READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER XVI

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM

I

NATURE OF THE SITE

PERHAPS the most impressive elements in the history of the first half of the last millennium BC are to be found neither in the records of the empires of Assyria and Babylonia, nor in the story of the brief revival of Egypt under the Saites. Rather do they appear in the petty kingdoms which lay between these ancient powers; especially in the Israelite monarchies, by reason of their subsequent importance for the history of thought. Above all, the city of Jerusalem has gained a uniqueness so un­challenged, that a chapter may very appropriately be devoted to its topography, before we pass on to the history of the land to which it belonged.

The great importance of Jerusalem for the history of the world owes nothing to the situation of the city. It stands on the summit of the mountainous backbone of Western Palestine—on the lofty ridge which serves as a watershed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan Valley. It is about 37 miles E.S.E. from Jaffa (Joppa), the nearest port on the Mediterranean Sea, and about 14 miles from the northern end of the Dead Sea. It is elevated about 2500 feet above the level of the former, and 3800 feet above that of the latter; but although thus situated on a mountain-top its prospect is shut in on all sides except to the south-east by a ring of slightly higher elevations. In the direction named, the great mountainous rampart of the plateau of Moab, some 25 or 30 miles away, forms a background to the view.

Unlike Babylon and the successive capitals of Egypt, Jerusalem stands on no great water-way. Unlike Tyre, Sidon, and Carthage, it is not on the sea; indeed, unlike Athens or Rome, it is not even easily accessible from the sea, as the roads thence wind through rugged mountain-passes. Unlike Damascus, it is not a convergence-centre for caravan trade-routes. There is, indeed, but one important road passing through it—that leading from Beersheba through Hebron to Nablus (Shechem) and Galilee: and this road is of purely local significance, not a section of a highway uniting the marts of different countries. Jerusalem thus could never have been by nature a great commercial exchange, and such it never has been; except, perhaps, for a short time during the Latin kingdom, when merchants from the East and the West met in its narrow markets.

The immediate neighbourhood, moreover, is not economically attractive. The steep hill-sides are arid, and, compared with other parts of the country, of inferior fertility; there is a serious lack of water; and the deep valleys surrounding the site make cross­country journeys laborious.

In the face of such disadvantages it is reasonable to ask why a city should have been built here at all, and how it could have attained to the importance which it actually possesses. The answer to these questions will be found, partly in the nature of the sites usually chosen for cities in ancient Palestine, and partly in the unique history of the city itself.

In ancient Palestine the chief desiderata in a city site were water and defence. Cities began as a rule in small settlements, which might be as early as the Neolithic period, their inhabitants dwelling in huts, tents, or caves, as near to a natural source of water as possible. In Palestine such sources are limited, both in number and in size; very few of them would escape the eager search of early shepherds and tillers of the soil, in quest of a dwelling-place. Given a spring of water, settlers would not be deterred by the uneconomic nature of the environs from taking up their abode beside it. Probably if diggings could be made around the Virgin’s Fountain, in the 40 feet thick bed of silt at the bottom of the Kidron, there would be found remains of a Neolithic settlement that formed the very earliest Jerusalem.

As civilization advanced, and as these simple communities gained in wealth, defence from envious neighbours became more and more a pressing necessity. Such defence could not be secured at the spring, for its site was usually on low ground, easily com­manded from a higher level by enemies. There was no alternative to leaving the immediate vicinity of the spring, and retiring to a neighbouring hill-top fortified with walls. These walls the defenders were obliged ever to make stronger and stronger, as methods of attack gained in precision and effectiveness. The old water-source could still be used in time of peace: but when the city was besieged, it was inaccessible, and the inhabitants were therefore obliged to provide themselves with cisterns for water­storage, hewn out of the underlying rock at an enormous cost of labour. Not till the Pax Romana healed, at least superficially, internecine feuds, and kept at bay all other foreign aggressors, did the inhabitants find it possible to desert their inconvenient hill-top fortresses and once more settle on the low lands near to the springs.

The following is a brief statement of the main historical facts that have given Jerusalem its importance. In the first place, whatever its earlier history may have been, it was, according to the Old Testament, the only city of a small inland tribe (the Jebusites), and these were therefore obliged to make the best of it that they could; in this they were greatly helped by its naturally strong situation. Next, its central position made it a suitable seat for the government of the two branches of the Israelites, during the short time when they were united under one king. Third, whatever its earlier religious importance, the erection, by Solomon, of the Royal Palace, and, especially, of the Temple, gave it a prestige distinguishing it above all other cities in the land. This prestige was much enhanced when the Deuteronomic legislation made the other sanctuaries in the country illegal. Further, the teaching of the later prophets, especially of Ezekiel, gave it a semi-mystical religious importance for the Jewish people. Fifth, the most important of the events recorded in the Gospels occurred in and around Jerusalem; this gave it a unique place among the Holy Places of Christendom. And finally, in the seventh century of our era the Judaeo-Christian sanctity of the city was borrowed, with so much else from the same sources, by Islam. Thus Jerusalem has become a place of conspicuous holiness to three of the chief religions of the world. It is this fact which gives it its importance in history and topography.

