ANCIENT TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM—IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOUNTAINS, HILLS AND VALLEYS—JERUSALEM IN THE TIME OF THE JEBUSITES, DAVID, SOLOMON, JOTHAM, HEZEKIAH, MANASSEH, NEHEMIAH, HEROD—THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS EXAMINED—THE SIEGE BY TITUS—FORMER EXTENT OF THE CITY—JERUSALEM IN THE TIME OF HADRIAN, THE CRUSADERS AND SOLYMAN.

Having thus described the existing city, let us pass on to consider the ancient, and endeavour to recognise in its mountains and hills, its valleys and other landmarks, points corresponding to the allusions of the Bible and the writings of Josephus. We will suppose the reader to be standing with us on the summit of the Mount of Olives, and will point out the chief features of the view before him[36]. At the first glance we see that the city is built upon two nearly parallel ranges of hills, separated by a central valley. These we proceed to examine in detail. The summit of the western part forms a kind of plateau, extending from the north-west to the south, whose highest points are at the southern extremity, at the Armenian convent, at the castle of David, and at the north-west corner; but on closer examination we see that the plateau, which commences at the castle and terminates at the south, forms a hill sloping sensibly on the west, east, south, and slightly on the north as far as the street of David, where there is nothing to be seen which would induce us to suppose that a valley had once existed there. I believe that the fortress of the Jebusites, and afterwards that of Sion, used to stand on the upper part of this hill, and that the city of David[37] extended over the whole of its irregular quadrilateral area. This opinion is confirmed by Josephus, who says[38] it was defended by precipices on every side, except the north, which, being the weakest, was guarded by a triple wall. This hill then has on the west the valley of Gihon[39], on the south the valley of Hinnom[40], on the east the continuation of the central valley, while on the north it is open to attack, and consequently in former time was fortified there more strongly than on the other sides, which were inaccessible. Sion is then the spot on which the upper city of Josephus was situated.

A street, rising from the Gate of S. Mary and running in a westerly direction to meet the central valley, distinctly divides the eastern range. North of this division is the highest ground; on the south there is the great plateau of the Haram-es-SherÎf. Outside the west wall of the Haram a gentle slope leads towards the central valley, which is covered by houses. The testimony of Josephus[41] is consequently verified, that "the city was built on two hills, which are opposite one to another, and have a valley to divide them asunder; at which valley the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end."

Having thus pointed out the western hill, Sion, and the valley indicated by Josephus, which we call the central valley, let us examine that part of the eastern range, which is to the south of the dividing street, in order to identify Moriah and Acra. Josephus[42] states that "the other hill which was called Acra, and sustains the lower city, slopes[43] on all sides; over against this there was a third hill, but naturally lower than Acra, and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley. However, in those times when the Asamoneans reigned, they filled up that valley with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the Temple. They then took off part of the height of Acra, and reduced it to be of less elevation than it was before, that the Temple might be superior to it." Hence it appears why we no longer see the broad valley and the two separate hills, but an area in which the site of the ancient Temple overtops the rest. We consider Moriah to be the third hill, and Acra the part lying between the west side of Moriah and the central valley.

The identification of Moriah does not admit of any doubt. The name and its probable equivalent Jehovah-jireh, are found in the story of Abraham's sacrifice[44]; there Solomon[45] built the Temple, whose precious remains still indicate its position: of these we will speak at length in a future chapter. The name Moriah is not used by Josephus, but the place can be identified with certainty from his description. We are told by him[46] that the platform of the temple was defended on the north-west by the tower Antonia, which was itself protected by a ditch. An examination of the Pool of Bethesda and the excavations, which I made by the foundations of the barracks of the Haram, have convinced me of the historian's accuracy. In his description of the Temple[47] it is stated that the hill-side to the east of it was precipitous, and that Solomon was obliged to build a wall to support the made ground. The ancient wall and the valley of Kidron still exist, in confirmation of this statement. It is also implied that the south side was precipitous, which is proved by the remains of buildings still to be seen and the actual declivity of Ophel. That there was once a large valley on the west side, is proved by the following fact: on the west of the area of the Haram-es-SherÎf the rock runs up to the inside of the boundary wall, but on the outside it disappears, and is replaced by made ground of very great depth. I have inspected several excavations in the neighbourhood, and examined the tanks which are just outside the Haram, usually not less than 50 or 56 feet deep, the shaft (passing through the earth) being generally from 30 to 36 feet, and built with masonry. Hence I infer that a valley once existed on this spot, and that the made ground was obtained by the demolition of Acra; by this means Moriah was thrown open to every part of the city, which surrounded it like a theatre[48], and so was made 'superior to Acra.' But on examining the tanks nearer to the Tyropoeon valley, I found the shafts not more than 12 feet deep: here then was Acra in former times. These few feet of made ground were probably formed by the destruction of the city by Titus. Acra was said to 'slope on all sides,' because it had on the east the 'broad valley,' on the south the descent to the central valley, on the west the central valley itself, and on the north the valley, which, starting from the central valley, went in an easterly direction to that of Kidron. How this last has been filled up I will presently explain. In the time of Josephus these hills were already united, and so, speaking generally, the city appeared to be 'built on two hills opposite to one another.'

In the northern part of the eastern range we find Bezetha, or the 'New city' of Josephus, which was entirely surrounded by valleys or ditches[49] artificially made. This position is elevated and opposite to the north[50] side of the Haram, and must therefore be identical with Bezetha, which had the central valley on the west, ditches on the north and east, and on the south the valley dividing it from the Tower of Antonia: all which characteristics may still be recognised on the spot.

There is yet another hill in Jerusalem, called Gareb. The only instance we have of the use of the name in former times is in Jer. xxxi. 39. Josephus does not mention it, either considering it as part of Mount Sion, with which it was continuous, or, more probably, comprehending it in the 'New city.' It bears the name Gareb among the Arabs at the present day. When I speak of the walls of the city, the Temple, and the tower Antonia, I will bring forward other arguments to confirm my assertions about the hills; for the present I reserve them, and pass on to the valleys.

The central valley has already been mentioned several times. It agrees in every respect with the Tyropoeon of Josephus[51], which "distinguished the hill of the upper city from that of the lower, (and) extended as far as Siloam." Many who have written on the topography of ancient Jerusalem, especially Dr Robinson, assert that the Tyropoeon valley ran eastwards from the Jaffa Gate till it joined the central valley, at the point where the latter bends to the south-east, in its course to the Pool of Siloam. In opposition to this opinion, and in confirmation of my own, I have certain facts to bring forward. The valley which I consider the Tyropoeon still drains the whole city; all along it runs a sewer receiving those from the eastern and western divisions. I have had frequent opportunities of ascertaining this, while repairs were being carried on[52]. I found that the central sewer, although 12, 16, and sometimes even 18 feet below the surface, was not based upon rock, but upon made ground. During the repairs I searched for the rock in the upper part of the valley, and found it at a depth of 18 feet, near the Damascus Gate, of 26 feet near the Temple Bazaar, of 22 feet at a few paces to the north of the Dung Gate. These facts shew that there was formerly a valley in this part of Jerusalem. Now we cannot adopt the position assigned to the Tyropoeon by Dr Robinson, for the following reasons: (1) In the north ditch of the Castle of David we find the rock, which extends thence in a north-west direction. I came upon it in 1860, when a building (now used as a custom-house) was erected by the Greek convent outside the wall adjoining the Jaffa Gate. (2) The rock, found under the new buildings belonging to the Latin Patriarch a little to the north of the castle, under the English church and under a new building to the north of it, plainly shews that the head of the valley could not be at this spot. On the south side of the Christian Bazaar is the Greek Convent of S. John, and a few paces to the south of this the Prussian hospital. While this was being built in 1858, I examined its foundations, and ascertained the shelving stratum on which they rest to be a continuation of the rock beneath the convent. Where then could the valley be? (3) A similar state of things is found on descending about 350 feet to the east. (4) From west to east along the course of the supposed valley runs a sewer, 6 feet below the ground, cut in some parts in the rock. This I helped to repair at several points in 1856, and was able to ascertain that there was but very little made ground anywhere near it; I cannot therefore allow that there ever was a valley at this place. Brocardus about A.D. 1283, Adrichomius and Villalpandus near the close of the sixteenth century, assert that this valley existed, but to prove their statement they ought to have made excavations. They must have seen Jerusalem in a condition very like its present, especially as regards its valleys, which must have been already filled up, either at the time of the destruction by Titus or of the rebuilding by Hadrian; for since these periods the city cannot have undergone any material change. The above authors inferred the existence of a valley from seeing that the south side of the street of David was considerably upraised, while the north was nearly level. Had they searched for the rock, they would have found the higher ground to the south to be nothing but a mass of rubbish, while the south front of the Convent of S. John, and the rest of the buildings on the same side, rest upon rock a few feet below the surface.

