What is Beneath the Temple Mount?
As Israeli archaeologists recover artifacts from the religious site, ancient history inflames modern-day political tensions
- By Joshua Hammer
- Photographs by Polaris
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2011, Subscribe
(Page 4 of 6)
According to contemporary accounts, the Babylonian Army destroyed the First Temple in 586 B.C. The ark of the covenant disappeared, possibly hidden from the conquerors. Following the conquest of Jerusalem by the Persians in 539 B.C., the Jews returned from exile and, according to the Book of Ezra, constructed a Second Temple on the site.
In the first century B.C., King Herod undertook a massive reshaping of the Temple Mount. He filled up the slopes surrounding the mount’s summit and expanded it to its present size. He enclosed the holy site within a 100-foot-high retaining wall constructed of limestone blocks quarried from the Jerusalem Hills and constructed a far more expansive version of the Second Temple. “Herod’s attitude was, ‘Anything you can do, I can do better and larger,’” says Barkay. “It was part of his megalomania. He wanted also to compete with God.”
Barkay says he and his co-workers have turned up physical evidence that hints at the grandeur of the Second Temple, including pieces of what appear to be opus sectile floor tiles—elements of a technique in Herod’s time that used stone of various colors and shapes to create geometric patterns. (Describing the temple, the ancient historian Josephus wrote of an open-air courtyard “laid with stones of all sorts.”) Other discoveries might offer glimpses of daily religious rituals—notably ivory and bone combs that could have been used in preparation for a ritual mikvah, or purifying bath, before entering the courts’ sanctified interior.
On a cloudless morning, I join historian Meiron for a tour of the Temple Mount. We enter the Old City through the Dung Gate and then arrive at the Western Wall plaza. When the Romans destroyed Herod’s temple in A.D. 70, they knocked the retaining wall down piece by piece. But the stones from the top tumbled down and formed a protective barrier that preserved the wall’s lower portions. Today, hundreds of Orthodox Jews are gathered in devotion before the remnant of that wall—a ritual that perhaps first occurred in the fourth century A.D. and has been practiced continually since the early 16th century, after the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem.
During the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate, this area was a warren of Arab houses, and Jews who wanted to pray here had to squeeze into a 12-foot-wide corridor in front of the Herodian stones. “My father came here as a child and he told me, ‘We used to go through alleys; we entered a door; and there was the wall on top of us,’ ” Meiron tells me. After Israel claimed sovereignty over East Jerusalem in 1967, it demolished the Arab houses, creating the plaza.
Meiron and I climb a “temporary” wooden walkway that leads above the Western Wall to the Mughrabi Gate, the only entry point to the Temple Mount for non-Muslims—and a symbol of how any attempt to change the site’s geography can upset the delicate status quo. Israel erected the wooden structure after an earthen ramp collapsed in 2004, following an earthquake and heavy snowfall. In 2007, the IAA approved the construction of a permanent bridge that would stretch from the Old City’s Dung Gate to the Mughrabi Gate.
But members of both the Jewish and Muslim communities opposed the plan. Some Israeli archaeologists raised an outcry over the bridge’s proposed path through the Jerusalem Archaeological Park—the site of excavations conducted in the Old City—saying the construction could damage artifacts. The late Ehud Netzer, the archaeologist who discovered King Herod’s tomb in 2007, argued that moving the entrance ramp could effectively cut off the Western Wall’s connection to the Temple Mount, thereby undermining Israel’s claims to sovereignty over the sacred compound. And the Israeli activist group Peace Now warned the project might alarm Muslims since the new route and size of the bridge (three times the original ramp) would increase non-Muslim traffic to the Mount.
Indeed, when Israel began a legally required archaeological survey of the planned construction site, Palestinians and Arab Israelis joined in a chorus of protest. They claimed the Israeli excavations—although conducted several yards outside the walls of the sacred compound—threatened the foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Some even said that it was Israel’s covert plan to unearth remains of the First and Second Temples in order to solidify its historic claim to the Mount. For the time being, non-Muslim visitors continue to use the temporary wooden bridge that has been in place for seven years.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (37)
+ View All Comments
I have not ever been to the "Holy" lands and it is clear that most all of monotheistic civilization holds Jerusalem as sacred ground. Would not the United Nations be better situated if it relocated to Jerusalem? New York is but sacred to the press and media. To referee a fight is it not better to be in the "ring"?
Posted by Talisman_real on October 25,2012 | 05:42 PM
The article gives a very good explaination of the subject, but some posters miss the point. Whether there is evidence of first temple period or not doesn't change the fact that there is a large amount of evidence proving that artifacts found and other evidence do correlate with the second temple period and as the article documents corelates with other sites of that period of Herodian origin.
