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 3 of 6)
But Natsheh, the Waqf’s chief archaeologist, dismisses Barkay’s finds because they were not found in situ in their original archaeological layers in the ground. “It is worth nothing,” he says of the sifting project, adding that Barkay has leapt to unwarranted conclusions in order to strengthen the Israeli argument that Jewish ties to the Temple Mount are older and stronger than those of the Palestinians. “This is all to serve his politics and his agenda,” Natsheh says.
To be sure, the Mount is a flash point in the Middle East conflict. Israel seized East Jerusalem and the Old City from Jordan in 1967. While Israelis saw this as the reunification of their ancient capital, Palestinians still deem East Jerusalem to be occupied Arab land (a position also held by the United Nations).The Temple Mount is precariously balanced between these opposing views. Although Israel claims political sovereignty over the compound, custodianship remains with the Waqf. As such, Israelis and Palestinians cautiously eye each other for any tilt in the status quo. A September 2000 visit to the Temple Mount by the Israeli politician Ariel Sharon was interpreted by Palestinians as a provocative assertion of Israel’s sovereignty, and helped spark the second intifada uprising, which, by some estimates, claimed as many as 6,600 lives, as rioting, armed clashes and terrorist bombings erupted throughout the Palestinian territories and Israel. At its core, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents rival claims to the same territory—and both sides rely on history to make the case for whose roots in the land run deepest.
For the Israelis, that history begins 3,000 years ago, when the Temple Mount—believed by many biblical scholars to be the mountain in the region of Moriah mentioned in the Book of Genesis—was an irregularly shaped mound rising some 2,440 feet among the stark Judean Hills. The summit loomed above a small settlement called Jebus, which clung to a ridge surrounded by ravines. The Old Testament describes how an army led by David, the second king of ancient Israel, breached the walls of Jebus around 1000 B.C. David then built a palace nearby and created his capital, Jerusalem. At the site of a threshing floor atop the mountain, where farmers had separated grains from chaff, David constructed a sacrificial altar. According to the Second Book of Kings and the First Book of Chronicles, David’s son, Solomon, built the First Temple (later known as the Beit Hamikdash) on that site.
“The Temple Mount was the Parthenon of the Jews,” says Barkay, describing how worshipers would have climbed a steep set of stairs to get to it. “You would feel every step of the climb in your limbs and your lungs.”
Still, “we know nothing about the First Temple, because there are no traces of its physical remains,” says Benjamin Kedar, a history professor at Hebrew University and chairman of the board of directors at the IAA. Scholars, however, have pieced together a tentative portrait of the Beit Hamikdash from descriptions in the Bible and architectural remains of sanctuaries elsewhere in the region built during the same era. It is envisioned as a complex of richly painted and gilded courts, constructed with cedar, fir and sandalwood. The rooms would have been built around an inner sanctum—the Holy of Holies—where the ark of the covenant, an acacia-wood chest covered with gold and containing the original Ten Commandments, was said to have been stored.
Until recently, Palestinians generally acknowledged that the Beit Hamikdash existed. A 1929 publication, A Brief Guide to the Haram al-Sharif, written by Waqf historian Aref al Aref, declares that the Mount’s “identity with the site of Solomon’s temple is beyond dispute. This too is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt and peace offerings.” But in recent decades, amid the intensifying quarrel over the sovereignty of East Jerusalem, a growing number of Palestinian officials and academics have voiced doubts. “I will not allow it to be written of me that I have...confirmed the existence of the so-called Temple beneath the Mount,” Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat told President Bill Clinton at the Camp David peace talks in 2000. Arafat suggested the site of the Temple Mount might have been in the West Bank town of Nablus, known as Shechem in ancient times.
Five years after the Camp David talks, Barkay’s sifting project turned up a lump of black clay with a seal impression inscribed with the name, in ancient Hebrew, “[Gea]lyahu [son of] Immer.” In the Book of Jeremiah, a son of Immer—Pashur—is identified as chief administrator of the First Temple. Barkay suggests that the seal’s owner could have been Pashur’s brother. If so, it’s a “significant find,” he says—the first Hebrew inscription from the First Temple period to be found on the Mount itself.
But Natsheh—sipping Arabic coffee in his office at Waqf headquarters, a 700-year-old former Sufi monastery in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City—is dubious. He says he’s also frustrated by Israeli dismissal of Palestinian claims to the sacred compound where, he says, the Muslim presence—excepting the Crusader period (A.D. 1099-1187)—“extends for 1,400 years.” Natsheh won’t say if he believes in the existence of the First Temple, given the current political climate. “Whether I say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ it would be misused,” he tells me, fidgeting. “I would not like to answer.”
