|
Jacobson is evidently not familiar with all the
aspects of the archaeology of the Temple Mount. He
deals with abstract conceptions and ideas and does
not have the experience of a field-architect, who
familiarises himself with all the architectural
details first before developing a suitable
methodology to tackle the problem of the Temple
Mount. Actually, only a few scholars have correctly
identified this northern facade as Herodian. Selah
Merrill wrote at the beginning of this century: "An
examination of the stones of which it [the
north-east corner] is composed would have saved
many writers from falling into serious error". And
more recently Michael Burgoyne, the British
architect wrote , "the intriguing variety of
masonry types scattered among the Herodian stones
belongs to later repairs and is not, as has been
suggested, evidence that the Herodian stones are in
secondary use". The bold statement by Jacobson that
the Herodian stones in the northern face of the
north-east tower must be in secondary use, because
of the fact that stones from later periods are
interspersed between them, doesn't stand up to
scrutiny.
In photograph it can clearly be seen that in the
lower four courses small stones have been used to
repair only the damaged parts of the Herodian
ashlars. It is clear therefore that the small
stones constitute a facial repair only, and that
the greater part of the Herodian ashlars still
exists behind these repairs.
PILASTERS
The absence of pilasters has been used by some
scholars, including Jacobson, as a point in favour
of a post-Herodian date for this part of the
boundary of the Temple Mount. First of all, from an
aesthetic point of view pilasters are not continued
right into the corner. Corners are often treated
differently to give an impression of strength. This
can be seen for example in the photograph of The
Tomb of the Patriarchs, which Jacobson published on
p. 47 of his first article. It is quite obvious
that the corners have been treated to make them
look like towers, just as in the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem.
Secondly, it should be taken into account that
this tower, together with the Antonia had a
defensive function to fulfil, which is not the case
with the southern and western walls. Pilasters
would weaken a wall, while defensive corners had to
be built with a view to fortification. Indeed, the
small stone repair in the northern face of the
north-east tower may, in fact, mark those parts of
the wall which were badly damaged during the Roman
siege of 70 A.D.
THE POOL OF ISRAEL
As Jacobson mentions, the eastern wall continues
north beyond the north-east corner below ground. It
should also be noted that although the Herodian
aslars continue without a break, its character
changes, as the width of the wall is far greater
than the usual 15 feet. Here the wall is 46 feet
wide! The only explanation can be that this eastern
dam of a large water reservoir, the so-called Pool
of Israel. This pool, which was built as an
integral part of the Herodian Temple Mount, was
strategically placed in what is now known as the
St. Anne's Valley, to provide an abundant water
supply. The pool also served as a kind of "moat",
protecting the northern wall of the Temple Mount
[see enclosed slide of model, which shows the
reconstructed north-east tower and the Pool of
Israel].
I have a copy of a rare photograph [enclosed
slide 54], taken in 1894 , which shows the Pool
of Israel before it was filled in. The bottom of
the pool was investigated by Warren and he found
the plastered floor 75 feet (23 m.) below the level
of the Temple courts. The pool is indeed so deep
that from this angle the bottom could not be seen
on this photograph. Four large windows are visible
in the northern wall of the Temple Mount. The large
stones below these windows belong to the southern
wall of the Pool of Israel, which corresponds to
the northern wall of Herod's Temple Mount.
At first it would appear that two different kind
of stones were used in this wall, separated by the
line of vegetation. The stones above this line are
rough and the ones below, at lower right of the
picture, are smoother. Thick walls like this one
were built by placing two rows of stones with their
faces outward and filling the center with rubble
and mortar. Only the face of the stones was dressed
and never the back, as they would not have been
seen and the rough surface also provides a better
grip for the mortar. This was the technique used in
this wall.
When looking at the rough upper stones, we
actually see the back of the stones which face
southward towards the Temple Mount. The vegetation
grows in the softer core of the wall and below that
we see the smoother stones which face toward the
pool. The original plaster, which would have been
attached to this wall, is no longer in existence.
|