The supposed existence of this valley has led some to think that the ground, now occupied by the Church of the Resurrection, was the hill Acra; but this locality does not correspond with any of the topographical data of Josephus. How could the citadel[53] of Antiochus Epiphanes be built in this position to command the Temple? How could the Macedonian garrison from this place harass and even kill the Jews who were going to the Temple? Could this be Acra 'sloping on all sides' which was 'levelled that the temple might be higher than it[54]'? None of these conditions are satisfied, therefore this theory must be rejected. In the Tyropoeon of Dr Robinson I place the Quarter of Millo: my reasons for doing so I will give at the proper place.

A valley has already been mentioned as dividing Moriah from Bezetha; only the eastern extremity of this is now visible, at the Pool of Bethesda, at which place we will examine it. The north and south side walls of the pool are founded upon and rest against the rock, while on the east, as the valley once extended down to Kidron, a solid sloping wall has been built solely to confine the water. There is also a wall on the west, and all the observations that I have made in this direction, as far as the Tyropoeon, have convinced me of the existence of a valley; and on questioning the old masons who in the time of Ibrahim Pasha, A.D. 1836, laid the foundations of the Barrack of the Haram-es-SherÎf, I was assured that on the north side they had gone down not less than 26 or 30 feet before they came to the rock. On the south side of the Latin Chapel of the Flagellation, which lies directly north of the Barrack, the Franciscans had to dig 16 or 18 feet for the same purpose. In laying the foundations of the Austrian Hospice above the eastern verge of the Tyropoeon, A.D. 1856, I clearly ascertained the existence of the valley on the south side, and have done the same on the property of the Armenian Catholics, called 'the first fall of Christ.' Hence I conclude that there was a valley in this part of the city, which divided Bezetha from Moriah and the north-west corner of Acra.

A small valley, commencing on the north near Herod's Gate, runs into the city, and terminates at the Pool of Bethesda, thus dividing Bezetha into two parts. Inside the city it can hardly be distinguished, owing to the quantity of rubbish by which it has been filled up. Its existence however is proved by the water-courses that descend from the east slope of the western part of Bezetha.

Let us now proceed to examine the exterior of the city. Ophel or Ophlas is to the south of the Haram-es-SherÎf. Its position corresponds exactly with the statement of Josephus[55], that it adjoins the Temple on the south. Its form is that of a triangle with the base resting against the south side of the Haram and the vertex directed towards the Pool of Siloam. It is bounded on the east by the sloping sides of the valley of Kidron, on the west by those of the Tyropoeon valley. Its defences were carefully attended to by different kings of Judah, because its fortifications greatly increased the strength of the Temple, which otherwise would have been exposed to an attack from the south. The position is a sufficient argument for its identity.

The positions of Mount Olivet and the Mount of Offence are indisputable. David[56] went up Mount Olivet, weeping, after crossing the torrent Kidron, and the Mount of Offence[57] is 'before Jerusalem.' Olivet is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, especially in the Acts of the Apostles, where its distance from the city is fixed by the words "Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath-day's journey[58]," that is, a little more than 2000 cubits, according to the rabbinical writers; and so we find it to be. We may also cite in confirmation the testimony of Josephus, who says that it "lies over against the city on the east side, and is parted from it by a deep valley interposed between them, which is named Kidron[59]."

Authors differ about the site of Mount Gihon[60], or Guihon, but I place it on the west, because we find that Hezekiah "stopped the upper water-course of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David[61]," and Manasseh "built a wall without the city of David on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the Fish-gate[62]." This gate was probably the same as that of Jaffa, which might very likely bear this name, because through it the produce of the sea would be brought into Jerusalem. If Gihon does not correspond with the hill on the west, outside the city, I cannot understand the two verses cited above; especially since Hezekiah could not have brought water into the city from any other point, without either cutting through the hills with great trouble and expense, or making an aqueduct over a valley.

The Hill of Evil Counsel is probably the same as Tophet[63]. We find from the prophet Jeremiah that it was a place of sepulture, and indeed it was only there that room could be found for the purpose. Even now the Arabs call it the Mount of the Sepulchres, from the number of graves there. They call Hinnom the Valley of the Fire; in Syriac it is Gehenna (Hell). This nearly corresponds with the Valley of Slaughter, as it is called by Jeremiah[64]. It is not impossible that the fortress of Bethsura[65] stood on this mount, which was distant from the city about five[66] stadia, towards the south. Mount Shafat, or Scopus, is the northern part of the range of Olivet, which runs in a north-west direction; the account of it given by Josephus, the distance from the city of seven stadia, the use made of it in the strategic operations of Titus[67], all correspond exactly with this position.

Having thus gone through the chief points of topographic interest, let us glance at the condition of the city during the different epochs of its existence. First, then, in the time of the Jebusites. On this subject the Bible only tells us, that it was defended on the south by the valley of Hinnom[68], that it was on high ground, and, in the then state of the art of war, nearly impregnable, so that its inhabitants thought it could be defended against the army of David by the blind and the lame[69]. Jerusalem was then divided into two parts, the Fortress and the Lower City[70]. Hence we can understand how it was that the descendants of Benjamin[71] dwelt at Jerusalem with the Jebusites; the former dwelling in the Lower City, the latter in the Fortress. This we find confirmed by the statement of Josephus[72]. It is very probable that the fortress of the Jebusites covered the platform of Sion, which reaches from its southern extremity to the castle still existing on the north, and is bounded on the east by the Tomb of David, the Armenian convent[73], and the English church. This opinion is confirmed by the remains of an old wall, which the Armenians found on building a seminary and rooms for pilgrims, and by the discovery of an ancient pool. Both these appear to be the work of a very early age, and anterior to the introduction of Phoenician art into Jerusalem. The lower city must have occupied the eastern slope of Sion near the western side of the Tyropoeon. Owing to the scanty materials that have come down to us, we cannot add anything more about the city of the Jebusites.

