresponds with the destruction of Temple Two does not conform to criteria from the list of relevant evidence. This might be a result of the heavy quarrying which occurred at Omrit, potentially removing this evidence. The quarrying is evident because there is not enough material left to account for Temple Two. For instance, we know that there must have been at least 30 column bases in the peristyle of Temple II, because it was hexastyle. Only a handful, however, have been recovered after almost ten years of excavation. Likewise, we’ve recovered very few wall blocks or roof tiles from Temple II. The missing material was presumably removed for use elsewhere, or was discarded.

Fig. 07.09 Column Pile near Colonnaded Way (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit) A logical activity during a quarrying operation would be the consolidation of materials. People might pull architectural pieces out of their original location and place them in piles, prior to reuse, transport to another location, or as part of a cleaning operation to get them out of the way of new construction and activity at a site. This occurred at Pergamon following the 1296 earthquake, where rubble was moved out of the way into secondary locations. At one rebuilt home in Pergamon a rubble pile, consisting of material probably from the ruins of the previous home, was located in the courtyard of the reconstructed house. Homes were also rebuilt on top of some of the in situ earthquake debris such as roof tiles,

A quantity of the architectural material from Temple Two is present in isolated piles some distance from the podium. These include a column drum and several wall blocks found resting together on the temenos surface over 30 meters east of the temple steps (Fig. 07.08). It is difficult to imagine these pieces falling or rolling into their current position during an earthquake because they are so far away from the temple. 92

G.W. STOEHR: THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT

probably because it was more convenient to do this rather than clean up the rubble.28 Similarly, some of the rubble surrounding the Omrit temple podium probably represents part of the same process of quarrying and clearing out the consolidated piles. It represents material, apparently unneeded by the quarrymen, pushed off the podium in order to get it out of the way. Perhaps this was to prepare the area for the new construction represented by the Late Roman/Byzantine floor. It might have also simply been a part of the quarrying process. Some individual architectural pieces around the podium at Omrit, however, appear to have reached their current locations after falling from the upper levels of Temple Two. These include a Corinthian anta capital (Fig. 07.10, No. 1) and column capital (Fig. 07.10, No. 2) located in the area of the pronaos, and a Corinthian corner pilaster capital located just off the northwest corner of the Temple Two podium.

Fig. 07.11 Anta Capital (Photo by the Author)

are not nearly at the distance one would expect them to have been thrown in an earthquake, because they came from the upper levels of the building, and this material often travels far. Further, they are too large to be easily moved. Moving them in ancient times would have probably required block and tackle. There is no obvious reason why anybody would have moved these pieces into their current awkward positions. Thus, the strong possibility exists that these pieces are in situ after a fall from their locations within Temple Two, potentially as a result of forces other than an earthquake. The destruction of Temple Two might not have been cataclysmic, even if caused by an earthquake. Instead, the destructive events may have destabilized the structure without leveling it, leaving the architectural elements to fall from precarious positions after some duration of time, with or without human intervention. An earthquake might have this effect on a building if it were not felt so strongly at the site. The locations of these pieces cannot prove or disprove the earthquake hypothesis for destruction; instead they accommodate the possibility of alternate or multiple agents of destruction. Other evidence for damage to Temple Two survived the quarrying efforts. Large cracks in the temenos area can be observed, and there are a number of systematically displaced and damaged stones along the top course of the podium wall. These examples of damage, however, are not reflected in a building-wide pattern. Thus they are ambiguous in regards to the means of destruction of Temple Two.

Fig. 07.10 Elevated View of Podium (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

Damage from falling materials or ground motion is seen in the temenos area surrounding the temple, suggested by the presence of a large crack just in front of the temple stairs on the east side of the podium. Another crack, beginning where the first ends, leads up the stairs (Fig. 07.12, No. 1). Perhaps these mark the location of fallen columns. They could have been caused by either anthropogenic demolition or earthquake damage. If the peristyle were toppled by teams of men or animals roped

The anta capital can be seen in detail in Fig. 07.11, resting on the stylobate. It rests at an angle because it crushed some of the stylobate blocks underneath it, probably when it fell from more or less directly above its current location. The pieces are close to what would have been appropriate locations for them in Temple Two. They 28

Rheidt 1996, 97-98.

93

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Fig. 07.12 Temenos/Stair Crack (Macalester/Carthage Excavations at Omrit)

up to the columns, damage like this might result. The fact that the cracks go in different directions points away from earthquake activity, because an earthquake will typically topple a colonnade so that the columns are oriented parallel to one another. The upper crown molding at the northwest corner of the Temple Two podium is damaged, as seen in Fig. 07.13. Not only were the molding elements separated from at least four adjacent blocks, but the blocks themselves were moved from their original positions. These blocks, constituting the upper course of the podium wall, now overhang the row below by ten to twenty centimeters. In fact, a stylobate block located in the foreground was apparently damaged by the same force which displaced the top course of the podium wall (Fig. 07.13, No. 1). This block was cracked in half. The stylobate block rests on top of the separated course of the podium, and the crack in the block corresponds too well to the line of separation to be coincidence; the damage probably occurred simultaneously. Thus, the force applied to the podium was powerful enough to penetrate two layers of stones. Perhaps, prior to quarrying the blocks for secondary use, the crown molding was separated in order to make the blocks more suitable for use elsewhere. Had the broken stylobate block and the separated wall blocks been damaged during the quarrying, however (perhaps using crowbars and hammers) it would represent a highly coordinated attack, requiring much effort. This would not be an efficient way to quarry, and it would have been a very effort-intensive form of vandalism.

Fig. 07.13 Displaced Podium Top Course and Cracked Stylobate (Photo by the Author) could have moved these blocks on the edge far enough off the row below them that they were unable to snap back into their original position. This conceivably fits the list of earthquake criteria. The fact that this effect is not seen elsewhere on the temple podium, however, suggests that this was not the case.

The repositioned blocks might also have been bumped slightly off the podium by a tectonic wave. An earthquake will temporarily distort rectangular structures into parallelograms. If this had happened to the temple, it 94

G.W. STOEHR: THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT

The damage most plausibly resulted from falling material – part of the entablature perhaps – falling and hitting the edge of the blocks. This scenario could be the result of intentional demolition of the temple. If the peristyle were toppled by teams of men or animals roped up to the columns, damage like this might result. It would probably take two or three architrave blocks falling straight down and hitting at almost the same time to cause this separation. Alternatively, an earthquake which was not felt strongly at Omrit might damage and destabilize the building, with pieces of architecture falling later and causing the damage. The fact that only the northwest corner of the temple seems to have suffered this sort of damage is again suggestive of intentional vandalism, because one would expect an earthquake to have a broader, more systematic pattern of damage on the building as a whole.

damage to the Temple Two stylobate is no longer visible, its probable repair by the 4th-century construction provides a strong suggestion of earthquake activity. The fact that the podium at Omrit is fundamentally intact does not necessarily negate the hypothesis of earthquakes as a cause of destruction. Often, buildings will only show earthquake damage to their superstructure. This is known as the “skyscraper effect” because of the increased oscillations that occur in the upper parts of buildings, or in buildings located on higher ground.30 Minarets, towers, chimneys, and church steeples, for instance, are exceptionally vulnerable to earthquake damage. If the base of a tower, for instance, were to shift a few degrees it might not move very far horizontally. The top of the tower, however, would have to move a much greater distance to accommodate the change in angle, as if it were the weight on an upside-down clock pendulum.

The stylobate of Temple Two was replaced sometime in the fourth century based on numismatic evidence.29 The fact that a replacement floor was needed informs us as to the scale of the destruction, but does not specifically indicate its cause. If the temple was going to be transformed into some other sort of structure, there is no conceivable reason why the original floor, if it were intact, would be unsuitable. The 4th-century floor was constructed of heterogeneous cut stones in secondary use, including pieces with decorative moldings on their unseen surfaces. The original temple floor would have been much more attractive, with regular stonework and possibly marble decoration or perhaps mosaic. It would certainly not have been worth the expense to pull up the temple floor and replace it unless it was no longer functional. It’s unlikely that vandals would have done this. If the stones in the floor had been quarried for use elsewhere, one has to question why the stones were robbed out only to be replaced a short while later. The most plausible explanation is that the reconstruction was done because the original Temple Two stylobate had been irreparably damaged, perhaps by ground motion or falling debris. It seems unlikely that any other mechanism could cause this type of damage.

The temple at Ain Hersha, located in the Hermon region just 20 km north of Omrit, shows evidence of this effect. Multiple large vertical cracks caused by earthquake forces (at an uncertain date) split the temple superstructure and entered the podium.31 These cracks are distinctly wider at the top due to the magnification of forces at higher elevations (Fig. 07.14). This could have been similar to the state of Temple Two following an earthquake. At Omrit, however, the initial damage evidently did not affect the podium.

Pieces of Temple Two are in fact found within the fill underneath the later floor. These include large concrete fragments, probably part of the Temple Two floor, as well as marble slabs that could have been part of an opus sectile floor or wall decoration. Further, temple wall blocks decorated with fresco are found here. The fresco on these blocks is identical to that seen on portions of the podium; it consists of a faux marble pattern. Based on the removal of wall blocks it appears that the builders of the 4th-century floor planned a new, or mostly new, structure from the podium up. They were using the substructure as a place to dispose of some unusable material from the temple which had probably been irreparably compromised. Fissured floors are considered to be a diagnostic feature of earthquake damage. Although

Fig. 07.14 Ain Herscha (From Krencker and Zschietzschmann, Römische Tempel in Syrien (Berlin 1938) Figure 393 (on p. 254). Used by permission of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut

29 Thirteen identifiable coins found immediately below this floor dated from 182/183 CE (one example) to 335 CE. Seven of the 13 examples dated from the first half of the fourth century CE. See below, Bijovsky Appendix Two, nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23.

30 31

95

Korjenkov and Mazor 1999, 202-3. Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, 245-55.

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Standing walls compromised in this manner would have been more vulnerable to increased degradation through time. Destabilized upper portions of the entablature and columns could have fallen on their own some time after the quake, leading to the atypical pattern of fall that is observed at Omrit, where conspicuously large elements from the upper elevations of Temple Two are found close to their original locations within the standing building.

destruction of or severe damage to Temple Two. There is nothing about the archaeological evidence that negates this possibility. Finally, the evidently disastrous effects of the earthquake of 363 on the neighboring site of Banias, and the correlation of that earthquake with the discontinuity in the ceramic record at Omrit, strongly suggests that the same earthquake had an effect on Temple Two. The evidence for the destruction of Temple Two by earthquake actually conforms closely with the list of criteria mentioned earlier: 34 1. Damage or destruction of isolated buildings or whole sites, for which an earthquake appears the only reasonable explanation

A temple’s columns as well as any walls pierced by doors would have had less structural integrity than the podium. In the Sana’a area of Yemen, the effects of a 1982 earthquake on traditionally built stone structures were observed. Window and door frames were more susceptible to damage.32 Crushed material in building foundations due to out-of-plane swaying or one-sided overloading, the sorts of forces applied to a foundation by earthquakes, was rarely observed in Sana’a.33 This further reinforces the idea that the lower elevations of a building are the least susceptible to earthquake damage. These sorts of phenomena are not observed at Omrit.

