PLANOGRAPHY 
 
 OF 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 BY 
 
 DR TITUS TOBLER. 
 
 MEMOIR 
 
 TO ACCOMPANY THE NEW GROUND -PLAN 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CITY OF JERUSALEM AND THE ENVIRONS 
 
 CONSTRUCTED ANEW BY C. W. M. VAN DE VELDE AFTER THE PLANS OF THE ENGINEERS ALDRICH 
 
 AND SYMONDS, AND OF Db. TOBLER. 
 
 WITH A FACSIMILE OF THREE ANCIENT PLANS. 
 
 GOTHA. : JUSTUS PERTHES. 
 
 LONDON : WILLIAMS & NORGATE, 14 Henkietta Steeet, Covent - Gabden. 
 
 1858. 
 
A history of the plans of Jerusalem, which at the same time will afford materials for 
 the history of art in general, must begin at an early date, if it is to comprise the first 
 rudimentary delineations as well as the later very imperfect drawings that prevailed even 
 beyond the fifteenth century*). 
 
 The most ancient ground-plan known to me belongs to the seventh century. The French 
 pilgrim Arculf , ’ on his return from Jerusalem, being driven upon the British coast at Jona, 
 dictated a narrative of what he had seen and experienced during his voyage to the abbot 
 Adamnan , and in order to render his representations still more exact, Arculf himself drew 
 plans on small wax tablets. The plan found**) inCod. Ratisbon. civ. 2 in the royal state- 
 library at Munich is not large. The base of . the city- wall in south and west is straight, 
 forming an angle in southwest and northwest, but the battlement of the western wall is 
 curved, while that of the south is, as it were, winding; on the northern side it forms a curve, 
 and on the eastern side the line is broken for the introduction of a gateway. In southwest 
 the tower, as being 'a citadel, seems to be surrounded by a wall of its own. Elevation was 
 added to the ground-plan. Thus all the gates, with the exception of the gate of St. Stephen, 
 are represented with two wings, and also several towers besides the one in southwest are 
 represented in this manner. A pillar, seemingly issuing from the western wall of the city 
 and stretching directly eastwards far beyond the middle of the latter, bears a cross, above 
 which is a half-figure of Christ. On the western side towards the southwestern angle “is written 
 „Porta I. DaVid”, towards the northwest angle „Porta II. villas fullonis”, in the neighbourhood 
 of this a little to the east „Porta III. S. Stephani”, on the eastern side furthest north „Porta IV. 
 Benjamin”, furthest south ,, Porta VI. Thecuitis”, and between the two latter „Porta parvula. 
 ab hac per gradus ad vallem Josaphat descenditur”. 
 
 A very interesting plan of the city with a map of the surrounding country to a considerable 
 distance previous to the year 1187, when Salah ed-Dm extended his conquests into the heart 
 of the country***), has descended to us from the time of the crusaders. In this also elevation 
 
 *) Compare the sketch of the plans in my „Topographie von Jerusalem”, 1, XCII If. See also Orome in Ersch’s and Gruber’s 
 „Allgemeine Encyklop^die der Wissenschaften und Kunste”, Art. Jerusalem 274 b The view given in George Williams's Historical 
 and Descriptive Memoir to accompany the Ordnance Survey, is not sufficiently comprehensive. 
 
 **) See appendix I for a copy of which I am indebted to the artistic hand of a friend. 
 
 ***) The „Terra Sancta et Jerusalem ad usum peregr Quorum” after a manuscript from the 12 th century {Robert. Clarimont. de 
 Hierosol. occupatione et Fulcher. Carnot, gesta peregr.) in the library at Brussels is given in J. LeleweVs Atlas to his ,,Geographie 
 du Moyen-age” (Brussels 1853) and has been pretty faithfully copied after this, but not coloured in Edouard Chartoris „Voyageurs 
 Anciens et Modernes.” Paris 1855. tom. 2, p. 179. See appendix II. 
 
4 
 
 has been added to the ground-plan. In drawing the city walls Arculf , ’ no doubt, followed 
 nature more or less accurately, but in this later plan the walls are drawn much more arbi- 
 trarily, the lines forming quite a circle. The elevation shows four superincumbent layers of 
 stone in the city walls, and the walls are crowned with battlements. From this ring -wall 
 run four streets which meet at right angles in the centre of the city, so that they form a 
 southwestern, a northwestern, a northeastern and a southeastern quarter, all of equal dimensions. 
 In the southwestern quarter, we see first of all the tower of David (turris David), a tall edifice 
 which adjoins the „platea David”*), and in the middle the latin church of Mary (ecclesia 
 
 *) For the better understanding of this description, I would refer the reader to my plan of Jerusalem as it was at the period 
 of the crusades, appended to the work: „Siloahquelle und Olberg”. I h^ve only to deplore that, at the time of drawing this plan, 
 
 I was not yet acquainted with the three codices in Bern, which contain the description of the ,,Citez de Jerusalem” drawn by 
 
 Hugo Plagon; for the latter, as given in my edition (Topographie von Jerusalem 2, 984 ff.), are distinguished by important expla- 
 nations, corrections and additions. Following these I ought for instance to have drawn the „praetorium (novum)” not south of the 
 
 „ruga Josaphat”, but to the north, south of the „Juerie” (not Merie). I feel the more justified in t'hus drawing attention, in the 
 
 interest of the subject , to my edition, because even as late as last year but a Mr. E. Robinson appended to his new edition of the „Biblical 
 Researches” (vol. IT, app. II, p. 556 sqq.) the by no means correct edition of Beugnot , and the authority of the American might lead 
 others likewise to overlook my edition and to commit similar errors. Treating my edition as non-existent Robinson writes as follows 
 regarding the Portes doulereuses: ,*The ground of this appellation is unknown” (Later Biblical Researches in Palestine. London 1856. 
 p. 170), while my edition (1000) exactly supplies this supposed want of foundation for the name: „Par la (porte doulereuse) issi fors 
 Jesus, quand on le mena el Mont de Cauvaire pour crucifier et pour qu 1 on Pappelle porte doulereuse.” In the German translation, however, 
 this passage has beep added as a correction, but probably not at the suggestion of Dr. Robinson. An other error of which he has 
 rendered himself guilty, partly because of his having overlooked the edition of Plagon published by me, has reference to the Via 
 dolorosa, which appellation, he asserts, was unknown to the crusaders, accompanying his assertion with the explanatory words that 
 the present Via dolorosa was called by the crusaders partly „la rue del Sepucre”, partly „la rue de Josaphas” (ruga Josaphat). But 
 the question is not as to how the ancient pilgrims denominated parts of the present Via dolorosa, but rather as to what they knew 
 
