A discovery could rewrite Jerusalem and Zionism itself. On the Temple Mount, the most contested patch of earth on the planet, a groundbreaking discovery could change the world with a single question: What if history’s holiest flashpoint is no longer the relevant place to contest?
For centuries, Jerusalem’s Temple Mount has been the axis of world faith and conflict. Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike have looked to its heights as the place where Abraham bound Isaac, where David laid the foundation stone, where Solomon raised the First Temple, and where creation itself began. Wars were waged over this summit. Empires clashed in its shadow. Today, it remains the most disputed piece of land on Earth.
But the drama may not be where we think it is. On the eastern slopes of Mount Moriah, south of and below the famed summit, a team of archaeologists has uncovered something extraordinary: a stone temple complex and water system dating back more than 3,500 years.
Carved directly into the mountain, this system includes a reservoir and a channel designed to wash blood and refuse from altars periodically built on a bedrock platform carved into the stone itself. Radiocarbon dating performed by Cambridge University and Israel’s Weizmann Institute places the sites last use around 1535 BCE, in the precise window the Bible situates Jacob's final years in Canaan. And just when Jacob leaves for Egypt with his sons, the site appears abruptly abandoned.
The site’s architecture is not random. A west-facing altar matches Maimonides’ record that while ancient pagans prayed eastward toward the rising sun, Abraham turned west toward the sanctuary of the one true God. One chamber appears shaped for slaughter, another for burning sacrifices, and between them stands a matzevah—a standing stone remarkably consistent with Jacob’s pillar in Genesis 35: "Jacob set up a pillar at the site where God had spoken to him…”
This is not merely archaeology. This is scripture meeting bedrock. The irony is profound: The modern political conflict over Zionism also originates from a dispute over this very place. Zionism was born from a simple, ancient claim: The Jewish people have a right to their ancestral land because a specific place - Zion - was promised, inhabited, sanctified, and remembered. The Temple Mount became the physical and symbolic anchor for that claim. It was the stone upon which Jewish historical legitimacy was cast. Modern anti-Zionist narratives lean heavily on undermining that very connection: Some argue Jews have no ancient ties to Jerusalem. Others claim the temples never stood on the mountain. Still others insist the Jewish link is a colonial myth retrofitted to a holy Muslim site.
The Temple Mount is thus not just a place, it is the political fulcrum of Jewish indigeneity. Control the narrative of the Mount, and you control the legitimacy of Zionism itself. But, here lies the explosive twist: If the earliest Israelite sanctuary, altar, and stone pillar are actually located on the lower slope, not the summit, the entire frame of the modern conflict shifts. For Christians the implications touch salvation history. For Muslims, it challenges centuries of inherited tradition about the sacred geography and posits them bowing toward Zion before Mecca. But, for Jews, the ramifications are seismic!
Bowing South to Zion
If Abraham’s altar of Akeida and Jacob’s monument stood not where today’s Dome of the Rock sits, but on the lower slope above the ancient spring of En Shemesh (Gihon), then: Jewish worship would no longer be shackled by the political status quo on the Temple Mount. The “status quo” used to block Jewish prayer might simply be irrelevant. The dream of a Third Temple transforms from geopolitical nightmare to practical possibility.
And for the modern ideological struggle? Anti-Zionism loses its central pillar. If Jewish sanctity does not hinge on the contested summit, the claim that Zionism is a colonial intrusion on Muslim holy space collapses. Instead, the archaeological record reinforces that Israel was here first and that their earliest sanctuary at Zion came well before later constructions, long predating Roman, Byzantine, or Islamic claims.
For centuries, the Temple Mount was weaponized by Crusaders, by Sultans, by politicians, by terrorists. The October 7th massacre by Hamas and Islamic Jihad was named the 'Al Aqsa Flood', invoking the Temple Mount as justification for genocide. But Zionism was equally shaped by this pressure point. It emerged from a world that tried to dislodge Jews from their ground and a determination to return to that ground despite it. The contested nature of the place forged the movement itself. Yet, if the original altar of Isaac's binding (Akeida) lies on the lower slope, not the summit, the entire narrative religious, historical, political must be rewritten.