The form and size of the City of David have already been mentioned in the account of Mount Sion. It is stated in the Bible, that David, directly after his conquest, began to strengthen not only the fortress but the whole city, that he dwelt in the fortress[74], that the King of Tyre sent labourers to build his house[75], which was certainly the whole fortress, that "David built round about from Millo and inward[76]," and that "Joab repaired the rest of the city[77]." We are not told that David enlarged the city, but unquestionably he fortified it; possibly however he may have made its form more regular by bringing the houses up to the edge of the declivities of the valleys on the west, south, and east. To test this opinion I examined the part of Mount Sion which is outside the present wall, and found in the Protestant cemetery the vertical hewn rock, and a flight of steps close by cut out of it, which were discovered by the workmen employed by the Mission; at the same time large stones were also dug up in the ground, such as are frequently thrown out by the spades of the husbandmen. On questioning some of them, more particularly the older men, I heard that, for a long time past, large stones had been found in considerable quantities, and sold by the landowners to the builders in the city, who, in order to remove them more easily, broke them up on the spot. I was able to satisfy myself of the truth of this statement at the place itself[78]. I then asked them about the shape of the stones, and inquired whether those found near the surface corresponded with those found at a greater depth, and was told that the former were usually rusticated, and also almost calcined, while the latter were large irregular blocks in excellent preservation. I satisfied myself of the truth of this by examining the two kinds of stone. I then inquired about the direction in which the greatest number of stones were discovered, but their answers on this point were so vague, that I determined to make some excavations on my own account. With some difficulty permission was obtained from the owners of the land, under the condition that I should use their workmen, give them all that might be found, and make them a present in addition. As I was only anxious to obtain proof of the position of the wall of David, I willingly agreed to this. The attempt was successful; at certain points on the south and east[79] I found the rock hewn vertical or cut into steps, or else steep and broken; on it fragments of ancient masonry still remained, built of large irregular blocks, fitted together without mortar: in some places other rows of stones, joined with greater skill, were laid upon these, which in turn supported others rudely rusticated in high relief, with the surface rough. I am inclined to think that the lower rows belong to the period of the Jebusites, the next to that of David[80], and the upper to a later date. Near the Pool of Siloam the vertical hewn rock is again plainly seen, and also inside the city, on the west side of the Tyropoeon Valley, and in front of the Mosque el-Aksa. I believe therefore that the Wall of David can be traced on the south and east. A careful examination of the western brow of Sion and the configuration of the ground shew that this wall must have followed its present course, and have continued in the same direction as far as the south-west angle. All that I have been able to find at the castle belongs to a much later period, as we shall presently see. North of Sion, on the south side of the Street of David, the ground is covered by houses. I have therefore been unable to examine it, and can only draw inferences; but I am led to think that Millo was on that side for the following reasons.—We have seen that David "built round about from Millo and inward[81];" which must mean that he began to build from the position of Millo inwards, i.e. to the south, or round about the city. Now I believe that the quarter of Millo derived its name from the great pool in the neighbourhood, commonly called the Pool of Hezekiah[82]—the original Millo of David. A learned Russian ex-rabbi explained to me that the word Millo generally meant 'made ground,' but that a large reservoir, which receives water from another, is commonly called Millo, while this other is called Mamillah, and water-carriers, Malleah. We can therefore understand that David began to build from Millo, because, as there is not a valley on that side, it was the weakest part of the city. This explanation, as we shall see, suits all the other passages in the Bible in which Millo is mentioned; but it cannot be a place of 'made ground,' because there is none here. This is all that is known about the City of David.

The city was undoubtedly enlarged in the reign of Solomon, by the addition of Mount Moriah, on which the Temple was built[83]. David bought the threshingfloor (its site) from Araunah[84], a rich Jebusite, at which time it evidently was outside Jerusalem: but when Solomon built upon it, he joined it to the City of David[85]. Josephus also tells us that Solomon enlarged the city, and built new walls and fortified it with towers[86]. My opinion is that Solomon's wall began on the north side of David's, to the east of the Castle, and ran in a northerly direction, till it bent round to the east, so as to include Mount Moriah, which it encompassed on the east, south, and for a short distance on the west, till it again joined the wall of the City of David, after crossing the Tyropoeon Valley. Thus the fortifications of the Old city were strengthened on the north, while the New was liable to be taken from the north-west and a small part of the north side; but the rest of this, and the other sides, were strongly defended by art or the natural difficulties of the position. In this new part of the city I have found fragments of the age of Solomon in the foundations of houses, in the walls of the Pool of Bethesda, and in the eastern and southern boundary wall of the Haram; but will speak of these more particularly in the chapter on the Temple. The remains that I have seen or found inside the city are of the greatest interest, but all belong to a much later period. In the passages of the Bible that speak of Solomon, we find frequent mention of Millo; for example, "This is the reason of the levy which King Solomon raised, for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem.... Pharaoh's daughter came up out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo[87]." And "Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his father[88]." This Millo is not the same as the Millo of David; for I hold with the rabbinical tradition, that Solomon's house was near the south side of the Temple, to which place he brought Pharaoh's daughter from the City of David; that this Millo is the immense reservoir still to be seen at the south-east corner of the Haram-es-SherÎf, and that the materials derived from it were used to fill up the depths of the Tyropoeon Valley, between the New and the Old City. The "House of Millo, which goeth down to Silla[89]," where Joash was murdered, I take to be near the Millo of David, because the going down to Silla must have been a street leading down to Siloam, and therefore corresponding with the street of David. We may observe that this part added to the city is specified at an early period[90].

Some works of defence appear to have been constructed on Ophel, before the reign of Jotham, for it is said that "Jotham built much on the wall of Ophel[91]," which seems to mean that he found the wall already in existence. What he did build there we have now no means of ascertaining. Of Hezekiah we learn that he "built up all the wall that was broken, and raised it up to the towers, and another wall without, and repaired Millo, in the City of David[92]." This place I have already identified with the Pool[93] bearing Hezekiah's name, which before his time was outside the city, and was by him enclosed within the defences so as to deprive the Assyrians of water. In confirmation of this view I may mention that when the fathers of the Holy Land were laying the foundation of the house now occupied by the Latin Patriarch, they came upon remains of the solid masonry of the old wall. The same thing occurred to the Copts on the north side of the foundations of their Hospice. I do not speak of this from personal knowledge, as I was not living in Jerusalem at the time, but I have no doubt of the truth of the statement. I myself found a fragment of the massive ancient wall, when superintending the laying of the foundations of the little mosque, dedicated to Omar[94], which is opposite to the Church of the Resurrection on the south: the masonry was composed of large blocks of stone, of a tolerably regular form, which were fastened together by iron clamps: and the thickness of the wall was about seven feet and a half. I have therefore traced and attributed to Hezekiah the wall, which starting on the north of the Castle of David, passes on the north of the Copts' Hospice, and finally joins the line of that which I have attributed to Solomon, after running parallel to the street of the Sepulchre.

A strong line of fortifications was built round Ophel by Manasseh[95]. Directed by the hints given in the Bible, I examined it as I had Sion. The answers given to me by the fellahÎn, the evidence on the spot, and my excavations, brought to light some traces of a wall of circumvallation on the east side of the Tyropoeon, and at the south end of Ophel. The great accumulation of earth on the Kidron side would have made any investigations very costly, and I was convinced of the direction of the walls in this part by the account of Josephus[96]; accordingly I did not make any excavations here.

Before describing Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah, it will be well to enumerate the gates of the city before the Captivity, and to fix, as far as possible, their positions. We are told that Jehoash king of Israel "brake down the walls of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits[97]." I place the gate of Ephraim at the N.W. angle of Solomon's wall because it led to the land of Ephraim. The Corner gate was, I think, at the north-east angle of the platform of the Temple. We find in Jeremiah "The city shall be built from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner[98]," which may be very well understood to mean "from one extremity of the city to the other." I believe that the tower of Hananeel was in the present castle. King "Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate and at the valley gate, and fortified them[99]." The latter might have been in the south side of the wall of Sion. The horse gate[100] is also mentioned, but this was probably in the wall of the Temple, not of the city. I identify the fish gate[101] with the present Jaffa gate. The situation of "the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the Lord[102]," is uncertain: I think it to have been either a gate of the Temple, or one through which a road to the Temple passed. Perhaps it may be found in the second line of wall on the north, but this is very doubtful. Lastly, it is said that when the Chaldeans entered Jerusalem, "all the men of war fled by night, by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king's garden[103]." These are the walls of David and Manasseh on the two sides of the Tyropoeon, so the gate was probably in the middle of the valley, looking southwards towards the King's garden, now tilled by the peasants of Siloam. I do not expect that the above remarks will convince all, but trust that they may at least suggest subjects for thought and study.