 and how they denominated what they knew, having reference to the subject. According to Plagon they knew 1) the house of Pilate 
 
 on the north side of the Josaphat street, and 2) on the south side of the same street and more to the west they knew the church of 
 the Rest where Jesus rested when he was led away to be crucified. They knew 3) a street of Rest (vicus de repoes), and as this 
 street must necessarily have issued from Josaphat street, what other could it have been than the one that leads from the present Ecce- 
 
 homo-arch southwards in the direction of the northwest angle of the area of the ,,templum Domini”, and that lay nearest the church 
 
 of the Rest? The crusaders knew 4) a gate of Sorrow which Robinson (171) following the vacillating precedent of Schultz , identifies 
 with the above mentioned arch. The ground for the name of the gate is as well known as that of the name by which the church 
 of the Rest is designated. Besides the situation of this gate was so minutely described , that an unbiassed investigator can hardly 
 mistake it. Going, so says the text, from the St. Stephens gate on the left a certain distance along the street leading to the 
 Tanner gate, you came to Josaphat’s street on the left, and if you went a little further still (southwards or towards the Tanner gate) 
 you came to a cross-street (carrefour). One part of this intersecting street running east and west, which formed the cross, came 
 from the temple (the area of the Templum Domini) j and the other led to the Sepulchre (ecclesia s. Sepulchri). At the top, or the 
 beginning of that (eastern) part of the cross -street in the direction of the Temple (of the Lord), stood the gate of Sorrow. In the 
 
 present day if you go from the west end of the old Josaphat street southwards towards the temple bridge („le pont” as Plagon 
 
 says), along the valley (el-Wad), you will find, it is true, on your left hand a street descending from the northwest angle of the 
 Temple aiea, before you arrive at the ,,tarik el-alam’, but there you look in vain for a cross-street, which appears, however, further 
 southwards, where the „haret el-tekiyeh” opens into the ,,wad”, altho’ Robinson (Kiepert) in his newest plan indicates no cross-road 
 
 here. If we place the gate of Sorrow at the top of the street which runs from the northwest angle of the temple area westwards 
 
 into the wad, the expression devers le temple , indicating the position, would have been at the same time less applicable. The 
 crusaders also knew 5) in the quadrivium on the right [or in the west, here in the street leading from the gate of Stephen to the 
 Tanner gate] ,,li ruisaus , which Jesus passed on his way to execution. TVe have thus followed the Via dolorosa of the later crusaders 
 at least — tho’ Robinson asserts (170, Boston Edition 1856. I. 233.) that Marino Sanudo was the first who mentioned the legendary 
 localities along the road which did not then as yet bear the name of Via dolorosa — from the house of Pilate in Josaphat street, 
 past the church of the Rest through the street of Rest, thence, in the temple area, as far as the gate of Sorrow, then from this 
 latter place in the direction of the church of the Resurrection to a transitional point in the valley [the street that leads from 
 Stephen’s gate to the Tanner gate]. From this point the further direction through the present „liaret el-tekiyeh” and the ancient 
 ,,ruha palmariorum to the southern parvis of the church of the sepulchre , is self- evident. The result we have attained is a Via 
 
5 
 
 latiua), which ought, however, to have been placed north of David’s street. In the northwestern 
 section, close by the side of te David’s gate, appears the Sepulchre of the Lord, tha^ is to say 
 in written words (sepulchrum Domini), within an enclosing ring-wall with a double gate towards 
 the south and another towards the northeast, with three contiguous carved lines above a cross. 
 Immediately northeast of this in an irregular square, and under three small arcs, is written 
 „lapis salsus” (not salutis or salvatoris) which I do not quite understand, and which ought 
 probably to be corrected so as to mean anointment-stone. Above this stand two high gateway- 
 arches with the word ,, Golgotha” inscribed at the side, and the w^ord „Calvariae” above. This 
 quarter is separated by the street of the gate of St. Stephen (vicus portae s. Stephani) from the 
 northeastern quarter, which is intersected by two streets, the one marked „vicus ad portam 
 Josaphat” running from west to east, the other „iter ad portam speciosam” cutting it at right 
 angles in the direction north and south, and ending in two gateway-arches. In the small 
 section between the latter street, the town- wall and Josaphat street, is a piscina, north of 
 St. Anne’s Church (templum s. Annas), which is the pool discovered by the crusaders. East 
 of the last named two arches we observe a circular building with doors in south, east, 
 north and west; this is the templum Domini (at present „kubbet es-Sakhrah”), and west of 
 these arches, reaching up to Stephens street, is the bank of exchange (cambium monetas). Mount 
 Sion gate street (vicus portae montis Sion) being a continuation of the last named street, separates 
 the southwest quarter from the southeast. Through the latter runs an unnamed street in the 
 same direction, north and south , as the one marked „iter ad portam speciosam”, and parallel 
 with mount Sion street, the northern part being in like mattner parallel with Stephen’s street. 
 In the northwest angle of this quarter is the market-place (forum rerum venalium); eastwards, 
 adjoining the unnamed street, is „Salomonis claustrum”, by which I understand the dwellings 
 of the knights Templar, and somewhat further east is the „templum Salomonis”. The town-wall 
 numbers five gateways', all with double gates, viz. porta David occidentalis, porta s. Stephani 
 septentrionalis , porta Josaphat orientalis, porta Sion australis, and between the two latter an 
 unnamed gateway situated opposite the temple of Solomon. At te David’s gate the street 
 
 i 
 
 divides into three pathways, into the „vicus ad civitatem” from „En-Neby Samwil” (Mons gaudii), 
 into a middle road, and into the „vicus ad Bethlehem”, which is seen together with the word 
 „presepe”. If we move round the city from David’s gate, first in the direction from north to 
 south, we come first of all to the grave of Rachel (sepulcrum Rachelis), next to the pool of 
 Siloam (fons Siloe), from which a brooklet flows a very little way down as far as under the 
 
 dolorosa quite different from the one of the present day, and also necessarily differing essentially from the ancient one as, according 
 to the unanimous testimony of pilgrims, the house of Pilate was supposed to be situated on Sion south of the Sion gate, which 
 result I consider as valid even in spite of the objection that the ground-plans from the time of the kingdom of Jerusalem offer no 
 points of correspondence, with the exception of the somewhat problematical gate of Judgement. I regret to have to repeat what 
 has already, in a great measure, been said elsewhere, and can only plead in excuse my desire to disprove as fully as possible errors 
 which have of late been again put forward with a certain appearance of authority. 
 
