NationStates Jolt Archive


Temple Mount artifacts

Zilam
20-10-2006, 05:01
First Temple artifacts found in dirt removed from Temple Mount
By Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondent

The project of sifting layers of Temple Mount dirt has yielded thousands of new artifacts dating from the First Temple period to today. The dirt was removed in 1999 by the Islamic Religious Trust (Waqf) from the Solomon's Stables area to the Kidron Stream Valley. The sifting itself is taking place at Tzurim Valley National Park, at the foot of Mount Scopus, and being funded by the Ir David Foundation. Dr. Gabriel Barkai and Tzachi Zweig, the archaeologists directing the sifting project with the help of hundreds of volunteers, are publishing photographs and information about the new discoveries in the upcoming issue of Ariel, which comes out in a few days.

The bulk of the artifacts are small finds - the term used for artifacts that can be lifted and transported, rather than fixed features. The dirt was removed in the course of excavating the mammoth entrance to the underground mosque built seven years ago in the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount. The Waqf and Islamic Movement in Israel separated dirt from stones, then used the ancient building blocks for rebuilding, in case the police barred construction materials from being brought in.

Most of the finds predate the Middle Ages. The finds include 10,000-year-old flint tools; numerous potsherds; some 1,000 ancient coins; lots of jewelry (pendants, rings, bracelets, earrings and beads in a variety of colors and materials); clothing accessories and decorative pieces; talismans; dice and game pieces made of bone and ivory; ivory and mother of pearl inlay for furniture; figurines and statuettes; stone and metal weights; arrowheads and rifle bullets; stone and glass shards; remains of stone mosaic and glass wall mosaics; decorated tiles and parts of structures; stamps, seals and a host of other items.

The sifting project is precedent-setting: This is the first time dirt from any antiquities site is being sifted in full. Among the many volunteers are soldiers, tourists, high-school students and yeshiva boys. Visitors over the past few months have included ultra-Orthodox MKs and rabbis, who usually steer clear of archaeological digs.

When the dirt was originally trucked out, the late director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Amir Drori, termed it "an archaeological crime," and the attorney general at the time, Elyakim Rubinstein, said it was "a kick to the history of the Jewish people. Now it turns out that the dirt removed from the Temple Mount harbors thousands of small finds from diverse periods.

The oldest artifacts found are remnants of tools like a blade and scraper dating back 10,000 years. Some potsherds and shards of alabaster tools date from the Bronze Age - the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C.E. (the Canaanite and Jebusite eras). Only a handful of potsherds were found from the 10th century B.C.E. (the reigns of King David and King Solomon), but numerous artifacts date from the reigns of the later Judean kings (the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E.), such as stone weights for weighing silver.

The most striking find from this period is a First Temple period bulla, or seal impression, containing ancient Hebrew writing, which may have belonged to a well-known family of priests mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah.

Many other findings date from the Persian period (Return to Zion), Hasmonean, Ptolemaic and Herodian periods, as well as from Second Temple times. Second Temple finds include remains of buildings: plaster shards decorated a rust-red, which Barkai says was fashionable at the time; a stone measuring 10 centimeters and on it a sophisticated carving reminiscent of Herodian decorations; and a broken stone from a decorated part of the Temple Mount - still bearing signs of fire, which Barkai says are from the Temple's destruction in 70 C.E.

The project has also yielded artifacts from the Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman and Early Arab periods. According to Barkai, the Byzantine finds radically alter the assessment that the Temple Mount was empty at that time.

Barkai and Zweig reject doubts cast by other archaeologists on the source of the dirt. They state that eyewitnesses monitored the trucks that removed the rubble, and that they have internal evidence that further confirms the dirt came from the Temple Mount.


Do you think this will go in favour of Jews ever rebuilding the temple on the proper site? What i mean is, would it prove to the muslims, that the Jews did have a temple there, or would they continue to ignore that fact, and not allow a building to go up?

Outside of the findings that support the temple being there, like everyone knows, I just found that this article was interesting with a good insight on history. :)
Sheni
20-10-2006, 05:54
Do you think this will go in favour of Jews ever rebuilding the temple on the proper site? What i mean is, would it prove to the muslims, that the Jews did have a temple there, or would they continue to ignore that fact, and not allow a building to go up?

Outside of the findings that support the temple being there, like everyone knows, I just found that this article was interesting with a good insight on history. :)

I don't think you realize why the Jews aren't building another temple on the temple mount.
It's not because Muslims currently own that spot(although that would block it), it's because they don't want to till certain theological precedents are met.
It's like why they don't sacrifice animals anymore either.
So therefore, this isn't going to do a thing.
Zilam
20-10-2006, 06:04
I don't think you realize why the Jews aren't building another temple on the temple mount.
It's not because Muslims currently own that spot(although that would block it), it's because they don't want to till certain theological precedents are met.
It's like why they don't sacrifice animals anymore either.
So therefore, this isn't going to do a thing.

