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 Tyropœon valley, was fortified, but we may infer it, as he[121] tells us that, when Titus had gained possession of the Temple and Ophel and all the north part of Jerusalem, he laid siege to the Upper City, which must have fallen at once, if there had not been a wall defending it on the east. We can hardly suppose that the Jews would have built it at the time, after seeing the fall of their strongest bulwarks, the tower Antonia and the Temple, nor would an obstacle hastily thrown up, and therefore weak, have arrested the victorious Romans.
The second wall is thus described: it "took its beginning from that gate which they called Gennath, which belonged to the first wall; it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city, and reached as far as the tower Antonia[122]." I have already mentioned the addition made to the city of David and its probable extent, in speaking of Jerusalem at the time of Solomon: consequently I now have only to give the reasons that have induced me to fix the position of the places, and see whether they agree with the narrative of the historian. There are but two points to give in the line of the wall, the gate Gennath, whose position we must determine, and the tower Antonia, which was situated at the north-west angle of the platform[123] of the Temple, and whose position we may consider to be nearly ascertained. I place the gate Gennath (i.e. of gardens) east of the tower Hippicus, in the northern part of the first wall, at the place where I stated that I had found an ancient Jewish semicircular arch. From its name we may infer that it opened on cultivated land, and Josephus[124] speaks of the gardens on the north and north-west of the city, which were destroyed by the troops of Titus in levelling the ground. If the Pool of Hezekiah be the same as the pool Amygdalon[125] (of almonds), we may infer that probably plantations of almonds were in this neighbourhood. We must also recollect that if the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea were on the north-west, there would be a garden here[126]. Now as all the gates of Jerusalem in former times were named from their position or destination, it is very probable that this was called the garden gate, because the road to the gardens went through it; and indeed on excavating by the side of the arch above named, I found the two piers, which have been preserved by the accumulation of the earth. The arch, visible for about five feet above ground, is formed of large stones, rusticated, although the work has been much injured by time. They are firmly fastened together inside with iron clamps without mortar, that which I saw being merely superficial, and introduced by the Arabs during repairs. The two piers are constructed of similar masonry, but here the rustic work is very conspicuous. I discovered that the gate was founded on the rock, was 18 feet high and 8-1/2 wide. It is buried by a mass of rubbish, that here, as elsewhere, has raised the true level of the soil. The position of the gate (looking west) is not incompatible with its having formed part of a line of defence from the tower Hippicus to the Xystus; because not only were angles admitted into the systems of fortifications of that time, but also, with regard to Jerusalem, we are told by Tacitus[127] that "Walls with re-entering angles and curves, to take the assailants in flank, enclosed two very high hills."
In the immediate neighbourhood of the tower Hippicus I was not able to find any ancient remains, and therefore suppose that the wall commenced at this gate. I sought for its ruins, along a line northwards from this point, but was at first unsuccessful; although I found a fragment of a building on the east side of the plot of land formerly occupied by the convent of S. Mary the Great[128], which may possibly belong to an early period; but I had afterwards three opportunities of learning that I was not mistaken, in expecting to find the required evidence somewhere in this part. (1) In January 1857, the weight of a quantity of fallen snow threw down a part of the wall of a Mohammedan Bazaar[129], called the Meat Bazaar, near the above-named convent. By order of the Governor I repaired it in 1858, and in digging down to the rock to lay the new foundations, at a depth of 10 feet below the surface, came upon large stones, boldly rusticated, and arranged in a manner that reminded me of the Phœnician work of the time of Solomon. This wall is nine feet thick, and consists of three courses of stone, the first, which lies on the rock, being 3-1/4 feet in height, the second 2, and the third 2-1/2; thus an extension both north and south from this spot was proved by this fragment. (2) In 1858 the Russian mission at Jerusalem, by my suggestion, obtained a piece of land near to the church[130] of the Resurrection on the east. In 1859 they cleared away the accumulated rubbish, and during the work a corner of a Jewish wall was discovered; the stones of which were rusticated to a depth of 4 or 5 lines, and carefully finished; these were the remains of a restoration of the time of the Herods on the ancient foundation of Solomon's wall. (3) In 1860 the dragoman of the French consul built a house, close to the west side of the present judgement-gate, and in digging down for the rock found, at a depth of 18 feet below the surface, a fragment of a wall, resembling in all respects that described above in the first case. From these three points I ascertained the course of the west side of the wall; it remained therefore to search for the northern face towards the Damascus gate; and an opportunity occurred before long, when the Greek Archimandrite Bisarion repaired and strengthened a house (now temporarily occupied by the Russian consulate). I dug some pits to examine its foundation, but no remains of antiquity were discovered, and the only result of my labours was to ascertain the true level of ancient Jerusalem at this spot. I made enquiries of all, who in former years had built in this neighbourhood, but could not hear that any Jewish ruins had ever been found, and therefore think that the wall must have turned sharp to the east at the judgement-gate (formerly the gate of Ephraim), and so, facing the north, gone on to the tower Antonia. The occurrence of very large stones, evidently of Jewish work, in the walls of the houses (especially in the lower parts) in this direction confirms this idea. These were found when the Effendi Kadduti repaired and partly rebuilt the house in the Via Dolorosa, at the Station of Veronica. A similar discovery was made by the Mufti, in strengthening his house, at the Station of Simon of Cyrene; and by the Effendi Soliman Giari, opposite to the Mufti's house on the north. The Armenian Catholic Monk requested me to examine and level a piece of land, at the Station of the first fall of Christ, which, as representative of his nation, he had just bought. In the lower part of the wall enclosing it on the north very large stones and an ancient gate were found.