II

THE VALLEYS

Every detailed study of the topography of the city must begin with the valleys, which have had an all-important influence in determining its plan and emplacement. There are three which are especially conspicuous.

The first, which is also the largest and most conspicuous, begins as a broad and comparatively shallow depression at some distance to the north of the city. This depression runs at first from west to east: and here it bears, in modern times, the name Wadi el-Joz (Valley of Nuts). It then turns abruptly through a right angle, tending southwards, and rapidly becoming deeper. From the angle onwards it is known as Wadi Sittna Maryam (Valley of our Lady Mary, a name derived from the church built over the traditional tomb of the B.V.M. about the middle of its course) or Wadi Silwan (Valley of Siloam, from the important village of that name on its eastern slope). At length it reaches the great well called Bir Eyyub (Job’s Well) and there leaves the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem. From this point onwards it undergoes some minor changes of name, and finally becomes Wadi en-Nar (Valley of Fire), which runs on, with ever-increasing ruggedness and grandeur, till at length it loses itself in the Dead Sea.

That this valley is to be identified with the nahal or watercourse of Kidron all authorities, ancient and modern, are agreed. It is the only valley that will suit such biblical references as 2 Sam. XV, 23. Josephus describes it as dividing the Mount of Olives, which lies on the east side, from the city. True, it is no longer a watercourse, except after heavy rains: this loss of its former character is due to the great accumulation of debris in its bottom, and to the diversion of the waters in the Virgin’s Fountain, described below. But it is needless to repeat here the long list of literary and other arguments establishing an identifica­tion about which there is no room for doubt.

The second valley begins some distance south of Wadi el-Joz, and trends tortuously, though on the whole uniformly, towards the south-east, where it joins the first valley at a short distance north of Bir Eyyub. This valley bears no specific name in modern times, doubtless because it has lost its ancient importance. It is almost completely filled with an accumulation of debris. The comparatively slight depression running through and to the south of the modern city, which is the existing representative of this once deep gorge, is simply called el-Wadi (the Valley) whenever it may be necessary to refer to it. This valley is not certainly referred to in the biblical texts. It is, however, indubitably men­tioned by Josephus  as a rift dividing the Upper City from the Lower, and as extending to the Pool of Siloam. He describes it as ‘the so-called “Valley of Cheesemongers”; and from this passage the name of which modern topographers usually make use (Tyropoeon) is adapted.

The head of the third valley is about as far from that of the second as the latter is from the beginning of the first. Its upper­most reach runs eastward, and then bears the name Wadi el-Maisa. It then turns abruptly southward, and becomes Wadi el-Annabeh. Finally it turns eastward again, and runs as a rapidly deepening narrow gorge, called Wadi er-Rababi (Fiddle-valley) into the Kidron, which it joins a little south of the confluence of the latter with the Tyropoeon.

The identification of this valley with the rift variously called Valley of Hinnom, or Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, in the O.T., is now generally accepted. It was the boundary between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; it ran under the cliff on which was built the city of the Jebusites; and it came out at a spring known as En-Rogel, which is now identified with Bir Eyyub. This valley satisfactorily fulfils all these requirements.

In what follows we shall use these more generally familiar ancient names, Kidron, Tyropoeon, Hinnom, in preference to the modern Arabic names, except when one or other of the separately-named sections may have to be referred to.

III

THE PLATEAU AND ITS WATER-SUPPLY

Kidron and Hinnom enclose a more or less triangular plateau, of which only the northern side is not abruptly cut off from the surrounding country. The Tyropoeon divides the plateau into two unequal parts, which we may for present convenience call the Western Ridge and the Eastern Ridge respectively. The general level of the plateau falls downward toward the south and east, and, as a natural consequence of this, the Western Ridge is by far the loftier and the broader of the two.

These ridges are not continuous throughout their length. Minor valleys, running into the Tyropoeon or the Kidron, divide them into sections, although this fact is obscured by the enormous accumulation of debris which has so notably altered the aspect of the site. The most noteworthy of these is a rift cutting into the eastern side of the Western Ridge, and running through the middle of the modern city. The market street called Suweikat Allun, and its eastern continuations, are approximately in the line of this valley.

So far as is certainly known, the original water-supply of Jerusalem, before the elaborate installations of cisterns and aqueducts with which successive generations of citizens have met their needs, consisted of two sources only. The most important of these is the remarkable intermittent spring which rises at irregular intervals, depending on the season, in a cave at the bottom of the western slope of the Kidron valley. This spring is known in modern times as Ain Umm ed-Daraj (the Staircase Well), on account of the flight of steps, partly rock-cut and partly masonry, which leads down to the bottom of the cave; Europeans, having contrived a legendary association of the spring with the B.V.M., have called it ‘the Virgin’s Fountain.’