The city, thus built at different periods, was burnt and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar; but let us pass over the sad years of captivity, till we come to the time when, by the energy and zeal of Nehemiah, it rose again from its ruins. Something must be said of its aspect at that time, and especially of its gates; but I must warn the reader that, after all my labours, I have not been able thoroughly to satisfy myself about their situation, because of the difficulty of reconciling the third and twelfth with the second chapter of Nehemiah. Still, without desiring to push my opinions presumptuously forward, I offer them in hopes that they may be fortunate enough to attract the attention of competent students to this interesting point of Biblical ArchÆology. I know that many have already attempted to fix the position of these gates, but I am also aware that their theories are contradictory, and often rest upon hypotheses which are open to attack. The illustrious Reland has not chosen to make any positive assertions on these points, and has contented himself with a simple list of names; I will therefore follow his example[104].

The sheep gate[105] must have been in the west wall, that runs southwards from the castle, in which were the towers of Meah and Hananeel: the fish gate, nearly on the site of the present Jaffa gate: the old gate, in the north part of David's wall, near its junction with Solomon's: the broad wall, that portion of the second enclosure, which protected the west and north as far as the north-west corner of the temple area, and the tower of the furnaces, outside it: the valley gate, at the extreme south-west corner of Sion: the dung gate, on the south side of Sion, a thousand cubits to the east of the valley gate: the fountain gate, at the east extremity of the north wall of David's enclosure, and, consequently, at the middle of the Tyropoeon valley. I identify the pool of Siloah with that, now filled with earth, below the fountain of Siloam, and the king's garden with those still existing there. The stairs that go down from the city of David begin at the south-east angle of that king's wall and extend eastwards down the slopes of Sion. The sepulchres of David are upon Sion, a little to the west of that now shewn under that name. The pool that was made is Birket-es-Sultan, outside the walls on the west. The water gate is in the Tyropoeon valley, to the south of the fountain gate; the east gate, on the site of the present golden gate. Let the reader now examine the account[106] of the two companies which went, in opposite directions, to dedicate the new wall to the Lord.

The dragon well[107] may have been near the south end of the pool Birket-es-Sultan; indeed there is a tradition among the Arabs, that a spring once existed on this spot, but I do not know whether it is of any value. No remains of the age of Nehemiah are to be found either outside the present city or in its walls, except in the east wall of the Haram-es-SherÎf: I will explain my reasons for referring these to this epoch in the chapter on the Temple.

No one besides Josephus has handed down to us a detailed account of the topography of Jerusalem in the time of the Herods and Titus: since then he lived in this period and is our sole authority, I follow his account entirely. In endeavouring to identify the spots mentioned by him, in a place that has undergone such frequent alterations, I have not imitated the example of most writers, in ancient and modern times, who have copied one from another, and based their arguments on mere hypotheses; but, during a period of eight years, have devoted myself to a thorough examination of every part of Jerusalem; have carefully studied the terrain, the rocks, the stones, which I have sought under the accumulated ruins of centuries; have made deep excavations to trace the course of the ancient walls, underground passages and conduits; have watched the digging of numbers of foundations, from day to day, within and without the city; have collected information from persons worthy of credit and experienced in building, about the most important works that had been carried out before my arrival; have descended into and examined cisterns, clean and dirty; and after working like a labourer during the day, have read Josephus instead of going to sleep, and tested his statements for myself. I did not use any other authors except Livy and CÆsar, whose writings I studied in order to understand thoroughly the Roman art of war and the siege operations of Titus against the city; and after I had done all this, I made plans and sections upon the spot. This being well known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, I fearlessly present the results of my labours to all who take an interest in the reconstruction of the city of the Herods. I may indeed sometimes be mistaken in my arguments, or wrong in my conclusions; if so, I shall be glad to be corrected; thankful if even by this means I have created an interest in the subject, and given rise to new ideas and a better knowledge of the archÆology of Jerusalem.

Having now considered the general features of the city, its hills and its valleys, and seen that it was guarded by a triple wall on the exposed side and a single wall on those which overhung the valleys[108], we will proceed to examine this triple line of defence.

The first wall began on the north at the Tower Hippicus, and passing by the Xystus joined on to the Palace of the Council, and ended at the west gate of the Temple. It was strengthened with much care and expense by David, Solomon, and their successors. In examining its course on the present ground, I started from the castle of David, going eastward in a line parallel to 'David's street' as far as the Mekhemeh (the Turkish law courts), and thence to the west wall of the Haram-es-SherÎf.

In order to identify the towers of Hippicus, PhasaËlus, and Mariamne, I frequently and carefully examined the fortress[109]. In it there are still three towers, one on the west, just south of the Jaffa gate, whose architecture, as far as it is visible, appears mediÆval; another to the east of this, built of stones with large rustic work of the Herodian pattern; and a third to the south of these two, resembling the first. In all three I ascertained that the Jewish masonry is founded on the rock, and that, for a height of five feet above the ground, they are cased with large stones, roughly rusticated; but in the middle tower the Jewish masonry continues about 39 feet from the bottom of the ditch—only the stones, however, are of the Herodian period, the architecture is of a later date, belonging to the time when art was declining in the country[110]; for we see that these interesting remains are used without the slightest care; being arranged without any regard to their size, and most of them shewing the marks of the clamps, by which they were formerly bolted together inside the wall; so that they have evidently been placed in reverse order[111]. The three towers are solid inside to a height of 11 feet, and the lower part of the ditch (14 feet deep) that surrounds them on the north, east, and south, is cut in the rock; the west tower is nearly 25 cubits square, the centre 40, the south 20. I adopt, then, Williams' opinion, that the tower Hippicus stood on the foundation of the first, PhasaËlus on the second, and Mariamne on the third. This identification seems to agree with Josephus' description[112]; so that these are the positions of the three ancient towers, which Titus ordered to be spared, "in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of a city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valour had subdued[113]."

It may be urged, as an objection to this, that the cisterns, mentioned by the historian, are not to be found in these towers; but it is surely very unlikely that these would come down to us through so many changes. One tower has been enlarged to accommodate a greater number of troops, and nothing is more probable than that the cisterns would be destroyed in some of the extensive alterations which the buildings have undergone; for example, in making the story 20 cubits high, which now exists in it; besides, the cisterns, which are in other parts of the fortress, seem to shew that those within the towers have been removed. We shall presently see that the position assigned to Hippicus agrees very well with the historian's statements on other points, especially on the second position, occupied by Titus during the siege[114].

The number of houses and the character of their several owners make it impossible to excavate along the street of David, from the tower Hippicus to the west wall of the Temple; so that I was obliged to be contented with what I could find above ground. In many places I noticed large stones, generally rusticated, built into the lower parts of the present houses; for example, in the Greek convent of S. John, in the south-east corner of the Pool of Hezekiah, and in many houses on the south of the above-named street. These stones I suppose to be remains of the old wall, because I cannot think that any one would have taken the trouble to bring them from a distance. The most remarkable thing is a semicircular Jewish arch, forming part of an ancient gateway, now almost entirely buried. This I will describe when I come to the second wall.

The Xystus, as appears from several passages in Josephus, was a public place surrounded by buildings, on the lower slopes of Sion, opposite the west wall of the Temple. We are told that the priests built a wall on the west of the Temple, to prevent king Agrippa II. from watching the sacred rites from the top of his palace[115] near the Xystus; also that, after the capture of the lower city and the Temple, the Jews, entrenched on Sion, asked to speak with Titus, and that he placed himself on the west side of the Temple, for "there were gates on that side above the Xystus, and a bridge that connected the upper city with the Temple[116]." The Xystus is also mentioned in conjunction with the bridge in other passages; but it is unnecessary to quote them, as the present state of the ground assists us in determining its position, the slope of Sion being much less here than at any other part of the east side. In the careful investigations that I have made on the west side of the Tyropoeon, I found evidence that the surface had been levelled in the direction of the street of David; this however did not extend southwards beyond the point opposite to the south-west corner of the Haram-es-SherÎf, where the ground is very much broken with steep faces of rock; therefore, as I cannot suppose that a public place would be on an uneven site, I imagine that the Xystus began at the street of David and ended before it came opposite to the south-west corner of the Haram.