2. Characteristic structural damage and failure of constructions  Several parallel fallen columns  Several fallen columns with their drums in a domino-style (‘slices of salami’) arrangement  Constructions deformed as by horizontal forces (rectangles transformed to parallelograms)

At Omrit, the archaeological evidence for earthquake damage to Temple Two is equivocal. The architectural rubble from the temple, with the exception of a few pieces on the west side of the podium, does not appear to be the direct result of earthquake activity. Indeed, quarrying, clearing, and reconstruction efforts provide a plausible explanation for the character of this material, without negating the possibility of earthquake damage. The cracks observed in the podium, stairs, and temenos area also seem to be best explained in terms of human activity, perhaps some form of intentional vandalism. The Byzantine floor, however, and the pieces of temple architecture that were buried beneath it, strongly suggests earthquake activity because of the scale of destruction implied.

3. Fissuring of floors 4. Absence of any archaeological record for a particular chronological phase 5. Well-dated destructions of buildings correlating with historical (including epigraphic) evidence of earthquakes Earthquakes might not constitute the only reasonable explanation for the destruction of Temple Two, but they are certainly a very reasonable explanation. The lack of characteristic structural damage could be due to the quarrying activity that occurred at the site, or an earthquake that failed to level the temple. The fissuring of the Temple Two floor seems likely. There is no archaeological record for the fifth through thirteenth centuries. Lastly, the earthquake of 363 correlates with date of the destruction locus of Temple Two. This quake can be considered the primary agent of destruction. It probably damaged the temple and rendered it nonfunctional without completely leveling it. This created an opportunity for quarrying, perhaps even vandalism, and the beginning of new construction on the podium.

The quarrying efforts which evidently occurred at the site might have been responsible for destroying much of the physical evidence for earthquake damage. For instance, more column drums having the “slices of salami” positioning, like those on the west side of the podium, might have originally been present. Similarly the temenos, which was largely quarried away, might have born more evidence for directionally preferential and parallel column fall.

Bibliography

The temple at Ain Herscha, however, provides an idea of how a temple destroyed by an earthquake might not collapse and leave the stereotypical patterned rubble. The aptness of this parallel is suggested by the various types of Corinthian capitals that fell near their original position within the standing building.

Ancient Eusebius. Vita Constantini. K. Lake (ed.). Ecclesiastical History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926. Libanius. Selected Works. A.F. Norman Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.

The known seismicity of the region, and the relative improbability of alternative explanations, leaves an earthquake as a good candidate for explaining the 32 33

(ed.).

Porphyrios. Vie de Porphyre. M. Le Diacre, (ed.), H. Gregoire and M.A. Kugener (trans.). Paris: Belles Lettres, 1930.

Hughes and Collings 2000, 364, 366. Hughes and Collings 2000, 367.

34

96

Stiros 1996, 152, Guidoboni, Muggia, and Valensise, 2000, 56.

G.W. STOEHR: THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT

CURRAN, J. 1996. Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome: The Legal Evidence. Greece and Rome 43, 6880. DEG, M.R. 1990. A Database of Historical Earthquake Activity in the Middle East. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 15, 294-307. DINSMOOR, W.B. 1985. The Architecture of Ancient Greece. London, Batsford. DiVITA, A. 1995. Archaeologists and Earthquakes: The Case of 365 AD. Annali di Geofisica 38, 971-76. DOTHAN, M. 1983. Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains. Haifa, Israel Exploration Society, University of Haifa, and the Israel Department of Antiquities. FOX, R.L. 1989. Pagans and Christians. New York, Knopf. GARFUNKEL, Z. 2001. The Nature and History of Motion along the Dead Sea Transform (Rift). In A. Horowitz (ed.), The Jordan Rift Valley, 627-51. Lisse, A.A. Balkema Publishers.

Modern AGNON, A., MIGOWSKI, C., and MARCO, S. 2006. Intraclast Breccias in Laminated Sequences Reviewed: Recorders of Paleo-Earthquakes. In Y. Enzel, A. Agnon, and M. Stein (eds.). New Frontiers in Dead Sea Paleoenvironmental Research, 195-214. Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America. AMBRASEYS, N. 1971. Value of Historical Records of Earthquakes. Nature 232, 375-79. AMBRASEYS, N. 1988. Engineering Seismology. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 17, 1-105. AMBRASEYS, N. 2005. The Seismic Activity in Syria and Palestine during the Middle of the 8th Century; an Amalgamation of Historical Earthquakes. Journal of Seismology 9, 115-25. AMBRASEYS, N. 2006. Comparison of Frequency of Occurrence of Earthquakes with Slip Rates from Long-Term Seismicity Data: The Cases of Gulf of Corinth, Sea of Marmara and Dead Sea Fault Zone, Geophysics Journal International 165, 516-26.

GARFUNKEL, Z., ZAK, I., and FREUND, R. 1995. Active Faulting in the Dead Sea Rift. Tectonophysics 80, 1-26.

AMBRASEYS, N., MELVILLE, C., and ADAMS, R. 1994. The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia, and the Red Sea. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

GIRDLER, R.W. 1990 The Dead Sea Transform Fault System. Tectonophysics 180, 1-13.

AMIRAN, D.H.K. 1952. A Revised Earthquake-Catalog of Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 2, 48-62. AMIRAN, D.H.K., ARIEH, E., and TURCOTTE, L. 1994. Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 BCE. Israel Exploration Journal 44, 261-305.

GUIDOBONI, E., COMASTRI, A., and TRAINA, G. 1994. Catalog of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century. Rome, Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica. GUIDOBONI, E., MUGGIA, A., and VALENSISE G. 2000. Aims and Methods in Territorial Archaeology: Possible Clues to a Strong Fourth-Century A.D. Earthquake in the Straits of Messina (Southern Italy). In W.J. McGuire, D.R. Griffiths, P.L. Hancock, and I.S. Stewart (eds.), The Archaeology of Geological Catastrophies, 45-70. Bath, The Geological Society Publishing House.

BEN-MENAHEM, A. 1979. Earthquake Catalog for the Middle East (92 BCE – 1980 A.D.). Bolletino Geofisica Teoretica Applicata 84, 245-310. BEN-MENAHEM, A. 1981. Four Thousand Years of Seismicity along the Dead Sea Fault. Journal of Geophysical Research 96, 20195-20216. BEN-MENAHEM, A. and ABOODI, E. 1981. Micro and Macroseismicity of the Dead Sea Rift and Off-coast Eastern Mediterranean. Tectonophysics 80, 199-233.

HAMMOND, P. 1980. New Evidence for the 4th Century A.D. Destruction of Petra. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238, 65-67.

BERLIN, A.M. 1999. The Archaeology of Ritual: The Sanctuary of Pan at Banias/Caesarea Philippi. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 315, 27-45. BRADBURY, S. 1994. Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century. Classical Philology 89, 120-39.

HEIMAN, A. and RON, H. 1987. Young Faults in the Hula Pull-Apart Basin, Central Dead Sea Transform. Tectonophysics 141, 117-24. HOROWITZ, A. 2001. The Jordan Rift Valley. Lisse, A.A. Balkema Publishers. HUGHES, R. and COLLINGS, A. 2000. Seismic and Volcanic Hazards affecting the Vulnerability of the Sana’a Area of Yemen. In W.J. McGuire, D.R. Griffiths, P.L. Hancock, and I.S. Stewart (eds.), The Archaeology of Geological Catastrophies, 355-72. Bath, The Geological Society Publishing House.

BROCK, S.P. 1997. A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40, 26786. CAMERON, A. 1986. Gratian’s Repudiation of the Pontifical Robe. Journal of Roman Studies 58, 96102. CASEAU, B. 1999. Sacred Landscapes. In G.W. Bowersock et al. (eds.), Late Antiquity: a guide to the postclassical world, 21-57. Cambridge, Belknap Press.

Institute for Petroleum Research and Geophysics. 19831993. Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas. Seismological Bulletins, 1-11. KARCZ, I. 2004. Implications of some Early Jewish Sources for Earthquake Intensity Estimates in the Holy Land. Annales Geophysics 47, 759-92. 97

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

NOLLER, J.S. 2001. Archaeoseismology. In P. Goldberg, Holiday, V., and Ferring, C.R. (eds.), Earth Sciences and Archaeology, 143-70. New York, Plenum Publishers.

KARCZ, I. and KAFRI, U. 1978. Evaluation of Supposed Archaeoseismic Damage in Israel. Journal of the Archaeological Society 5, 237-53. KARCZ, I. and KAFRI, U. 1981. Studies in Archaeoseismicity in Israel: Hisham’s Palace, Jericho. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 30, 12-23.

NOLLER, J.S., and LIGHTFOOT, K. 1997. An Archaeoseismic Approach and Method for the study of Active Strike-Slip Faults. Geoarchaeology 12, 11735.

KARCZ, I. and I. PERATH. 1994. Criteria for Archaeoseismic Events: Evidence from Negev Sites. Abstracts from Annual Meeting of Israel Geological Society, 51.

POIRIER, J.P. and TAHER, M. 1980. Historical Seismicity in the Near and Middle East, North Africa and Spain from Arabic Documents (VIIth-XVIII century). Bulletin of the Seismic Society of America 70, 2185-2201.

KEN-TOR, R., AGNON, A., ENZEL, Y., STEIN, M., and MARCO, S. 2001. High-Resolution Geological Record of Historic Earthquakes in the Dead Sea Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 2221234.

QUENNELL, A.M. 1956. Tectonics of the Dead Sea Rift. 20th International Geological Congress, Mexico, 385403.

KORJENKOV, A.M., and MAZOR, E. 1999. Seismogenic Origin of the Ancient Avdat Ruins, Negev Desert, Israel, Natural Hazards 18, 193-226.

RAPP, G. Jr. 1987. Assessing Archaeological Evidence for Geological Catastrophies. Geoarchaeology 1, 36579.

KORJENKOV, A.M., and MAZOR, E. 1999. Earthquake Characteristics Reconstructed from Archeological Damage Patterns: Shivta, Negev Desert, Israel. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 48, 265-82.

RAPP, G. Jr. and HILL, C.L., 1998. Geoarchaeology. New Haven, Yale University Press. RHEIDT, K. 1996. The 1296 Earthquake and its Consequences for Pergamon and Chliara. In S. Stiros and R.E. Jones (eds.), Archaeoseismology, 93-104. Athens, The British School at Athens.

KRENCKER, D., and ZSCHIETZSCHMANN, W. 1938. Romische Tempel in Syrien. Berlin, Walter De Gruyter and Co.

RUSSELL, K.W. 1980. The Earthquake of May 19 A.D. 363. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238, 47-64.

MARCO, S., HARTAL, M., HAZAN, N., LEV, L., and STEIN, M. 2003. Archaeology, History, and Geology of the A.D. 749 Earthquake, Dead Sea Transform. Geology 31, 665-68.

RUSSELL, K.W. 1985. The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northern Arabia from the 2nd through Mid 8th Century AD. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260, 37-60.

McGUIRE, W.J., GRIFFITHS, D.R., HANCOCK, P.L., and STEWART, I.S. (eds). 2000. The Archaeology of Geological Catastrophes. Bath, The Geological Society Publishing House.

RYBAKOV, M. 2003. What is the Reason for the Dead Sea Transform Fault System Segmentation? Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 52, 65-75.

MEGHRAOUI, M., and CRONE, A.J. 2001. Earthquakes and their Preservation in the Geological Record. Journal of Seismology 51, 281-85.

RYBAKOV, M., FLEISCHER, L., and BRINK, U. 2003. The Hula Valley Subsurface Structure Inferred from Gravity Data. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 52, 113-22.

MYERS, E., STRANGE, J., and MYERS, C. 1981. Preliminary Report on the 1980 Excavations at enNabratein, Israel. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 244, 1-26.

SHAPIRA, A. 1979. Redetermined Magnitudes of Earthquakes in the Afro-Eurasian Junction. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 28, 107-09.