The only other source of water-supply in the neighbourhood which has the appearance of being a natural spring is the deep well Bir Eyyub, already referred to, situated at the confluence of the three principal valleys. It is not improbable that this place, which is a receptacle for surface drainage, was always marshy, if not actually a pond, except in dry seasons, before the construction of the present deep masonry well. But the well is not truly a spring: the water is derived from the surface, and filters into the well shaft at various points in its circumference.

Two other sources, long ago dried up, were discovered on the summit of the Eastern Ridge in the excavations of 1924. The first was a rift in the rock, filled with silt, in which were embedded fragments of early Bronze Age waterpots. This indicated that water still rose here, in the earliest times of human occupation. The other was a small cave which showed evident traces of having once been the source of a stream of water, at the head of the ‘Zedek Valley’ presently to be noticed. This source was however dry at the beginning of the occupation period, as a very early (Bronze Age or Neolithic) interment was found within it. Probably it was wholly of the Tertiary period.

As there are thus only two natural sources of water-supply in the neighbourhood of modern Jerusalem, so only two are men­tioned in the biblical record—Gihon and En-Rogel. Both are mentioned in connection with the coronation of the claimants to the throne of David (1 Kings I, 9, 33). En-Rogel is fixed by passages quoted above from Joshua as being in or at the end of the Valley of Hinnom: this favours its identification with Bir-Eyyub, from which it follows that Gihon is to be equated with the Virgin’s Fountain. The latter is specifically said to be ‘in the nahal’ (‘brook’ = the Kidron), east of Manasseh’s wall in 2 Chron. XXXIII, 14, which suits the position of the Virgin’s Fountain exactly. True, Clermont-Ganneau discovered the name Zahweleh attached to a rock-surface in the Village of Sil wan, close by the Virgin’s Fountain. This name could represent the Hebrew Zoheleth, the name of a stone beside En-Rogel (1 Kings I, 9). But etymological equivalence of name does not necessarily imply identity. The steep slippery rock could not have been used as an altar of sacrifice, which was the use to which Adonijah put the stone Zoheleth: the similarity of name can hardly be anything but an accident, and therefore does not affect the identification of the neighbouring spring.

Thus, the only known natural sources of water-supply are situated in the immediate neighbourhood of the Eastern Ridge. In this respect the Western Ridge is completely sterile, and nothing is known to suggest that it ever was otherwise. If we must choose between the two ridges as the site of ancient Jerusalem, we naturally would incline at first sight to the traditional view, that it was on the much loftier and broader Western Ridge, and not on the insignificant and strategically indefensible Eastern Ridge. The latter argument, from military considerations is, however, weaker than it appears to be: for we must not forget that when the site of Jerusalem was first 'inhabited, the Tyropoeon valley was as deep a rift as the Kidron valley is now, and that it cut the two ridges apart by a severance as abrupt as that between modern Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. This being so, we should have to postulate a considerable advance in the art of constructing ballistae, and similar engines, before the Western Ridge could seriously menace a city erected on the Eastern Ridge. Like most cities, Jerusalem must have risen from very small beginnings. The original Jerusalem cannot have been anything more imposing than a few rustic huts. The humble folk who dwelt therein, being as yet unprovided with the cisterns which now honeycomb the subsoil, must assuredly have established themselves within easy reach of the only place where water is available.

IV

THE ORIGINAL EMPLACEMENT OF THE CITY

It is only in comparatively recent years that the Eastern Ridge was proposed as the place where to seek ancient Jerusalem. Tradition, ecclesiastical and secular, favoured the Western Ridge, and it has been enshrined in the modern application of such ancient names as ‘Zion,’ ‘the Zion Gate,’ ‘David’s Tomb,’ etc. But the argument from proximity to water, together with the great strength of the position of the Eastern Ridge (within the limitations of ancient warfare), has gradually convinced all but a few, who still cling to the former identification; and it has been powerfully, one might almost venture to say overwhelmingly, reinforced by the most recent excavations. The impregnability of the pre-Israelite fortress is emphasized in the early references to the city. The Benjaminites were unable to capture it (Judges I, 21): and when David attacked it, the Jebusites taunted him with striving to enter a city which even blind and crippled folk could defend (2 Sam. V, 6). On the east, west, and south the steep crags of the Kidron and the Tyropoeon (in its pristine condition) served as natural ramparts. Only on the north side was the city vulnerable, and it is on that side that the chief artificial defences were concentrated. The earliest defence known on this side is a trench cut in the rock, 11 feet wide and 8 feet deep, running across the hill from the Kidron to the Tyropoeon. This trench was discovered in January, 1924, in the course of the excavations conducted under the present writer by the joint expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Daily Telegraph. To judge from the pottery contained in the earth, with which the trench was allowed to be filled after it had passed out of use, the cutting cannot be later than 2200 BC, and most probably is very much older. It is the development of an ancient valley tributary to the Tyropoeon, for which the name ‘Zedek Valley’ has been suggested. This valley is of great topographical importance, as it gives us at once a limit for the northern end of the city in its earliest days, and the reason for that limit. Some centuries later, but still early, the city crossed this barrier to a small extent, and was here defended by a wall.