6 
 
 Sion gate; then to the „coenaculum” on Mount Sion (Mons Sion), represented as a large 
 building with high domes ; and then further eastwards to a ring containing the word „ Akhel- 
 demakh” and with an inscription above indicating that the burial place of the pilgrims 
 (sepultura peregrinorum) is situated here. Beginning from „Bethania”, we find „Hierico, locus vl”~ 
 or more correctly xl i. e. quarantena (which is besides given as a duplum on the left of the 
 Jordan with the places marked where the Lord fasted, and where he was tempted by the Devil) 
 and Nazareth so mixed up with each other that they are not worthy of further notice. 
 The „Torrens Cedron” flows in the form of a powerful stream southwards from the valley of 
 Josaphat (vallis Josaphat). In the latter we find the tomb of the holy Virgin (Sepulchrum 
 s. Marias) and her church (ecclesia s. Marias), above which there is the Mount of Olives (Mons 
 Oliveti), on the summit of which is drawn a church in the form of a rotunda with a cross, 
 indicating the spot whence the Lord ascended into heaven (ascensio Domini). Outside of the 
 gate of Stephen a basilica, denominated templum s. Stephani, surprises the eye by its beauty. 
 This plan from the time of the crusaders, the first in which an attempt has been made to 
 indicate the network of streets, marks a considerable advance in planography, and indeed, 
 I am bound to bear witness to the fact that the light from these times brought to bear upon 
 topographical subjects is much greater than the world in general has hitherto, been inclined to 
 acknowledge. This fact can not surprise us, if we take into consideration that the Saracens, who 
 had attained to a pretty considerable height in civilization, must have exercised a stimulating 
 influence on the Franks and promoted enlightenment among them. 
 
 Another quite similar plan *) dates its origin from about the same period of the crusades. 
 The outlines of the city, but without any part of the surrounding country with exception of 
 the „ualles iosaphat”, are likewise circular and divided into four equal sections ; but the objects 
 represented, for instance the „templum Domini”, which are however nothing more than creations 
 of the imagination, are very different. In the southwestern quarter we read „ecclesia latina” ; 
 above this „porte natris (?veteris) vel Iudiciaria”, below „turris davits” (Davidis); in the 
 northwest quarter, low down „templum saiicte crucis”, in the middle to the left „sepulcrum ade” 
 (Adam’s), „sepulcrum domini”, further up „porta gregis vel probatice piscine”, still further 
 east „Grolotha” (Golgotha), on the right side of this „lapis salus” or „salsus” and still further 
 to the right, further towards the middle of the area, in an elliptical ring „caluarie locus”. 
 These two quarters are divided from the others, on the north by the „uicus porte Stephani” and 
 on the south by the „uicus porte montis syon”. In the southeastern quarter, proceeding from 
 west to east, we find following one after the other „habitaeio regis et prophetarum”, „habitacio 
 ciuium vel propharami” (? pro Francis? profani?), „claustra salamonis”, „templum salomonis”; 
 in the northeast quarter „iter habitancium”, „templum st e marie” (instead of s. Annas), „templum 
 
 *) ,,Jorsala. Borg.” E membrana Islandorum saeculi XIII., also given in LeleweVs Atlas. 
 
7 
 
 domini”. The gateways are also specially marked : „porte piscium vel Davidis”, „porte uallis 
 iosaphat”, on the southeast side „porta aurea , per quam ingressus Ihesus super asinam”. , It 
 is sufficiently evident from this, that this plan is more simple and that the text is not a 
 copy of the other ground-plan, the manuscript of which dates from an earlier period. To come 
 hack to the porta judiciaria (the gate of justice), it might he supposed that in early times 
 tradition placed this gate further south in the city, in accordance with the then prevailing 
 opinion that the via dolorosa commenced on Sion, outside the porta Montis Sion, if the 
 „ecclesia latina” had not also heen pushed into a wrong place, probably for no other reason 
 than that the southwest quarter afforded a more convenient place for the picture of this church. 
 
 It was towards the close of the dominion of the Franks in the Holy Land, that the 
 meritorious Venetian Marino Sanudo Torsello endeavouring to attract attention very forcibly to 
 the reconquest of the parts already lost, devoted himself also to the study of the topography 
 of the country, and as a fruit of these studies we have his plan of Jerusalem*). A glance at 
 this suffices to show what great progress in planography had been made in about a century 
 and a half. The outline of the plan of Marino Sanudo is no longer a circle drawn arbitrarily, 
 but in all essential points corresponds with the reality. I would point out, for instance, 
 the projecting angle of the city wall close to the mosque of Aksa, the northwestern direction 
 beginning from the Y afa gate, the northeastern direction as far as the Damascus gate, the 
 eastern up to the northeast angle of the city, and the southern up to the southeast angle. 
 Altho’ no street is named , the network of streets is nevertheless more complete. It is not 
 difficult to find the great street which leads from the Yafa gate eastward towards the temple- 
 area, the vaults of the bazaar, the „Mret en-Nassara”, the „lxaret el-Kliankeh”, the „liaret deir 
 el-Franj”, the „liaret el-Tekiyeh”, the street which leads southward from Stephen’s gate towards 
 Sion, the „tarik Sitti Mariam”, the „Wad”, the street which runs through the Barbaresque 
 quarter to the Dung-gate and beyond it. Many of the most note-worthy objects are indicated, such 
 as the tower of David, the sepulchre of the Lord, the site of the spasm of the Virgin, the house 
 of Pilate to the north of the old Josaphat street, just as according to the codex of Bern, it 
 is already indicated in Hugo Plagon's „Citez de Jerusalem”, the „Piscina interior” north of St. 
 Anna, the temple area, the mosque of Aksa, and, strange to say, also the Coenaculum at the 
 side of the „Hic virgo migravit” in southwest, within the city. Outside the city, special 
 interest attaches to a „Fons Sion”, situated at a short distance opposite the tower of David, 
 and which Hiskiah covered up, having however previously led the water to the tower of 
 David and into the inner pool close by St. Anna; the „Piscina superior” (the present „birket 
 es- Sultan), the „fons Gion inferior”, south of this pool, the „Piscina inferior” situated in the 
 valley of Hinnom (here for the first time drawn upon a plan) above the point where the latter 
 