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)
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
We read with interest "Sifting Sacred Ground," but once again Jewish Middle Eastern history gets short shrift. Five thousand years ago most people in the Middle East were Semitic and those who believed in monotheism became Jews. 2,100 years ago some became Christian, and 1,400 years ago some became Muslim. Solomon's Temple, part of a large, Jewish kingdom infamously missing from just about all Western school textbooks, was built on the Temple Mount circa 1000 B.C., The Dome of the Rock was not built until 1,600 years later from 685 to 715 A.D. Islam was the latecomer and has a much more distant claim to the Temple Mount. Furthermore, until 1964 when the PLO was formed under the Egyptian Yassar Arafat, the word "Palestinian" applied to Jews. The term "Palestine" was coined by the British when the Allies defeated the Ottoman Turks--Middle East rulers for 400 years--during WWI. The Allies mandated Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, TransJordan, and Palestine. The latter was to be a Jewish homeland since the Palestinian Jews fought for the Allies, while the Arabs fought for the Germans, in both World Wars. When Israel's War of Independence against the attacking Arab States ended in 1949, Jerusalem was divided, and Jordan occupied and later annexed the West Bank. Egypt took Gaza. Israel recovered all three in the 1967 War (this is why the Arab States want to return to the pre-1967 borders and not the original 1948 borders). The result is that, barring their ability to destroy Israel militarily, the most recent Palestinians have resorted to the planned obliteration of Jewish history in Jerusalem and the tombs of its ancestors with the intent to de-legitimize the Israeli State. For the politically unaltered facts, pick up an encyclopedia or history written between WWI and WWII and look up "Palestine."
Judith Deutsch
Los Angeles, California
Professor, Dr. George Keerankeri, S.J.
Delhi, India
Posted by Judith Deutsch and Professor Dr. George Keerankeri, S.J. on April 27,2011 | 01:26 PM
Dig baby dig! : )
Posted by camerik on April 25,2011 | 07:17 PM
"Shifting Sacred Grounds" (April '11 issue) was fascinating, but a correction is necessary. The Western Wall is not "the holiest site in Judaism". It remains the Temple Mount, but given the Waqf's ban on any non-Moslem worship there, Jews have flocked to the Mount's western retaining wall as a second-best. I've had the privilege of visiting the Temple Mount a half-dozen times in recent years, each time seeing more and more of the ancient Temple-era stonework covered up or removed by the Waqf. It was also a unique experience to help sift through the Temple Mount rubble soon after the Waqf trucked it away.
Posted by Glenn Richter on April 22,2011 | 01:03 PM
What I don't understand is that why there have to be all of these political tensions about Temple Mount. Has it ever dawned on the archaeologists and the religious fanatics that all those events may had happened at that site. Temple Mount will survive everyone on this planet. There is a shared history there. Perhaps it may be more beneficial for everyone to learn from the archaeological findings, instead of fighting over whom Temple Mount belongs to.
Posted by Rose Ann Jones on April 17,2011 | 03:59 PM
Good Article and honest to be fair. However, the Palestinian statements do not constitute evidence as well as the Israeli statements. The first is the defense and the second is the offense and this will be evidence for political conflict.
Of course the conflict is political, otherwise it is not viewed as important and explosive as it is now. If the Palestinians show a loophole of knowledge in history that does not constitute evidence for the Israelis whose purpose is to support claims of occupation.
Arafat was not a historian nor was he knowledgeable in Archaeology to take his statements as evidence. Aref Al-Aref in 1929, if he had said something, that does not mean his opinion is sacred or cast in stone. Where did he bring his "knowledge" or certainty from? It is up to scientific archaeological methodology that is eligible to prove something, not thoughts, not opinions, not even faith or belief, and to date, it hasn't proven the existence of the First Temple's whereabouts.
We are dealing with beliefs and thoughts promoted by political endeavors. Nothing until now has emerged to prove that the pre-exilic Israelite history occurred in Palestine. There is no proof either that Palestine was comletely really cleaned from Jewish presence after AD-70.
The Jews and the Gentiles have always been the people of Palestine until the coming of the moslem few from Arabia in AD-634. After that, the Jews migrated to North Africa with the Moslem conquests and were an important part of the Andalusian civilization there. They migrated from Palestine.