From the time of the first settlement on the hill-top, the problem of water-supply must have been pressing. The Virgin’s Fountain was at the foot of the hill: but the descent thereto was toilsome, and the ascent, with heavy water-jars, still more so. Moreover, if the city should be besieged, the inhabitants would be altogether cut off from the spring, which would be freely at the disposal of the enemy. The dwellers in the city early turned their attention to finding a remedy for this unsatisfactory condition of affairs. Their solution of the problem shows no small resourcefulness, and a more than rudimentary engineering capacity. A tunnel was constructed which may be likened, very roughly, to the letter Z, except that the central member should be vertical and not oblique. The upper horizontal stroke represents a passage that starts from an opening inside the city: the lower, another passage running inwards from the end of the cave in which the water rises. The water-drawers made their way along the upper tunnel, lowered their buckets down the vertical shaft and so drew up water that flowed into the lower tunnel. We may suppose that the outer entrance of the spring was con­cealed temporarily or permanently, with masonry, thus preventing the access of enemies, who would find no other water in the neighbourhood (except, perhaps, at Bir Eyyub, some distance down the valley).

This ingenious contrivance, however, proved the city’s undoing. It probably never entered the heads of the engineers who quarried the tunnel, that they were actually opening a way into the heart of their city. When it was beleaguered, it never occurred to the defenders that an intrepid body of the enemy would climb up the shaft and enter the city. This, however, seems to be what actually happened at the time when David took the city. He promised the reward of military rank to the man who should go up the sinnor and smite the Jebusites (2 Sam. V, 8). The passage describing the event is extremely corrupt and much interpolated with glosses: and sinnor is a rare word of uncertain meaning. It seems to mean a water-passage of some kind; and the theory that this shaft is what is intended is the most probable of any that have been put forward. Possibly some traitor, such as are to be found in most oriental communities, revealed to David the secret of the Virgin’s Fountain and of the tunnel behind it. But it is not absolutely necessary to postulate such a person: the existence of the spring may have been well known. In a small country such as Palestine it is impossible to keep a secret, especially one concerned with such an important matter as the existence of water.

V

GROWTH OF THE CITY

The topographical development of the city, down to the time of its destruction by Titus, may be divided into a series of stages, corresponding to its historical development. We are not here concerned with the history of the city, and in consequence we say nothing about it, beyond what is essential to explain the topo­graphy. The development of the city after the time of Titus is an even more complex subject, but it falls outside the scope of this history.

Stage I. From the earliest times till David (c. 3000—1000 BC). The earliest inhabitants of the site of Jerusalem were doubtless humble shepherds whose huts (or tents) clustered round the Virgin’s Fountain, probably in the sheltered recesses of the Kidron Valley. So long as they remained poor, with nothing to plunder, they could live without the necessity of either natural or artificial defences: but as they began to hold enviable property, they found it necessary to look to their safety. They then estab­lished themselves in the strong fastness on the hill above the Virgin’s Fountain, where they had the advantage of precipitous valleys as defences on all sides but the north—where they cut the trench above referred to. This trench runs across the hill, approximately east and west, and is 480 feet south of the south-east angle of the present city walls.

At a time still early, about 1500 BC, the city area was slightly extended, crossing the trench in one place by about 20 feet. The trench had by now been filled up, and a wall of no great strength —as compared with the walls of other cities of the same period —was built around it. It was constructed in rude polygonal masonry and was about 3 ft. 8 in. in thickness. Later, probably about 1200 BC, a much more imposing wall was built, about 20 feet in thickness, with lofty towers, which still stand to a height of about 20 feet. This wall was discovered in the 1924 excavation.

The area thus enclosed was, in round numbers, 1250 feet long (north to south) and 400 feet across; these are the extreme figures. Small though this is, yet Jerusalem ranked among the largest of the cities of Palestine. The largest among those that have been excavated is Gezer, which was about 1600 feet in length: others are much smaller. Inside these narrow areas the houses were squeezed together into the smallest space possible, with narrow airless crooked streets between them. Sanitation was regarded as of less importance than economy of space, when it was necessary to house the entire community within the walls of a fortification.

