A Greek inscription found inside the Great Mosque of Homs, Syria, has reignited a scholarly dispute over the location of one of the Roman Empire’s most significant religious sites: the Temple of the Sun, dedicated to the god Elagabal. Two competing studies now point to different spots in the ancient city of Emesa, with one researcher’s GIS analysis favoring the Homs citadel and another scholar’s work drawing attention back to the mosque itself. The question of where the temple actually stood carries real consequences for how archaeologists and preservation teams approach two of the city’s most sensitive structures.
Two rival sites and the inscription that split opinion
The dispute centers on a straightforward but difficult question: did the Temple of Elagabal sit beneath the Great Mosque of Homs, or did it occupy the hilltop citadel overlooking the city? For decades, scholars assumed the mosque site was the answer, partly because of architectural reuse patterns common across the eastern Mediterranean. That assumption now faces a direct challenge from Alex Hodge, whose peer-reviewed study in Levant, published by Taylor and Francis for the Council for British Research in the Levant, uses comparative evidence and GIS analysis to rank the Homs citadel as the likeliest location for the temple. Hodge’s study assessed multiple hypotheses and concluded that the citadel best fits the spatial and topographic profile, though the finding still awaits archaeological verification on the ground.
On the other side, Syrian archaeologist Abdulkarim published a study in the journal Shedet that examines the Greek inscription discovered inside the Great Mosque. The inscription’s presence within the mosque walls has kept the older mosque-site theory alive. A University of Sharjah summary of Abdulkarim’s research highlights both the inscription’s discovery context and the unresolved nature of the debate, noting the long-running scholarly dispute over whether the Temple of the Sun was under the mosque or at the citadel.
These are not minor academic differences. Identifying the correct site determines where future excavation resources go, which structure gets priority for subsurface investigation, and how Syrian authorities manage access to buildings that serve active religious and civic functions. It also shapes how historians reconstruct the urban layout of Emesa at a moment when its local solar cult briefly dominated imperial politics through the emperor Elagabalus.
How GIS analysis shifted the weight of evidence toward the citadel
Hodge’s approach breaks from traditional art-historical reasoning by applying geographic information systems to the problem. Rather than relying solely on textual sources or architectural comparisons, the study mapped road alignments, elevation data, and the spatial logic of Roman temple placement across comparable cities in the region. The GIS analysis allowed Hodge to test each proposed location against measurable criteria, producing a ranked assessment rather than a single speculative claim.
The citadel emerged as the strongest candidate because its elevated position and relationship to ancient road networks matched patterns seen at other major Roman religious complexes. Temples dedicated to supreme civic deities in Roman Syria tended to occupy prominent high ground, visible from approach routes and integrated into the city’s monumental axis. The Homs citadel fits that profile more closely than the lower-lying mosque site, whose urban setting appears less dominant when reconstructed against known Roman street grids.
The inscription inside the Great Mosque complicates matters, but it does not settle them. Reused stone was common in late antique and medieval construction across Syria. A Greek dedication to a solar deity found built into a mosque wall could have been transported from the citadel or another location entirely. Without stratigraphic context linking the inscription to an in-situ foundation, it functions more as a clue than as proof of the temple’s footprint directly beneath the mosque.
Reading the inscription and its limits
Abdulkarim’s Shedet article, as described in the University of Sharjah release, situates the inscription within the mosque’s fabric and emphasizes its importance for understanding religious continuity in Homs. The text appears to reference a solar cult and uses language consistent with dedications to a high god, which fits expectations for a monument associated with Elagabal. Its lettering style and formulae have been taken to support a Roman or late antique date.
Yet the inscription’s power as evidence is constrained by gaps in publication. Only summary translations have been made widely available; the full Greek text, detailed photographs, and a comprehensive epigraphic commentary remain limited to specialist outlets. That makes it difficult for other scholars to test alternative readings, propose refined dates, or compare the stone to inscriptions securely linked to the Elagabal cult elsewhere in Syria.
Even with better publication, the core problem would remain: the stone’s current location inside the mosque does not automatically reveal its original setting. Builders in the early Islamic and medieval periods frequently quarried older sanctuaries for high-quality masonry. Unless archaeologists can trace the block to a specific foundation trench or architectural member, its testimony about the temple’s precise footprint will stay ambiguous.
What stands between hypothesis and confirmation at Homs
Neither study can close the case on its own. Hodge’s paper is explicit that the citadel identification requires archaeological verification, and no excavation data from the citadel’s southeast quadrant or any other sector has been published to confirm or deny the presence of a large rectangular foundation consistent with a Roman temple. The GIS work narrows the search area but cannot substitute for physical evidence below ground.
Several practical barriers stand in the way. The Homs citadel sustained heavy damage during Syria’s civil war, and access for systematic geophysical survey depends on security conditions and coordination with Syrian antiquities authorities. Work at the mosque is equally sensitive, given its religious role and the risks that intrusive excavation could pose to its structural stability. No official statements have outlined a clear timetable for investigations at either site.
There are also scholarly and logistical challenges. Hodge’s raw GIS coordinate data and full methodology tables remain behind a paywall, limiting immediate replication of the spatial analysis. Wider access to those datasets would allow other researchers to adjust assumptions, plug in new comparative cases, and test how robust the citadel ranking remains under different models. On the epigraphic side, fuller dissemination of the inscription’s text and imagery would open the door to independent reanalysis.
The ideal next step, many archaeologists argue in similar cases, would be a phased program of non-invasive survey. Ground-penetrating radar, magnetometry, and electrical resistivity could scan both the citadel plateau and accessible zones around the mosque without disturbing standing structures. If those techniques reveal rectilinear anomalies matching the scale and orientation of known Roman temples, targeted test trenches could follow, designed to minimize risk while answering specific questions about foundations and building phases.
Why the outcome matters beyond one Syrian city
The stakes of the Homs debate extend beyond local topography. Pinpointing the Temple of Elagabal would anchor discussions of how a provincial cult from Emesa rose to imperial prominence under Elagabalus, then receded after his assassination. The temple’s location within the city plan influences interpretations of how processions moved, where pilgrims gathered, and how sacred and civic spaces interacted.
For heritage professionals, the decision about which site to prioritize will shape conservation strategies for years. If the citadel gains wider acceptance as the prime candidate, it may attract more funding for stabilization and survey, reframing it as a key Roman religious center rather than solely a medieval fortress. If new evidence strengthens the mosque’s claim, preservation plans there will have to balance the needs of a living religious community with the responsibilities that come with hosting a major ancient sanctuary.
For anyone following the archaeology of Roman Syria, the next development to watch is not another theoretical paper but the first systematic, on-the-ground investigation that tests these rival models. Until geophysics and carefully controlled excavation weigh in, the Temple of the Sun will remain suspended between hilltop and mosque, its exact footprint uncertain but its importance to Emesa’s past unmistakably clear.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