The Palace of the Council was probably situated in the position of the present Mekhemeh. The number of stones of Jewish workmanship of the Herodian period in the foundation of the present building, and its position with reference to the Xystus and the Temple, are strong arguments in favour of this identification[117]. This is all that I have been able to gather about the northern part of the first line of walls; excavations being impossible, from the nature of the place, and still more of the inhabitants.

On the west, the first wall started from Hippicus and "extended through a place called Bethso to the gate of the Essenes, and after that it went southward, having its bending above the fountain of Siloam, where it also bends again to the east at Solomon's pool, and reaches as far as a certain place which they called Ophlas (Ophel), where it was joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple[118]." I have already stated how I was able to retrace this part of the wall on the south of Sion and at Ophel, and have no more to add, except that I found, during my investigations on Sion, great vaulted cisterns hewn out in the rock, remains of conduits, also cut in the solid rock, and ruined caverns, which had obviously once been reservoirs; but all these occurred inside the circuit of the wall, that I have laid down on the Plan, and never outside; shewing that one part had been formerly covered by houses, the other not. The position of Bethso is unknown: some think that the word means "house of filth:" one Rabbi supposes it to have been a place where waters met; however, I have not been able to find out anything certain about it.

The site of the gate of the Essenes is also unknown to us: I place it at the south-east angle of the City of David, because this position seems to suit best the Greek text of Josephus—"the wall extended downwards to the gate of the Essenes[119];" moreover, from this point I see that the wall could bend to the south, while, from a higher position, a very irregular course must be given it, in order to obtain this angle.

The positions of the fountain of Siloam and the pool of Solomon cannot be doubted. As the latter is filled with earth, I was obliged to make excavations, in order to ascertain whether it still retained marks of its antiquity. I found that the wall on the east side, especially in its lower part, was of ancient Jewish work; so also were parts of the north-west side and the east extremities of the other two walls. The pool is from 7-3/4 to 10 feet deep on the south-east, and 14 feet on the north-west. I have no doubt that it is as old as the time of Solomon, and think it may be the one named by the prophet Isaiah, "Ye made also a ditch between the two walls for the waters of the old pool, but ye have not looked unto the maker thereof, neither had respect unto him that fashioned it long ago[120]."

Josephus does not directly state that the east side of Sion, above the Tyropoeon valley, was fortified, but we may infer it, as he[121] tells us that, when Titus had gained possession of the Temple and Ophel and all the north part of Jerusalem, he laid siege to the Upper City, which must have fallen at once, if there had not been a wall defending it on the east. We can hardly suppose that the Jews would have built it at the time, after seeing the fall of their strongest bulwarks, the tower Antonia and the Temple, nor would an obstacle hastily thrown up, and therefore weak, have arrested the victorious Romans.

The second wall is thus described: it "took its beginning from that gate which they called Gennath, which belonged to the first wall; it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city, and reached as far as the tower Antonia[122]." I have already mentioned the addition made to the city of David and its probable extent, in speaking of Jerusalem at the time of Solomon: consequently I now have only to give the reasons that have induced me to fix the position of the places, and see whether they agree with the narrative of the historian. There are but two points to give in the line of the wall, the gate Gennath, whose position we must determine, and the tower Antonia, which was situated at the north-west angle of the platform[123] of the Temple, and whose position we may consider to be nearly ascertained. I place the gate Gennath (i.e. of gardens) east of the tower Hippicus, in the northern part of the first wall, at the place where I stated that I had found an ancient Jewish semicircular arch. From its name we may infer that it opened on cultivated land, and Josephus[124] speaks of the gardens on the north and north-west of the city, which were destroyed by the troops of Titus in levelling the ground. If the Pool of Hezekiah be the same as the pool Amygdalon[125] (of almonds), we may infer that probably plantations of almonds were in this neighbourhood. We must also recollect that if the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea were on the north-west, there would be a garden here[126]. Now as all the gates of Jerusalem in former times were named from their position or destination, it is very probable that this was called the garden gate, because the road to the gardens went through it; and indeed on excavating by the side of the arch above named, I found the two piers, which have been preserved by the accumulation of the earth. The arch, visible for about five feet above ground, is formed of large stones, rusticated, although the work has been much injured by time. They are firmly fastened together inside with iron clamps without mortar, that which I saw being merely superficial, and introduced by the Arabs during repairs. The two piers are constructed of similar masonry, but here the rustic work is very conspicuous. I discovered that the gate was founded on the rock, was 18 feet high and 8-1/2 wide. It is buried by a mass of rubbish, that here, as elsewhere, has raised the true level of the soil. The position of the gate (looking west) is not incompatible with its having formed part of a line of defence from the tower Hippicus to the Xystus; because not only were angles admitted into the systems of fortifications of that time, but also, with regard to Jerusalem, we are told by Tacitus[127] that "Walls with re-entering angles and curves, to take the assailants in flank, enclosed two very high hills."

In the immediate neighbourhood of the tower Hippicus I was not able to find any ancient remains, and therefore suppose that the wall commenced at this gate. I sought for its ruins, along a line northwards from this point, but was at first unsuccessful; although I found a fragment of a building on the east side of the plot of land formerly occupied by the convent of S. Mary the Great[128], which may possibly belong to an early period; but I had afterwards three opportunities of learning that I was not mistaken, in expecting to find the required evidence somewhere in this part. (1) In January 1857, the weight of a quantity of fallen snow threw down a part of the wall of a Mohammedan Bazaar[129], called the Meat Bazaar, near the above-named convent. By order of the Governor I repaired it in 1858, and in digging down to the rock to lay the new foundations, at a depth of 10 feet below the surface, came upon large stones, boldly rusticated, and arranged in a manner that reminded me of the Phoenician work of the time of Solomon. This wall is nine feet thick, and consists of three courses of stone, the first, which lies on the rock, being 3-1/4 feet in height, the second 2, and the third 2-1/2; thus an extension both north and south from this spot was proved by this fragment. (2) In 1858 the Russian mission at Jerusalem, by my suggestion, obtained a piece of land near to the church[130] of the Resurrection on the east. In 1859 they cleared away the accumulated rubbish, and during the work a corner of a Jewish wall was discovered; the stones of which were rusticated to a depth of 4 or 5 lines, and carefully finished; these were the remains of a restoration of the time of the Herods on the ancient foundation of Solomon's wall. (3) In 1860 the dragoman of the French consul built a house, close to the west side of the present judgement-gate, and in digging down for the rock found, at a depth of 18 feet below the surface, a fragment of a wall, resembling in all respects that described above in the first case. From these three points I ascertained the course of the west side of the wall; it remained therefore to search for the northern face towards the Damascus gate; and an opportunity occurred before long, when the Greek Archimandrite Bisarion repaired and strengthened a house (now temporarily occupied by the Russian consulate). I dug some pits to examine its foundation, but no remains of antiquity were discovered, and the only result of my labours was to ascertain the true level of ancient Jerusalem at this spot. I made enquiries of all, who in former years had built in this neighbourhood, but could not hear that any Jewish ruins had ever been found, and therefore think that the wall must have turned sharp to the east at the judgement-gate (formerly the gate of Ephraim), and so, facing the north, gone on to the tower Antonia. The occurrence of very large stones, evidently of Jewish work, in the walls of the houses (especially in the lower parts) in this direction confirms this idea. These were found when the Effendi Kadduti repaired and partly rebuilt the house in the Via Dolorosa, at the Station of Veronica. A similar discovery was made by the Mufti, in strengthening his house, at the Station of Simon of Cyrene; and by the Effendi Soliman Giari, opposite to the Mufti's house on the north. The Armenian Catholic Monk requested me to examine and level a piece of land, at the Station of the first fall of Christ, which, as representative of his nation, he had just bought. In the lower part of the wall enclosing it on the north very large stones and an ancient gate were found.