NEEV, D., and EMERY, K.O. 1995. The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

SHAPIRA, A. 1981. Assessment of the Potential Earthquake Risk in Israel and Adjacent Areas. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 30, 135-41.

NIEDERER, F.J. 1953. Temples Converted into Churches: The Situation in Rome. Church History 22, 175-80.

SNEH, A. and WEINBERGER, R. 2003. Geology of the Metulla Quadrangle, Northern Israel: Implications for the Offset along the Dead Sea Rift. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 52, 123-38.

NIEMI, T.M., ZHANG, H., ATALLAH, M., and HARRISON, J. 2001. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Slip Rate of the Northern Wadi Araba Fault, Dead Sea Transform, Jordan. Journal of Seismology 5, 44974.

SOREN, D. 1983. Some New Ideas on Dating and Rebuilding the Temple of Apollo Hylates at Kourion. Nicosia, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

NIKONOV, A. 1988. On the Methodology of Archaeoseismic Research into Historical Monuments. In P. Marinos and Koukis, G. (eds.), The Engineering Geology of Ancient Works, Monuments and Historical Sites, Preservation and Protection, 1315-1320. Rotterdam, Balkema.

SOREN, D. 1986. Archaeological Excavations and Analyses of Earthquake-Affected Strata at Roman Kourion, Cyprus. Nicosia, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus.

98

G.W. STOEHR: THE POTENTIAL FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TEMPLE TWO ARCHITECTURE AT ROMAN OMRIT

STIROS, S. and PAPAGEORGIOU, S. 2001. Seismicity of Western Crete and the Destruction of the Town of Kisamos at AD 365: Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Seismology 5, 381-97.

SOREN, D., (ed.). 1987. The Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion, Cyprus. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. SOREN, D. 1988. The Day the World Ended at Kourion – Reconstructing an Ancient Earthquake. National Geographic Magazine 174, 30-53.

TSAFRIR, Y. and FOERSTER, G. 1992. The Dating of the Earthquake of the Sabbatical Year of 749 CE in Palestine. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55, 231-35.

SOREN, D. 1988. Kourion. New York, Anchor Press Doubleday.

Van-ECK, T. and HOFSTETTER, A. 1990. Fault Geometry and Spatial Clustering of Microearthquakes along the Dead Sea-Jordan Rift Fault Zone. Tectonophysics 180, 15-27.

SOREN, D. and DAVIS, Th. 1985. Seismic Archaeology at Kourion: The 1984 Campaign. Nicosia, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus. SOREN, D., LEONARD, J.R., and MOLINARY, P. 1988. University of Arizona Excavations at Kourion 1984-1987. Nicosia, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus.

VERED, M. 1978. The Probable Maximum Earthquake Magnitude Associated with the Jordan Rift. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 27, 82-84. VITA-FINZI, C. 2001. Neotectonics at the Arabian Plate Margins. Journal of Structural Geology 23, 521-30.

STIROS, S. 1988a. Archaeology, a Tool to Study Active Tectonics – The Aegean as a Case Study, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. Eos 69, 1636-39.

VROMAN, A.J. 1980. Triple Junctions and the Sinai Triple Junction as a Special Case. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 29, 207-14.

STIROS, S. 1988b. “Earthquake Effects in Ancient Constructions.” R.E. Jones and H.W. Catling, (eds.) New Aspects of Archaeological Science in Greece, Athens: British School at Athens, 1988: 1-6.

WAINWRIGHT, P. 1986. The Authenticity of the Recently Discovered Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem. Vigiliae Christianae 40, 286-93. WIEMKIN, R.C. and HOLUM, K. 1981. The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima: Eighth Season, 1979. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 244.

STIROS, S. 2001. The AD 365 Crete Earthquake and Possible Seismic Clustering during the 4-6th Centuries AD in the Eastern Mediterranean: a Review of Historical and Archaeological Data. Journal of Structural Geology 23, 545-62.

WILSON, J.F. 2004. Caesarea Philippi: Banias the Lost City of Pan. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

STIROS, S. and JONES, R.E. (eds.) 1996. Archaeoseismology. Athens, The British School at Athens.

99

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS J. Andrew Overman and Daniel N. Schowalter This volume represents the initial findings of the Omrit excavations dating from 1999-2005. In some regards, especially with architecture, we have been able to include additional material acquired during the 2006, 2007, and 2009 seasons. Important finds from those seasons continue to be under investigation, however. Work has continued on the site and for the most part, the analysis of the findings from 2007-2009 must await the final publication of the team. The evidence gathered by the Omrit team to date comprises important ceramic and stratigraphic analysis along with detailed architectural reconstructions of the buildings. These efforts benefit from the well-preserved nature of the remains, and extensive study of the fresco and stucco fragments from the temple complex.

face of the podium, we do not yet have conclusive ceramic evidence for its date of construction or remodeling (see below), and must be satisfied at this point with a date sometime in the third quarter of the first century BCE. Dating to the early part of this timeframe is support by the analysis of S. Rozenberg above who places the imitation masonry style of the plaster on the podium of the Early Shrine to the late Hellenistic period. What we have called the Early Shrine at Omrit appears to mark the establishment of a rural cult site located in the Galilean-Iturean border region.3 The Shrine was established on a small hill rising toward the Hermon and located strategically at the foothills of the Damascus pass. This monument would have been a prominent landmark for travelers coming up the Hulah valley from the region of Kedesh or from the coast by way of the Tyre road.

As should be clear from the above chapters, and as reflected in the comments below, interpretation of the site is confounded by a very complex history of development in and around the temple buildings. The fact that at least two structures were built over and around their predecessor building means that the area was repeatedly cleared and refilled over a period of less than 150 years. This ancient development process has played havoc with the stratigraphy of the site in many areas, and it leads to difficulty in understanding the phasing. This chapter represents our best current understanding of that chronology, but must remain preliminary as we seek more precise information.

The Early Shrine existed in at least two phases, though they are chronologically compressed. The Shrine originally was a free-standing building with no apparent means of access. It was a small (8.38 x 5.13 m), highly ornate structure. Placed on a Roman-style podium, it was beautifully stuccoed all around and possessed highly decorative architectural elements. As G. Mazor suggests in his chapter, this monument shared some of the features of the tower tomb structures found throughout region in the Hellenistic period.

Our findings thus far indicate that the earliest known building at Omrit was constructed sometime in the later half of the first century BCE.1 This dating corresponds to the beginning of both the ceramic horizon and the numismatic chronology at Omrit.2 Since we have only reached founding levels for the Shrine on the northwest

After what appears to be a very short time, the rural shrine was architecturally transformed into a small temple. This transformation included the addition of a colorful frescoed enclosure wall serving as a kind of temenos or ambulatory wall.4 According to the fresco 3

The presence of reused blocks in the early shrine construction may indicate previous building on the site. 4 As seen in Ch. Five above, S. Rosenberg is convinced that the frescoe fragments from the enclosure wall betray a later construction than the podium of the Early Shrine. There is a natural reluctance to think of an enclosure wall being built around and obscuring the view of such a colorful and ornate building, and further clarification may yet come to light.

1

This date coincides roughly with the decline of Tel Anafa which stands about 3 km from Omrit. At present we cannot assert a clear relationship between these two regional events. The chronological coincidence, however, is intriguing and deserves further investigation. 2 D. Sion (appendix A) reports on evidence for earlier Hellenistic coins found at the site by a private collector, but this evidence has not turned up in excavated areas to this point.

101

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

analysis of S. Rozenberg, the enclosure wall must be dated to early in the Herodian period, sometime after 30 BCE. An angular platform was added connecting the entrance through the temenos wall to the front of the shrine, and new steps allowed access to the shrine from the platform. Either as part of the platform project, or as a later addition, colorfully frescoed pedestals were placed partly overlapping each side of the platform. Given our present state of knowledge, we cannot be certain whether the platform/stairway/pedestal constructions preceded or followed the erection of the enclosure wall. Given the rough nature of the platform construction, however, it seems most likely that the enclosure wall was first built around the shrine, and then the platform and associated elements were added later.

during the last half of the first century CE. The pottery recovered from under the Temple Two subfloor in G7 (Fig. 04.02), and the amphora and other pieces from the deposit west of the Shrine (Fig. 04.06), serve to push that date earlier into the third quarter of the first century CE. In the final deposit (Fig. 04.03) from between the broken floor of the Early Shrine and the Temple one cella wall, two fragments could skew later into the second century CE, but they also fit quite well with the dating of Temple Two to shortly before or after 70 CE. This dating is confirmed on stylistic grounds by the analysis of the Corinthian capitals from Temple Two by M. Fischer7. If the Early Shrine can be dated to the mid-late first century BCE, and stratified loci connected with the founding of Temple Two confirm a late first century date for that final temple phase, the most positivistic approach is to date Temple One between these two ends of the chronological horizon: late first century BCE to the middle of the second half of the first century CE. Construction techniques, the style of the architectural elements associated with Temple One, and analogous Roman imperial buildings built in the region all tend to draw the date of Temple One earlier within these horizons. The argument for dating during the reign of Herod is independently corroborated by S. Rozenberg’s analysis of the fresco remains. She argues that “the late Second Pompeian Style fragments indicate that Temple One was decorated in the Herodian period, ca. 20 BCE” She also mentions the presence of one fragment with a lozenge pattern that resembles the “last Herodian phase at Masada,” after 20 BCE.

Not long after this extensive remodeling of the Early Shrine, the building known as Temple One was constructed on the site. The remarkable state-ofpreservation of the Shrine material, especially the pristine state of the bossed stucco on the Shrine podium, suggests it was not exposed to the elements for a long period. It is important to note that this new temple was not built as a complement to the ornate Shrine. On the contrary, a striking feature of the temple complex at Omrit is that each successive phase utilized the very same site for each subsequent building phase and thereby preserved much of the earlier building(s). Temple One encased the Shrine, burying the remains of the building. Some decorated architectural elements from the superstructure of the Shrine were deposited and are extraordinarily wellpreserved in the fill of Temple One.5 It may even be that these elements from the shrine were purposefully covered as a tribute to its magnificence. While Temple One destroyed and buried the early shrine, it did so in a way that preserved the memory of the earlier building.

While the stylistic connection to Herodian architecture does not confirm that either the remodeling of the Early Shrine, or the construction of Temple One, or both should be associated with Herod himself, that possibility must at least be considered. Due to disturbance of the Early Shrine and Temple One stratigraphy by Temple Two construction, the excavators cannot be certain that Herod was responsible for any of the buildings at Omrit. It is suggestive, however, that Josephus reports on the construction of a Temple of white stone, built “near Banias” by Herod in honor of his patron Augustus. Josephus places the construction of this Augusteum in the last decades of the first century BCE, during which time, either the Early Shrine was remodeled, or Temple One was constructed, or possibly both.

Temple One represents the introduction of the RomanoHerodian style into northern Galilee. Temple One was a prostyle, tetrastyle Roman temple on a raised podium and Corinthian in order. The exterior of the Temple One podium was also covered in painted plaster of a fauxmarble design as evidenced by a small remaining piece on the southwest corner. The ashlar construction of Temple One was exacting, precise, without mortar or leveling materials, and Herodian in style. In form, the temple shows the emerging Augusteum/Sebasteion style which developed across the empire in the middle and late Augustan years.6 Stratified material related to Temple One is rare since the builders of Temple Two appear to have emptied and refilled the podium of Temple One, presumably because of a need to repair the cella wall foundation (wF4). This means that to this point we do not have ceramic evidence in a sealed locus to date Temple One.