Excavation has not been pursued sufficiently as yet to yield details of importance as to the internal topography of the pre-Davidic city. Nor have we any information on this subject from literary sources. Genesis XIV, 18 introduces us abruptly to a mysterious personage called Melchizedek, described as ‘king of Salem’ (presumably Jerusalem) and ‘priest of El-Elyon, and narrates a semi-sacramental interview which Abraham had with him. But no information as to topography is vouchsafed us, for we cannot attach much importance to a glossator’s identification of the ‘Vale of Shaweh,’ whatever or wherever that may have been, with ‘the King’s Vale,’ i.e. the Kidron Valley. Contemporary documents have reached us from the hand of Abdi-Khiba, king of Urusalim, that is Jerusalem, in the shape of an important group of tablets found in the Tell el-Amarna series; but these, though illuminating for the study of the political and social conditions of their time, are of no interest to the topographer. We learn much of the terrors that vexed the soul of the king, as he poured floods of real or feigned pathos into the deaf ears of his Egyptian suzerain: but he has no occasion to tell us anything about the size, situation, or contents of his city, and his one topographical allusion—to a place or building called Beth-Ninurta, in or near the city—is quite obscure. The Letters do however suggest that Jerusalem was already of not inconsiderable political importance.

As this chapter is being written (1924), the city of Abdi-Khiba is being excavated, by the joint expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Daily Telegraph at its northern end, and by Raymond Weill on behalf of Baron Edmond de Rothschild at the southern end. It is too early yet to give a detailed description of the results of these undertakings. Subsequent rebuildings have caused great destruction in the areas of the ancient city so far excavated. The more important city wall, already mentioned, is probably of some two hundred years later than Abdi-Khiba’s time. Inside the fortification no buildings of the pre-Israelite period (i.e. before, say, 1200 BC) have as yet been found, except foundations of poor houses of undressed stone set in mud, such as have been discovered at all other ancient sites of the same period in Palestine. At the north side, in a scarp subsequently used for the great fortification, there were some chambers, possibly rock-cut dwellings of a very early date.

Stage II. David (C. 1000—950 BC). Such was the nature of the city as it was captured by David. The account of David’s conquest (2 Sam. V, 4—9) gives no particulars other than the remarkable exploit of Joab in ascending the sinnor. But we learn from a passing reference in 1 Kings XI, 27 that, in addition, David made a breach in the walls, which remained unrepaired till the time of Solomon. This breach, there is every reason to believe, was discovered in the last excavation, and it was found that a barrier wall had been drawn across it. This was intended, probably, as a temporary closure: but it actually remained standing till Roman times, though by then it had lost its defensive function. This was clearly shown in the excavation. There can be no question that this city of the Jebusites is to be identified with what thenceforth was known as ‘The City of David,’ or, as Sir G. A. Smith renders the Hebrew name, ‘Davidsburgh.’ The evidence of the ancient pottery, etc., is unchallengeable.

The prepositions invariably used in relation to motion from or to the ‘City of David’ are suggestive. A person or thing (such as the Ark) is always said to ‘go in to the city: never to go up to it: whereas a person goes up out of the City of David to another site in the neighbourhood. This indicates that the City of David was not on the highest summit of the Jerusalem plateau, as it would have been if it had stood on the traditional site, on the Western Ridge.

The Palace or Stronghold of David, and the Royal Tombs that were in the City of David, have not yet been found in excavation. This is not written in forgetfulness of the remarkable series of tomb-chambers found by Weill at the south end of the city, which are claimed to have been royal sepulchres. It is impossible to say much about these, owing to the destruction which they have suffered by subsequent quarrying. That they were intramural is certainly an argument in favour of his claim; but the biblical references, as well as those scattered through Josephus, incline us rather to the belief that when found the Royal Tombs will prove to be a complex of chambers (like the so-called Tombs of the Prophets in the Mount of Olives) and not a series of individual chambers. In the meantime the topographical details of David’s city remain more or less matters of conjecture. We therefore pass on without further delay to the next stage.

Stage III. Solomon and the succeeding kings of Judah (900—700 BC). The great extension of the insignificant city of Jerusalem is due to Solomon, whose comparatively peaceful reign enabled him to carry out schemes of which his father could only dream. The erection of the Royal Palace, and of its appendage the Temple, marks an epoch of the first importance in the history of the city.

It is not unlikely that the Temple stands on the site of some primaeval sanctuary. The existence of such ‘holy ground’ is the most probable explanation for the confinement of the Jebusite city to the slope of the hill south of the Zedek Valley, and its avoidance of the actual summit. But all that we certainly know of the previous history of the site is the trivial fact that there was a threshing-floor in or near the precincts, which was purchased by David as a site for the projected Temple. A late passage calls the Temple Hill ‘Moriah,’ a name elsewhere found only in Gen. XXII, 2 in connection with the sacrifice of Isaac. The name is quite obscure, and it is by no means certain that the same place is intended, even assuming the authenticity of the reading in both places.