Posted by Noureddine on April 16,2011 | 02:10 PM
This is good to know the history of this place and temple as time tells various stories that has been hidden somewhere. We can hope for the better time ahead for everyone who has faced problems in their life.
Posted by barcode maker on April 15,2011 | 08:50 AM
Re the tradition that the dust of Adam was taken from the Temple Mount, it should be noted that that is in addition to the four corners of the earth.
http://www.theologicalhistory.com/?p=306
Posted by Anon on April 14,2011 | 03:05 PM
Joshua Hammer focuses on the culpability of the Islamic Waqf in removing soil containing potential archeological discoveries during a pre-approved construction project at Jerusalem’s Nobel Sanctuary/Temple Mount. He twice mentions early Christians allegedly using the site as a garbage dump. However, there have been numerous harmful excavations Israeli authorities have conducted adjacent to Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site.
From 1970-1979, digging was done directly beneath Al-Aqsa, resulting in the opening of a tunnel under the women’s prayer area. In a separate incident, Israeli engineers measured a slight movement in part of the southern wall, as reported by Abraham Rabinovich in the Jerusalem Post (1996).
Contrary to a 1929 document in which Waqf historian Aref al Aref confirmed his belief in the existence of Solomon’s Temple, Muslims have historically referred to it as al-haikal al-mazaoum (the alleged structure). Readers would have benefited from a more accurate and balanced picture of the history and controversy surrounding the Nobel Sanctuary/Temple Mount had Hammer talked with as many Muslim academics as he did Jewish scholars.
I found Hammer’s usage of “warren,” to describe an Arab housing area particularly offensive, connoting Palestinians are akin to wild rabbits and that Israelis performed a service by demolishing the homes to create a plaza. In actuality, this is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 147).
The idea that the Waqf has ultimate jurisdiction over the Nobel Sanctuary is misleading. During a visit to Jerusalem in 2001, I was prohibited from entering the area by Israeli soldiers who informed me it was "closed to tourists." It was not on a Friday or Islamic holy day; they were arbitrarily refusing to let in visitors.
Posted by Tammy Watts on April 12,2011 | 09:43 AM
Actually, it was Jordan that illegally annexed East Jerusalem, the Old City and the rest of the West Bank in 1948. From then until 1967, Jews were forbidden from visiting their holiest site - the Western Wall. In addition, Jordan destroyed the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and desecrated and vandalized Jewish graves, both contemporary and ancient on the Mount of Olives. Since 1967, when Israel took control of those areas in a defensive war, all faiths have been able to worship at their holy sites. Israel even allowed the Waqf to maintain it's custodianship of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. You mention the second Intifada, which you characterize as "armed clashes ... throughout the Palestinian territories and Israel" but fail to mention that the Arabs were the aggressors and that their violence was almost always directed at Israeli civilians.
Can't we read about current events without the political commentary?
Posted by netziv in brooklyn ny on April 11,2011 | 09:31 PM
I once had a archaeology professor tell me that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Posted by Grg1967 on April 8,2011 | 03:18 PM
My one complaint - and it's not of the article writer specifically but of the archaeologists (and all others concerned) - is that they are fitting data to an existing theory rather than the established and accepted practice of building a theory to fit one set of observations then test that theory against another, distinct set.
No archaeologist should EVER go into a site and presuppse that some given thing was true because if they are wrong they will miss evidence to that effect.
We complain today of early archaeologists discarding animal bones as unimportant, of rejecting artifacts that weren't of marketable value to museums. But trying to force-fit to the Biblical narrative is no different. It is discarding information.
This is not to say that scholars elsewhere should not try and make such connections. It's their job to look for patterns, search for connections, explore correlations. It is also not to say that archaeologists should refrain from interpreting - they SHOULD interpret, that is what makes their work so valuable, but after the fact and not before.
Baked pottery of any kind can be dated directly in many ways - thermoluminescence and hydration being popular. Quartz can also be dated by a variant of thermoluminescence.
Where are the scarabs from? Are they Egyptian or a copy? Easy to find out, there's all kinds of ways of identifying the chemical composition non-destructively and the chemical composition is the ultimate geological fingerprint.
Some of the objects will once have been painted, with the paint damaged or completely removed. X-Ray fluorescence can tell you not only if paint was there, but what colour it was and what the composition was.