Several of the small finds described in Chapter Six provide tantalizing indications, if not specific proof of the imperial association. L. Di Segni, has confirmed that the fragmentary inscription including ȈEB dates to the first century BCE. or first century CE., and might be a reference to Augustus or something dedicated in his honor (a temple or games).8 The presence of a marble sphinx evokes associations with the first emperor who used a sphinx as a personal seal early in his reign, but

The same is not the case for the dating of Temple Two. Excavation between the podia in F6 (Fig. 04.01) provides ceramic evidence that the Temple Two podium was built

7

M. Fischer, personal communication. The fragmentary dedication to Marcus Aurelius or one of his successors, shows that there was later imperial interest in the site, but does not confirm who was honored in the temple.

5

Some of these blocks will be placed on permanent display in an exhibit at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. 6 Discussed in Overman, Olive and Nelson.

8

102

J.A. OVERMAN & D.N. SCHOWALTER: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

quite substantial, well-cut basalt pavers which constituted the walking surface for the entire complex as it developed and expanded.

appears to date from a later period. As to earlier suggestions that Temple I was the northern Augusteum built by Herod the Great, the Directors and our consultants remain convinced that Omrit Temple I is the best known candidate for this building. Other scholars have also become convinced that either phase two of the Early Shrine or Temple One at Omrit must be identified as Herod’s northern Augusteum. At this point, however, while the ceramic horizon described above certainly makes it possible that Temple I was built in the last quarter of the first century BCE, and while analysis of the fresco evidence argues for Herodian construction, we still do not have conclusive proof for this identification, and therefore, it must remain an open question.

Shops and light industrial areas developed off the Temple-complex and beyond the temenos. This area is necessarily to the north of the Temple One in that the topography of Omrit does not allow for building to the south of the Temple structures. These shops reveal mill and grinding work, large amounts of glass, and an extensive water, drain, and pipe system that requires further, detailed study. These developments at Omrit occur mostly during the late Roman and early Byzantine eras. By the middle of the 6th century CE, life at Omrit, to the extent that current excavations can demonstrate, seems to have substantially waned. This could be related to the growth and dynamism of nearby Banias during the middle and late Roman periods. To date there is little sign of life at Omrit from the sixth century until the thirteenth century when a Ummayed period settlement was located at the site. Omrit has a sizable Ummayed ceramic assemblage, some domestic space, tabuns, and some graves. After the thirteenth century nothing occurs at Omrit except for the occasional pilgrim visit.

In contrast to the destruction and burial of the early shrine by Temple One builders, the change to Temple Two appears to be more of a peaceful expansion and enhancement of Temple One. The presence of imperial forces and a future emperor in the region following the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 CE is again suggestive of imperial associations for Temple Two (Josephus, J.W. 7.2). There is no indication of how long Titus stayed in the north with his troops after destroying the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. Even a stay of limited duration would have necessitated public works projects to keep the troops busy. Hauling and cutting stone for expansion of the “old” Omrit temple could have provided just such activity. Given the present state of the evidence, however, this possibility must remain a suggestion.

The temple complex sits on the land of Kibbutz Kfar Szold. The site was itself part of contested land between Israel, Syria and Lebanon along the borders of all three nations. The political prominence of the region in antiquity is obvious from the famous battle of Paneion in 198 BCE between Seleucid and Ptolemaic forces. In the modern era, Omrit has again served as a battlefield several times in the second half of the twentieth century.

The end of Temple Two occurred sometime in the latter half of the 4th century CE, although it is likely that the building had suffered damage before this date. In Chapter Seven above, G. Stoehr, suggests that there may have been multiple instances of earthquake damage to the temple, and that it may have stood in a partially damaged state for some time, with parts pulled down for reuse in other constructions and destruction in lime kilns. We know for certain that after the mid 4th century, a heavy floor supplanted the Temple podium. This surface was comprised of cut blocks, pavers, and architectural elements in secondary use. The platform appears to have replaced the floor of Temple Two which must have been damaged at an earlier date. We cannot be certain of the condition of Temple Two at the time this new floor was laid, nor can we know the function of the surviving structure represented by this heavy floor. Whatever remained standing over the new floor was certainly further damaged by the well-documented earthquake that shook the region in 363 CE.

Following the 1973 war, several weeks of surveying and excavations were led by G. Foerster and E. Netzer in the late 1970s. The current team’s excavations began in 1999 following a fire that exposed much of the site. This interim report summarizes the results of the first eight years of excavations. At least two of these excavation seasons were truncated due to conflict and fighting over the Israel-Lebanese border so close to Omrit. Yet work has continued, though modified, throughout this period of conflict. At this point of our research Omrit appears to be established at a time when the region of the Galilee and greater Damascus was growing rapidly in importance and strategic value. As has been well documented the region surrounding Omrit had emerged as disputed territory in the late Republican period. It was in Iturea but also part of Galilee. From the Roman point of view both identifications were problematic given the reputation that people from both areas engaged in banditry and social unrest. But during the Roman civil war the region belonged to Marc Antony who granted land to Cleopatra. Upon the cessation of the civil war, the victor, Octavian, granted the region to Herod. It fell to Herod to stamp out banditry and pacify the area. Certainly as important was the task of ridding the region of pro-Parthian sentiments, which proved a difficult task. The issue of Parthian support and expansion in the ever more crucial region of

During the later phase of Temple One and throughout all of the life of Temple Two the larger site of Omrit continued to expand and develop. A colonnaded way was added during this time which followed an earlier simple road which led from the area of the site across the northern wadi up to the Temple complex. The team has uncovered a two phased altar structure which stood to the east of the steps of the Temple complex. Both Temple One and Two were surrounded by

103

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

the Tyre to Damascus to the Euphrates corridor was one of enormous importance. The Romanization of this vital buffer zone became a key feature of Augustan eastern policy under Herod. From the point of view of the excavators, the Roman imperial style temples at Omrit reflect the conscious Romanization of the region precisely during this early period of Roman imperial expansion and settlement. Over time, Omrit grew into a settlement of substantial size and influence. This influence as a prominent imperial site and Roman architectural statement led to expanding economic activity and site development. Omrit’s strategic position

near the Tyre-Damascus road, surely contributed to its development across the Roman period. And what appears to be the overt establishment of a Roman-style cultic site on this conspicuous rise at the northern end of the Hulah valley and along the well-traveled pass leading to Damascus is an unmistakable expression of the new regime. Omrit has almost nothing in common with sites in the Hermon or the Golan which contain local, traditional elements distinct from the Romano-Herodian style we see at Omrit and at later sites in the region. This site marks a new rule and cultural dominance in a vital, but disputed region of the Roman empire.

104

Appendix A OMRIT – THE COINS (1999-2001) Danny Syon* data to arrive at conclusions regarding the extent of activity on the site at this time. The second half of the 4th c. CE (2/3 of the coins) is more heavily represented than the first half (1/3), with a dramatic decline in coins of the fifth century, not necessarily indicating a break in occupation. Fifth century coins are notoriously elusive, partly because of their small size and perhaps of reduced mint outputs, though this later point is now questionable (Burnett 1987:152).

During the 1999–2001 seasons 89 coins were recovered. Five of these were completely unidentifiable and 25 were identifiable to some extent. The rest were closely datable, and many of the coins were found in an unusually good state of preservation, not normally encountered in excavations. Apparently the soil conditions at Omrit were instrumental in this.* A. COINS FROM THE EXCAVATIONS

About a third of the 4th c. coins are from the first half of the century, when western mints are often represented. The second half of the fourth century is represented by eastern mints (from Constantinople eastward), as is the normal pattern, except a single coin from Heraclea.

The Early Roman period From this period 8 coins were found [1–8]1. One is possibly a Herodian dynasty coin, and seven others are city coins, dated from the late 1st to the late 2nd c. CE, from Tyre (2), Sidon under Hadrian, Paneas, possibly the Decapolis, Antioch and Bithynia under Hadrian.

The Middle Ages

Four coins from the 2nd–3rd centuries were found [9–12], one each of the emperors Elagabal (Tyre), Trajan Decius (Rome), Gallienus (Asia) and Maximinus as caesar (Antioch).

Four coins are from the middle ages. One of the Zangid Nur al-din Mahmud (Damascus, 1146–1173)[80], one of the Ayyûbid ruler al-Zahir Ghâzi (Aleppo, 1199–1202 CE)[81] and two Mamlûk coins of the sultans Al Nasir Nasir al-Din Muhammad (Damascus, 1310–1341) [82] and al-Ashraf Sha’ban II (Damascus, 1363–1377) [83].

The Late Roman period

Mints

The bulk of the coins, 67 in number, span the 4th through the mid 5th century CE, with the frequency distribution presented in Graph 1.

The early period is represented by a coin of Sidon [6], a mint normally represented in this area somewhat better than that of Tyre, that is here represented by three coins [1–2, 10] (and see below). The single coin of Trajan Decius [11] is unusual in that it is from the mint of Rome, not often represented in coin finds from this period. Antioch and nearby Paneas are represented by one coin each [4, 9], in a rather bad state of preservation.

The Middle Roman period

This pattern conforms by and large to other sites in Israel in general, whereby if the 4th c. CE is represented at all numismatically, then it is the most abundant in coins. This period is characterized with high inflation and low buying power for the copper coins. Thus, the numismatic evidence has to be checked against other archaeological

A rather unusual mint is represented by the beautiful sestertius portraying Sabina, minted by the Koinon of Bithynia [7] under Hadrian.

*

This paper was written in 2001. 1 Square brackets indicate the catalog number.

105

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

30

25

25

20

Qty.

20 13

15 10

7 2

5 0 310-324

324-346

346-378

378-408

425-450

Dates (CE)

Graph 1 The first half of the 4th century is typically represented by a mixture of western and eastern mints: Arles (2), Rome, Ostia, Siscia, Ticinum, Thessalonica (2), Constantinople (3), Cyzicus (3), Antioch (5). Eastern mints (from Constantinople eastward) dominate the second half of the century: Rome, Heraclea, Thessalonica (1?), Nicomedia (4), Cyzicus (3), Antioch (2–3), Alexandria. Eight coins can be said to originate from eastern mints in general, while for 21 coins the mint cannot be determined at all. The lack of coins of Constantinople is surprising, but among the unattributable coins there may be some from the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire.

portrait appears to have a pointed beard, not found on the official issues. These contemporary imitations may possibly be traced to Britain, where vast numbers are known.

B. SURFACE FINDS In addition to the coins found in the excavations, I was able to check 214 bronze coins found on the surface at the site over a period of several years and which are in a private collection, as well as 33 coins found at the site and now in the state collections kept at the Israel Antiquities Authority. For the Hellenistic-Early and Middle Roman periods the mint of Tyre is represented by the largest number of coins (at least 22), a trend apparent at most sites of Upper and Western Galilee. On the eastern side of the Hula valley the mint of Sidon is also usually present in greater percentages, but at Omrit it is represented by the single coin of Hadrian [6] and an autonomous issue from the IAA collections. [Table 1].

As for the medieval coins, the mints of Damascus (3) and Aleppo are virtually the only ones represented in coins found in northern Israel from this period. Typology The outstanding coin from Bithynia [7] is a surprising find in this part of the world; it appears to be the first coin from Bithynia to have been found in Israel. It features a very handsome portrait of the empress Sabina. The unusual feature of this coin is the hairdo of Sabina, which departs from the more common high plaited coiffure she normally appears in. Coins with the short plait on her neck are known though from the mint of Rome (e.g. BMCRE 3:538, No.1889). This coin may in fact be unique.