Skeptics will argue the connection is circumstantial; believers may dismiss it as heresy. But the evidence is converging: The dates align with Jacob’s lifetime. The orientation opposes the sun. The architecture matches traditional descriptions. The water system fits sacrificial function, not domestic use. The standing stone mirrors Jacob’s matzevah. And if these stones indeed tell the story they appear to tell, then the ideological battlefield over Zionism may have been misplaced for centuries.
The place that changed the world may not be the place we thought. No city has borne more weight upon its stones than Jerusalem. But, if this discovery holds, then Jerusalem’s oldest stones reveal a stunning revelation: Zionism may not originate from a disputed summit after all, but from a forgotten sanctuary on the lower slope that Muslims face from Al Aqsa. And that revelation could shift the world politically, spiritually, and historically.
The stones of Jerusalem still have secrets to tell. And those secrets may yet reshape the meaning of Zion, the struggle for it, and the future built upon it.
Over the past 20 years I have been closely involved and have become intimately familiar with excavations at the City of David. My particular interest is the Stone Temple at the oldest site, on the eastern slope of Mount Moriah, adjacent to and above En Shemesh (Sun Spring):- Ancient Jerusalem's original water source, which is also known as Gihon. I wrote this to outline the reasons why this discovery is a phenomena for Torah, Israel and the world.
As exciting as the stream of discoveries has been, nothing has inspired me more than the “aha” moments that enlightened my study and understanding Tanach (24 books of the Bible). With each new discovery there is a certain light that is cast onto often mysterious details.
Take for example the golden bell Eli Shukron discovered in the rainwater channel under the pilgrims road, not far from the Temple Mount. It begged for a new interpretation to describe the adornments on the hem of the High Priests garment. Instead of 36 alternating golden bells, between 36 woven, wool shaped into pomegranates, which has become the mainstream understanding, the golden bell Eli discovered is more likely 1 of 72 pomegranates. The golden, pomegranate shaped bell with internal clapper served as the inner support for an outer purple and blue woven sheaf in colors of the pomegranate. The way we read the holy language of Torah is important, so when Torah says “bell and pomegranate” and after we find these discoveries we obtain new perspectives to interpret and understand the language Torah uses to describe what we now physically see.
Previous followed by New
72 Golden Pomegranate Bells
When I first encountered the Stone Temple I immediately felt its importance, its authenticity and inherent holiness. My first response to David Be'eri and Yehuda Maley (who live in the City of David) was; "If this is what I think it is, you're going to have to move out of your homes". As I got to understand its complexities, I knew the knowledge that had been buried for thousands of years in this time capsule would take time, perhaps decades to unlock its mysteries and understand the magnitude of this discovery. I also discovered that archaeologists report facts, sometimes using language that biases outcomes.
During the early years of our excavations I tried to imagine what it was originally like at a time, when little else existed and few people lived around the mountainside. How did it evolve into the archaeological complexity that remains in their time bound layers? From the outset of our subterranean quest I had a hunch that this was not a Canaanite temple of idolatry, the artifacts that were progressively being revealed left me with no doubt. I needed to explain each of these, but how did so much earth accumulate above it and who knew about it?
I recently found this amazing 1875 photo looking over the ground under which we were crawling in the video. It shows the extent of burial under thousands of years of accumulated dirt from the natural slope of the mountain. Filip Vukosavović, who led some of the more recent excavations, once told me that on a slope like this if unattended for 5-10 years, the slope and the Stone Temple would have been buried depending on wind, rain and other natural conditions.
When I arrived on the scene, Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich had recently excavated the double wall of the Spring House construction leading to the valley floor. It arrived immediately adjacent to the springs source. I found it strange that double wall more closely aligned with the south side of the spring rather than directly over it. Therefore, from the Kidron Valley floor, the imposing double wall seemed to be less about dominating over the water source, more like a barrier that blocked north-south passage along the bedrock, while forming a gateway, or entrance into the tunnel system adjacent to and higher than the spring.
Morning sun shines on En Shemesh (Sun Spring)
Double Wall
Eli Shukron made a statement shortly after the double wall discovery had been excavated: "This is the citadel of King David, this is the Citadel of Zion, and this is what King David took from the Jebusites".