 *) Appended to the „Liber selectorum fidelium crucis”. Orientalis historic tom. II. by Marinus Sanutus, and copied in 
 appendix III. of the present work. 
 
8 
 
 opens into the valley ofKedron, the swimming pool of Siloam southeast of the Dung-gate, the 
 fountain of Siloam a little north of the pool, Mount Sion (according to Christian tradition the 
 mount of Offence) and several remarkable sites, such as that of the tree that Jesus cursed, and 
 more particulary that of Christ’s agony and of the betrayal in Gethsemane. 
 
 A well executed pen and ink drawing from the last decennium of the fifteenth century 
 preserved in the royal state-library at Munich („cod. iconograph.” 172) and stated to be from 
 the hand of a fellow pilgrim of the Nuremberger Hans Tucher, by name Sebald Rieter , presents 
 us with a bird’s-eye- view of the city of Jerusalem and its precincts on a very large scale. This 
 work, which is, no doubt, a true mirror of the culture of the Western nations of the fifteenth 
 century, is, considered as a plan, inferior to the productions of Marino Sanudo. On the drawing 
 of the elevated buildings some degree of carefulness has indeed been expended, but he text 
 on the contrary is a barbaric mixture of Italian and Latin, which is in some places hardly 
 comprehensible. The artist has been less intent upon leaving to posterity a true topographical 
 image, than upon presenting the whole treasure of traditions to the pilgrims, who passionately 
 craved for them. A whole series of traditions have thus been fixedly localized for the first 
 time ; the site of the lapidation outside the east-gate, of which it is said : „Hic ex ista porta 
 duxerunt s. Stephanum quando Judaei voluerun^ eum lapidare”, the „Fons Sta. Maria”, the 
 fountain with the water of which Christ restored a blind man’s sight; the place where Peter 
 wept, and other sites on Sion, such as they were recorded in the fifteenth century and have 
 been made sufficiently known elsewhere. I will only further notice, in the interior of the 
 city, the ,,Hospitium paganorum”, by which is perhaps meant the old hospice of the knights 
 of St. John, but which may also be a hostel situated further east. 
 
 We now enter the sixteenth century, during which we have to record no inconsiderable 
 progress. In the first quarter of that century, a small book of pilgrimage by the Franciscan 
 monk Noe, entitled „Yiaggio da Yenetia al Santo Sepolcro”, of which several editions were 
 brought out, had a very wide circulation, which continued even in the last century. In this 
 little book w r hich is exceedingly ^ich in woodcuts , one naturally expects to find a superior 
 plan also ; but all that is obtained is a partial view of the city of Jerusalem taken from the 
 Mount of Olives, and representing objects that could not in reality be discovered by the eye 
 from this point. The first improved plan is from the hand of the Franciscan Antonio de Angelis *), 
 who was elected in 1579 to be guardian of Mount Sion. His „topographica delineatio civitatis 
 Jerusalem”, appeared in Pome a year previous to his election. Not only the outlines of the 
 
 city are given here pretty correctly, but an attempt has been made for the first time to give 
 
 — ■ ■■ ■ ■■ — " - ■ — — ■ ■ * 
 
 *) I have hoped in vain to he able to meet with the first improved plan in the Liber de perenni cvltv Terrae Sanctaer*, et de 
 fructuosa ejus Peregrinatione: Auctore Fr. Bonifacio Stephano Ragvsino (Venetiis 1573. 12.). After searching a long time in vain, even 
 in the principal public libraries in Paris, I was indeed so fortunate at last as to find the little devotional book of the pilgrim, 
 containing few but important topographical notices, in the library of Count de V Escalopier, but unluckily I found in it neither plans 
 nor views. 
 
9 
 
 a plan of the ground. The direction of the valley of Kedron, to the lower part of which 
 as well as to the lower course of the valley of Hinnom, De Angelis attributes the 
 name of „Vallis Siloah”, and the direction of this ravine, more particulary that of the WMy en- 
 
 I 
 
 Nar in the neighbourhood of the well of Job (Nehemiah), here erroneously denominated „Vallis 
 Ben Hinnom”, is such as to leave little to be desired. There can be no doubt that regular 
 measurements were made and that even compasses were used. 
 
 It was no more than right that the Franciscans should employ the leisure they enjoyed 
 in some useful work, and as such we may certainly consider the drawing of a more correct 
 ground-plan of the holy city, and we find indeed that several other minorites have followed 
 in the steps of the guardian De Angelis, upon whose work they have based theirs. The 
 production in this line of Bernardino Amico of Gallipoli, towards the close of the sixteenth 
 century, is little more than a copy. Much more valuable is the plan drawn twenty years 
 later by Francesco Quaresmio, also a Franciscan monk and afterwards (1627) guardian, altho’ 
 a great part of it must be looked upon as a work of imagination. No ground -plan 
 
 will suffice to give a full representation of nature; if this is to be done, she must be 
 
 represented in her plasticity together with the additions or alterations made by the hand 
 of the bricklayer and carpenter, or by the artistic hand of man in general. Hence has 
 arisen the connexion of the ground -plans with elevation, or the bird’s - eye - view , and in 
 this direction Quaresmio has done a great deal, more than his predecessors. A careful exa- 
 mination of his work proves that he aimed at a certain artistic perfection, at the solution of 
 a problem to which much attention has been paid latterly, more especially in France. The 
 