A NUMISMATIC CHRONOLOGY A numismatic profile of the site, based on the combined data of all the coins yields quite a different picture from that obtained from the excavation coins alone. Apparently the relatively small size of the excavated area did not uncover all the occupation periods at the site. In particular, the excavations did not yield a single coin from either the Seleucid period or the Byzantine period.2 It is clear though that the site saw a continuous occupation from the Hellenistic period — presumably from the time of Antiochus III who captured Coele Syria in 198 BCE — until the end of the Byzantine period.

The coin of Sidon under Hadrian [6] features an exceptionally well-executed portrait of the emperor for an eastern mint, even though the reverse is rather schematic. Among the 4th century coins, the one of Maximinus with the genius reverse [13], appears to be rare, as is a FEL TEMP REPARATIO / emperor holding Phoenix from the mint of Rome [33] which is somewhat unusual in northern Israel.

As stated above, it is not necessarily true that the peak of activity at the site occurred in the Late Roman-Byzantine period, in the 4th century, as would be implied by looking just at the sheer number of coins. A very conspicuous

A coin of Constantius II as Caesar [32] is apparently of an unknown 8th officina (H) of the mint of Antioch. The literature records only seven. Coin [44] appears to be an imitation of a mid-4th century FEL TEMP REPARATIO/ Virtus spearing fallen horseman type. It is smaller in module than the official coins of this type and the obverse

2

In numismatic terms, the Byzantine period commences with the monetary reform of Anastasius I in 498 CE.

106

D. SYON: OMRIT – THE COINS (1999-2001)

Tab. 1 Total coins from site Minting Authority

Date nd

Seleucid

2 c. BCE st

nd

Mint

Quantity

Tyre

3

Autonomous

1 c. BCE–2 c. CE

Tyre (17), Sidon

18

Herodian?

4 BCE-c. 40 CE

Jerusalem?

1

Petra?

1

st

Nabatean Imperial

1 c. CE st

nd

Unident.

1 –2 c. CE

Rome

1

Trajan

98–117 CE

Rome or Antioch

2

st

Civic

1 c. CE

Antioch

1

City coins

2nd-3rd c. CE

Tyre (2), Sidon (1), Hippos (1), Bithynia (1) the others unknown

19

Imperial

3rd c. CE

Antioch

1

Late Roman I

c.260–300 CE

Various

22

Various

213

th

Late Roman II

4 c. CE th

Byzantine

th

5 –7 c. CE

Crusader, Zangid and Ayyûbid

Various

10

th

th

Damascus (3), Aleppo

4

th

th

Damascus (?)

7

12 -13 c. CE

Mamlûk

13 –14 c. CE

236

250

Qty.

200 150 100 50

3

21

19

4

10

0 Seleucid (2nd c. BCE)

Autonomous Roman and local Imperial issues (1st (1st–3rd c. c. BCE-2nd CE) c. CE

City coins Late Roman (2nd-3rd c. (c.260–450 CE) CE)

Byzantine (5th–7th c. CE)

0

11

Early Middle Ages Islamic (12th-14th c. period (7thCE) 11th c.

Graph 2 The Numismatic profile at Omrit (including coins not from the excavations) [BMC Phoen.] HILL G.F. 1910. British Museum Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London.

break occurs in the Early Islamic period, also attested at other sites in and around the Hula valley. The revival that occurred in the 12th-14th centuries, when the road from Paneas to Tyre passed nearby (Shaked 2002) is evident in the numismatic record and subsequently the site appears to have been abandoned again. The nearby shrine of Nebi Huda dates back to the early Ottoman period (16th c. CE), probably constructed over an earlier Mamlûk tomb. [Graph 2].

[BMCRE 3] MATTINGLY H. 1966. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 3. Nerva to Hadrian. London, British Museum. BRICKSTOCK R.J. 1987. Copies of the Fel Temp Reparatio Coinage in Britain (BAR 176). Oxford. BURNETT A. 1987. Coinage in the Roman World. London, Seaby.

References

EDHEM G. 1894. Catalogues de monnaies turcomanes du musée imperial ottoman, Istanbul. (Reprint, Bologna 1965).

BALOG P. 1964. The Coinage of the Mamlûk Sultans of Egypt and Syria (Numismatic Studies 12). New York, American Numismatic Society.

KINDLER A. 1983. The Coinage of Bostra. Warminster, Aris and Phillips.

BALOG P. 1980. The Coinage of the Ayyubids (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publications 12). London, Royal Numismatic Society.

[LRBC 1] HILL P.V. and KENT J.P.C. 1960. The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine, A.D. 324–46.

107

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Part 1 of Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324– 498), 4-40. London, Spink.

[RIC 7] BRUUN P.M. 1966. The Roman Imperial Coinage VII. Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313–337. London, Spink.

[LRBC 2] CARSON R.A.G. and KENT J.P.C. 1960. Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498. Part 2 of Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498), 41-114. London, Spink.

ROBERTSON A.S. 1978. Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet IV: Valerian I to Allectus. Oxford.

MESHORER Y. 1984–1985. The Coins of Caesarea Paneas. Israel Numismatic Journal 8, 37–58.

[RPC 1] BURNETT A., AMANDRY M. and RIPOLLES P. 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage 1. London/Paris, British Museum Press/Bibliothèque Nationale.

[RIC 5/1: P.H. WEBB. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, Part I. London 1927.

SHAKED I. 2002. The Road from Banias to Tyre in the 10th–13th Centuries CE and the identification of the ‘Black Guard’. Cathedra 103, 21-32 (Hebrew).

[RIC 6] SUTHERLAND C.H.V. 1967. The Roman Imperial Coinage, VI. From Diocletian’s Reform (A.D. 294) to the Death of Maximinus (D. 313). London, Spink.

CATALOG City coin, Decapolis?, 1st–2nd. c. CE. Obverse: Oblit. Head r. Reverse: Oblit. Perhaps head. Æ, 3.41 g., 19 mm.

The catalog is arranged chronologically. In the Late Roman Period, i.e. the 4th c. CE, the coins are arranged by type; in this period most co-reigning emperors minted in each other’s names, thus a coin may have been minted in the territory of a different co-emperor than the one named on it. In addition, the usually worn condition of the coins more often than not precludes the possibility of identifying the named emperor. The types on the other hand, can often be identified to some degree, and they tend to cluster within specific periods.

4. Loc. LD7007, IAA 102605. Civic, Antioch, 1st c. CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. Reverse: SC in wreath. Æ, ↑, 11.56 g., 23 mm. Cf. RPC 1:627, No.4273 (Tiberius).

1. Loc. M23002, IAA 102573. Autonomous, Tyre, After 75 CE. Obverse: Head of Melqart r. Reverse: MH-TPO / ΠΟΛ-EωΣ Club surmounted by Tyre’s monogram. Date [??]Σ Below, ‫לצר‬. Æ, ↑ 8.23 g., 22 mm. Worn. Cf. BMC Phoen.:264, Nos. 331 f.

5. Reg. No. I.L23.12, Loc. 23002, IAA 102528. Early Roman or Herodian, 1st–2nd c. CE (?). Obverse: Oblit. Traces of bust r. Countermark: square with unidentified design. Reverse: Oblit. Æ, 4.49 g., 16 mm.

2. Reg. No. I.M23.20, Loc. M23.013, IAA 102564 (photo). Autonomous Tyre, 153/4 CE. Obverse: Bust of Tyche r., veiled, wearing turreted crown.

6. Reg. No. I.L16.2, IAA 102556 (photo). Sidon under Hadrian, 117/8 CE. Obverse: [AYTO TP]AI KAI- AΔP[IANΩ ΣEB] Head of emperor r., laureate. Reverse: Europa facing, riding the bull r. Date: HKC. Below: ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ / ΘΕΑΣ. Æ, ↑, 10.36 g., 23 mm. BMC Phoen.:181, No.225.

Reverse: MHTPO[ΠΟΛEΩΣ ΙΕΠΑΣ] Palm tree with fruit. Date: Θ-OC. Æ, dilepton, ↑, 3.14 g., 15 mm. Cf. BMC Phoen.:265, Nos. 338 ff. 3. Reg. No. I.C6.52, Loc. LC6019, IAA 102601. 108

D. SYON: OMRIT – THE COINS (1999-2001)

7. Reg. No. I.D7.3, Loc. LD7002, IAA 102604 (photo). Koinon of Bithynia, 128–137 CE. Obverse: ΣΑΒΕΙΝΗ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΗ Head of Sabina r., with short plait, weraing wreath of corn ears. Reverse: KOI-N[ON] BEIΘYNIAC Octastyle temple. In pediment sacrificial scene. Dot between center columns. Below prow. orichalcum, sestertius (?), ↓, 26.19 g., 33 mm. Apparently unpublished obverse.

11. Reg. No. I.M23.15, Loc. M23.010, IAA 102568 (photo). Trajan Decius, Rome, 249–251CE. Obverse: IMP C M Q TRAIANVS DECIVS AVG Bust r., laureate, cuirassed. Reverse: DACIA Dacia draped, stg. l., holding staff with asses’ head. In field: SC. Æ, sestertius, ↑, 11.41 g., 28 mm. Robertson 1978:241, No.32.

8. S.balk, Sq.F6, IAA 102576. Faustina Senior (posthumous), Bostra, 141-144 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. (veiled?). Reverse: [TYXH NE]AC TPAI-ANH[C BOCTPAC] Tyche, holding spear. Æ, ↓, 9.04 g., 23 mm. Kindler 1983:107, No.8a1.

12. Loc. LD8000, IAA 102588. Gallienus, Asia, 260–268 CE. Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG Bust r., radiate. Reverse: SOLI INVICTO Sol stg. l., hand raised, holding whip. Æ (originally silvered), antoninianus, ↑, 2.77 g., 22 mm. Cf. RIC 5/1:189, No.658.

9. balk C22, IAA 102584. Imperial period, Paneas, 2nd c. CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. Reverse: Oblit. Pan, playing the flute. On r. tree trunk. Æ, ↑, 10.47 g., 22 mm. Cf. Meshorer 1984–5:49, No.6f. 13. Reg. No. I.C8.5, Loc. LC8000, IAA 102590 (photo). Maximinus (caesar), Antioch, 308–310 CE. Obverse: GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB CAES Bust r., laureate. Reverse: GENIO CA-ESARIS Naked Genius stg. l., modius on head, pouring libation from patera. In field r., Δ/ In exergue •ANT. Æ, ↑, 5.29 g., 25 mm. Cf. RIC 6:633, No.118a (var.). 10. Reg. No. I.M14.22, Loc. M14.22, IAA 102575 (photo). Elagabalus, Tyre, 219–222 CE. Obverse: IMP CAES M AV [ANTO]NINVS AVG Young bust r. Oval countermark with profile. Reverse: SEPTIM TVRO COLO Tyche stg., placing r. on trophy, holding in l.sceptre tranversely and is crowned by Nike on column. At her feet Marsyas and murex shell. Æ, , 12.05 g., 30 mm. CF. BMC Phoen.:274, NOS.390–392.

14. Reg. No. I.L15.1, IAA 102527 (photo). Maximian, Thessalonica, 310–311 CE. 109

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Victory that crowns him. In field l., Γ. In exergue SMK. Æ3, ↑, 2.50 g., 18 mm. RIC 7:644, No.9.

Obverse: GAL•MAXIMIANVS PF AVG Head r., laureate. Reverse: GENIO A-VGVSTI Genius standing l., patera in r. hand, cornucopia in l. In field l. star, in field r. ̜. In exergue •SMTS•. Æ, ↓, 6.49 g., 25 mm. RIC 6:516, No.40a.

