especially as the point W is found below a much lower contour than is the point E, the fall of the surface slope between the two points being about 30 feet. Thus far, then, our question, "Did we find what we were looking for?" may be answered encouragingly.
Another question, however, arises: the top of the scarp was seen at many points, often along a considerable length: were any stones of the wall found in situ, or, in default of this, was the top of the scarp cut for the letting in of stones, as in the case of the bottom course of the Haram masonry I To both these questions a negative answer must be given. This, however, need not rule out the scarp from being a true base of the wall. In the first place, as to the absence of masonry, it must be remembered that no stones were found in situ along the top of the 400 feet of scarp examined by Maudslay, and that this was the base of a wall has never, I believe, been questioned. Indeed Major Conder in writing of Maudslay's work (Statement for 1875, p. 89) remarks: "The shortest and "surest way to solve these questions (as to the wall, &c.) is to follow along "the line of Maudslay's excavations, which are very valuable in showing "that, however the masonry may have been destroyed and lost, we may "yet hope to find indications of the ancient enceinte in the rock-scarps, "which are imperishable." This is just what I have done for a length of 308 feet, having followed, however, not Maudslay's scarp, but one exactly similar in workmanship, to the outside of it. The two scarps stand or fall together.
As to the other question of the absence of cuttings at the top of the scarp for the letting in of stones, it must be remembered that at several points, notably at E and P, the top of the scarp had been quarried away, a process that would have destroyed such indications had there ever been any. Fortunately, we have close at hand an example to the contrary. On the base of the tower, which we uncovered on the line of Maudslay's work (see photograph), there are two courses of masonry in situ, placed directly on the scarp, except at the corner where it is broken away, and here small stones are built in between the rock and the masonry to preserve the level of the lower course.
The long line of chiselled rock from E to W can be only one of two things: it is either a huge quarry, or part of the line of fortification. I have considered the question anxiously, and the following points militate most strongly, indeed to my mind conclusively, against the quarry theory: (1) The unbroken line for 308 feet, which evidently continues still further. (2) The smooth face of the scarp, rising at one point perfectly straight for 21 feet, worked with long slanting chisel marks, evidently at one time and with one intention. At one point there are two shallow steps in the face, but not such as we find in a quarry. (3) The evident plan in the turnings, especially those that go to form the comparatively regular bastion from () to W. (4) The complete absence of indications that stones had been cut out, except along the top of the scarp, which of course might have been done later. (5) The complete difference in the line of the rock cuttings found along the cross-cut line from N to V. The line on the