2 Samuel 5:7-9 וַיִּלְכֹּ֣ד דָּוִ֔ד אֵ֖ת מְצֻדַ֣ת צִיּ֑וֹן הִ֖יא עִ֥יר דָּוִֽד׃ But David captured the stronghold of Zion; (expanded) it is (became) the City of David.
I wandered, where was the "Zion" King David was seeking when he captured its Citadel or Stronghold?
The prophet Samuel goes on to tell that David's men captured the Jebusite water channel, that he stayed in the place they captured and expanded the stronghold or citadel of Zion into the City of David. Therefore, this must be a defining principle for geo-locating the general proximity of Zion.
Archaeology confirms that in the few hundred years before the Citadel of Zion became the City of David most people were living along the valley floor around the water at En Shemesh, but they progressively migrated to safety at the the top of the ridge and carried their daily water to the top. Given a population between 200 growing to 1000 people living on top of the ridge, water demands would have kept water carriers busy.
On that occasion David said, “Those who attack the Jebusites shall reach (in) the water channel (TZiNoR) and [strike down] the lame and the blind, who are hateful to David.” That is why they say: “No one who is blind or lame may enter the House.”
The internal water supply route runs through a long dry tunnel, elevated 20 meters above the spring, quarried through the mountain bedrock. It was used to carry water to the end of the tunnel where it was hauled up another 20 meters (see the haul point in the blue box - image below) to the Water Gate that exited closer to the top just north of and above the Stone Temple site. Archaeologists called the tunnel Warrens Shaft System, but its name often leads to an incorrect characterization of the tunnels use. Instead, Tanach teaches us that by commandeering the tunnel, Davids troops gained control of the water supply route, which brought the entire population under David's control.
Route along dashed (earlier) line dotted line (alternative).
Iron Age King David, must have been compelled to come to this seemingly insignificant hill after he had reigned for 7 years as Judean King in Hebron. So, why did he want to control the lower section of Mount Moriah, before the temple mount summit was incorporated and why did he foresee this would become the nation's capital? Whatever it was, he must have known and been compelled by some previous tradition or cultural history that inspired his decisive actions?
Commentators on Genesis often attribute activities on Mount Moriah, during the post flood, Middle Bronze Age (MBA), to Malchi-Tzedek (considered to be Shem, Noah's son), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The image below depicts, from the valley, what the discovery made by Eli Shukron in 2010 may have looked like back in the MBA.
Middle Bronze Age Depiction
In the following video, Eli Shukron details features of the Stone Temple (its definitely worth watching).
One of the most inconspicuous features of the Stone Temple is its westerly orientation, which contradicts every other pre-first temple cultic site in Israel. It's important because priests, in all other forms of cultic worship in Israel would face the rising sun when sacrificing on the altar. Therefore, the idol worshippers altar would sit between the priest and the sun. The raised platform of the Stone Temple, on which altars would be constructed from time to time, requires priests turn their backs to the rising sun to make the sacrificial offering. Priests facing west is prescient for Israel's Tabernacle as well as first and second temples that adopted the same practice as was later prescribed by Torah (The Old Testament Bible).
The room with the raised platform and liquids channel served as the base for many altars that would have been constructed from local stones gathered at or around the site on the day sacrifice was to be performed. It resembles a highly specific feature extrapolated in the oral teachings of Torah. The Gemara (Zevachim 53b) asked: What is the reason that there was no base on the southeast corner of the altar? The question related to the second temple altar platform, perhaps also considering the first temple. Similarly, in the Stone Temple we see that the southeast corner of the altar platform is 'open' where the others, abutting bedrock walls are 'closed'. The map below was produced by Rashi to demonstrate the Gemara's argument pertaining to the second temple.
Notice the liquids channel runs east from the southeast corner. This appears to follow the description from the vision of Ezekiel 47:1 " I was led back to the entrance of the temple, and I found that water was issuing from below the platform of the temple—eastward, since the temple faced east—but the water was running out at the south of the altar, under the south wall of the temple."