7, in field r.

18. Reg. No. I.L23.19, Loc. 23006, IAA 102547 (photo). Constantine II (caesar), Cyzicus, 317–320 CE. Obverse: DN FL CL CONSTANTINVS NOB C Bust l., pearl diademed. Reverse: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI CAESS As above. In field l., , in field r. ̜. In exergue SMK. Æ2 , ↑, 2.21 g., 18 mm. RIC 7:644, No.12.

15. Reg. No. I.C9.3, Loc. LC9001, IAA 102591 (photo). Licinius I, Ticinum, 313 CE. Obverse: IMP LICINIVS PF AVG Head r., diademed. Reverse: SOLI INVIC-TO COMITI Sol stg. r., partly draped, head l., raising his right and holding globe in left. In exergue PT. Æ, ↑, 3.81 g., 22 mm. RIC 7:360, No.4.

7

19. Reg. No. I.L13.2, Loc. 13.000, IAA 102559 (photo). Constantine I, Ostia, 312–313 CE. Obverse: IMP C CONSTANTINVS PF AVG Bust r., cuirassed, pearl diademed. Reverse: GENIO P-OP ROM Genius stg. l., wreath in his r. and cornucopia in l. In exergue MOST[?]. Æ, follis, ↓, 4.23 g., 23 mm. RIC 6:408, NO.76.

16. Reg. No. I.M23.7, Loc. 23006, IAA 102551 (photo). Constantine I, Arles, 313 CE. Obverse: IMP C CONSTANTINVS PF AVG Bust r., cuirassed, laureate. Reverse: As above. In exergue QARL. Æ, follis, ↓, 3.75 g., 21 mm. RIC 7:235, No.21.

20. Reg. No. I.L23, Loc. 23002, IAA 102535 (photo). Constantine I, Arles, 324–330 CE. Obverse: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG Head r., laureate. Reverse: VIRTV-S AVG Camp gate with 4 turrets and open door. Above, star. In exergue PA∪RL. Æ, follis, ↑, 3.32 g., 20 mm. LRBC 1, No.292.

17. Reg. No. I.L23.19, Loc. 23006, IAA 102550 (photo). Licinius I, Cyzicus, 317–320 CE. Obverse: IMP L[ICI]-NIVS AVG Bust l., consular robe and sceptre across shoulder. Reverse: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI AVCC Iupiter standing l., leaning on scepter and holding small 110

D. SYON: OMRIT – THE COINS (1999-2001)

21. Loc. WE8009, IAA 102595. Constantine II (caesar), Cyzicus, 324–330 CE. Obverse: CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Small bust l., laureate, cuirassed and paludamentum. Reverse: [PROVI]DEN-TIAE CAESS Camp gate. In exergue SMK[?]•. Æ2, ↓, 2.19 g., 20 mm. LRBC 1, No.1174. 26. Reg. No. I.L23.13, Loc. 23003, IAA 102538 (photo). Constantine I, Constantinople, 335–337 CE. Obverse: CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG Bust r., cuirassed, pearl diademed. Reverse: As above. In exergue CONSA·. Æ3, , 1.55 g., 16 mm. LRBC 1, No.1025.

22. Reg. No. I.L13.6, IAA 102585. Under Constantine I, Constantinopolis, 330–335 CE. Obverse: VRBS ROMA Bust l. Reverse: She-wolf suckling the twins. In exergue CONS̜•. Æ, ↑, 1.66 g., 18 mm. LRBC 1, No.1010.

27. Reg. No. I.L23001, Loc. LL2301, IAA 102567. As above. In exergue CONS[?]. Æ3, ↓, 1.44 g., 15 mm.

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers / two standards

28. Loc. WE8009, IAA 102597. Late Roman, 335–341 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. Reverse: Oblit. As above Æ3, ↑, 0.51 g., 15 mm. 29. Reg. No. I.L23, Loc. 23002, IAA 102563. Constans, Siscia, 337–341 CE. Obverse: CONSTANS MAX AVG Bust r., laureate. Reverse: GLOR-IA EXERRC-ITVS (sic!) As above. Exergue off flan. Æ3, , 1.59 g., 15 mm. Cf. LRBC 1, No.768. Only Siscia has this combination of obv. legend and rev. type.

23. Loc. 15.005, IAA 102574 (photo). Constantine I, Antioch, 330–335 CE. Obverse: CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG Bust r., cuirassed, rosette diademed. Reverse: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS Two soldiers facing, between them two standards. In exergue SMANA. Æ, , 2.88 g., 17 mm. LRBC 1, No.1356.

30. Reg. No. I.E8.22, Loc. LE 8005, IAA 102602. Constans, Thessalonica, 337–341 CE. Obverse: CONSTANS PF AVG Bust r. Reverse: [GLORI-A]EXER-CITVS As above. In exergue SMTSB. Æ3, ↑, 1.54 g., 18 mm. LRBC 1, No.856.

24. Reg. No. I.L15.13, Loc. 15006, IAA 102544. Constantine II (caesar), Antioch, 330–335 CE. Obverse: [CONST]ANTINVS IVN NOB C Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: As above. In exergue SMANA. Æ3, ↓, 1.68 g., 16 mm. LRBC 1, No.1357. Two soldiers / One standard 25. Loc. WE8009, IAA 102596. Constantine I, Antioch, 335–337 CE. Obverse: CONSTANTI-NVS MAX [AVG] Bust r., rosette diademed, wearing paludamentum. Reverse: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS Two soldiers facing, between them one standard. In exergue SMANA. Æ3, , 1.64 g., 15 mm. LRBC 1, No.1363.

31. Loc. LF7010, IAA 102587 (photo). Constantine I (posthumous), Antioch, 337–341 CE. Obverse: [DV] CONSTANTI-NVS [PT AVG] Veiled head of Constantine r. 111

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Obverse: DN CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl diademed, one rosette. Reverse: VOT / XX / MVLT / XXX in wreath. In exergue SMNA. Æ3, ↑, 1.07 g., 17 mm. LRBC 1, No.1149.

Reverse: Quadriga to r., in which Constantine is stg., reaching up to hand of God. In exergue SMA[NA]. Æ3, , 1.42 g., 15 mm. LRBC 1, No.1372.

35. Reg. No. I.M14.20, Loc. M14.004, IAA 102579. Constantius II, 346–361 CE. Obverse: DN CO[NSTAN-TIVS PF AVG] Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: Oblit. Æ3, 1.21 g., 15 mm. 32. Loc. LD8009, IAA 102598 (photo). Constantius II (caesar), Antioch, 294–305 CE. Obverse: FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES Bust r., radiate, draped, cuirassed. Reverse: CONCORDIA MIL-ITVM Prince stg. r. in military dress, receiving small Victory from Jupiter, stg. l., leaning on sceptre. In field */H. In exergue ANT. Æ2, ↓, 3.76 g., 20 mm. Cf. RIC 6:621, No.61a (var.). RIC knows only of seven officinae (A–Z).

FEL TEMP REPARATIO / Virtus Spearing Fallen Horseman

36. Loc. 16007, IAA 102555 (photo). Constantius II, Alexandria, 351–354 CE. Obverse: DN CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG Bust r., draped, cuirassed, pearl diademed. Reverse: FEL TEMP RE-PARATIO Virtus spearing fallen horseman. In field l. Γ. In exergue ALEA. Æ2, , 5.18 g., 23 mm. LRBC 2, No.2836. 33. Reg. No. I.L23.19, IAA 102540 (photo). Constans, Rome, 346–350 CE. Obverse: DN CONSTA-NS PF AVG Bust r., cuirassed, rosette diademed. Reverse: FEL TEMP – REPARATIO Emperor holding Phoenix on globe and labarum, standing l. on galley steered by Victory, seated l. In left field: A. In exergue R̜. Æ2, ↑, 5.92 g., 23 mm. LRBC 2, No.629.

37. Reg. No. I.L16.15, Loc. 16008, IAA 102558 (photo). As above. In exergue ALEΔ. Æ2, , 5.41 g., 22 mm. 38. Loc. M14.002, IAA 102560. Constantius II, Nicomedia, 351–361 CE. Obverse: [DN CONS]TAN-[TIVS PF AVG] Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: [FEL TEMP RE-PARATIO] As above. In exergue SMN[?]. Æ3, , 1.36 g., 15 mm. Broken. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2300.

34. Reg. No. M13.002, IAA 102543 (photo). Constantius II, Nicomedia, 341–346 CE. 112

D. SYON: OMRIT – THE COINS (1999-2001)

Reverse: [FEL] TEMP RE-[PARATIO] As above. Æ3, ↑, 2.25 g., 16 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2050 (Constantinople).

39. Loc. M14.004, IAA 102582. Constantius II, 351–361 CE. Obverse: [DN CONSTAN]-TIVS PF AVG Bust r. Reverse: FEL TE[MP REPARATIO] As above. Æ3, , 1.44 g., 16 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2039 (Constantinople).

46. Reg. No. I.M14.19, Loc. M14.005, IAA 102561. Constantius II, 355–361 CE. Obverse: [DN CONSTAN]-TIVS PF AVG Bust r. Reverse: [SPES REIPVBLICE] Virtus, helmeted, holding globe and spear. Æ3, , 1.39 g., 15 mm. Broken. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2053 (Constantinople). 47. Reg. No. M13.002, IAA 102523. Julian II (?), 355–361 CE. Obverse: …IVL…(?) Traces of bust, r. Reverse: Oblit. Æ4, 0.66 g., 10 mm.

40. Reg. No. I.L15.2, Loc. 15000, IAA 102553 (photo). Constantius II, Cyzicus, 351–361 CE. Obverse: DN CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: FEL TEMP – REPARATIO As above. In exergue SMKA. Æ3, ↓, 2.53 g., 19 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, Nos.2496, 2498.

48. Reg. No. I.46.14, Loc. 16007, IAA 102534. Late Roman, Alexandria, 364–375 CE. Obverse: …PF AVG Traces of bust, r. Reverse: SECV[RITAS REIPVBLICAE] Victory l., holding wreath. In exergue ALE[?]. Æ3, , 1.99 g., 15 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, Nos.2860–2864 (Constantinople).

41. Reg. No. I.M14.2, Loc. M14.000, IAA 102578. Constantius II, Rome, 355–361 CE. Obverse: DN CONSTAN-[TIVS PF AVG] Bust r., cuirassed, pearl diademed. Reverse: FEL TEMP RE-PARATIO As above. In exergue [?]RT. Æ3, ↓, 2.07 g., 17 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.682 (var.) Mintmark not in LRBC.

GLORIA ROMANORVM / Emperor holding Labarum and dragging captive 49. Reg. No. I.D9.005, Loc. D9003, IAA 102562. Late Roman, 364–375 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r., diademed. Reverse: [GLORIA ROMANORVM] Emperor standing r., head l., holding labarum and dragging captive. Æ3, ↓, 2.06 g., 14 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2085 (Constantinople).

42. Reg. No. I.L15.20, Loc. 15005, IAA 102570. Late Roman, 346–361 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. Reverse: [FEL TEMP REPARATIO] As above. Æ4, ↓, 2.05 g., 14 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2050 (Constantinople). 43. Reg. No. I.M23, Loc. 23002, IAA 102557. As above. Æ3, ↓, 2.39 g., 15 mm. 44. Reg. No. M13.002, IAA 102526. Late Roman (imitation?), 351–361 CE. Obverse: If any inscription, off flan. Bearded bust r. Reverse: Fel Temp Reparatio (?) As above. Æ4, ↓, 1.16 g., 10 mm. Crude imitation on small flan; possibly a British mint (Brickstock 1987).