In the foundations of the Austrian hospice, laid in 1857, to the north of the Armenian property, large stones were discovered, and also, farther to the east, in the new convent of the Daughters of Sion. From all these facts, I infer that the line of the second wall passed along this side. I may also remark that the Greek text of Josephus states that the wall "went up to the Antonia[131];" and we can still see, from the conformation of the ground in this direction, that, after crossing the Tyropoeon valley, it would go up to the tower. The assertion that the second wall "only encompassed the northern quarter of the city," is true, because, at the time of Josephus, Hezekiah's wall must have been standing, and therefore considered to form part of the second line. I once supposed that the gate Gennath was near the tower Hippicus on the east, and that consequently the second wall went in a zigzag course until it joined the Antonia: but, as mentioned above, I did not find any traces of it very near the tower Hippicus, and I think that if the gate of Gennath had been close to this, the historian would have mentioned it. I have already said that I attribute this wall to Solomon, because it is mentioned in the Bible in connection with events after his time.

Josephus states that "the beginning of the third wall was at the tower Hippicus, where it reached as far as the north quarter of the city and the tower Psephinus, and then was so far extended till it came over against the monuments of Helena, which Helena was queen of Adiabene, the daughter of Izates; it then extended farther to a great length, and passed by the royal caverns (sp??a???), and bent again at the tower of the corner, at the monument which is called the Monument of the Fuller, and joined to the old wall at the valley called the Valley of the Kidron[132]." In laying down the course of this wall I differ from all those (in particular Barclay, Schultz and Robinson) who, up to the present time, have written on the topography of ancient Jerusalem. I am led to do this by the careful investigations, which, during a long time, I carried on in the district north of the city. It is my positive opinion that the ancient walls did not extend to the north beyond the present enclosure; that is, that they began at the Jaffa gate, passed by the Damascus gate, and ended at the north-east corner of the Haram-es-SherÎf. Let me now state the facts which have led me to this conclusion.

In 1860 the Greek convent repaired the building outside the Jaffa[133] gate, now used as a custom-house. Wishing to lay some foundations against the city wall, I came, on digging down, upon those of Agrippa's, which rest upon the rock; now we know that this wall near to Hippicus was defended by the steep slope of the side of the valley, and that where this ceased, towards the north-west corner, a ditch was cut in the rock. This may still be seen, and is a proof that I am right in supposing the present to be the wall that went from Hippicus to Psephinus.

At the north-west corner a massive ruin still exists inside the city, rising about twenty feet above the ground, and built of small stones joined with strong mortar; in the south-west corner however are found large stones, rusticated after the Herodian pattern. On digging about the shapeless pile, I discovered that courses of similar stones continued down to the rock. I also found two sides of masonry, and many large rusticated stones buried in the rubbish, and traces of a great cistern. Hence I consider this to be the site of the tower Psephinus, an octagon in form, and seventy cubits high[134]. Beyond these ruins, outside the present wall, is a ditch cut in the rock, unquestionably a work of the Herodian age, for no later conquerors would have had the time or desire to execute such a great and costly work. It is now concealed by rubbish, but it runs eastward parallel to the present wall, which therefore can scarcely have extended beyond it, in the course laid down by Barclay, Schultz, and many others.

The position I assign to Psephinus is the highest point in the city; therefore as the tower was seventy cubits high, we can understand that from its top the confines of Arabia and the sea (the Dead Sea) might be visible; indeed the latter may even now be seen from the terraces of the highest houses in the neighbourhood of the ruins. I call particular attention to this, because some have supposed that Josephus meant the Mediterranean; which cannot be seen even from the higher station of Mount Olivet. Besides he tells us that the tower was at the north-west corner of the wall[135]. The position assigned to Psephinus by Schultz, about 1800 feet from the corner, along the line, is not only a very bad one in a strategic point of view, being in a hollow and commanded by higher ground in front, but also would not have given a glimpse of the sea had the tower been double the height. Barclay's position is to the north-west and beyond the present wall, but nearer to mine and on higher ground, so that it satisfies the historian's conditions, but still is inadmissible, because it would be on a plateau without any defences, and would therefore have been easily taken by the Romans, instead of giving them some trouble.

I believe that Schultz fixed upon his position because a pool and some fragments of a wall, which he considered ancient, were found there. The reservoir is however too small and is an oblong, and therefore ill suited for an octagonal tower; in which we should at least expect to find a square. I examined the wall by excavations, and found it to be only an Arab work: some stones, large but not thick, are the only things that have a look of antiquity, and this character is not decisive because they are embedded in mortar; in fact they are only the remains of some slabs that have once been used in a conduit. Barclay has certainly made the most of the reservoir of the Meidan; but in his time it was filled with rubbish, and therefore could not be examined. I have seen it empty, and its dimensions are nine feet deep, twenty long, and ten wide. It is therefore too small for the tower. I have surveyed and carefully investigated all the ground near it, for the Russian Mission and for Signor TanÛs (the owner of the reservoir), but could not discover the slightest trace either of defensive works, or a wall, or detached stones, to induce me to believe that a fortification ever occupied this spot, but on the contrary found rock, either quite bare or thinly covered with a red clayey soil. Other writers have assigned other positions to Psephinus, which are either near the above, and so open to the same objections, or else do not agree with the account of Josephus.

At the north-west corner the wall turns to the east, and after about 150 paces, before arriving at the Damascus Gate, we come to a new Greek building, touching the city-wall. When the foundations of this were laid, I examined a piece of wall, entirely of the age of the Agrippas, some stones of which are still visible. From this we see that a part of the wall, or a tower, was formerly on this spot, in accordance with my opinion.

The present Damascus Gate[136] bears strong testimony to the fact that Agrippa's wall once passed by it. It is flanked, east and west, by two towers, that are conspicuous objects from inside the city; their bases are entirely composed of large stones of the Herodian period. They are twenty cubits square[137], and solid up to the ancient level of the ground. I believe them to be the 'women's towers' mentioned by Josephus[138]. I say the ancient level, because in a reservoir outside the gate, on the east, I discovered traces of another gate, at a lower level than and supporting the present Damascus Gate. In the south wall of this there is a segment of a semicircular arch, 12 feet wide and 26 high, the stones forming the side piers are large and rusticated, those of the arch itself are also large but smooth. I discovered it in January, 1861. This I believe to be identical with the 'North Gate' of Josephus, through which the Jews made a sortie to disturb Titus' first reconnoissance of the city[139]. On both sides, without the present gate, are large stones, rusticated, of the Herodian period, some in the lower part of the present wall, others forming a sort of terrace above the road.