That Solomon’s Temple is on the site now occupied by the Muslim shrine called el-Haram esh-Sharif is unquestioned, although the modern sanctuary doubtless covers a greater area than the Solomonic structure. It may also be taken as most probably true that the Holy Rock, underneath the ornate Muslim dome called Kubbet es-Sakhra, is the natural summit of the hill and was the site of the Temple building itself. This rock may well have served as a natural altar from primaeval times. There have been other theories propounded as to the site of the Temple from time to time, but these have mostly failed to command adherence from any but their authors. This being con­ceded, we may further take it as probable that Solomon’s house stood south of the Temple, somewhere about the emplacement of the mosque called el-Masjid el-Akra.

Unlike many of the palaces and temples of Assyria and Babylonia, or the more modest great buildings of some other Palestinian ancient towns, remains of the palace and temple of Solomon have never been laid bare by excavation: their foundations have never been traced, no fragments of their building material or adornments been recovered. We must, so far as we may, reconstruct all these in our imagination by help of the literary records alone, in the light of careful modern examinations of the site.

The whole mass of Solomon’s buildings was enclosed within a wall and separated, as is the considerably larger Haram area today, from the old city lying farther down on the same hill, and also from the new city which grew up on the western hill across the Tyropoeon. Solomon’s buildings thus formed a city or citadel within the city. Farthest to the north, and highest up, stood the temple, which was, so far as its main part was concerned, a rectangle having within a breadth that was a third and a height that was half of its length (60 x 20 x 30 cubits). The external measurements have been estimated at about 124 feet in length, 55 in breadth, and 52 in height, apart from the porch at the eastern end and the side chambers that flanked the other three sides. Thus, compared with other great religious buildings of ancient or more modern times, it was relatively small, its length, for example, being about half that of the Parthenon and a quarter or even less than a quarter of that of a large English or French cathedral; in area it was far smaller than the Kubbet es-Sakhra, and scarcely more than half as high. Lower than the temple, and to the south of it, and separated by a wall, came another court in which stood the palace: in the wider uses of the terms the Temple-building and the inner court within which it stood was the House of Yahweh, the Palace and its court the House of the King; immediate access from the one house to the other was given by a gateway in the wall between them. Closely connected with the king’s house was the special house built for Solomon’s principal wife, the daughter of Pharaoh. Three other principal buildings within the walled area to the north of the City of David are attributed to Solomon: these are, to mention them probably from north to south, and from the higher to the lower situations on which they severally stood: the Hall of Justice, of unknown dimensions, the Hall of Pillars, a building somewhat shorter than the temple but in area exceeding the main part of that building (50 x 30 cubits), and the ‘House of the Forest of Lebanon,’ a building of the same height as the temple, but rather more than four times its area (100 x 50 cubits). Probably from the first to some extent, and certainly later, the enclosed area included in addition to these buildings others such as houses or chambers for temple and palace officials.

Thus, at any time between Solomon and the Exile the eastern hill of Jerusalem must have presented a very different aspect from its present, in spite of the striking common features: the great walled court containing the Palace and Temple, though smaller and extending less far to the north, broadly resembled the present walled Haram; but in ancient times this area was more thickly covered with buildings, though no single building had so dominating an elevation as Kubbet es-Sakhra. Below the Haram at present is an open hillside, but this was then thickly covered with the congested buildings of the old city, enclosed within walls of which nothing now remains above ground, though considerable sections have been discovered underground.

To Solomon tradition ascribes, and no doubt correctly, the more striking features of ancient Jerusalem. There remains briefly to consider the artistic influences under which Solomon carried out his transformation of the simpler earlier city. He needed to look abroad for models, for there can have been but little native artistic tradition to guide him. As a matter of fact, elements both of Babylonian and Egyptian art have been suspected in his buildings and their arrangements and adornments. A reason for direct Egyptian influences might be reasonably found in his connection by marriage with the Egyptian court; but direct Babylonian influence would be more difficult to explain. Both influences, however, are to be traced indirectly through Phoenicia, whose art is essentially mixed, borrowed in part from Mesopotamia, in part from the Nile. Of the activity of Phoenician workmen Israelite tradition speaks clearly and emphatically. From Lebanon through Phoenicia came the cedar that afforded material for the forty-five pillars of the ‘House of the Forest of Lebanon.’ Such wooden columnar construction is perhaps a Phoenician modification of Egyptian stone columns.

In plan, also, the Temple of Solomon seems to be Phoenician. Its division into two chambers reappears in the later temple at Hierapolis, and it is here also that we find an analogy for the two pillars flanking the entrance and the outer court enclosed by a wall. These details appear to be Phoenician rather than Babylonian. On the other hand, Babylonia and Egypt both afford analogies for the extensive use of cedar for the walls and ceilings or architraves of the interior. The ‘bronze sea,’ supported by twelve oxen, has been suspected of reproducing Babylonian symbolism, but it may have had more immediate exemplars in Phoenicia. The altar in front of the entrance of the Temple is also Babylonian, but whereas in Babylonia brick was by far the more convenient material, stone was more suitable to Palestine. The cherubim and palms so largely used in the symbolic decoration seem to have been also Babylonian in origin.