Here we have another prescient example, in archaeology that predates the first temple by 600+ years, of a practice that was later recorded in Torah and practised by the nation of Israel. In Kabbalah, southeast represents the Divine confluence of Kindness and Mercy described in ancient Biblical theology. But, there is much more in this place of worship that obeys traditional Jewish laws antithetical to the structures of cultic idol worship. The images below show the remnant of an olive oil press that was once used to extract oil from crushed olives and to keep the oil in its pure state, connected to the bedrock. This is not a production press which would flow the pressed oil out of the bedrock cavity into vats. Here the oil was scooped out in stone vessels to maintain purity and used on the altar or for anointment.
The next set of images of the room that was used for processing slaughtered animals demonstrates (from left to right) that small animals were tethered to the edge of the bedrock wall. According to Torah law, animals for slaughter must be no younger than 8 days and must be unblemished, therefore young animals are more likely to meet the unblemished condition, which would explain why the location to tether animals was made under adult knee height.
To process animal offerings water must also be available, in the very least, to wash the bloody bedrock after slaughter and preparation. Initially this water may have been carried from the spring up the eastern facing slope, in front (east) of the Stone Temple, as evidenced by the carbon dating of a wall (image below). The lower sections were dated to between 1820 and 1750 BCE which overlaps the time that Abraham (according to Codex Judaica) summarized in biblical chronology:
Biblical Date 2018 THE COVENANT (BRIT BEIN HABETARIM) WITH ABRAHAM. -1743 BCE
Biblical Date 2048 Abraham circumcised himself and his son Yishmael. -1713 BCE
Without any in-situ artifacts, other than the matzevah or standing stone, the entire complex could not be accurately dated. Therefore, the archaeologists referred to Cambridge University and Weizmann Institute to carbon date organic matter from mortar in walls, ash layers on the bedrock and a water channel at the rear of the Stone Temple, that once provided water to priests serving in the temple. The next video outlines the uncanny overlap of the samples found in the water channel samples with Biblical Jacob.
The context of the Stone Temple continued to develop for me to the point that it became overwhelmingly clear this was the main temple the patriarchs frequented including where Jacob experienced his famous “stairway to heaven” dream and set the matzevah or standing stone to make a covenant with God.
Almost 1000 years after Isaac and Jacob, when the eastern defensive wall of King Uzziah was excavated, it became clear that the flimsy matzevah that was purposely surrounded by soft sand had been preserved. Around 2700 BCE the entire Stone Temple complex that had been completely buried under the natural accumulation of sand and debris, probably resembled the 1875 photo.
Eastern Defensive Wall
The wall builders, seeking a solid bedrock foundation for their massive wall probed the soft sand penetrating the voids of the Stone Temple rooms below. When they eventually built their significant defensive wall in front of the matzevah and over the bedrock of the Stone Temple rooms, they understood this holy artifact needed special care. A bulla (royal seal) found in front (east) of the Stone Temple with the name “Meshulam” indicates that a royal instruction was unsealed at the site of the wall construction.
After the wall construction was completed Jerusalem was challenged by the Assyrian army and around 100 years later the city was destroyed by the Babylonian Army and all its people were forced into exile. The city lay empty for more than 70 years and the eastern slope was abandoned. Neglected, natural sand, dirt and debris covered the Stone Temple, the defensive wall, the double wall and En Shemesh, the spring. It lay buried until the spring was excavated during the second temple construction because the waters that flowed from the spring kept running through the lower water tunnel that King Hezekiah built and it filled the recently excavated Shiloh or Siloam Pool at the southern end of ancient Jerusalem, The City of David.
As I have described, The Stone Temple discovery is completely consistent with Biblical heritage and with Jewish practices that have continued through millennia. The sacred site of patriarchal worship is the likely reason that inspired King David to move his kingdom, but we now know, from the carbon dated samples, he did not find the Zion he was seeking. Instead he built a personal altar on the summit of Mount Moriah and declared it the national altar.
Now that we have found David’s Zion what would the patriarchs and David want of us and absent any other definitive altar location can we revert to the original?
Recently a paper published in conjunction with Weizmann Institute and Israel Antiquities Authority uncharacteristically stated: “Thus, several seeds from an ash layer found below a thin wall in Area U (Room 19040), indicate a 9th century BC date for the construction of this room and adjacent structures, as well as the hewing of a series of rock-cut rooms to which the architectural remains were connected based on stratigraphic observations (SI Appendix, Figs. S18 and S20). Also dating to this century in Area U was a collapsed refuse of building materials, uncovered in Room 17063, built directly on top of the bedrock (RTD 9180, Fig. 2 and SI Appendix, Figs. S4, S9, and S12).”