For example, the Herodian stones that make up the foundations of the Western and Southern supporting walls do match in style and size other Herodian building projects such as those that surround the "Cave of the Patriarchs" in Hebron. The Eastern part of the "foundation" seems more ancient, smaller and older stones of colored pink and white stones (possibly marble) were used and fits Josephus' description of how Herod extended the size of the temple mount to the south (with Herodion stones). The previous structure was smaller (possibly dating from the time of Ezra) and may well have been reused from the ruins of the first temple. Therefore, regardless of where the first temple might have been, what is more important is where the second temple was situated and much evidence has already been found (besides what I mention) to support that the temple mount was the site of the second temple. This includes a stone that contained a warning in Greek for non Jews not to enter the temple mount, to writings in Hebrew on stones declaring "the place of trumpeting" (possibly the ancestor to Christian Church bells and the Moslem call to prayer).
Posted by Steven on March 30,2012 | 11:35 AM
The Temple was destroyed in AD 70 when the general Titus and Roman soldiers entered into Jerusalem and completely destroyed it. They rode their horses inside the Temple and threw lit torches into the buildings and rooms and the lime pitch of the walls melted.
All was destroyed except for what we now call the wailing wall.
"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to ashew him the buildings of the temple.
"And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Many priests, high priest, and members of the Sanhedrin were killed. Some of these men were the very ones that put Jesus on the cross less than 40 years earlier.
Posted by Lucille on March 30,2012 | 06:54 AM
Muslim supersessionists claim every important historic site in every country they conquered as a Muslim “shrine” of some sort (Hagia Sophia; the Temple of Rama in Ayodhya; the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and countless other religious sites). And the pliant – and supine – Europeans and Americans are always eager to “Accommodate”. It is time to correct the error of Dayan in 1967 when he allowed the Muslim “waqf” to keep control of the Temple Mount to maintain peace - and to thus perpetuate Muslim fantasies about its origin and ownership.
When secular Israelis have full control of the Mount, they should open it up for exploration, at which time it will immediately become the world’s most important archeological site.
Posted by yahudie on March 29,2012 | 02:55 AM
When Yeshu'a returns; the place should be cleaned up pretty well.
Posted by benjamin on March 29,2012 | 02:10 AM
I visited the Temple Mount in 2003 and 2004 and was shocked to discover the excavating that was going on, and the piles of rubble that contained smashed artifacts on the east side of the Mount. I used a small digital camera and took many pictures of the smashed items. At one one point, I was acosted by Muslim men who accused me of praying (which is forbidden to non-Muslims on the Mount), which I was not doing at the time. They asked why I was by the rubble and I told them that I was curious about what it was, whereupon they told me I was not allowed in that area and should leave immediately. I moved to the other side of the rubble and continued taking pictures.
I also took pictures of the outploding of the south retaining wall, demonstrating that the Muslim construction on the Mount was causing an obvious and dangerous "bulge" that could lead to the Mount collapsing southward. (It is my understanding that Jordanian engineers were subsequently summoned, reviewed the situation, agreed that the excavations and construction by the Waqf was causing this, and succeeded in stopping it. Evidently, there was no way the Waqf would listen to Israeli engineers, even Israeli Arab engineers, who had previously warned about the dangers of the excavation on one hand the the expansion of the existing buildings on the Mount on the other.)
For the record, I offered these photos to the NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, FoxNews and others, but there were not takers. One respondent told me "off the record, what you're offering is simply to 'hot' for anyone to go with..."
Although the article mentions some Brit doing work on the Mount between 1938-42, prior to that there was a British explorer/archeologist in the 1920s who excavated on the Mount during the day. At night, the Muslims filled it back in, and eventually threatened to kill him if he did not leave. He decided that life was worth living, and moved on to other tasks.
Posted by Nathan Salant on March 29,2012 | 01:14 AM
As mentioned by Bob Ramar, the temple and its foundations were destroyed, as predicted by Christ. According to the Bible, it was located in the City of David, above the Gihon Spring (in the "midst" of Jerusalem, according to the Bible and other eye witness accounts). According to the most detailed eye witness (Josephus), the temple plaza was 600 feet by 600 feet, which are not the dimensions of the Haram. According to Josephus, the foundations began in the foot of the Kidron Valley, which is not true of the Haram. According to Josephus, both the north and south corners of the temple stood out over the Kidron Valley, which is not true of the Haram. According to Josephus, the height of the foundations was 300 cubits, which is not true of the Haram. Instead, the Haram fits the dimensions of a typical Roman camp (like Fort Antonia)and was, in fact, given to Antony by Herod. Josephus equates it to a city (like a typical Roman camp), which actually dominated the temple. For this reason and for the reason of housing the 10th legion, it was not destroyed and does not nullify the prophecy of Christ. Josephus says it was connected to the temple by two 600 foot road passages, which fact never indicated in current illustrations. If archaelogists would stick with the eye witness accounts and stop working with the assumption that the Haram is the Temple Mount, a host of questions would be answered. Please consult Dr. Ernest Martin's book "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot" for the multitude of proofs which corroborate what Josephus so clearly described.