I was sure they stopped the animal sacrifices because they had no temple to sacrifice them in? And if they start to build on the Temple Mount, you can bet your rear that they'd have every muslim nation sending fanatics and warriors their way.
The Archregimancy
20-10-2006, 06:05
Do you think this will go in favour of Jews ever rebuilding the temple on the proper site? What i mean is, would it prove to the muslims, that the Jews did have a temple there, or would they continue to ignore that fact, and not allow a building to go up?

Outside of the findings that support the temple being there, like everyone knows, I just found that this article was interesting with a good insight on history. :)

As a professional archaeologist myself (albeit not one specialising in middle eastern archaeology), I don't think the issue here is whether or not there was a temple there, which - as you point out - isn't seriously under dispute.

The issue is whether the presence of an ancient temple gives precedence to that ancient monument over the existing site - does the First Temple take precedence over a current mosque that's itself been on the same site for over a thousand years?

We should also consider the not unreasonable observation made by some of my colleagues that many (not all) Israeli archaeologists and Israeli government heritage bodies are prone to giving precedence to the discovery, presence and preservation of early Jewish archaeological sites over subsequent materials. This doesn't mean Roman and later materials are ignored, but they are downplayed. Note how in the original article here considerable prominence is given to the potentially Judaic artefacts, but that the the Roman, Byzantine, Early Arab and Ottoman periods - some 2000 years of history - are glossed over in two sentences.

As to the assertion that Temple Mount wasn't abandoned during the Byzantine period, I would challenge the implicit assumption that this means said occupation was necessarily Jewish given that Jerusalem was a majority Christian city in the Byzantine period.

None of which is to suggest that the Judaic artefacts recovered from the site aren't highly significant. I'm sure they are. But:

A) to give them such emphasis over the preceding and subsequent periods is potentially problematic, especially since it would seem that artefacts from this period may have been relatively uncommon compared to those of other periods (if I'm reading the article correctly)

B) the presence of artefacts relating to a previous Jewish occupation of the site in no way justifies demolishing centuries old buildings with their own heritage and religious value to rebuild the long-demolished earlier structure.

If it did, then I'm all for giving Jerusalem back to the descendents of those bronze age Canaanites and allowing them to build some bronze age Canaanite houses on Baal-Worship Mount.
Sheni
20-10-2006, 06:16
I was sure they stopped the animal sacrifices because they had no temple to sacrifice them in? And if they start to build on the Temple Mount, you can bet your rear that they'd have every muslim nation sending fanatics and warriors their way.

True, but what stops them from just building an alter anywhere? The Bible is known for being very specific in certain parts of it and assumingly they could just make an alter.
Except they won't build an alter until they have a temple, and they won't build a temple until the Messiah comes.
Which happens never, if my personal beliefs(agnosticism) are right.
Bitchkitten
20-10-2006, 06:19
Why would the artifacts make any difference? Are they going to give New York back to the Indians if they find more arrowheads?
Twilight Peak
20-10-2006, 06:23
Except they won't build an alter until they have a temple, and they won't build a temple until the Messiah comes.
Which happens never, if my personal beliefs(agnosticism) are right.

A little closed minded there.
Who knows what their motives are?
Sheni
20-10-2006, 06:28
A little closed minded there.
Who knows what their motives are?

I do.
Explaination of that "I do":
My religious history goes: Jewish(RELIGIOUS Jewish, too)->???->Agnostic.
So, I know Jewish theology.
The stuff I mentioned's been in it for at least 500 years.
It's not going to go away anytime soon.
Twilight Peak
20-10-2006, 06:33
I do.
Explaination of that "I do":
My religious history goes: Jewish(RELIGIOUS Jewish, too)->???->Agnostic.
So, I know Jewish theology.
The stuff I mentioned's been in it for at least 500 years.
It's not going to go away anytime soon.

I'm just still curious is they're going to follow it all.
Guess I'll see...
Zilam
20-10-2006, 06:34
Why would the artifacts make any difference? Are they going to give New York back to the Indians if they find more arrowheads?

Well you don't have Native Americans blowing themselves up over religous matters. The situation is a little different.
Anglachel and Anguirel
20-10-2006, 06:36
I don't think you realize why the Jews aren't building another temple on the temple mount.
It's not because Muslims currently own that spot(although that would block it), it's because they don't want to till certain theological precedents are met.
It's like why they don't sacrifice animals anymore either.
So therefore, this isn't going to do a thing.
But it's quite interesting.
Lacadaemon
20-10-2006, 06:37
Why would the artifacts make any difference? Are they going to give New York back to the Indians if they find more arrowheads?

