How Herod Moved Gigantic Blocks to Construct Temple Mount

042

A single ashlar—46 feet long, 10 feet high and 10 feet deep—is described by Michael Zimmerman in the accompanying article (“Tunnel Exposes New Areas of Temple Mount”) on the Rabbinical Tunnel adjacent to the Temple Mount. This single stone in the wall of the Temple Mount weighs 415 tons!

The largest megalith at Stonehenge, by comparison, weighs a mere 40 tons. And the “pebbles” which the Egyptians used to build the pyramids were a lightweight 15 tons.

The 46-foot ashlar in the Rabbinical Tunnel is not alone. Other similar ashlars, 39 feet long (350 tons) and 36 feet long (325 tons), have also been uncovered in the tunnel. How were such extraordinarily heavy and large pieces of stone moved?

One possibility is that they were not moved. They were 043simply carved in situ from the adjacent bedrock. The massive retaining wall which was built to provide a level area or platform surrounding the Temple had to be built on bedrock and, theoretically, this bedrock could have supplied the large stones for the wall. This theory does not work, however, because the large stones in the wall are clearly a different limestone than that of the bedrock in the area of the wall.

In fact, the stones in this wall came from a quarry over a half-mile away. This quarry is on a knoll just north of the Damascus gate. Chemical analysis of rock samples in the ashlars of the Temple Mount shows that trace minerals and impurities in them are identical to trace minerals and impurities in the quarry samples, but are not the same as those in the bedrock near the wall. Another source of stones is only a few hundred yards from the wall in what is known as Zedekiah’s Cave or Solomon’s Quarry. This area has been quarried since the days of King Solomon. But although this cave could have been the source of smaller stones, its entrance is too small to permit the removal of megaliths ten feet high and ten feet wide. If we assume that the Temple Mount megaliths were quarried one-half-mile from their final location, several difficult questions immediately come to mind: How was the half mile trip made from the quarry to the Temple Mount? How were the ancient builders able to cut the stones out of bedrock? How were they able to place the stones in the wall so precisely that, despite the absence of any mortar, a knife blade cannot be slipped into the seams between the stones?

Recent theories about how the Egyptians moved the pyramid stones will not hold for Herod the Great’s large ashlars. One theory is that the pyramid stones were pushed or pulled on log rollers. But one of the 400-ton Temple Mount megaliths would have crushed logs to pulp. A more recent theory about the pyramid stones is 045that the Egyptians tied a set of four curved wooden cradles onto each stone, and rolled the stones by unreeling a rope, using far less manpower than the push-pull technique on logs. This cradle technique converts the stone being moved into what is in effect a thick square axle with wheels on the ends.

To use the Egyptian technique to move the large ashlars in Herod’s Temple Mount wall would have required cradles positioned over 50% of the axial length of the stone. This would be necessary in order to sufficiently distribute the weight so that it would not exceed 300 pounds per square inch (PSI). More weight than this would crush the wooden cradles. Even if an adequate number of cradles were used, this technique wouldn’t work as a practical matter because it requires that the street be absolutely smooth so that all the cradles are simultaneously in contact with the pavement. Just one “high” spot in the street would concentrate the mass far beyond 300 PSI and crush the cradle in contact with the high spot. The stone would not be rolled very far before several cradles would be crushed. Each time this happened, the total weight would be supported by fewer and fewer cradles and soon all the remaining ones would collapse from the concentration of weight.

My explanation of how these enormous Herodian stones were moved to the site is that they were transported in the form of round columns or cylinders and then cut into squares at the site. This solution not only makes engineering sense, but it is also supported by the archaeological evidence.

A cylinder from which such a rectangular megalith could be cut would obviously have to be even larger and heavier than the resulting megalith—actually 57% larger and heavier.

The dead weight of such a megalith is itself a problem (415 tons + 57% = 650 tons). This enormous weight would compress the earth beneath it and the laborers would be rolling the stone in a perpetual trough. However, the trough problem would disappear if the earth did not compress. If the stone were rolled on a masonry road 35 feet or more in width—with only the ends of the stone extending over the side of the road—the paving blocks of the road would distribute the weight and there would be no compression.