Posted by Researcher on August 31,2011 | 03:02 PM
The question that is put in the title has been left unanswered. This is not the author's fault but a sad political reality.
The Temple Mount contimues to hide its various secrets which belong to different traditions. The archeological dig on the site could be beneficial but since it is impossible, the Waqf has no right to violate history. Including Muslim history.
The Temple Mount Sifting project is a salvaging operation and the only one that can be done under the circumstances. One may criticise it as much as he wants but you can't deny the hard evidence. What we need now is a regular exposure of the finds and an academic argument about how to solve this puzzle.
Posted by Michael Baizerman on July 23,2011 | 12:36 PM
Solomon and Herod's temples were located about 1/4 mile south of the southern wall of the Haram. They were built over the Gihon Spring, which exists today. Find the Gihon and you have the location of both temples. In the history of the Jewish War by Josephus, the author states that the Roman soldiers dismantled the temple foundation down to bedrock looking for gold and silver. The furnishings in the temple melting during the fire that destroyed the temple complex and ran through cracks in the pavement stones into the rubble that filled the foundation. Jesus himself stated that "no stone would be left on top of another" when viewing the temple complex shortly before his arrest. The Haram is actually the remnants of the Antonia Fortress.
Posted by Bob Ramar on March 28,2011 | 07:30 AM
Bob, you're a funny man: did the Romans do this dismantling "to bedrock" (like you were there taking videos of it back then and can prove that lie)looking for gold in ONE DAY??? Bwahahaha maybe they brought their Roman Ditchwitches to excavate? I wonder if you realize how ludicrous you really are. The "Treasure of Solomon" was found, where Hezekiah, an AMUN PRIEST of Akhenation's reign, hid them....and said so in the Jewish book called the "Mishnayot": see Emeq Ha Melekh. He hid it in Tut's tomb, from Nebuchadresser...aka AKHENATON.
"Solomon's temple" is at Luxor, were Amenhotep III's temple building buddy from Tyre put it: Horem Heb.
Have a nice day.
Posted by farang on May 13,2011 | 11:06 PM
"I once had a archaeology professor tell me that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." grg1967
Except the abundance of evidence pointing to 8th century B.C. usurpation of Egyptian royalty history as "Israels" shouts otherwise. Compared to NO evidence to the contrary that there simply was no "great kingdom" of Solomon, none, zilch, zero. None.
We all know the lies, give it up already.
Posted by farang on May 13,2011 | 10:57 PM
I have a authentic pottery fragment incased in hard clear plastic that says authentic pottery fragment first temple period excavated in tel amal israel museum,jerusalem...I want to know if its something of value or something someone bought at the museum as a souvenier please advise as to what this item I have might be...ithank you
Posted by nic on May 7,2011 | 11:52 AM
When I first arrived in Jerusalem in 1965 I stayed at the Franciscan Monastery, which was then a youth hostel with a window facing the golden dome Mosque.There were only two residents in the youth hostel at the time, the son of a wealthy Swedish Jew and I.Every time we wanted to go from the dormitory to the entranceway we had to crawl down on our hands and knees. A few weeks earlier a Jordanian guard (the guardhouse was 10 meters from the window) had taken potshots into the youth hostel. When the Pope visited Jerusalem in the mid 60s, the Israelis had paved a road for the occasion. The road was later used to gain Jerusalem in the 1967 war, according to news reports. Regarding shards in Jerusalem, the paving stones were so hard they tore holes in the soles of my shoes in the Mea Shaarim district. Mr. Sol Biderman
Posted by Sol Biderman on May 1,2011 | 08:10 PM
Judith,
You might be correct about the origin of the name Palestine, but it doesn't really matter what they were called. The fact is there were Muslims in that area, and they were in the majority before the Jews started arriving in increasing numbers in the late 19th century. The Al-Aqsa Mosque built there more than 1300 years ago is a testament of the significant amount of Muslim history and occupation of the region. So while you try to marginalize their current name, you can't marginalize what's really important.
Just like the Muslims can't minimize the Jewish claim to the land. What has to be done is what every one refuses, learn a little respect for each other, and get over it.
Posted by Tobin on April 29,2011 | 09:49 PM
*sigh*. Is any one else like me? Sick and tired of fanatics of all stripes wanting to start WW III over this tiny piece of real estate? I really wish there was a way to ban all humans from that area until they can figure out a way to share it.
When you have two kids fighting over a toy, you take the toy away. We need to take the toy away.
Posted by Ron on April 29,2011 | 09:45 AM
+ View All Comments