New York is special. We killed all the people who had a prior claim to it. Therefore it can never be given back.
Bitchkitten
20-10-2006, 06:39
Well you don't have Native Americans blowing themselves up over religous matters. The situation is a little different.Probably because they're so outnumbered. Still, it wasn't that long ago that AIM was acting up.
The Nazz
20-10-2006, 06:39
Well you don't have Native Americans blowing themselves up over religous matters. The situation is a little different.

Yeah--the native Americans have a bit more perspective.
Nodinia
20-10-2006, 10:18
As a professional archaeologist myself (albeit not one specialising in middle eastern archaeology), I don't think the issue here is whether or not there was a temple there, which - as you point out - isn't seriously under dispute.

The issue is whether the presence of an ancient temple gives precedence to that ancient monument over the existing site - does the First Temple take precedence over a current mosque that's itself been on the same site for over a thousand years?

We should also consider the not unreasonable observation made by some of my colleagues that many (not all) Israeli archaeologists and Israeli government heritage bodies are prone to giving precedence to the discovery, presence and preservation of early Jewish archaeological sites over subsequent materials. This doesn't mean Roman and later materials are ignored, but they are downplayed. Note how in the original article here considerable prominence is given to the potentially Judaic artefacts, but that the the Roman, Byzantine, Early Arab and Ottoman periods - some 2000 years of history - are glossed over in two sentences.

As to the assertion that Temple Mount wasn't abandoned during the Byzantine period, I would challenge the implicit assumption that this means said occupation was necessarily Jewish given that Jerusalem was a majority Christian city in the Byzantine period.

None of which is to suggest that the Judaic artefacts recovered from the site aren't highly significant. I'm sure they are. But:

A) to give them such emphasis over the preceding and subsequent periods is potentially problematic, especially since it would seem that artefacts from this period may have been relatively uncommon compared to those of other periods (if I'm reading the article correctly)

B) the presence of artefacts relating to a previous Jewish occupation of the site in no way justifies demolishing centuries old buildings with their own heritage and religious value to rebuild the long-demolished earlier structure.

If it did, then I'm all for giving Jerusalem back to the descendents of those bronze age Canaanites and allowing them to build some bronze age Canaanite houses on Baal-Worship Mount.

I like you.
BackwoodsSquatches
20-10-2006, 10:39
Lets assume for a minute that the current mosque that is there, wasnt...

Dont the Jewish folks still hold the Wailing Wall in higher regard anyway?
What difference would it make?

Would the Christians demand to build a church there?

Obviously the site is sacred to all three major religions.
Ideally, it would be nice if it could be shared.
Turquoise Days
20-10-2006, 11:44
<snip>
That's a damn good post.
Katganistan
20-10-2006, 11:49
Do you think this will go in favour of Jews ever rebuilding the temple on the proper site? What i mean is, would it prove to the muslims, that the Jews did have a temple there, or would they continue to ignore that fact, and not allow a building to go up?
Outside of the findings that support the temple being there, like everyone knows, I just found that this article was interesting with a good insight on history. :)

This is a joke, right? If the two peoples are having trouble coexisting in the same country, why ever would you think either side would agree to share the same holy site? And what would you have them do: rip down what is there currently to build a replica temple?

Extraordinarily bad idea.
Soheran
20-10-2006, 11:53
We don't even know exactly where the Temple lay; it can't be rebuilt until the Messiah comes, IIRC.

Since God doesn't exist and the Messiah will, as such, never come, that means that the Temple will never be rebuilt.
Cypresaria
20-10-2006, 12:27
Obviously the site is sacred to all three major religions.
Ideally, it would be nice if it could be shared.


LOL!:D

Why not read up on the Church of the holy Sepulchre.

The christian groups can barely agree on how a holy spot should be looked after/who gets to celebrate mass when.:eek: :eek:

You have no chance of getting Jews,Christians and Muslims to share one site:mp5: :mp5:
BackwoodsSquatches
20-10-2006, 12:40
LOL!:D

Why not read up on the Church of the holy Sepulchre.

The christian groups can barely agree on how a holy spot should be looked after/who gets to celebrate mass when.:eek: :eek:

You have no chance of getting Jews,Christians and Muslims to share one site:mp5: :mp5:


Yeah, I know about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
It gets shared.

But by all three religions?
Yah, thats not gonna happen.

I did say "ideally".
New Domici
20-10-2006, 13:57
I don't think you realize why the Jews aren't building another temple on the temple mount.
It's not because Muslims currently own that spot(although that would block it), it's because they don't want to till certain theological precedents are met.
It's like why they don't sacrifice animals anymore either.
So therefore, this isn't going to do a thing.

I thought that was why Bushite Christians didn't want the temple rebuilt. The Jews didn't want to because they aren't Saducees anymore. Now the ruins of the temple are a symbol of Jewish identity and their endurance of persecution from worldly power.
Lunatic Goofballs
20-10-2006, 14:08
Flatten the bitch and build a shopping mall. Enough people have died over that fucking place. Life would be a lot better for everyone if they just sold Cinnabons. :)