although I have not yet had time to study the levels. His aqueduct is also to the north of the "Low Level Aqueduct."
The discovery of this aqueduct has interrupted temporarily our tracing the scarp further east. It is possible that the line W—X was cut through to bring the channel within the city, and that X—Y is not the continuation of the scarp. In this case we should expect the main wall scarp to the south of the aqueduct. We have begun to open a tunnel inwards from the slope at a lower level, but have not yet reached the rock. The eastward line of the scarp is yet to be found, and must await description (and discovery!) till the next report.
We have thus followed the scarp in one continuous line from E to W for 308 feet. We followed the false clue from N to V for 86 feet more, and the shafts and tunnels from the surface of the ground to the scarp add 130 feet more, making the entire length of shafts and galleries employed in the search for this scarp 524 feet, or over 157 metres.
The question now arises: Can this rock-hewn work be the thing that we were looking for, that is, the base of the south wall of Jerusalem? I have said above that the inner line at work is the scarp uncovered by Maudslay, with the tower unearthed by us, and the continuing line of scarp and ditch in the direction of the Cœnaculum building seemed to me to take too north-easterly a direction beyond our tower to satisfy the conditions of the south wall, which on its easterly course towards Siloam should follow a steeper contour Hence, I expected an outer scarp, south of the tower. This, as I have shown, I first found at H, nearer the tower, with its line of ditch, than I expected. In order to reach a lower contour it should accordingly first proceed in a south-easterly direction, before turning east. This it did, as a glance at the plan, along the line E—M,! will show. The re-entering angles at J and K do not disturb the general direction, and are quite what might be expected in a wall. I watched the work anxiously from hour to hour, constantly fearing lest this scarp should be connected with the ditch to the north and take its north-easterly direction. The turn at M to the south-west did not trouble me, but it was rather a relief to feel that my scarp had turned definitely away from the ditch of the inner work. The turn to the north-east at O would have seemed strange had not my gallery already made along the line N—V led me to expect a great bastion at this point. Such a bastion we found, extending from O along P, E, S, U, to W. I have, of course, laid out the lines of this bastion on the surface of the ground above, and it is surprising to see how well suited the place is for such a great tower. It would have stood just above the turn of the valley, and have commanded the road from Hebron. It might also have flanked a gate between O and M, which would have been further protected by the line L—M.
The turn at U to the south-east was, of course, satisfactory, and I regret that at the time of writing I cannot report its progress further-east than W. As far as position and direction go, this unbroken line of scarp from E to W might well be the base of the south wall of Jerusalem,