 bold, tho’ sometimes false, delineations of the natural features of the ground, a very distinct 
 
 and rather complete net-work of the principal streets, which are, however, sometimes misplaced 
 or made to run in a wrong direction, the churches, mosques, and more especially the minarets, 
 viz. the four minarets of Haram esh-Sherif, the one in the Jew-market-street, in the citadel, 
 those in front of and behind the church of the Sepulchre, and one in the northeastern divi- 
 sion, behind the so called palace of Herodes, all these attract the eye, yet do not quite 
 satisfy it, not only because the parts connected with the ground -plan labour under various 
 defects, but also because the views of the edifices have been left too much to the imagination. 
 If an attempt be made in a bird’s-eye-view to combine, as far as possible, a correct plan of 
 the streets and natural features of the ground with a faithful representation of the edifices, it 
 cannot indeed fail to produce a great effect. Quaresmio has, however, held the Christian 
 traditions more particularly in view, and we must not, therefore, be surprised if we meet with 
 colossal figures, such as Judas who is taller than the trunk of the tree on which he is hung, 
 or as the Apostles who are witnessing the ascension of Christ, and who are taller than any house. 
 
 But I must once more return to the sixteenth century to glance at a plan which, chrono- 
 logically, followed that of Antonio de Angelis. I mean the ground -plan of John Zuallart 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 of Ath. His draught of the city- walls coincides almost entirely with that of his predecessor; 
 the streets of the city indicated by lines of dots, bear in their reticulated course a great 
 resemblance to those of the present day. Everything is here clearly represented. 
 
 In the seventeenth century, to which belongs, as we know, the plan of Quaresmio, which 
 was likewise copied by Electus Zwinner , we meet with few productions of importance having 
 
 i 
 
 reference to our subject. Henry de Beauvau *) principally followed the plan of Amico. Hans 
 Jakob Amman , a Swiss surgeon, whose plan is accompanied by a portrait surrounded with the 
 inscription: Isach Bonamana, has given an unsuccessful imitation of Zuallart’s ground -plan. 
 Amman’s plan was also adopted by Jonas Korte . The publication considered the most .worthy 
 of attention, was probably the rather large and good plan given in the work: „Voiage de Levant 
 Fait par le commendement dv Boy en l’annde 1621, par le Sr. D. C.”, the authorship of which 
 is erroneously attributed to the Ambassador Des- Hayes, the true author being his equerry 
 Jacques du Castel , who also travelled in 1604 with the French Ambassador de Breves. In this 
 ground-plan to which, in my judgment, the one given by Marin as appendix to his History 
 of Saladin , Sultan of Egypt and Syria (German edition, Zelle 1761. 2, 49), comes much 
 nearer than does Pillefs copy, the „via dolorosa” is particularly well drawn. The retrogression 
 of Goujon (1671) I will pass over in silence. 
 
 In the eighteenth century there was no lack of original works, could we but say also 
 that they were good! It seems that people did not then, as in the previous century, rest 
 satisfied with copies from the sixteenth century, yet they had not sufficient knowledge to 
 enable them to substitute something better for what already existed. The plan of Thomas 
 Shaw must be considered a perfect failure, altho’, as far as I know, he was the first who 
 provided his plan with a scale, which must not however be too confidently relied upon, and 
 altho’ he enjoyed the 'honour of being robbed by the otherwise well informed Giovanni 
 Mariti in his „Istoria dello stato presente della Cittk di Gerusalemme” (translated into French 
 by Laorty - Hadji , Paris 1853, but without a plan). More inferior still is Jonas Kortds own 
 miserable workmanship. The attempt of Richard Pococke, however original it may look, hardly 
 deserves notice, so arbitrarily wrong are the valleys (for instance the valley of Kedron) drawn, 
 and the hills grouped and multiplied, tho’ some praise might be due to the compass and the 
 scale, if they could be deemed reliable. U Amide's ground-plan, which created great sensation 
 and was frequently made use of, is a copy from the work of Du Castel. Notwithstanding his 
 independent researches, the celebrated Niebuhr did not in the least improve Planography. I 
 have yet to mention two curiosities: ’I%voyQcccpla xrjg Ay lag JToXt oj g \Itq ov 6 aX rj g, in the description 
 of this city by the patriarch Chrysanthos Notara , and the plan of Fabbrone. The former, 
 which exceeds all others in size, gives evidence of Greek taste, altho’ it is based upon the 
 
 *) Iovrnaliere dv voyage dv Levant. Nancy 1619. 4. p. 118. 
 
11 
 
 work of a Franciscan monk. This Greek plan is, however, in every respect greatly inferior 
 to that of Quaresmio. The second ground-plan*) mentioned above, drawn by Giovanni Pietro 
 Fabbrone, is very large (about 5' long and 1 y 2 ' broad); the execution is rather rough, 
 though, at all events, original; however it would .have been much better, had it been merely 
 an imitation of Quaresmio’s. 
 
 Enriched in some degree by the seventeenth century but very slightly by the eighteenth^ 
 we enter the nineteenth century in which a clear scientific comprehension of the subject is at 
 length established. We hardly believe our eyes when we contemplate the plan of the highly 
 cultivated Englishman J. S. Buckingham **). Verily, John Zuallart in the sixteenth century 
 worked more conscientiously. The year 1818, in which the Bohemian physician and naturalist 
 F. W. Sieber visited Palestine, forms a turning point. As we are told in his Journey from 
 Cairo to Jerusalem in the little work intended also to explain his previously published plan, 
 
 l i 
 
 at the very first glance at the environs of Jerusalem, this writer was struck with the strange 
 
 discrepancies and incorrectness of all the existing plans, and he felt so keenly the desire to 
 
 produce a plan which should form a more reliable basis for the study of a subject which 
 
 cannot be considered as unimportant in regard to topography and geography, that he even 
 
 endangered his life in the attempt. „During the most intense heat” he constructed „circular views 
 
 on every important point of the hills and mountains by means of levels taken of all the pro- 
 