Much more could be said on these lines, but there can be no finality in speculations, that can never be verified, about the nature of a building known to us by vague descriptions only. That these descriptions themselves can be variously interpreted is evident from the variety in the restorations that have been traced upon them.

Probably it was in Solomon’s time that the Western Ridge began to be occupied. If we may trust 1 Chron. VIII, 11, it was considered improper that his heathen wives should dwell in close proximity to the House of Yahweh; and for their accommodation the Western Ridge would present a convenient situation. David built or repaired the wall of the City of David (2 Sam. V, 9): but Solomon built the wall of Jerusalem round about—a much greater work. Even apart from Solomon’s domestic arrangements, the increase of wealth and population would inevitably require an extension of the area of the city. Of this population no exact estimate can be made. The total population of Judah can never have exceeded by much a quarter of a million: perhaps a quarter of this number found their homes in the capital. If anything, however, this is probably an overestimate.

The Solomonic boundary still excluded the Tyropoeon valley. The north wall seems to have run along the side of the east-west tributary of the Tyropoeon (under the Suweikat Allun), already mentioned, and to have followed the eastern flank of Wadi el-Annabeh, arriving at a great scarp known from its discoverer as Maudslay’s Scarp. It then followed the south end of the Western Hill, ran up the western side of the Tyropoeon, and presumably joined the old wall of the City of David at some place where a crossing of the Tyropoeon was practicable.

We possess no such exhaustive survey of the Wall of Solomon as is preserved for us of the Wall of Nehemiah, in whose book the various topographical details are enumerated in the order in which a traveller meets them. The details regarding the various gates in the wall have to be pieced together from passing and often fragmentary allusions in the books of Kings and Chronicles. An exhaustive study of the subject would here take up too much room: we must content ourselves with a brief enumeration. On the north side were apparently (1) the Benjamin Gate, an entrance to the Temple Area, also called the Upper Gate, definitely stated to ‘lie toward the north’ in Ezek. IX, 2, and to be at the opposite end of a stretch of wall from the Corner Gate in Zech, XIV, 10; (2) the Ephraim Gate (2 Kings XIV, 13), the name of which suggests a northern aspect, and (3) the Corner Gate, which from the passage just quoted we learn to have been 400 cubits from the Ephraim Gate. It is probably represented, as nearly as possible, by the modern Jaffa Gate. Uzziah rebuilt the wall from the Corner Gate to (4) the Valley Gate, all references to which indicate that it was south of the city, deriving its name from its opening into the Valley of Hinnom at some stage of its course. (5) the Horse Gate faced the east, opening into the Kidron, and was probably somewhere near the Palace.

Upon the breach in the wall of the City of David, above mentioned, and filling the gap, there was erected a tower. This had been greatly injured by the subsequent erection of a Byzantine House above its foundation, but enough was unearthed to identify it as an important fortress. This is tentatively identified with the mysterious structure Millo, occasionally mentioned in the history of the Kings. On one stone of the wall faint traces of a painted figure of Astarte were observed, suggestive of the idolatry that disgraced Solomon’s later days.

Stage IV. Hezekiah and Manasseh (seventh and eighth centuries bc). Uzziah repaired the city walls, which had been damaged by warfare with Israel, but did not add anything to the area of the city. Hezekiah was obliged to strengthen its defences considerably, in view of the Assyrian menace. His first care was not so much the provision of an adequate water-supply (for by now cisterns had begun to be hewn in the interior of the city) as the cutting off of the water from the Assyrian beleaguerers. The old pre-Israelite sinnor had by now gone out of use: probably Joab’s exploit had sufficiently demonstrated its dangerousness to the new lords of the city. A deep pit cut in the floor of the upper passage, close to the entrance, seems to have been excavated with the intention of making it dangerous to traverse. The Virgin’s Fountain was no longer an essential to the city’s life, as provision for water had been made in the shape of cisterns. Its waters had therefore been canalized and turned into irrigation-streams, watering the vegetable-gardens at the lower end of the Kidron. These channels, with the pool into which they ran, Hezekiah abolished: instead of them he set his engineers to cut an aqueduct through the spur of the Eastern Ridge, carrying the water to a new pool inside the wall. This aqueduct and pool are universally identified with the famous Tunnel and Pool of Siloam. In addition, or rather as a preliminary to this undertaking, he drew a line of fortification joining Solomon’s wall on the Western Ridge with the old wall on the Eastern Ridge, thus for the first time bringing the Tyropoeon valley within the city, and creating an area of the city technically called ‘Between the Walls’.

