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 5 of 6)
Such disputes inevitably send ripples throughout the international community. Both the Jordanian and Turkish governments protested Israel’s plans for the new walkway. And in November 2010, the Palestinian Authority created a diplomatic kerfuffle when it published a study declaring the Western Wall was not a Jewish holy site at all, but part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The study contended, “This wall was never part of the so-called Temple Mount, but Muslim tolerance allowed the Jews to stand in front of it and weep over its destruction,” which the U.S. State Department called “factually incorrect, insensitive and highly provocative.”
Today, the scene is calm. At various spots on the wide, leafy plaza Palestinian men gather in study groups, reading the Koran. We ascend steps toward the magnificent Dome of the Rock—which was built during the same period as the Al-Aqsa Mosque to the south, between A.D. 685 and 715. The Dome of the Rock is built on top of the Foundation Stone, which is sacred to both Jews and Muslims. According to Jewish tradition, the stone is the “navel of the Earth”—the place where creation began, and the site where Abraham was poised to sacrifice Isaac. For Muslims, the stone marks the place where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to the Divine Presence.
On the east side of the Temple Mount’s retaining wall, Meiron shows me the Golden Gate, an elaborate gatehouse and portal. Its provenance remains a subject of debate among historians, pitting the majority, who claim early Muslims built it, against those who insist it is a Byzantine Christian structure.
Historians who argue that the Byzantines didn’t build the gate point to ancient accounts describing how early Christians turned the Mount into a garbage heap. The Byzantines, scholars say, saw the destruction of the Second Temple as vindication of Jesus’ prophecy that “not one stone shall be left here upon another” and as a symbol of Judaism’s downfall. But other historians counter that the eastern entrance to the Mount, where the Golden Gate was built, was important to the Byzantines because their interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew holds that Jesus entered the Temple Mount from the Mount of Olives to the east when he joined his disciples for the Passover meal. And in A.D. 614, when the Persian Empire conquered and briefly ruled Jerusalem, they took back to Persia parts of the True Cross (believed to be the cross of the Crucifixion) from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Fifteen years later, after defeating the Persians, Heraclius, a Byzantine emperor, is said to have brought the True Cross back to the holy city—passing from the Mount of Olives to the Temple Mount, and then to the Holy Sepulchre. “Thus you had two triumphant entrances: Jesus and Heraclius,” says Meiron. “That’s enough to explain why the Byzantines would invest in building that gate.”
While Barkay is in the camp that believes the Golden Gate is an early Muslim structure, Meiron thinks the sifting project’s discovery of Byzantine-era crosses, coins and ornamental columns supports the theory that the gate was built by the Byzantines. “Now we’re not so sure the Temple Mount fell into disrepair,” Meiron says. In addition, Barkay has found archival photographs taken during renovations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the late 1930s that appear to reveal Byzantine mosaics beneath the structure—further evidence that some sort of public building had been constructed at the site.
I visited Barkay at his modest apartment in East Talpiot, a Jewish suburb of East Jerusalem. The grizzled, chain-smoking archaeologist was born in Budapest in 1944, the very day the Nazis sent his family to the city’s Jewish ghetto. After the war his father—who had spent a year in a Nazi forced labor camp in Ukraine—established the first Israeli delegation in Budapest, and the family emigrated to Israel in 1950. Barkay earned his doctorate in archaeology at Tel Aviv University. In 1979, exploring a series of ancient burial caves in an area of Jerusalem above the Valley of Hinnom, he made a remarkable discovery: two 2,700-year-old silver scrolls delicately etched with the priestly blessing that Aaron and his sons bestowed on the children of Israel, as mentioned in the Book of Numbers. Barkay describes the scrolls, which contain the earliest-known fragments of a biblical text, as “the most important find of my life.”
Barkay and I get into my car and drive toward Mount Scopus. I ask him about Natsheh’s charge that the sifting project is infused with a political agenda. He shrugs. “Sneezing in Jerusalem is an intensely political activity. You can do it to the right, to the left, on the face of an Arab or a Jew. Whatever you do, or don’t do, is political.”
Still, some criticism of Barkay stems not from politics but from skepticism about his methodology. Natsheh is not the only archaeologist to raise questions about the value of artifacts not found in situ. The dirt excavated by the Waqf is landfill from previous eras. Part of that landfill, Barkay says, comes from the Mount’s eastern section, which the Waqf paved over in 2001. But most of it, he says, was taken from vacant parts of the Mount when an entrance to Solomon’s Stables was blocked, sometime between the reign of the Fatimid and Ayyubid dynasties. Collectively, he says, the landfill includes artifacts from all periods of the site.
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