 / 
 
 minent points visible”, and afterwards intersected these by radii drawn from the summit of 
 
 the highest terrace of the Latin monastery of St. Salvator as his central point. In drawing 
 
 / 
 
 his views, Sieber was surprised at the correctness and distinctness of the intersecting lines, 
 taking into consideration the „exceeding imperfectness” of his instruments. He measured about 
 two hundred points geometrically correct”, and also determined, according to his own saying, 
 the course of the Kedron, the circumference of the city -walls and the situation of the great 
 mosque and other smaller ones. In this way he constructed a plan which was much approved, 
 and was accepted everywhere. The artistic execution of this map is indeed superior to that 
 of the earlier plans, the treatment of the ground is somewhat more careful, and the plan is 
 a simple ground - plan ; but we must not allow ourselves 'to be tempted by this superiority 
 of artistic treatment, to withhold the just sentence that, independently of these advantages, 
 SiebeFs plan is very little superior to the better ones from the sixteenth and seventeenth 
 century. If we look at the configuration of the ground, we see here also arbitrariness 
 prevailing; in the valley of „Gihon” a stately brook flows from the birket Mamilla, and in 
 the valley of Josaphat there is another flowing from birket el-Hejeh and the akabeh es- 
 SuEtn , both uniting opposite to the northeastern angle of the city. If we look at the direction 
 
 *) JERUSALEM hodierna. G. Balth. Probst, haer. Jer. Wolff, excud. Augustae Vindel”. It bears no date, but is, no doubt, 
 from the last century, altlio’ the Italian original may belong to an earlier period. 
 
 **) Appended to the „Travels among the Arab Tribes”. 
 
 2 * 
 
12 
 
 of the ring - walls of the city, we find that it is more correctly given in De Angelis' and 
 Zuallart's plans; for from the Yafa-gate it runs in a pretty straight line westward and then 
 from the northwestern angle towards N. N. E. The outlines of the city being given in this 
 way, it is self-evident that no regular net of streets can be drawn within. The area of the 
 northwest division (the old latin quarter of the eleventh century) is much too narrow, at least 
 north of the haret deh el-Franj, and the haret el-Khankeh. Besides this, not only are 
 many streets wanting — not to speak of the culs-de - sac — - and the course of many others faulty, 
 being in several cases more especially too straight ; but here and there a supernumerary street 
 has been introduced. Among the streets we miss more especially the regular line from the 
 Damascus -gate south-eastwards under the name of hosh Akhia B6k and southwards towards 
 the Haram esh-Sherif under the name of el -Wad, on account of which error great con- 
 fusion prevails in this quarter; the northeastern division (haret bab el-Hotta) Sieber might 
 have drawn as well without ever having seen Jerusalem. While, on the one hand, many 
 streets are sought for in vain, there is reason, on the other hand, to deplore that the polygon 
 in which the dshama el-Kurami is situated, is intersected by a street which did not exist, 
 at least in 1846, and that four streets over and above the real number connect the slik 
 es-sistgh with the silk el-attarin. In a word, the plan of Sieber, as I have experienced, 
 proves itself tcb be a very unreliable guide to the streets. Sieber’ s attempt was soon follow- 
 ed by others. The plan drawn up by Westphal , a surveyor, and Dr. G.* Parthey , (1823) is 
 praised as greatly superior. The Italian Engineer Giovanni Failoni at least introduced correctly 
 in his plan, which is quite independent of that of Sieber, the street in the valley which 
 leads from the Damascus - gate as far as suk bah es-sinsleh; otherwise his production must 
 
 i 
 
 be reckoned, even in point of external finish, among the more inferior (1827). In 1828 
 A. M. John published, in his account of his pilgrimage, a plan which is evidently borrowed 
 from the seventeenth century, altho’ the author (373) asserts that he obtained it from the 
 ecclesiastics in St. John's, who had themselves drawn it (copied it) several years previously, 
 and had published this somewhat peculiar looking plan simply such as it came into his hands. 
 It is not provided with a scale and’ only with 31 figures (references). The alterations introdu- 
 ced, five or seven years later, into the plan of Sieber by F. Catherwoocl , who favoured by 
 particularly fortunate circumstances, gained admission into the „Haram esh-Sherif", and was 
 enabled to take surveys during several visits there, are principally limited to the Moslem 
 Sanctuary, regarding which he enters into several details, to the adjoining streets together 
 with the „birket es - Serain” , to trifling matters in the configuration of the ground , and to , 
 the use of an unpublished survey made by J. J. Scoles in the year 1825. If it be acknow- 
 ledged that Catherwood has some merit in having given a clearer representation of the area 
 of the great mosque and its immediate environs, it must not, on the other hand, be concealed 
 that his works are not in all respects worthy of unlimited confidence, but that they must be 
 
13 
 
 used with caution. Very lately this plan, probably because no better was known, has been 
 reproduced in France*), a proceeding which was at all events better advised than if, on 
 account of national predilections, the very hasty sketch of Count Joseph d’Estourmel, who, like 
 Catherwood, visited Jerusalem in 1833, had been made use of. In 1838 already the active 
 American investigators Edward Robinson and Eli Smith, assisted afterwards by the Charto- 
 grapher Heinrich Kiepert of Berlin, began a revision of the Sieber-Catherwood plan. The new 
 materials collected were not indeed considerable ; but they, at all events, sufficed to determine 
 the distances from one gate to another more exactly, and to indicate correctly the direction 
 of the wall from the Yafa-gate to the northwestern angle of the city, that is to say to run 
 it northwest ; but we are obliged to add that, at the same time, the portion of the wall thence 
 to the Damascus-gate only became the more faulty. In making use of Dr. Westphal’s plan, it 
 was ascertained that angles between the two extreme points of the eastern wall of the Latin 
 Convent, nine mosques, the Church of the Sepulchre and several points of the city -walls, 
 had been measured very accurately with a sextant, to within a few minutes, by which means 
 the situation of several points, and more particularly that of the convent, was more accura- 
 tely ascertained**). Robinson himself also measured a base northwest of the city, from the 
 
 extreme points of which the angles of the westermost point of the city-wall and of the dome 
 