50. Dump, IAA 102532 (photo). Late Roman, Antioch (?), 367–375 CE. Obverse: …PF AVG Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: GLORIA RO-[MANORVM] As above. In exergue ANT[?]. Æ3, , 1.36 g., 14 mm. Edges broken Cf. LRBC 2, Nos. 2658–2662 (Constantinople).

45. Loc. M14.002, IAA 102566. Late Roman (Gallus or Julian II), 351–361 CE. Obverse: …….]S NOB CAES Bust r. 113

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Æ2, ↓, 4.00 g., 24 mm. LRBC 2, No.2565.

51. Reg. No. I.23.39.0, Loc. 23006, IAA 102583. Valentinian I, 364–375 CE. Obverse: DN VALE[…… Traces of bust. Reverse: [GLORIA ROMANORUM] As above. Æ3, ↓, 1.61 g., 15 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2075. 52. Reg. No. M13.002, IAA 102536. Valentinian I, 366–375 CE. Obverse: DN VALEN[TINI-ANVS PF AVG] Bust r. Reverse: As above. Æ3, ↑, 2.58 g., 17 mm. Broken. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2085 (Constantinople).

57. Reg. No. I.L15.2, Loc. 15000, IAA 102533 (photo). Theodosius I, Heraclea, 383–392 CE. Obverse: DN THEODO-SIVS PF AVG Bust r., draped, pearl diademed. Reverse: VIRTVS E-XERCI[TI] As above. In field l. star. In exergue •SMH[?]. Æ2, , 3.88 g., 22 mm. LRBC 2, No.1980.

53. Surface, IAA 102589. Late Roman, Eastern mint, 383 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. Reverse: VOT / XX / MVLT / XXX. Æ4, , 0.75 g., 13 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2156 (Constantinople).

54. Loc. LE 8005, IAA 102594 (photo). Theodosius I, Antioch, 378–383 CE. Obverse: DN THEODO-SIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: [C]ONCORDIA AVGGG Constantinopolis seated facing, head helmeted l., holding globe and spear. R. leg bare. In field l. Φ/Θ, in field r. K. In exergue ANTB. Æ3, , 2.10 g., 19 mm. LRBC 2, No.2708.

58. Loc. LE 8005, IAA 102593 (photo). Theodosius I, Antioch, 393–395 CE. Obverse: DN THEODO-SIVS P[F AVG] Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor stg. to front, holding labarum and globe. In exergue ANTA. Æ2, ↑, 4.58 g., 20 mm. LRBC 2, No.2779. 59. No reg. No., IAA 102525. Aelia Flaccilla, Eastern mint, 383–392 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. Reverse: Oblit. (Salvs Reipvblicae) Victory seated r., writing chi-ro on shield resting on small column. Æ4, , 0.64 g., 13 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2163 (Constantinople).

55. Reg. No. I.D8.1, Loc. LD8000, IAA 102600. Theodosius I, 379–395 CE. Obverse: DN THEODO-[SIVS PF AVG] Bust r. Reverse: Oblit. Æ3, 0.82 g., 17 mm. VIRTVS EXERCITI / Emperor holding standard and globe and trampling on captive 56. Reg. No. I.C9.4, Loc. LC9001, IAA 102599. Theodosius I, Cyzicus, 383–392 CE. Obverse: DN THEODO-SIVS PF AVG Bust r., laureate. Reverse: VIRTVS E-XERCITI Emperor advancing r., holding standard and globe; trampling captive. In exergue SMK[?].

60. Reg. No. I.L23, Loc. 23000, IAA 102552. Arcadius, 378–392 CE. Obverse: DN ARCA[DIVS PF AVG] Bust r., draped, pearl diademed. Reverse: VOT/V in wreath. Æ4, , 1.18 g., 14 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2162 (Constantinople). 114

D. SYON: OMRIT – THE COINS (1999-2001)

61. Reg. No. I.L.23.39, Loc. 23.39, IAA 102572. Late Roman, Thessalonica (?), 383–386 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Small bust r. Reverse: [VICTORIA AVG] Two victories facing? Æ4, ↑, 0.85 g., 12 mm. CF. LRBC 2, NO.1869. 65. Reg. No. I.L15.9, IAA 102554 (photo). Honorius, Cyzicus, 395–408 CE. Obverse: DN HO[NORIVS PF AVG] Bust r. Reverse: [VIRTVS] – EXERCITI As above. In exergue SMKB. Æ3, ↑, 1.57 g., 18 mm. LRBC 2, No.2581.

VIRTVS EXERCITI / Emperor holding spear and shield, crowned by Victory

66. Reg. No. I.M14.23, Loc. M14.005, IAA 102569. Late Roman (Arcadius or Honorius), Nicomedia, 395–408 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r., cuirassed, pearl diademed. Reverse: As above. In exergue SMNΓ. Æ3, ↑, 1.63 g., 15 mm. LRBC 2, NO.2436–2437.

62. Reg. No. I.M14.24, Loc. M14.004, IAA 102577 (photo). Arcadius, Alexandria, 395–408 CE. Obverse: DN ARCADI-[VS PF AVG] Small bust r. Reverse: [VIRTVS] EXERCITI Emperor stg. l., holding spear and shield, crowned by Victory. In field r. pellet. In exergue ALEA. Æ3, , 2.39 g., 15 mm. LRBC 2, No.2917(var.).

67. Dump, IAA 102531. Late Roman, Eastern mint, 395–408 CE. Obverse: …PF AVG Bust r. Reverse: [VIRTVS] – EXEΠCITI (sic!) As above. Æ3, , 2.03 g., 14 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, Nos.2205–2206 (Constantinople).

63. Reg. No. M13.002, IAA 102537. Arcadius, Eastern mint, 395–408 CE. Obverse: DN ARCA[DIVS PF AVG] Bust r. Reverse: Oblit. (Virtvs Exerciti ?) Traces of emperor on l. Æ4, ↑, 1.23 g., 13 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, Nos.2205–2206 (Constantinople).

68. Reg. No. I.M23000, Loc. 23000, IAA 102539. As above. Reverse: VIRTVS – EXERCITI As above. Æ3, , 2.12 g., 15 mm.

69. Reg. No. LD6010, IAA 102529 (photo). Eudoxia, Eastern mint, 400 CE. Obverse: [AEL EVDO]-XIA AVG Bust mantled, with headdress to r. Above head, hand holding diadem. Reverse: SALVS REI- [PVBLICAE] Victory seated r., writing chi-ro on shield resting on small column. Æ3, , 2.10 g., 16 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2213 (Constantinople).

64. Reg. No. I.L23.03, IAA 102548 (photo). Honorius, Alexandria, 395–408 CE. Obverse: [DN HO]NORI-VS PF A[VG] Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: [VIR]TVS – EXE[RCITI] As above. In exergue ALEA. Æ3, , 2.71 g., 15 mm. LRBC 2, No.2918. 115

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Obverse: Oblit. Reverse: Cross. Æ4, 1.20 g., 10 mm. CF. LRBC 2, NO. 2234 (Constantinople).

70. Surface, Loc. 15005, IAA 102571. Eudoxia, Nicomedia, 400–402 CE. Obverse: AEL EVDOX[IA AVG] Bust r., with pearl diadem and pearl necklace. Reverse: [GLORIA ROMANORVM] Empress enthroned, facing. In field r., cross. Æ4, , 1.20 g., 12 mm. LRBC 2, No.2450. 71. Reg. No. I.I6.14, Loc. F6001, IAA 102565. Late Roman, Eastern mint, 400–402 CE. Obverse: Oblit. Bust r. Reverse: [GLORIA ROMANORUM] Three emperors. Æ3, ↓, 1.10 g., 12 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2214.

79. IAA 102546 (photo). Theodosius II, 425–450 CE. Obverse: DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl diademed. Reverse: VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath. Æ4, ↓, 1.13 g., 12 mm. Cf. LRBC 2, No.2242 (Constantinople).

72. Reg. No. M13.002, IAA 102549. Late Roman,end of 4th c. CE. Obverse: Oblit. Traces of bust, r. Reverse: Oblit. VOT ? Æ4, 1.46 g., 13 mm.

SALVS REIPVBLICAE / Victory holding wreath and palm 73. Reg. No. I.L23.12, Loc. 23002, IAA 102545. Late Roman, end of 4th c. CE. Obverse: Oblit. Traces of bust, r. Reverse: Oblit. Victory l.? Æ4, 1.61 g., 12 mm. 80. Loc. LE8004, IAA 102592 (photo). Nur al-Din Mahmud, Damascus, 1146–1173 CE (AH 541–569) Obverse: Traces of circular inscription.    Four stars and ornament. Border of dots.

74. Reg. No. I.M14.19, Loc. M14.005, IAA 102580. Late Roman?, end of 4th c. CE. As above. Æ3, ↓, 1.10 g., 15 mm.

Reverse: Traces of circular inscription.   Four stars and ornament. Border of dots. Æ, fals, , 5.40 g., 24 mm. Cf. Edhem 1894, No.155.

75. Reg. No. I.M23.2, Loc. 23000, IAA 102541. As above. Æ3, 1.81 g., 15 mm.

 

81. Surface, IAA 102530. Al-Zahir Ghazi, Aleppo, 1199–1202 CE (AH 596–599).

76. Reg. No. I.L13.2, Loc. 13.000, IAA 102586. As above. Æ3, ↑, 1.58 g., 16 mm.

]   \     \  Reverse: Oblit. In ornate square: !] \    Obverse: Oblit. In ornate square:

77. Reg. No. I.D8.1, Loc. LD8000, no IAA number. Late Roman, late 4th–5th c. CE. Obverse: Bust r. Reverse: Oblit. Æ4, 1.23 g., 12 mm.

Æ, fals, , 3.06 g., 22 mm. Cf. Balog 1980:213–214, Nos.666–669.

82. Reg. No. I.F7.6, Loc. F7003, IAA 102604. Al Nasir Nasir al-Din Muhammad (3rd reign), Damascus, 1310–1341 CE (AH 709–741). Obverse: In square:   

78. Reg. No. I.M14.3, Loc. M14.000, IAA 102581. Late Roman (Arcadius or Theodosius II), eastern mint, 402–450 CE. 116

D. SYON: OMRIT – THE COINS (1999-2001)

Reverse: incuse strike of the obverse. Æ, fals, 1.93 g., 18 mm.

Obverse: Oblit. In central fesse: Reverse: Oblit. Æ, fals, 2.72 g., 19 mm. Cf. Balog 1964:220, Nos.454 f.

83. Reg. No. I.L15.2, Loc. 15000, IAA 102542. Al-Ashraf Sha’ban II, Damascus, 1363–1377 CE (AH 765–779).

117

"#  

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

Appendix B COINS FROM OMRIT (2002-2006) Gabriela Bijovsky CATALOGUE The catalogue includes twenty-seven identifiable coins. In addition, there are another eleven unidentifiable coins. Coins with an asterisk appear in Plate.

3. Reg. No. 10 (photo). Roman Provincial, Autonomous issue, Tyre, year 182/183 CE. Obv: Head of Melqart r., laureate. Rev: Club within wreath flanked by inscription and date: ΤΥΡΟ/ ΜΗ-ΤΡΟ/ΠΟ-ΛWC / ΗΤ- ËÊ◊] Æ, ↑, 9.56 gm, 23 mm. BMC Phoen.:267, No. 357.