About 980 feet north of the Damascus Gate is an isolated rock rising 8 or 10 feet above the ground, and bearing inside and out traces of the hand of man. In the east side is an aperture, which resembles the doors in the sepulchres of the Kings, of the Judges and of Aceldama, and, like these, has been closed by a heavy stone moving on two hinges, the holes for which are still visible. It leads into a ruined cistern, nearly filled with rubbish. I had often been struck by the resemblance this presented to an ancient sepulchre, and thought that in that case it might be the tomb of Helena, but several difficulties stood in my way, and it is to the intelligent co-operation of M. Edmond de BarrÈre, French Consul at Jerusalem, that I am indebted for the confirmation of my idea. During our investigation at this place, we discovered that the rock appeared to be cut into the form of the base of a pyramid; also, by excavating inside the cistern, we found traces of tombs hewn in the rock. Hence I conclude that this is the site of the tomb of Helena. This is not the only instance where the resting-places of the dead have been profaned. Near the tombs of the Judges, and to the north of the head of the Kidron valley, changes of this kind are common: so too at the sepulchres of Aceldama the peasants of Siloam have converted some into dwelling-houses, others into barns. We know the history of some of the accidents that have befallen the grave of Helena; for a church was built on the same rock by the Empress Eudoxia, between the years A.D. 450 and 461, and dedicated to S. Stephen, who was said by tradition to have been stoned there; it was destroyed by the Saracens on the approach of the Crusaders. These rebuilt it, completing the work about the middle of the twelfth century; but destroyed it again A.D. 1187, fearing that Saladin would use it to cover his troops in attacking the city. This site satisfies another condition given by Josephus, when he says that the tomb was "distant no more than three stadia from the city of Jerusalem[140]." Now he invariably uses the words 'city of Jerusalem' to express the part enclosed by the first or second line of walls, and 'the new city' or 'Bezetha' for that within the third. Agrippa's wall, commenced A.D. 44, and continued A.D. 66, by the Jews[141], was lying in an unfinished state at the time of Helena's death; consequently, I understand that Josephus intended the three stadia to be reckoned from the second wall. S. Jerome[142], speaking of the Journey of Paula, states that, coming from Ramah and Gabaah, she left the tomb of Helena on the left hand, and then entered Jerusalem. The ancient road from Ramah, whose remains may still be seen, passed a little to the north of the sepulchres of the Kings, and then turning to the N.W., left the monument of Helena on the left and entered Jerusalem. The distance from the north gate, as determined by me, is another very strong argument for this position.

The following Jewish tradition also confirms my opinion. It is the custom for the Jews, every year, about the time of the Feast of Pentecost, to leave Jerusalem by the Damascus Gate, and pass the whole day in visiting this rock, the sepulchres of the Kings, the supposed tomb of Simon the Just, and a grotto, opposite to this, looking south, called in Arabic Jadagat el-Ahel, that is, "store of food" or "alms of food[143]." They repeat their visit, or rather pilgrimage, for three days, and never return to the city without scrupulously visiting these four places. I asked educated Jews the reason of this custom, and was told that from this direction a great Queen had come, who, during a severe famine, had brought large supplies of food to Jerusalem, which were deposited in the above-named grotto; that on her death she wished to be buried on the north near the city; (I asked them to point out the place, but they could not), and consequently they went out in respectful remembrance of her, (they did not know even her name,) and also to visit the tombs of their ancestors. Thus, though the tradition does not fix the exact place of the grave, it shews that it was near the city, and indicates the direction in which it lay.

Close to the outer side of the wall, a little to the east of the Damascus gate, is a large deep hollow, almost entirely enclosed on the south, east, and north, by bare rock, which has evidently been worked at some very distant period[144]. In the upper part of the south side is a hole, opening into a long deep cavern extending southward and eastward under the city; and facing this, to the north, is the (commonly called) grotto of Jeremiah. These are nothing but ancient stone-quarries, which I consider to be the Royal Caverns of Josephus, and believe that the stones, which at different times have been used to build the city walls and the Temple, have been, at least in great part, taken from them. They were separated one from another, as at present, partly in getting the stone and partly in fortifying the north of the New City (Bezetha) with a ditch, which still runs eastward along the wall till it arrives at the pool near S. Mary's gate. It is cut entirely in the rock, like the one on the north-west in front of the tower Psephinus, and is a regular defence for the city-walls. As similar works have never been found in any other part of the district on the north, its occurrence at this place seems a strong argument in favour of my theory. I also compared the levels of the bottom of the hollow in front of the cavern, and of the Tyropoeon valley, with the old level of the north gate, and found they correspond. I further ascertained that the road sloped gently towards the Temple, so that the huge blocks could have been easily transported. We may remark also that Josephus uses different words to express Cavern and Sepulchre[145]; and that the word used in speaking of this place does not apply to a place of burial. I conclude therefore that these are the Royal Caverns of Josephus, and if it be objected that this position restricts too much the line of Agrippa's wall, I ask to what other place on the north this name can be applied.

To the east of the Royal Caverns is Herod's gate, and a little below it, in the same direction, the lower part of the present wall for four courses above the ground is of Herodian work; another point in favour of my theory.

It is stated that "the wall bent again at the tower of the corner, at the monument which is called the Monument of the Fuller[146]." We must now endeavour to assign the position of these two. I place the tower inside the present wall at its north-east corner, where massive masonry may still be seen on a level with the ground. The Monument of the Fuller is entirely destroyed, and its place cannot be exactly determined. Still, two passages in the Bible give some clue: Josiah burnt the grove which he had removed from the house of the Lord "at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people[147];" also, Jehoiakim slew Urijah "with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people[148]." Now in the valley of the Kidron, east of the corner of the wall, are some rocks bearing evident traces of workmanship, but so much injured and weatherworn, and so covered with rubbish, that it is impossible to say whether they have belonged to a monument or not; but there are some signs of sepulchres; so, as the 'graves of the common people' are in the valley of Kidron, I am inclined to think that this may have been the Fullers Monument. The highway of the Fuller's field is mentioned in 2 Kings xviii. 17, Isaiah xxxvi. 2, and some think that this is connected with the monument named by Josephus; but the two things are quite distinct, and there is no reason why the former should be near the latter. After passing the monument the wall joined the old wall, which now forms the north-east corner of the Haram-es-SherÎf.

Having thus examined the line of the walls, let us try to prove, both from the historian's words and the conformation of the ground, that the city cannot have extended to the north beyond its present limits.

It is stated[149] that "the third wall had ninety towers (twenty cubits square), and the spaces between them were each two hundred cubits, but in the middle wall were fourteen towers[150], and the old wall was divided by sixty; while the whole compass of the city was thirty-three stadia." Now it is quite credible that the middle and old walls had the above numbers of towers, but it is very hard to understand how the third could have had ninety, and these two hundred cubits apart. If each tower was twenty cubits square, then the space occupied by towers would be eighteen hundred cubits; and if they were two hundred cubits apart, the sum of their distances would be eighteen thousand cubits; so that the whole length of the third wall would have been nineteen thousand eight hundred cubits; which is equal to about nine thousand seven hundred and ninety-one yards, or forty-eight stadia. This, besides being greater than the whole compass of the city (thirty-three stadia), is far too large for even the space claimed by Barclay; because in order to obtain a measurement of this extent, we must suppose a part of the Scopus itself to have been included within the walls. There must therefore, as it appears to me, be some error in the text of Josephus in the number 'ninety,' so that no argument can be founded upon it. The position, however, which I assign to the wall, agrees very well with the thirty-three stadia, given by the historian as the whole length of the walls[151].

My theory is also supported by the description of Titus' wall of circumvallation[152]. "He began the wall from the Camp of the Assyrians, where his own camp was pitched; and drew it down to the lower parts of the New City; thence it went along the valley of the Kidron to the Mount of Olives; it then bent towards the south, and encompassed the mountain as far as the rock called Peristereon, and that other hill which lies next it; and is over against the valley which reaches to Siloam; whence it tended again to the west, and went down to the valley of the fountain, beyond which it went up again at the Monument of Ananus the high priest; and encompassing that mountain where Pompeius had formerly pitched his camp, it returned back to the north side of the city, and was carried on as far as a certain village called the House of the Erebinthi, after which it encompassed Herod's Monument, and there on the east was joined to Titus' own camp, where it began. Now, the length of this wall was thirty-nine stadia. Now, at this wall without were erected thirteen places to keep garrison in, whose circumferences put together amounted to ten stadia."

Of the places mentioned in the above description, the camp of the Assyrians is at the north-west corner of the present line of walls, two stadia distant from which were the head-quarters of Titus[153].

I cannot ascertain the position of the rock Peristereon (dovecote). According to Schultz this word has the same meaning as the Latin 'Columbarium[154],' and he identified it with the so-called 'Tombs of the Prophets[155],' but this does not correspond with the 'Columbarium' of the Romans. Its position indeed, at the first glance, seems to agree with the data of Josephus; but his words appear more applicable to a prominent rock than to a monument, which moreover is too far up the hill-side to be included in the line of circumvallation. I believe therefore that the Peristereon of Josephus was situated at the north entrance of the present village of Siloam, where the rocks still bear marks of having been extensively quarried.