Such a road existed in Herodian times. Portions of it have been excavated in Professor Benjamin Mazar’s excavations (see “Excavations Near Temple Mount Reveal Splendors of Herodian Jerusalem,” BAR 06:04). Some 40 feet below the present surface, running close to the Temple Mount wall from the quarry in the northern part of the city, Mazar found a paved thorough fare 41 feet wide. Fortunately, the route from the quarry to the wall is either level or downhill all the way. I say “fortunately” because it would have been impossible to “lever” such an enormous stone up a slope. Indeed, the actual problem of the laborers may have been to control the forward rolling speed. Wedges were probably positioned as “brakes” in front of the megaliths. When the giant stones reached their destination it was necessary to place them in their proper position in the wall. A horizontal ramp leading from the road to the correct level in the wall was required. The place where this ramp connected to the downhill sloping road would change as each successive course was added to the wall. These ramps could have been faced with temporary paving stones (see drawing below).

The technique for rolling the stones could also be used for changing their direction. Using wedges only on one end would cause skidding at the other end. In this way, the rolling axis could be pivoted by 90°, permitting precise positioning so that one end could be lined up with the previously placed block. Actually, the builders did not have to be that precise with the megaliths. When they started a new course in the wall they could have placed the megaliths in position first and then, afterwards, added more easily maneuverable stones adjacent to the megaliths.

Prior to final positioning of the megaliths, a chord-shaped piece would have been cut off one side of the cylinder. This would create a flat surface, permitting the block to be dropped into place as shown in the drawing above. Three more cuts on the other three sides would square it off, although the masons may have decided not to trim the side closest to the Temple because that surface would have been buried under fill material anyway (see drawing below).^a

If my theory is correct, we must ask what happened to the three or four chord-shaped pieces that were trimmed from each block? Each of these “waste” segments, weighing almost 60 tons, was more massive than the Stonehenge slabs. It would make sense to assume that the masons would salvage as much material as possible from them. The most obvious approach would be to cut the 046segments into useful rectangular blocks as shown in the sequence in the drawing below. Each chord-shaped segment would thus yield an additional block weighing more than 30 tons, plus smaller rectangular pieces.

Two archaeological discoveries are evidence for my explanation of how Herod’s megaliths were moved from their distant quarry to the wall. The first discovery is only suggestive evidence, but the second unequivocally confirms the theory.

In the plaza of the Russian compound in Jerusalem, northwest of Jaffa Gate, there is an Herodian quarry where a column lies on its side in the indentation of bedrock from which it was carved about 2000 years ago. It is, as the archaeologists say, in situ. It was left there by the ancient masons because it was flawed by a crack. It became, in effect, a factory reject. It is regularly shown to tourists as an example of the remarkable talents of Herod’s masons. Unlike the Greeks who piled up a dozen or more slabs or drums to build a single column, Herod’s masons used only one piece of stone, carving a whole column at the quarry. This factory reject is our first item of archaeological evidence; it demonstrates that Herodian masons did cut cylinders at the quarry. Presumably, they could have rolled these cylinders to the construction site.

But the clear proof for my theory explaining how the Herodian megaliths were moved was found in the excavation of the Rabbinical Tunnel. While digging this tunnel, the excavators came across a 16-foot-long stone which for a time blocked their progress. Michael Zimmerman describes it in his article. Ultimately the diggers dug around it, leaving the stone in the tunnel as a curiosity and an enigma.

The key to understanding what the stone is comes from its shape. It is chord-shaped! Here, abandoned for some reason by Herod’s masons, is a chord-shaped segment which must have been one of the three or four pieces cut from a cylinder to create a rectangular block of stone for the wall of the Temple Mount.

A single ashlar—46 feet long, 10 feet high and 10 feet deep—is described by Michael Zimmerman in the accompanying article (“Tunnel Exposes New Areas of Temple Mount”) on the Rabbinical Tunnel adjacent to the Temple Mount. This single stone in the wall of the Temple Mount weighs 415 tons! The largest megalith at Stonehenge, by comparison, weighs a mere 40 tons. And the “pebbles” which the Egyptians used to build the pyramids were a lightweight 15 tons. The 46-foot ashlar in the Rabbinical Tunnel is not alone. Other similar ashlars, 39 feet long (350 tons) and 36 feet long […]