In the foundations of the Austrian hospice, laid in 1857, to the north of the Armenian property, large stones were discovered, and also, farther to the east, in the new convent of the Daughters of Sion. From all these facts, I infer that the line of the second wall passed along this side. I may also remark that the Greek text of Josephus states that the wall "went up to the Antonia[131];" and we can still see, from the conformation of the ground in this direction, that, after crossing the Tyropœon valley, it would go up to the tower. The assertion that the second wall "only encompassed the northern quarter of the city," is true, because, at the time of Josephus, Hezekiah's wall must have been standing, and therefore considered to form part of the second line. I once supposed that the gate Gennath was near the tower Hippicus on the east, and that consequently the second wall went in a zigzag course until it joined the Antonia: but, as mentioned above, I did not find any traces of it very near the tower Hippicus, and I think that if the gate of Gennath had been close to this, the historian would have mentioned it. I have already said that I attribute this wall to Solomon, because it is mentioned in the Bible in connection with events after his time.
Josephus states that "the beginning of the third wall was at the tower Hippicus, where it reached as far as the north quarter of the city and the tower Psephinus, and then was so far extended till it came over against the monuments of Helena, which Helena was queen of Adiabene, the daughter of Izates; it then extended farther to a great length, and passed by the royal caverns (σπηλαιων), and bent again at the tower of the corner, at the monument which is called the Monument of the Fuller, and joined to the old wall at the valley called the Valley of the Kidron[132]." In laying down the course of this wall I differ from all those (in particular Barclay, Schultz and Robinson) who, up to the present time, have written on the topography of ancient Jerusalem. I am led to do this by the careful investigations, which, during a long time, I carried on in the district north of the city. It is my positive opinion that the ancient walls did not extend to the north beyond the present enclosure; that is, that they began at the Jaffa gate, passed by the Damascus gate, and ended at the north-east corner of the Haram-es-Sherîf. Let me now state the facts which have led me to this conclusion.
In 1860 the Greek convent repaired the building outside the Jaffa[133] gate, now used as a custom-house. Wishing to lay some foundations against the city wall, I came, on digging down, upon those of Agrippa's, which rest upon the rock; now we know that this wall near to Hippicus was defended by the steep slope of the side of the valley, and that where this ceased, towards the north-west corner, a ditch was cut in the rock. This may still be seen, and is a proof that I am right in supposing the present to be the wall that went from Hippicus to Psephinus.
At the north-west corner a massive ruin still exists inside the city, rising about twenty feet above the ground, and built of small stones joined with strong mortar; in the south-west corner however are found large stones, rusticated after the Herodian pattern. On digging about the shapeless pile, I discovered that courses of similar stones continued down to the rock. I also found two sides of masonry, and many large rusticated stones buried in the rubbish, and traces of a great cistern. Hence I consider this to be the site of the tower Psephinus, an octagon in form, and seventy cubits high[134]. Beyond these ruins, outside the present wall, is a ditch cut in the rock, unquestionably a work of the Herodian age, for no later conquerors would have had the time or desire to execute such a great and costly work. It is now concealed by rubbish, but it runs eastward parallel to the present wall, which therefore can scarcely have extended beyond it, in the course laid down by Barclay, Schultz, and many others.
The position I assign to Psephinus is the highest point in the city; therefore as the tower was seventy cubits high, we can understand that from its top the confines of Arabia and the sea (the Dead Sea) might be visible; indeed the latter may even now be seen from the terraces of the highest houses in the neighbourhood of the ruins. I call particular attention to this, because some have supposed that Josephus meant the Mediterranean; which cannot be seen even from the higher station of Mount Olivet. Besides he tells us that the tower was at the north-west corner of the wall[135]. The position assigned to Psephinus by Schultz, about 1800 feet from the corner, along the line, is not only a very bad one in a strategic point of view, being in a hollow and commanded by higher ground in front, but also would not have given a glimpse of the sea had the tower been double the height. Barclay's position is to the north-west and beyond the present wall, but nearer to mine and on higher ground, so that it satisfies the historian's conditions, but still is inadmissible, because it would be on a plateau without any defences, and would therefore have been easily taken by the Romans, instead of giving them some trouble.
I believe that Schultz fixed upon his position because a pool and some fragments of a wall, which he considered ancient, were found there. The reservoir is however too small and is an oblong, and therefore ill suited for an octagonal tower; in which we should at least expect to find a square. I examined the wall by excavations, and found it to be only an Arab work: some stones, large but not thick, are the only things that have a look of antiquity, and this character is not decisive because they are embedded in mortar; in fact they are only the remains of some slabs that have once been used in a conduit. Barclay has certainly made the most of the reservoir of the Meidan; but in his time it was filled with rubbish, and therefore could not be examined. I have seen it empty, and its dimensions are nine feet deep, twenty long, and ten wide. It is therefore too small for the tower. I have surveyed and carefully investigated all the ground near it, for the Russian Mission and for Signor Tanûs (the owner of the reservoir), but could not discover the slightest trace either of defensive works, or a wall, or detached stones, to induce me to believe that a fortification ever occupied this spot, but on the contrary found rock, either quite bare or thinly covered with a red clayey soil. Other writers have assigned other positions to Psephinus, which are either near the above, and so open to the same objections, or else do not agree with the account of Josephus.