CHAPTER II.

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 (+spêlaiôn+), 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[36] See the Panorama, Plate I, and Plates II., III., IV.

[37] 2 Sam. v. 6, 7, 9.

[38] Jewish War, V. 4, § 1.

[39] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14.

[40] Josh. xv. 8; xviii. 16.

[41] Jewish War, V. 4, § 1.

[42] Ibid.

[43] +amphikyptos+. Whiston translates 'Of the shape of a moon when she

is horned.'

[44] Gen. xxii. 2, 14.

[45] 2 Chron. iii. 1.

[46] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2; 5, § 8.

[47] Jewish War, V. 5, § 1; Ant. XV. 11, § 3.

[48] Ant. XV. 11, § 5.

[49] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2.

[50] Jewish War, V. 5, § 8.

[51] Jewish War, V. 4, § 1.

[52] Note I.

[53] Ant. XII. 5, § 4; 9, § 3.

[54] Ant. XIII. 6, § 7; Jewish War, V. 4, § 1.

[55] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2.

[56] 2 Sam. xv. 23, 30.

[57] 1 Kings xi. 7; 2 Kings xxiii. 13.

[58] Acts i. 12; Note II.

[59] Jewish War, V. 2, § 3.

[60] 1 Kings i. 38. See Note XIII.

[61] 2 Chron. xxxii. 30.

[62] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14.

[63] 2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 31, 32; xix. 11.

[64] Jer. xix. 6.

[65] 1 Macc. iv. 61; vi. 26, 31; 2 Macc. xi. 5.

[66] Note II.

[67] Ant. XI. 8, § 5; Jewish War, II. 19, § 4; V. 2, § 3.

[68] Josh. xviii. 16.

[69] 2 Sam. v. 6, 7.

[70] Ant. VII. 3, § 1.

[71] Judges i. 21.

[72] Ant. V. 2, § 2.

[73] Note III.

[74] 2 Sam. v. 9; 1 Chron. xi. 7.

[75] 2 Sam. v. 11.

[76] 2 Sam. v. 9.

[77] 1 Chron. xi. 8.

[78] Note IV.

[79] Marked with black on the Plan of the Ancient City. Plate II.

[80] Note V.

[81] 2 Sam. v. 9; 1 Chron. xi. 8.

[82] Plate XXXI.

[83] 2 Chron. iii. 1.

[84] 2 Sam. xxiv. 16-25; 1 Chron. xxi. 18.

[85] 1 Kings ix. 15; xi. 27.

[86] Ant. VIII. 2, § 1; 6, § 1.

[87] 1 Kings ix. 15, 24.

[88] 1 Kings xi. 27.

[89] 2 Kings xii. 20.

[90] 2 Kings xxii. 14 (margin); Zeph. i. 10.

[91] 2 Chron. xxvii. 3.

[92] 2 Chron. xxxii. 5.

[93] Plate XXXI.

[94] Note VI.

[95] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14.

[96] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2.

[97] 2 Kings xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xxv. 23.

[98] Jer. xxxi. 38.

[99] 2 Chron. xxvi. 9.

[100] 2 Chron. xxiii. 15; Jer. xxxi. 40.

[101] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14; Zeph. i. 10.

[102] Jer. xx. 2.

[103] 2 Kings xxv. 4; Jer. lii. 7.

[104] Note VII.

[105] For what follows see Neh. ch. iii.

[106] Neh. xii. 31, 37, 38, 39.

[107] Neh. ii. 13.

[108] Jewish War, V. 4, § 1, 2, 3.

[109] Plate V.

[110] Note VIII.

[111] Jewish War, V. 4, § 3.

[112] Plate VI.

[113] Jewish War, VII. 1, § 1.

[114] Ibid. V. 3, § 5.

[115] Ant. XX. 8, § 11.

[116] Jewish War, VI. 6, § 2.

[117] Note IX.

[118] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2.

[119] +Dia de tou Bêthsô kaloumenou chôriou katateinon epi tên Essênôn

pylên.+

[120] Isaiah xxii. 1, 11.

[121] Jewish War, VI. 7, § 2; 8, § 1.

[122] Ibid. V. 4, § 2.

[123] Jewish War, V. 5, § 8.

[124] Ibid. V. 3, § 2.

[125] Ibid. V. 11, § 4.

[126] S. John xix. 41.

[127] "Duos colles, in immensum editos, claudebant muri per artem

obliqui, aut introrsus sinuati ut latera oppugnantium ad ictus

patescerent."--Hist. V. 11; Note X.

[128] Plate XXX.

[129] Plate XXX.

[130] Plate XXX.

[131] +Anêei mechri tês Antônias.+

[132] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2.

[133] Plate V.

[134] Jewish War, V. 4, § 3.

[135] Ibid. V. 3, § 3; 4, § 3.

[136] Plate VII.

[137] Jewish War, V. 4, § 3.

[138] Ibid. V. 2, § 2.

[139] Ibid.

[140] Ant. XX. 4, § 3.

[141] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2.

[142] Jerome, Ep. CVIII. Ed. Migue, (_Ad Eustochium virginem_).

[143] Plate LVII.

[144] Plates VIII., IX.

[145] +spêlaion+ (cavern), +mnêmeion+ (sepulchre).

[146] Jewish War, V. 4, § 2.

[147] 2 Kings xxiii. 6.

[148] Jer. xxvi. 23.

[149] Jewish War, V. 4, § 3.

[150] Whiston reads 'forty' instead of fourteen; the latter is the

number in the Greek text.

[151] Note II.

[152] Jewish War, V. 12, § 2.

[153] Ibid. V. 7, § 3.

[154] Columbarium means not only a dovecote, but also a sepulchre, with

niches for urns.

[155] Plate LIV.

[156] Jewish War, V. 13, § 7; VI. 9, § 3.

[157] c. Apion. I. 22.

[158] See the Chronological Table.

[159] Jewish War, V. 1, § 6; 6, § 1.

[160] Ibid. V. 4, § 1.

[161] Jewish War, V. 2, § 1.

[162] Ibid. V. 3, § 2.

[163] Ibid. V. 3, § 5.

[164] Jewish War, V. 3, § 2.

[165] Nehem. xii. 28, 29.

[166] Jewish War, VII. 1, § 1.

[167] Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. IV. 6.

[168] Jerome, 'Interpretatio Chronicæ Eusebii Pamphili' (Hadr. An. XX.).

[169] Note XI.

[170] Note XII.