Jerusalem Explored Part 3

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 a.s.syrians 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 ma.s.sive 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, pa.s.ses 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 Mana.s.seh[95].

Directed by the hints given in the Bible, I examined it as I had Sion.

The answers given to me by the _fellahin_, the evidence on the spot, and my excavations, brought to light some traces of a wall of circ.u.mvallation on the east side of the Tyropoeon, and at the south end of Ophel. The great acc.u.mulation 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 pa.s.sed. 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 Mana.s.seh 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 pa.s.s 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 Archaeology. 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 ill.u.s.trious Reland has not chosen to make any positive a.s.sertions 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-Sherif_: 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 t.i.tus: 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 acc.u.mulated ruins of centuries; have made deep excavations to trace the course of the ancient walls, underground pa.s.sages 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 Caesar, whose writings I studied in order to understand thoroughly the Roman art of war and the siege operations of t.i.tus 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 archaeology 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 pa.s.sing 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-Sherif_.

In order to identify the towers of Hippicus, Phasaelus, 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 mediaeval; 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, Phasaelus 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 t.i.tus 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 a.s.signed to Hippicus agrees very well with the historian's statements on other points, especially on the second position, occupied by t.i.tus 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 pa.s.sages 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 t.i.tus, 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 pa.s.sages; but it is unnecessary to quote them, as the present state of the ground a.s.sists 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-Sherif_, 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 t.i.tus 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 encompa.s.sed 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 t.i.tus 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 acc.u.mulation 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 ma.s.s 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 a.s.sailants 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 quant.i.ty 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 acc.u.mulated 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sertion that the second wall "only encompa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sed by the royal caverns (+spelaion+), 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, pa.s.sed by the Damascus gate, and ended at the north-east corner of the _Haram-es-Sherif_. 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 ma.s.sive 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 a.s.sign 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 a.s.signed 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 Tans (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 a.s.signed 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 pa.s.sed 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 t.i.tus' 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 Barrere, 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, pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.s 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 a.s.sign the position of these two. I place the tower inside the present wall at its north-east corner, where ma.s.sive 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 pa.s.sages 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 x.x.xvi. 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 pa.s.sing the monument the wall joined the old wall, which now forms the north-east corner of the _Haram-es-Sherif_.

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 s.p.a.ces 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 compa.s.s 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 s.p.a.ce 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 compa.s.s of the city (thirty-three stadia), is far too large for even the s.p.a.ce 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 a.s.sign 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 t.i.tus' wall of circ.u.mvallation[152]. "He began the wall from the _Camp of the a.s.syrians_, 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 encompa.s.sed 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 Ana.n.u.s_ the high priest; and encompa.s.sing 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 encompa.s.sed _Herod's Monument_, and there on the east was joined to t.i.tus' 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 circ.u.mferences put together amounted to ten stadia."

Of the places mentioned in the above description, the camp of the a.s.syrians is at the north-west corner of the present line of walls, two stadia distant from which were the head-quarters of t.i.tus[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 circ.u.mvallation. 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 Ana.n.u.s 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 ma.s.s 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 Hecataeus 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 t.i.tus 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 t.i.tus' 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 t.i.tus 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 a.s.sert 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 s.p.a.ce; 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 a.s.sertion 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 t.i.tus 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 _aelia_, after his name aelius. 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.