After Joe Uziel discovered the Iron Age fragments on the north eastern wall of the Spring Tower, he has carefully and consistently argued that Iron Age findings in stratigraphic layers bias the entire area, including Area U. Now he chose this opportunity to boldly, almost flippantly state "as well as the hewing of a series of rock-cut rooms" inferring that the rock-cut-rooms should also assume this Iron Age date. Not so fast Joe, here I present the most pertinent facts related to the strata and dating of the rock-cut-rooms, which you seem to ignore.
With this information you can consider whether the last use of the rock-cut-rooms should be dated to the Iron Age (IA) or the Middle Bronze (MB) Age? I will only present the most relevant, critical, carbon dated
samples, that were found closest to bedrock.
Click to enlarge color coded image
Sample IA RTD
9180 was found in a small pit (south) in a room and MB RTD 9181 on the northern end in a 5 cm ash layer just above the upper bedrock surface of Area-U, the ridge west of the rock-cut-rooms (in the pink rectangle). MB RTD 10293 and RTD 9965,were also found in Area U, but importantly these were located below the level of the upper bedrock surface, in soft soil, under a man-made plaster layer in a water channel that ran into rock-cut-rooms 1 and 5. MB RTD 10191, the oldest MB sample, was found under
leveling rocks that were used to stabilize the wall of Room 1948. IA RTD 11362, furthest to the north, was found in a 5 cm ash layer and is
the oldest of the IA samples found in that excavation.
Anecdotally notice the IA samples RTD 9180 and RTD 11362 are found on the south-north extremities of rock-cut rooms and are adjacent, whereas MB samples RTD 10293, RTD 9965, RTD 9181 and RTD 10191 are
aligned east-west, to the functional, bedrock layers of
the rock-cut-rooms.
For this discussion, there is little point paying attention to stratigraphic layers above these samples because they reflect the earliest possible dates the rock-cut-rooms were used, which is the fact that must still be established. I'm appealing to Joe to clarify these important, perhaps critical points because these rock-cut-rooms are extremely sensitive and these low lying stratigraphic samples potentially align with Israel's forefathers or even earlier Biblical figures and it deserves to be treated accordingly.
Research suggests the altar of Solomon's Temple may have been built in the wrong location, not meeting the boundary condition where the southeast corner of the altar should be in Judah and the other three in Benjamin.
The evidence leans toward the traditional Temple Mount being entirely within Benjamin's territory, failing the condition.
It seems likely that the overlooked altar location is on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring in the City of David, potentially satisfying the boundary requirement.
Background
The question revolves around the location of the altar of Solomon's Temple and subsequent altars, focusing on a specific boundary condition: the southeast corner must fall within Judah, while the other three corners must be in Benjamin. This condition is rooted in biblical and historical interpretations of tribal territories.
Analysis
Traditional understanding places the altar of the Temple on the Temple Mount, north of the City of David, which appears to be entirely within Benjamin's territory based on biblical descriptions in Joshua. However, alternative research, particularly from the blog Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts, suggests the altar's original and true location should have been on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring in the City of David. This location is proposed to be at the intersection of En Rogel and En Shemesh, on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, potentially allowing the southeast corner of the altar to be in Judah and the other corners in Benjamin.
Conclusion
Given the complexity, it seems plausible that the traditional Temple Mount location does not meet the boundary condition, while the proposed City of David location might. Further archaeological and textual analysis is needed to confirm, but the evidence leans toward the altar being misplaced historically.
Detailed Examination of Temple Altar Location and Tribal Boundaries
This survey note provides a comprehensive analysis of the location of the altar of Solomon's Temple and subsequent altars, focusing on the specific boundary condition that the southeast corner must fall within the territory of Judah, while the other three corners must be in the territory of Benjamin. The discussion is informed by detailed research from the blog Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts and supplemented by biblical and historical sources, aiming to address the user's query with depth and clarity.