 \ 
 
 (probably the eastern) of the Church of the Resurrection, were taken etc. In consequence 
 
 of drawing further inward the portion of wall from the Yafa-gate to the northwestern angle, 
 
 the internal dimensions became smaller; in the northeastern division the dotted lines of the 
 
 ' * 
 
 squares of streets were left out. Besides this almost nothing was changed in the interior of 
 the city, be it in regard of the Haram esh-Shertf, the buildings or the streets. Tho’ not 
 without the incitement of a hypothesis, more was done for a better representation of the terrain , 
 more especially in the city, where, if we leave Pococke’s plan out of consideration, and also a 
 
 i 
 
 perfect hill very nearly in the centre of the northwestern division and a slope in the northeastern 
 part of the Jewish quarter, the same had until then been entirely disregarded. Here, as also in 
 Pococke’s plan, we see distinctly the valley which divides the city into a western and an eastern 
 half, tho’ its rise is not regularly indicated. The Tyropoeon of Robinson, that is to say a ravine 
 falling from the Yafa-gate directly eastwards into the former valley, has been drawn so distinctly 
 — as was indeed the case on Pococke’s plan also — that, according to the drawing, one would 
 have to ascend considerably northward from the southern extremity of the haret en-Nassara a# far 
 as the akbet el-Khadher, and likewise in the three stir running parallel to one another, an ascent 
 which is not, however, perceptible on the spot. Improvements worthy of honourable mention 
 
 ' i 
 
 *) La Terre-Sainte et les Lieux illustres par les Apotres. Par l’Abbe Gr. . et A . Egron. Paris 1853. As I have not this 
 plan at hand to compare with the pleasing plan of Jerusalem drawn by A. H. Dufowr 9 engraved for „Three years in the East” etc., 
 and published in Paris 1838 with George Robinson's 99 Voyage en Syrie ”, I cannot judge whether they are identical, but so much I 
 may venture to say, that they bear a strong resemblance to each other. 
 
 **) Kiepert in Robinson's „Palastina” I, LIII. (German edition.) 
 
14 
 
 have been attempted to schow the direction of the valley of Ben Hinnom from the pool of Mamilla 
 to the well of Job (Nehemiah), and of the valley of Kedron to the same place, altho’, it is true, 
 the further course of the united ravines appears incorrect. Besides this the hatching lines of the 
 hill are as unnatural as they are mannered. Nature produces nowhere anything of the kind as 
 the artist has done here. As regards the Bethlehem aqueduct, Sieber and Catherwood traced 
 it outside, east of the Dung -gate, through the Khatuniyeh and the southwestern angle of the 
 area of the temple to the Judgment-hall ; Robinson on the contrary, acting with greater caution, 
 has led it in front of the synagogues only as far as the city walll He has been followed, 
 as to the most important points, by Karl Raumer (1850), without reference to the newest pro- 
 
 i 
 
 ductions in planography. The institution of the Anglican bishopric and the establishment of new 
 consulates have] been so far advantageous that scientific men, zealously devoted to the progress 
 of biblical geography, have assumed the part of the early industrious Franciscans, (who 
 might serve as an example to those of the present day who rest too content with the bread of 
 tradition) and surpassed them, carrying] on researches on the spot and laying the results 
 before the world. I allude to the English chaplain George Williams and the Prussian consul 
 E. G . Schultz, whose activity has been put forward within the last decennium. I cannot? 
 however, refrain from expressing my regret that both these gentlemen have not availed them- 
 selves of their favourable position to the extent that might be expected from authors who aim at 
 restoration of truth. -They rely mostly on Robinson, whose views otherwise they combat wherever 
 possible, and they seem more especially to look to and to use their plans as a stage for the 
 display of their archaeological hypotheses. First, as regards William’s plan, of which he 
 himself indeed speaks with modesty, it is evident that in it some attempt has been made to 
 correct the representation of the net- work of streets. He, likeFailoni, has restored the correct 
 immediate connexion of the „h6sh Akhia B&k” with ,,el-Wad” ; he has slightly improved the 
 piece of net- work in the Armenian quarter nearest east of the citadel; the aqueduct he has 
 traced correctly from the eastern extremity of the Jewish quarter to the bridge of the mosque 
 (bridge of the temple,' „suk bab es - Sinsleli”) ; the pool „es - Sultan”, however, he has placed 
 too far south. The configuration of the ground is given in much softer touches and, at the 
 same time, not more incorrectly than in Robinson’s plan. The carefully executed model 
 of Jerusalem (Sheffield, May 1846, with a key to it 1847) constructed by Edwin Smith under 
 the direction of John Blackburn, follows chiefly the works of Robinson and Williams, original 
 observations and a small piece of the net-work of streets within the district of the Anglican 
 church, surveyed by the architect Matthew Habershon , having however also been made use of. 
 Afterwards Schultz, during his stay in Berlin in 1845, agreed with the able and learned 
 Kiepert to construct a plan, and a large brilliantly coloured, and splendid edition indeed was 
 thus brought out. What was wanting in intrinsic worth was to be supplied by outward 
 splendour. However, fine colours do not suffice to give an appearance of truth to the frequently 
 