The Monument of Ananus has been identified by Schultz with the present tomb of S. Onuphrius, a building in the Doric style, situated in Aceldama; we will examine it more minutely hereafter.

I also agree with Schultz in placing the village, called 'House of Erebinthi' (chick peas), in the valley of Gihon to the west of Birket-es-Sultan, at a spot marked by some ruins, quarried rock, and a considerable number of cisterns hewn in the rock; called by the Arabs, Kasr-el-Asfur or el-Ghazal (castle of the young sparrow or of the gazelle) and Abu-Wair. Near, and to the west of Birket Mamillah, is a large mass of ruins, covering some sepulchral caves, which are identified by Schultz with Herod's monument. Though it is difficult to recognise in them the customary magnificence of that family, still the position suits the account of Josephus. They were injured in the early ages of Christianity on the building of the Greek church of St Babylas, which was afterwards destroyed by the Persians under Chosroes II., and to which the present remains belong.

Some authors are very anxious to extend Jerusalem towards the north (since this is impossible on the south), in order to make it large enough to contain the immense population, and the numbers of dead and prisoners recorded by Josephus[156]. But HecatÆus of Abdera, cited by the historian[157], reckons its inhabitants, at the time of Alexander the Great, at 120,000; is it then possible that the population of the city could have so greatly increased in four centuries, during which Palestine had been drained by numerous emigrations and frequent revolutions, and was the field of constant and bloody strife[158]? Nor must we forget that the defenders were not more than 25,000, nor the besiegers more than 60,000[159]. Could not then so great a population (about 2,000,000) furnish a larger garrison for the defence of their Palladium? Though Titus might have reckoned on the intestine struggles among the Jews, would he even then, skilful general and experienced warrior as he was, have undertaken so hazardous an enterprise? Could he have approached so large and populous a city with an army relatively so weak? We do not need more evidence to convince us that either the historian has included in his numbers the prisoners and dead of the whole war, or has indulged in exaggeration, or else that the figures have been wrongly transcribed.

Let us also consider the conformation of the ground on the north. Josephus has distinctly stated that the city was enclosed by a triple wall, except on the side of the valleys, where there was but one, as this part was inaccessible[160]. These few words appear to me to be fatal to any theory that lays down Agrippa's wall near the Tombs of the Kings. If he had begun to build it on the ridge south of the upper part of the Kidron valley, the Jews would of course have completed it on the same spot, and Josephus would not have omitted to state that the city was defended to a considerable extent by a valley on the north. But on this point he is silent, and finding his description correct in other respects, I cannot suppose that he has made an omission in this. If it be contended that the upper part of the Kidron valley is too shallow to be worth mention, I reply, that it is from 16 to 24 feet deep, and was no doubt deeper in the time of Josephus; who therefore would not have failed to observe that there was also a valley on the north, which at any rate was quite deep enough to be a formidable obstacle to an attack from that side. Again, suppose that the city-wall had come up to the Tombs of the Kings, or stood a little to the south of them, what would then have been the use of Titus' reconnoissance from Gofna with 600 horse[161]; thus uselessly exposing himself to danger, when he could have examined the place better, and even exhorted the people to submit, from Mount Scopus. Had the city extended thus far, it would have been open to view and exposed to an attack on the north-west, being closely surrounded by higher hills; nor would a skilful general like Titus have given his men the trouble of levelling the ground from Scopus up to Herod's monument[162], needlessly increasing the labours of his troops, and exposing them to constant attacks from the Jews. He certainly would not have moved his camp to a position two stadia distant from both Psephinus and Hippicus[163], because he could easily have attacked the city at any point between the Tombs of the Kings and Psephinus. Lastly, I assert that no signs of defensive works, natural or artificial, are found to the north or north-west of the present walls. From the Jaffa Gate to the Tombs of the Kings, and thence to the north-east corner of the walls, there is not the slightest trace of the foundation or the masonry of the outer wall; no great hewn stones scattered over or buried in the ground; nothing but twenty-six vaulted cisterns, hollowed out in the rock, and four very small pools, which could not have supplied the large population that must have covered this space; the rock, though in places worked, is generally rough and untouched by any tool; the soil is everywhere red and clayey, its natural condition; another proof that it was never built over, for where the houses have been destroyed by fire or age, it is of a blackish or greyish colour, and contains fragments of walls or at least hewn stones in plenty. Let any one examine the south part of Sion or Ophel and contradict my assertion if he can. On the south heaps of broken stones and rubbish are scattered over a grey soil; on the north is bare rock, or a scanty though rich virgin earth.

Some, however, infer an extension of the city to the north, from the occurrence not only of cisterns but also of small cubes of stone, belonging to mosaic pavements, and of certain walls which, without proper examination, have been considered to be ancient Jewish work. But these remains are not of any value, because, as stated by Josephus[164], there were houses and gardens in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem to the north. We may indeed infer the same from the words of Nehemiah[165], because we cannot imagine persons engaged in the service of the Temple living elsewhere in the environs of the city, on account of the great number of tombs in every other part. Houses also stood here at the time of the Crusades, and a church, dedicated to the Martyrdom of S. Stephen; therefore the occurrence of some mosaics and stones is easily accounted for. For all these reasons I deny that the walls extended farther to the north than their present position; and if the advocates of other theories are not convinced, I invite them to examine the places for themselves, when they will see that I have spoken the truth.

A Roman garrison was left by Titus at Jerusalem, after the work of destruction was completed, to watch over the ruins and prevent any attempt at restoring the city[166]; and it was not till 60 years afterwards that Hadrian sent thither a heathen colony to rebuild it and call it Ælia, after his name Ælius. A temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was erected on the site of the ancient Temple, whence the epithet Capitolina. He forbade the Jews to enter the territory of Jerusalem under pain of death, in order, according to Ariston of Pella[167], that they might not behold the home of their fathers even from afar. He also caused the effigy of a pig to be sculptured in marble on the gate leading to Bethlehem; an animal unclean to the Jews, but one of the Roman standards[168]. The southern part of Sion was excluded from his city, and all agree that its form and size coincided with the present. On this point we have the testimony of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux[169], who visited the place early in the fourth century, during the building of the Church of the Resurrection by Constantine.

At the time of the arrival of the Crusaders Jerusalem had not undergone any material change, as we learn from El Edrisi[170], who finished his work January, A.D. 1154, Benjamin of Tudela, who visited it A.D. 1173, and Willibrand of Oldenburgh, who stayed there A.D. 1211. During the occupation by the Crusaders a ditch extended along the wall from the south-west corner to the Sion Gate. It is now covered by a street, but on descending into one of the cisterns which opens into the middle of the road, I found that they were all in reality formed out of the ditch. This is the only part of the city of the Crusaders that has disappeared from view owing to the restorations of Solyman the Magnificent, who ascended the throne A.D. 1534.

The form of Jerusalem was not changed in his days, although he greatly wished it. He had given orders to the architect, who was building the new walls, to extend them on the side of Sion, so as to include the whole of that hill. Regard for the sanctity of the place was not his motive (as many Christians both then and since have thought), but fear, lest in the event of a siege it might be occupied by an enemy, as a commanding position on which to collect troops preparatory to an assault. But when the architect, who hated the Christians, saw their deep reverence for the place and their desire that it might be included in the city, he determined to leave it outside as Hadrian had done; without thinking of the political or military views of his sovereign. He paid dear for his disobedience, for the Sultan recalled him to give an account of his actions, and regardless of his religious scruples cut off his head.

Having thus given a general idea of modern and ancient Jerusalem, we will proceed to describe all the objects of interest enclosed within its walls.