Historical Context and Traditional Location
The Temple of Solomon and its altar, constructed around 957 BCE, was located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a site north of the City of David. Biblical texts, such as 2 Chronicles 3:1, state that Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where David had seen the angel of the Lord. Historical and archaeological consensus, supported by sources like Temple of Jerusalem | Description, History, & Significance | Britannica, places this site within the modern Old City, encompassing the area of the Dome of the Rock.
Biblical descriptions of tribal boundaries, particularly in Joshua 15 and 18, indicate that Jerusalem was part of Benjamin's territory, with the boundary between Judah and Benjamin running along the Valley of Hinnom. For instance, Joshua 18:28 lists Jerusalem (the Jebusite city) within Benjamin's allotment, suggesting that the Temple Mount, being north of the City of David, is likely within Benjamin. This implies that the traditional altar location would have all four corners within Benjamin, failing the condition that the southeast corner be in Judah.
Alternative Proposal: City of David Location
The blog Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts challenges the view, proposing that the overlooked location for the altar has been found on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring in the City of David. This area, south of the Temple Mount, is identified as historically significant, potentially linked to Jacob's monument and biblical events like the Akeida of Isaac. Posts such as Jerusalem's Mysterious Temple Location? suggest this site as the location for Jerusalem's Third Temple altar, based on Jewish law and archaeological findings.
The blog cites the work of archaeologist Professor Ronny Reich, particularly referencing the spring east of the city, identified as En Shemesh (often equated with the Gihon Spring), to reconcile tribal boundaries from Joshua. The main page of the blog states: "Ronny used En Shemesh to reconcile a difficult passage from the Book of Joshua that defined Israel's tribal boundaries. We found that it perfectly describes the prerequisite intersection of the altars raised bedrock foundation, on the northern boundary of tribe Judah with the southern boundary of tribe Benjamin." This suggests the altar's foundation is at the boundary, potentially allowing for the southeast corner to be in Judah and the others in Benjamin.
Tribal Boundaries and Geographical Analysis
To understand this, we examined the biblical boundaries. Joshua 15:7-8 for Judah and Joshua 18:16-17 for Benjamin describe the boundary passing through points like En Shemesh and En Rogel, identified as springs southeast of Jerusalem. En Rogel is located at Bir Ayyub in Silwan, at the convergence of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys, while En Shemesh is often identified with 'Ain el-Hod near Bethany, on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives (Bible Map: En-rogel, Encyclopedia.com on En-Rogel). The blog's claim that the altar is at the intersection suggests it is near the Gihon Spring, in the City of David, which is on the boundary line.
Maps and historical analyses, such as those from Tribe of Benjamin - Wikipedia, indicate Jerusalem, including the City of David, was within Benjamin, but the southern edge might be on the boundary with Judah. The Valley of Hinnom, running south of the City of David, is a key marker, suggesting the boundary could cut through this area. The blog's proposal implies the altar's placement on the high ridge allows the southeast corner to extend into Judah, satisfying the condition.
Supporting Evidence from the Blog
Several posts provide supporting details:
The Neck And The Site Of The Temple discusses the topography, suggesting the City of David area as the original patriarchal temple site, with references to ancient routes through Benjamin's land explaining "quarters" in Joshua 18:14-15.
City of David is Zion - What is the Temple Mount? includes comments like "Solomon's temple and altar were built in the wrong place?" and shows an image of the bedrock foundation in the City of David, implying a different location.
The main page and related posts, such as Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts: November 2021, discuss boundaries, with references to Bethel and Ai, reinforcing the boundary's location near the proposed altar site.
Conclusion and Implications
The blog argues that the traditional Temple Mount location fails the boundary condition, as it is entirely within Benjamin. In contrast, the proposed location in the City of David, on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring, is at the intersection of En Rogel and En Shemesh, aligning with the boundary. This positioning could allow the southeast corner to be in Judah, with the other corners in Benjamin, satisfying the user's condition. This interpretation is supported by archaeological findings and biblical analysis, though it remains controversial and requires further study to confirm.
This survey note encompasses all relevant details from the research, providing a thorough basis for the direct answer and highlighting the complexity and debate surrounding the temple's location.