1. Reg. No. 2. Claudius(?), 41–54 CE, Gabala (Syria). Obv: [ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ] Head laureate r. Rev: [ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΝ] Tyche standing facing, holding rudder and cornucopia. Æ, ↑, 14.54 gm, 25 mm. Very worn. Cf. RPC 1:638, No. 4448. 2. Reg. No. 2, IK13 L001. Trajan, Sidon, year 116/117 CE. Obv: [AYTO]ΝΕΡ[ΤΡΑΙΑΝΩ ΚΑΙCΕ...] Head laureate r. Rev: [ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ ΝΑΥΑΡΧΙΔΟΣ – LΖΚΣ] Cadmus standing l. on prow of galley. Æ, ↑, 8.11 gm, 24 mm. BMC Phoen.:180, Nos. 218–223.

4. Reg. No. 1, IK13.001 (photo). Caracalla, Caesarea Paneas, year 196 CE. Obv: [AYT KAI MAYP ANTON] Bust r. laureate. Rev: [ΚΑΙC CΕΒ ΙΕΡ ΚΑΙ ΑCΥΤ ΠΑΝΕΙWΝ] Zeus standing nude to l., holding scepter and patera. In field, date: [PЧ]Θ = year 199. Æ, ↑, 7.46 gm, 21 mm. Meshorer INJ 8:51, No. 19. 5. Reg. No. 13. Caracalla (?) (210–217 CE). Obv: [---] Bust r. laureate. 118

G. BIJOVSKY: COINS FROM OMRIT (2002-2006)

Rev: COL ΔAM[A METRO] Marsyas standing r., before cypress. In exergue, ram’s head. Æ, ↑, 10.56 gm, 24 mm. Rosenberger 1978:30, No. 51.

Rev: Obliterated. Æ, 9.30 gm, 21 mm. 6. Reg. No. 1, LR4 001. Roman Provincial, Autonomous issue, Tyre, firstsecond centuries CE. Obv: Head of Tyche r., turreted and veiled. Rev: [---] Galley r. Æ, 6.10 gm, 19 mm. Completely worn.

10. Reg. No. 7 (photo). Gallienus, 267 CE, Asia mint (Antioch). Obv: GALLIENVS PF AVG Bust r. radiate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: IOVI CONSERVAT Jupiter standing l., holding scepter and globe. In exergue: PXV. Æ, antoninianus, ↑, 3.28 gm, 22 mm. RIC 5/1:185, No. 608.

7. Reg. No. 4 (photo). Philip Senior, 244–249 CE, Rome. Obv: IMP MIVL PHILIPPVS AVG Bust r. laureate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: LAET FUNDATA Laetitia standing l., holding wreath and rudder; flanked by: S – C Æ, sestertius, ↑, 19.38 gm, 28 mm. RIC 4/3:90, No. 175.

11. Reg. No. E7, locus 000. Numerianus, 283–284 CE, Antioch. Obv: IMP C MAVR NVMERIANVS NOB C Bust r. radiate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: VIRTVS AVGG Prince receiving globe from Jupiter. Below: Γ; in exergue: XXI Æ, antoninianus, ↑, 2.69 gm, 21 mm. RIC 5/2:191, No. 376.

8. Reg. No. 4. Philip Senior, 244–249 CE, Neapolis. Obv: IMP C MIVL PHILIPPVS PF AVG Bust r. laureate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: [COL SERG IVL] She-wolf standing r., suckling the twins Romulus and Remo. Above, Mt. Gerizim. In exergue: [NEAPOL] Æ, ↑, 18.13 gm, 28 mm. Rosenberger 1977:18, No. 80.

12. Reg. No. 1, surface, trench near west of L12. Carinus, 283–285 CE, Tripolis. Obv: IMP C MAVR CARINVS NOB C Bust r. radiate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: VIRTVS AVGG Prince receiving globe from Jupiter. Below: TR; in exergue: XXI Æ, antoninianus, ↑, 4.05 gm, 22 mm. RIC 5/2:165, No. 209.

9. Reg. No. 12 (photo). Philip Junior, 247–249 CE, Damascus. Obv: MI PHILIPPVS [NOB B CAICA] Bust r. laureate, cuirassed and draped.

13. Reg. No. 9 (photo). Diocletian, c. 299–300 CE, Antioch.

119

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

from l., eagle with wreath in its peak. In r. field: Γ. In exergue: SΙS Æ, ↓, 3.29 gm, 21 mm. RIC 7:423, No. 4.

Obv: IMP C DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG Head r., laureate. Rev: GENIO POPV-LI ROMANI Genius standing l., holding patera and cornucopia. In r. field: I; in exergue: ANT Æ, ↑, 10.82 gm, 26 mm. RIC 6:620, No. 52a.

18. Reg. No. 3. Constantine I, 316 CE, Arles. Obv: IMP CONSTANTINVS PF AVG Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: SOLI INVICTO COMITI Sol standing l., raising arm, holding globe. In l. field: M; in r. field: F. In exergue: QARL Æ, ↓, 2.30 gm, 19 mm. RIC 7:241, No. 89.

14. Reg. No. 14. Maximinus, 310–311 CE, Nicomedia. Obv: IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMINVS PF AVG Head r., laureate. Rev: GENIO AV-GVSTI CM-I Genius standing l., holding patera and cornucopia. In exergue: SMNB Æ, ↑, 7.32 gm, 21 mm. RIC 6:565, No. 66c.

19. Reg. No. 1, surface. Licinius I, 321–324 CE, Cyzicus. Obv: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS PF AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: IOVI CON-SERVATORI Jupiter standing l., holding scepter and Victory on globe. To his feet from l., eagle with wreath in its peak. In r. field, captive seated r. and above: X/IIM In exergue: SMKA Æ, , 3.31 gm, 19 mm. RIC 7:645, No. 15.

15. Reg. No. RM 4.007. Constantine I, 313 CE, Rome. Obv: IMP CONSTANTINVS PF AVG Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: SOLI INV-I-CTO COMITI Sol standing l., raising arm and holding globe. In l. field: }; in r. field: F. In exergue: RT Æ, ↓, 4.01 gm, 20 mm. RIC 7:297, No.1. 16. Reg. No. 11. Licinius I, 311–313 CE, Cyzicus. Obv: IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS PF AVG Head r., laureate. Rev: IOVI CONS-ERVATORI Jupiter standing l., holding scepter and Victory on globe. To his feet from l., eagle with wreath in its peak. In r. field: I. In exergue: SKM Æ, , 3.49 gm, 23 mm. RIC 7:594, No. 105a.

20. Reg. No. 8 (photo). Constantine II, 325–326 CE, Arles. Obv: CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: VIRTVS CAESS Camp-gate with four towers and open gate. In exergue: TA∪RL Æ,, 3.28 gm, 20 mm. Mint condition. RIC 7:265, No. 292.

17. Reg. No. 6 (photo). Licinius I, 313–315 CE, Siscia. Obv: IMP LIC LICINIVS PF AVG Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: IOVI CON-SERVATORI Jupiter standing l., holding scepter and Victory on globe. To his feet

120

G. BIJOVSKY: COINS FROM OMRIT (2002-2006)

Rev: VRBS ROMA Rome seated l. on throne, holding scepter and Victory on globe. In r. field, star. In exergue: SMNB Æ, , 2.04 gm, 18 mm. RIC 9:259, No. 34.

21. Reg. No. 1 (photo). Fausta, 325–326 CE, Nicomedia. Obv: FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG Bust of Fausta r. Rev: SALVS REI-PVBLICAE Salus standing facing, holding two children in her arms. In exergue: [M]NA Æ, ↓, 2.90 gm, 19 mm. RIC 7:621, No. 130.

25. Reg. No. 3, I.SP II north balk on top of dirt on podium II, no wall. Theodosius I, 383–388 CE, Thessalonica. Obv: DN THEODO-SIVS PF AVG Bust r., wearing helmet, cuirassed and draped. Rev: GLORIA RO-MANORVM Emperor standing l. on prow of galley; behind him Victory seated l. at helm. In l. field, wreath. In exergue: •TES Æ, , 4.28 gm, 23 mm. RIC 9:183, No. 44b. 26. Reg. No. E7, L 000. Justin II, 574/575 CE, Antioch. Obv: DN IVSTI-NVS [PP AVC] Justin and Sophia seated facing on double throne. Between them, cross on globe. Rev: M in l. field, ANNO; in r. field, date: X and star below. In exergue: thEUP’ Æ, follis, , 12.20 gm, 33 mm. DOC 1:245, No. 157b.

22. Reg. No. 2, surface (photo). Constantine I, 330–333 CE, Heraclea. Obv: CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped. Rev: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS Two soldiers standing facing, holding spears and shields. Between them, two standards. In exergue: •SMHB• Æ, , 2.94 gm, 18 mm. RIC 7:558, No. 121. 23. Reg. No. 5. Constantius II, 330–335 CE, Antioch. Obv: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped. Rev: GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS Two soldiers standing facing, holding spears and shields. Between them, two standards. In exergue: SMANς Æ, ↓, 2.42 gm, 18 mm. RIC 7:693, No. 88.

27. Reg. No. I.NPI.067, LNP 1001 (photo). Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, second half 12th century, Acre(?). Obv: Blundered Arabic inscription. Rev: Blundered Arabic inscription. Gold bezant, 3.87 gm, 22 mm. Cf. Metcalf 1995:Pl. 8, No. 119.

24. Reg. No. C1, L 007. Valentinian I, 378–383 CE, Nicomedia. Obv: DN VALENTINIANVS IVN PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped.

121

THE ROMAN TEMPLE COMPLEX AT HORVAT OMRIT: AN INTERIM REPORT

[RIC 6] SUTHERLAND, C.H.V. 1967. The Roman Imperial Coinage, VI. From Diocletian’s Reform (A.D. 294) to the Death of Maximinus (D. 313). London, Spink.

Bibliography [BMC Phoen.] HILL G.F. 1910. British Museum Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London, British Museum.

[RIC 7] BRUUN, P.M. 1966. The Roman Imperial Coinage VII. Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313–337. London, Spink.

[DOC 1]: BELLINGER, A.R. 1966. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 1. Anastasius I to Maurice. 491–602 Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks.

[RIC 9] PEARCE, J.W.E. 1951. The Roman Imperial Coinage IX. Valentinan I–Theodosius I. London, Spink.

MESHORER Y. 1984–1985. The Coins of Caesarea Paneas. Israel Numismatic Journal 8, 37–58. METCALF D.M. 1995. Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East in the Ashmolean Museum Oxford. 2nd edition. London, Royal Numismatic Society.

ROSENBERGER M. 1977. City-Coins of Palestine (The Rosenberger Israel Collection) III. Hippos–Sussita, Neapolis, Nicopolis, Nysa–Scythopolis, Caesarea– Panias, Pelusium, Raphia, Sebaste, Sepphoris– Diocaesarea, Tiberias. Jerusalem.

[RIC 4/3] MATTINGLY, H., SYDENHAM, E.A., and SUTHERLAND, C.H.V. 1949 The Roman Imperial Coinage IV, Part III. London, Spink.

ROSENBERGER M. 1978. The Coinage of Eastern Palestine and Legionary Countermarks, Bar-Kochba Overstrucks. Jerusalem, Rosenberger.

[RIC 5/1] WEBB, P.H. 1927. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, Part I. London, Spink.

[RPC 1] BURNETT, A. AMANDRY, M. and P. RIPOLLES. 1992. From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69) (Roman Provincial Coinage 1). London.

[RIC 5/2] WEBB, P.H. 1933. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, Part II. London, Spink.

122