A Quick and Dirty Site Interpretation

=====================================================

The sharp transition, plainly visible in this photo, from heavily eroded sandstone blocks to a wall in almost perfect condition is puzzling. I can only speculate on how this might have come to be, but speculate I will.

It is possible the dividing line marks the depth to which the interior of the temple was filled with fallen debris during antiquity. The debris would have consisted of fragments from the collapsed roof and sections of walls that collapsed inward. Additional debris, soil, for example, would have been fallen on top of the structural debris during the centuries the Temple lay unexcavated. The debris would have covered the walls and protected them from erosion. Wind and rain would have damaged the exposed portions of the walls above the level of the debris fill.

Another possibility is the wall is at least two layers thick. The builders might not have dressed the inner surfaces of the stone blocks as finely as the visible exterior surfaces. The portions of the walls that appear eroded are actually places where the inner layer of stone blocks have fallen away, revealing the rougher interior surfaces of the blocks that form the wall's exterior.

The problem with this explanation is the Temple was built without mortar. It's doubtful the walls would have stood so true for so long if the inner faces of the building blocks were this rough. As a compromise position, perhaps the block's inner surfaces were given a fine finish, though not nearly as smooth as the exterior surfaces. Once the finely finished interior layer disappeared, the inner face of the exterior layer, with its slight imperfections, was exposed to the elements. Over time, wind and rain worked away at the irregular surface, creating the erosion we see here.

That still doesn't explain why the inner layer would have fallen off along such an even line, or why the line is where it is. It's possible later builders removed dressed stone blocks from the interior of the temple for use in other structures, such as the church next to the temple. Obviously, if you were going to remove blocks, you'd start at the top, where the joints between the inner and outer layers were exposed, and work your way down.

Ah, the joys of interpreting an ancient site from thousands of miles away with no data, based solely on speculation, a phenomenon not unknown in the field of archaeology,

=====================================================

About the Temple of the Moon In any case, it is generally agreed the Temple of the Moon was built during the time of the Dʿmt Kingdom in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. The D'mt Kingdom preceded the Axumite Kingdom. When and how the transition from the D'mt Kingdom to the Axumite Kingdom occurred has not yet been determined.

According to the Footprint East Africa Handbook 2002: The Travel Guide (7th Edition) by Michael Hodd,

"[Yeha] is believed to have been the main Ethiopian capital during the pre-Axumatic period. . . . Yeha is famous for it amazing rectangular stone temple, the oldest known sacred site in Ethiopia . . . believed to date from 500 BC. According to the German scholar, Heinrich Muller, this temple was built even earlier - possibly 700 - 800 BC.

"The temple base is 18.5 m x 15 m [60' x 49'] and 12 m [39'] high, consisting of only one long room. The roof (probably supported by timber) and west wall are missing. The temple is built of immense dressed sandstone, some up to 3 m [9.8'] long, fitted together without mortar and which appear to have largely escaped erosion."

"The temple is still in relatively good condition because, according to Phillipson, it was probably used as a Christian church for a thousand years after its construction, in the sixth century AD. It is anticipated that other archaeological finds await discovery because the site has not yet been fully dug."

As is often the case in archaeology, opinions about Yeha's significance differ. According to Wikipedia,

"The capital [of the Dʿmt Kingdom] was once thought to have been Yeha, but recent archeologists such as Peter Schmidt believe Yeha is hardly sufficient to qualify as a capital site. He states, "It may have been a major ritual center and, without question, was an important necropolis. But certainly not a capital."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D’mt