Manasseh, during his long reign, increased the city northward. He built a wall that included the Fish Gate of which we now hear for the first time, and which must have been on the north side of the city. This indicates Manasseh as the builder of the much discussed Second Wall, the question of the course of which is (unfortunately for unemotional science) bound up inextricably with the authenticity of the traditions that have fixed the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Stage V. Nehemiah (538 bc and subsequent years). The city had been destroyed by the Babylonians; Babylon in its turn was conquered by the Persians. Cyrus, in his first year, permitted the return of certain of the Jewish exiles in Babylon, and authorized the rebuilding of the Temple, which work was carried out on the same site as the temple of Solomon, but on a smaller scale. This may be offered as an intentionally brief statement of the much controverted history of the return of the Judaean captives. Later, Nehemiah superintended the rebuilding of the wall, which on his first reconnaissance he found so much broken down that his ass could not pick its way among the débris. We have a very full account, in the valuable book which bears the name of Nehemiah, of this undertaking, with an enumeration of the towers, gates and other topographical features in their proper consecutive order. As before, it is impossible to present here a detailed study of the identification of the sites of these gates, etc., but some indication of their position, with reference to the crucial passages, can be given.

These were (1) the Sheep Gate, which may be inferred to have been a gate into the Temple Precincts, and therefore probably to be identified with the Benjamin Gate of Solomon; (2) the Tower of the Hundred, west of the Sheep Gate, probably coinciding with the later Antonia Tower, on the great rock scarp that now dominates the Haram area; (3) the Hananel Tower, which was somewhere between (2) and (4) the Fish Gate, which we have already seen in the Wall of Manasseh. There are stones of an ancient gateway-arch on the basement of the present Damascus Gate, which are reasonably identified with this entrance; (5) the Old Gate, the name of which indicates a superior antiquity. Here therefore the new North Wall joined the old North Wall of Solomon: the Old Gate may therefore be identified with Solomon’s Corner Gate, and situated at or near the present Jaffa Gate; (6) the Broad Wall which follows would represent the stretch of wall flanking the eastern side of Wadi el-Annabeh, coming to (7) the Tower of the Furnaces; this probably stood on Maudslay’s Scarp, which was obviously cut to support an important fortification tower; (8) the Valley Gate which follows, and which was a feature of the wall from the days of Solomon, may reasonably be identified with a gate discovered in the excavations of Bliss, opening into Wadi er-Rababi a short distance east of Maudslay’s Scarp. This situation will suit all the references where the gate is called ‘the Potsherd Gate’.

The next gate, (9) the Dung Gate, was 1000 cubits along the wall from the Valley Gate. A second gate was found by Bliss, farther east along this wall and at about the distance indicated, allowing for the fact that it is merely stated in round numbers. The name has in modern times been transferred to Bab el-Mugharbeh in the existing wall, appropriately if unscientifically. (10) the Fountain Gate, which lay between the Dung Gate and the Pool of Siloam, was also found by Bliss in the situation indicated. (11) the Pool of Siloam and the neighbouring (12) King’s Garden need no comment. The King’s Winepresses and the Hananel Tower are named as extreme points on the map of Jerusalem. (13) The Stairs of the City of David are identified with certain rock-cut steps leading upward from the pool: but until excavation on the Eastern Ridge shall have been completed, it would be premature to seek to identify more exactly the various points which are placed there in the survey of Nehemiah.

Stage VI. Herod (first century BC—first century AD ). The area of the city continued the same as that fixed by Nehemiah. Some remains, first observed by Robinson, are identified by many scholars with a great third wall, built to the north of the city by Agrippa. Unfortunately Robinson has left us no pictorial record of them, and they have long since disappeared. Herod beautified the city with elaborate buildings, notably the third Temple; his own palace with its three great towers, two of which still remain in part; a theatre; a xystus or assembly place; and a hippodrome. The elaborate water-works are to be assigned to this evil but energetic ruler. These include the great reservoirs called ‘Solomon’s Pools’, between Bethlehem and Hebron, and the aqueducts that convey water thence; as well as, probably, the large reservoirs inside and around the city itself, although these also bear popular modern names referring them to times long antecedent to Herod.

This is not the place to enter into the endless and futile controversies that have raged round the identification of the Sacred Sites of the Gospels—Bethesda, the Coenaculum, Calvary, and the rest. In a word, these topographical problems are unsolved, and to all appearance are destined to remain insoluble.

Except Herod’s palace, which was retained for administrative purposes, the whole of Jerusalem was swept out of existence by the siege of Titus; and the city, as later rebuilt, had no continuity with its predecessors. This, therefore, is the point at which all study of the ancient topography of Jerusalem comes to an abrupt end.

CHAPTER XVII

ISRAEL AND THE NEIGHBOURING STATES