The opportunities for discovery lie scattered like pebbles at a beach. I hope the Smithsonian can be a part the process of looking at what those opportunities can do.
Posted by Jonathan on April 7,2011 | 06:32 PM
All is well and good with a fine artical about a place I have personally toured, EXCEPT the entrance and the 131 foot trench/pit which was dug by bulldozers to create an EMERGENCY EXIT for the El-Marwani Mosque WAS NOT LABELED ON THE MAPS. The major premise of the article and its location were not sited on the maps. Very disappointing unless I was supposed to know that El-Marwani and Al-Asqsa Mosques are one and the same?
Posted by Arthur Cunningham on April 5,2011 | 06:37 AM
I've worked at the TMSP for a number of seasons. I produced a short YouTube video that can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M_XfKcm3eg
and a White Paper that can be found here:
http://www.weblessisrael.org/temple_mount.pdf
Overall, a good aricle.
Posted by Greg Gulbrandsen on April 3,2011 | 05:32 PM
abchrysler, truth benefits some, convicts others, is conveniently shaped by still others. It is sad that such an important archeological site is so bogged down by political agendas.
There was a 1st century citizen of the country in question who said "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." And that was one of the things he was killed for.
Some things never change... at least not yet.
Posted by Roy Gerard on April 3,2011 | 05:17 PM
In one Christian part of the old city there's a ladder next to a disputed church site that has not been moved for years on end because of conflicting claims by contending sects. So a "status quo" is maintained over the issue by not moving that ladder.
Yet in the far more significant case of the Temple Mount, Israel's leadership, which claims to represent people with their own claims to the site, has ceded most of their rights as a result of perhaps the most foolish act in the aftermath of the Six Day War - the handing over of authority to the Waqf. In subsequent years the IAA has turned a blind eye to the destruction of the site and its archeological value, all in an attempt to avoid a confrontation with the Muslims. That appeasement has earned Israel not more cooperation or better relations but only contempt.
Posted by Raymond in DC on April 1,2011 | 11:29 AM
I have always thought that the arc of the covenant was under the temple mount and that many people know of this.
Posted by Rick on March 28,2011 | 09:13 PM
They will discover that the Temple is to the north of the Dome of the rock, inline with the gate that is known as the "Golden Gate". Once they find the holy of holies, they can begin to rebuild the Temple, leaving off the outer court as specified in the Bible, as the outer court would require the destruction of the Dome.
Posted by Rick on March 28,2011 | 03:15 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
These are very interesting and gave some good imformatiom Thanks Bill
Posted by Willaim Hoard on March 27,2011 | 04:07 PM
Having written about and followed the Waqf opening of the Marwani Mosque entrance and subsequent dumping of the earth I can say that this article is the most complete and balanced one I have read. I hope that the scientific report will soon appear as well as an exhibit in a Jerusalem museum of the significant finds from all historic periods. We do not want to wait for the decades it will take to finish the sifting.
Suzanne Singer
Contributing Editor
Biblical Archaeology Review
Posted by Suzanne Singer on March 27,2011 | 04:42 AM
The staement of Natsheh, the Waqf’s chief archaeologist, who dismisses Barkay’s finds because they were not found in situ in their original archaeological layers in the ground is a bit odd. After all, it was the Waqf that (a) removed the soil from the compound; (b) did so without any pretense at preserving the value of the site; (c) prohibits any archaelogical digs; and (d) himself part of the "Temple-Denial" approach of all official Palestinian Authority bodies, which would make him an involved subjective participant.
Would that be tolerated any where else?
Posted by Yisrael Medad on March 26,2011 | 06:29 PM
I found this place very nice the culture and the history behind this is very interesting.
Posted by Barcodes Software on March 26,2011 | 07:19 AM
In 2001, explosives, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons blew apart two collosal images of Buddha near Kabul. This was the result of an edict by supreme Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Recognizing the fact that archaeological terrorism destroys the world's heritage, many Mullahs in Islamic countries condemned Mullah Omar's edict as wrongheaded and damaging to the image of Islam. What is different about the situation on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem where the Waqf allows bulldozers to dig a pit more than 131 feet long and nearly 40 feet deep? The Waqf views archaeology as desecration, but what has occurred by their own hands? We must question the motives of those who would destroy physical evidence of historical events. The destruction of historical evidence is a clear sign of the intent to hide the truth. Truth benefits everyone, right?
Posted by abchrysler on March 25,2011 | 08:31 AM