Palestine

by C. R. Conder

I had occasion very often to test work done some time before by my surveyors: it always stood the test; and when we were informed from home that a “village had been left out,” I was not alarmed, for I had checked the map by the Turkish Government list of villages under taxation, and we found to our amusement, when the actual prismatic compass came into our hands, with which our critic took angles at the so-called village (which was a ruin actually shown on the map), that the instrument had no needle, which explained why no three angles of those given to us could be made to intersect in a single point. The survey of Jordan and the position of points east of Jordan were subjected to severe tests by an independent authority, with the result that our work was pronounced to be the only accurate representation of the ground. I always felt sure that my companions recognised their responsibility to the public, and that the work was done in earnest by men who took pride in its being good. Such criticisms were therefore welcome, as opportunities of demonstrating that, as far as in us lay, our work was thorough and conscientious. I have often been amused at the “mares’ nests” which have arisen from misunderstanding the accounts of other travellers, and then attempting to apply to the map. Those who quote these earlier maps must remember that we had them before us, and that if we omitted names thereon shown, we did so after due inquiry, either because they are wrong, or because they are at least doubtful.

Turning to antiquarian questions, some disappointment has been expressed that we found nothing very sensational, to compare with the Moabite Stone for instance, or with the cuneiform tablets. It is true that we did not bring home the ark, or the calves of Dan, or Ahab’s ivory house, or Joseph’s mummy, but I doubt if this detracts from the scientific value of our work. I was offered Samson’s coffin, and a contemporary account of the Crucifixion. I was often presented with ancient MSS. and early pottery, but no record will be found of these wonders in the work of the Survey. The dolmens of Moab, the true copy of the Siloam inscription, the shekels sent home by Mr. Drake, the plan of the Hebron Haram, are the most ancient antiquarian results we have been able to place before the public. We have not offered Shapira Pentateuchs, or seals of David in square Hebrew, but the drier records of decipherment and measurement.

As regards epigraphy, it is true that our Memoirs contain only one Hebrew text of great antiquity, with three Hebrew tomb-inscriptions; but these form a very substantial addition to previous materials. The number of Greek texts scattered over the whole country and previously uncopied is large, including the interesting text from the door of a ruined basilica, reading, “This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter in;” and, as mentioned previously, the twelfth-century frescoes in the Jordan Valley, which are reproduced in their colours, have since been completely destroyed.

Since the finding of the Moabite Stone no discovery has been as important as that of the Siloam inscription. The exact forms of the letters, and the question whether these forms were exactly repeated, were points of the greatest interest. The first copies were most misleading in these respects, and the difficulty of copying was very great; the earliest correct representation published in Europe was taken from our squeezes; and it may be compared with the cast which was made for us, and which is now in England. The text opened out a new chapter in the history of the alphabet, and gave the first monumental evidence of the civilisation of the Hebrews in the days of their kings.

As regards antiquarian questions which depend on accurate survey and levelling, the most important are those which concern Jerusalem. It is disappointing to find that the cogency of such evidence is not always understood, especially by scholars who have not travelled or studied survey. Quite recently allusion has been made by one writer to “imaginary contours” as the work of Palestine explorers; as though there existed some kind of contours which were not imaginary. I have never been in a country where actual contours could be found, but the accuracy of contours depends on the accuracy and number of the levelled points which they represent. For general purposes, sections of ground may be recommended as better understood by laymen. In the present instance, the accuracy of the levelling by which the lie of the rock in Jerusalem is determined is happily beyond dispute; and the observations of the rock surface exposed in tanks, wells, and excavations are fortunately most numerous in just the places where they are most wanted. From these results there is no escape for those who wish to found their theories on facts.

It is curious, however, to note that not even a scaled survey will appeal in all cases to the antiquary. Plans of Jerusalem have been put forward which reduce the size of the city to that of a gentleman’s garden—not exceeding five acres for the older town, and fifteen acres in all. This is gravely propounded in face of the surveys of Tyre, Cæsarea, and other cities, which, though placed on restricted sites, have an area of 100 to 200 acres each. Jerusalem, in Hebrew times, really occupied some 200 acres, with a population of more than 10,000 souls, even in Nehemiah’s time. A modern village of 500 souls in Palestine is larger than the “Pre-Exilic” Jerusalem of writers who put no scale to their plans. It is not, I fear, unnecessary to point out the importance of mastering the results of scientific survey, especially in the case of scholars who have not been in Palestine. No amount of literary ingenuity can destroy the actual results of measurement and excavation, and as these become more familiar the theories which ignore them must become obsolete.

After surveying and planning a very large number of ruins, it became possible to form some opinion as to comparative dates, and, from instances where history or inscriptions furnished a clue, to obtain starting-points of comparison in other cases. In this work I found most assistance from the writings of De Vogüé and Rey, and from Fergusson’s “Handbook of Architecture.” Many fallacies thus came to be exposed, and the discovery of pointed arches often transferred a building from the Phœnicians to the Crusaders. The number of really ancient remains naturally proved to be small, for we must remember that the antiquary in Palestine ends nearly where he begins in England. A Saxon church is a very great rarity at home. In Palestine, where we go back some three thousand years earlier, many important ruins are six or seven centuries older than our Saxon chapels (such as that of Bradford). In England we point with pride to Norman Winchester. In Palestine we regard the Crusading Cathedral of the Holy Sepulchre as quite modern. The Dome of the Rock was the model of our Temple chapels, and so old was it when the Temple Order was instituted, that it was confounded by the Knights with Herod’s Temple, still seven centuries older. Yet even Herod’s work does not content us in the East, where we look to find the walls built by Solomon. Some antiquaries have failed to remember the many great builders—Hadrian, Constantine, Justinian, the Khalifs, the Crusaders, the later Moslems—who followed Herod and Solomon. Palestine has an ancient history of eight centuries between the date of the Crucifixion and the time when England became a state. This is a truism, yet it is one which is not unfrequently forgotten.

Among the most important results was the classification of various kinds of rock-sepulchre in Palestine. To convince us that an ancient site has really been discovered, it is not enough to find a ruin with the required name. When neither inscription nor architecture gives a date, and when no measured distances along Roman roads point to the spot, we must often rely on the evidence of rock-cut tombs. It is not enough to find even these, unless they are really Hebrew tombs. It was our practice not only to record their existence, but to measure and describe them. They fall thus into categories—Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Early Christian, and Crusading—all rock-cut, but all presenting differences. Some were inscribed, and served to date the class to which they belonged. In some cases tombs of the earlier class had been enlarged later, the inner chambers presenting different arrangements to the outer or older. In some cases Jewish tombs were half destroyed by more recent excavators of caves, which were thus proved not to be as old as formerly thought. It was finally clear that tombs with kokim, that is, with tunnels in the walls of the chamber running in lengthways, so that the corpse was placed with its feet towards the chamber, were the oldest; and that this style of sepulture was Hebrew and preceded the Greek age. In Phœnicia similar tombs occur; but the tombs at the bottom of a deep shaft, as in Egypt, which occur at Tyre, are unknown in Palestine, where the entrance is in the face of a rock.

When kokim tombs occur at a ruined site, they may now be considered good evidence of the antiquity of the place. They are found at most of the sites which have been otherwise proved to be Hebrew towns, but their antiquity is demonstrated by independent means.

There are in Palestine eight great periods of building, beginning with the rude stone or pre-historic age, and including Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusading, and Saracenic.