I'm aware there is a myth that the ark is somewhere in Aksum, Ethiopia due to stories of the Queen of Sheba having relations with Solomon and their son Menelik taking it with him after visiting.
I'm personally skeptical when I hear stories about findings that may relate to biblical stories, often they are sensationalist and unproven.
"The archaeological site at a tel on the outskirts of Beit Shemesh, 20km west of Jerusalem, which has been under excavation since 2012 has now recently yielded a fascinating discovery: a stone table, which echoes Biblical narratives of a slab on which the Ark of the Covenant is said to have been placed.
The table has been found within a structure thought to be a temple thanks to its construction - the building was a perfect square, with walls 8.5m long, whose corners aligned with the cardinal points - and because it contained two large concave stones with gutters which may have been used for libation offerings, as well as a vast array of pottery and animal bones, indicative of ritual activity.
The find is significant because it ties in with the time frame of the 'large stone' the Ark of the Covenant was said to have been placed upon when brought to Beit Shemesh after being returned by the Philistines, as recounted in the book of Samuel.
According to the Bible, "Now the people of Beth Shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley; and they lifted their eyes and saw the ark, and rejoiced to see it. Then the cart [sent by the Philistines] came into the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh, and stood there; a large stone was there. So they split the wood of the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord. The Levites took down the ark of the Lord and the chest that was with it, in which were the articles of gold, and put them on the large stone." (1 Samuel 6:13-15).
The era referenced in the Biblical narrative was clearly one marked by warfare between the Israelites, led by judges like Samson and Deborah, and their neighbors, the Philistines. The site bears evidence of this struggle out: not only is located just seven kilometers from Tel Batash, a Philistine settlement, but more importantly the structure itself shows evidence of having fallen foul of warring between the nations.
It is clear that at some point in the mid-12th Century B.C.E. the temple was desecrated; the pottery within it smashed to bits. When uncovering the remains, the archaeologists had to dig through a thick black layer which they initially thought was ash, but turned out to be animal dung: the site had been turned into a byre after being captured.
"This would be a rare case in which we can merge the biblical narrative with an archaeological find," says Lederman.
But he shies away from linking the stone table directly with stone mentioned in the Bible, pointing out that such a conclusion would be almost impossible to prove archaeologically.
He also points out that there are some inconsistencies between the narrative and the evidence. For one, the stone was said to have been located in a field below the town, not at the temple atop the tel."
From what I have read I see no evidence that specifically links this particular stone table to the biblical ark, and even the writer admits it would be impossible to prove so. This is a table found in a likely desecrated temple, it doesn't necessarily mean this housed the holy item. Though I can imagine all the temples weren't exactly monolithic in structure, I doubt the usage of tables were uncommon (though I could be wrong as I don't know the particulars of temple structuring). That said it is a significant link to ancient Jerusalem and such a find shouldn't be ignored.
m.jpost.com
GAMETA If you read all of it, you'd know that assessment is wrong. All of what you said is addressed in the text. Some of it in a very big way.