15 
 
 incorrect drawing of the streets, with which the Consul ought to have become more intima- 
 tely acquainted during his long sojourn in Jerusalem. ~ Of the delineation of the terrain pretty 
 nearly the same may be said as of that of Williams; it is evidently superior to Robinson’s, 
 altho’ the hill represented in the northeastern corner of the city, is nothing more than a creation 
 of the imagination. In this plan, however, we come more into contact with Arabic life, or 
 with the life of the natives; frequently we find the Arabic name at the side of the German one; 
 and in some instances they are quite new, as „Kasr Jalud”, „Abraj Ghazzeh”, „J6ret el-Aneb”, 
 „el-Khadher”, „Abu Wa’ir”, „Kasr el-Asffir”. The profile drawn through Jerusalem from W.S.W. 
 to E.N.E., is also very pretty and instructive. This plan has been copied with a selection of 
 explanations by Louis Enault in his work „La Terre -Sainte” (Paris 1854). Until the time of 
 Robinson, the plans seem exclusively to have been constructed not for the purpose of giving 
 a comprehensive view of the city and the surrounding country, but in order to bring the 
 „Holy Places” more distinctly before the eyes of the spectator, that is to say not so much for 
 the gratification of biblical students and enquirers, as for that of believing pilgrims. Robinson 
 constructed his ground -plan in the interest of biblical archaeology, and thus struck out the 
 greater number of traditional points which Schultz, however, again admitted. The ground-plan 
 of Wilhelm Krafft , a theologian of Bonn, has been constructed with a similar view to that of 
 Robinson, but it giv^s no evidence either of a conscientious study of the streets or of the 
 natural features of the ground, it being rather an embodiment of his conceptions of ancient 
 Jerusalem as expressed in his topography. Other plans, such as those of L. C. Grimm , of 
 W. JR. , Wilcle and of W. H. Bartlett, I will merely allude to. 
 
 Thus stood matters when in the year 1849 appeared three new plans, quite independent 
 of each other, and all with a new net -work of streets, viz. that of Lieutenants Aldrich and 
 Symonds, with explanations by George Williams, that of the candidate for orders H. Gadow, 
 and my own. It was after the fall of Akka, that English engineers availing themselves of 
 
 the favourable disposition of the Turks who r for once felt grateful towards the English for 
 
 \ 
 
 this military exploit, travelled to Jerusalem to take a geometrical survey of the city and the 
 environs. The work was begun on the 25 th February 1841 by the two above named officers, 
 who were assisted by six engineers. Aldrich made use of a theodolite of 5y 2 inches, and 
 a chain 100' long, for the survey of the surrounding country; and Symonds employed 
 Schmalkalder’s compass for the survey of the interior of the city; but he assisted the former 
 when attacked by illness, in so far as he sketched the ground immediately surrounding the 
 city. Colonel Alderson himself took a survey of the fortress. Their work lasted not less than six 
 weeks, and the result is known to me, not only through Williams’ edition, which is certainly 
 not faithful and reliable on all points, but also through the copy which Mr. C. W. M. van 
 de Yelde took at the Board of Ordnance in London. When informed that so great a number 
 of engineers unitis viribus have employed so much time in constructing a ground-plan, one 
 
16 
 
 cannot help feeling favourably predisposed towards it ? and naturally inclined to the belief 
 that no errors, or at least no important errors, could have found their way into it. In the 
 original at the Board of Ordnance, the city and the surrounding country must be held distinct. 
 In the latter we see a net of angles, which renders it evident enough that the chief points 
 have been correctly determined by means of triangulation, as for instance the summit and 
 the dome of the ascension on the Mount of Olives; the spot where Christ is supposed to 
 have wept over Jerusalem ; the church of the tomb of the Virgin; the northeastern angle of the 
 city; a point between this and the pool of the bath of Mary; the column of Mahomet in the eastern 
 wall of the „Haram esh-Shertf”, the southeastern angle of the city ; a point somewhat south- 
 west of this; the tomb of Zechariah in the valley of Kedron; the summit of the „Dshebel 
 
 ' , y 
 
 Baten el-Haua” ; (from the latter) „en-Neby I) arid” ; the Sion-gate ; the projecting angle between 
 this and the Dung -gate; as also the point of junction between the valleys of Josaphat and 
 Hinnom; the well of Job (Nehemiah); (from this) the „Jebel deir Abu Tor”; $ point southwest 
 of ,,en-Neby Baud”, above the valley, westward by the side of the Bethlehem road; another 
 
 somewhat south-southwest of „Mar Jiris”; (hence) the western -side and southwest - angle of 
 
 / 
 
 the city; (from the latter) the Mamilla- tombs somewhat northeast of the pool; the north- 
 western angle of the city; (from this) the Damascus-gate and the rising-ground between this 
 and the cave of Jeremiah; the hill above this; (from this) the eminence between the Ma- 
 milla-pool and the convent of the Holy Cross; several eminences northeast of Jerusalem; 
 the „Ras es-Soweka”, and the watershed in the vicinity of the tombs of the Judges. In the 
 interior of the city it is otherwise; here no square, measurements have been made, and, in 
 consequence, no strictly correct survey took place. From the memoir of Williams which 
 accompanies the plan, we also learn that the English engineers never put their foot in the 
 „Haram esh-Sherif”, in order, as it is circumstantially stated, not to wound the religious 
 susceptibilities of the Mahommedans. I may add to this" that they did not even always 
 approach near enough to it. From what herejias been stated, it will be seen that the deli- 
 neation of the environs may be relied upon, fixed geometrical points having been found, and 
 that herein consists the chief, and by no means insignificant, merit of the Englishmen, but 
 that the correctness of the interior of the city requires to be further tested. As for the delineation 
 of the terrain, this deserves in general commendation, yet it ought not to be passed over in 
 silence that the delineation is not so distinct as the art of the present day is capable of 
 making, it. In more than one place it is, if not difficult, at least not easy to distinguish whether 
 a depression in the soil or an elevation is meant. Without even taking into account the portion 
 situated outside of the city, I maintain that the Wad is by no means drawn distinctly enough. 
 The little valley in the „suk Mret el-Yehud” is wanting. If a regular hill immediately north- 
 east of the Damascus-gate, north of the quarry, be meant to be drawn, it does not exist. The 
 hill east of the church of the ascension, which bears the Wely, is marked too sharply. Passing 
 
17 
 
 on to the interior of the city, one is at once struck by the appearance of two angles pro- 
 jecting westwards from the western side and the southern third of the temple area, the nor- 
 thernmost of which angles is immediately south close to the „b&b es-sinsleh”. These angular 
 lines are incorrect. Catherwood, who may be supposed to have had the most perfect know- 
 ledge of the Haram esh-Sherif, drew the western side straight. Proceeding from the place of 
 Wailing along the western wall of the Haram, which funs straight from south to north, I 
 came into a court about thirty feet long, then under the ,,Mahkameh” to the „birket el-Obr&k”, 
 which beyond, and north of, „s1ik bab es-sinsleh” extends, running south to north, a length 
 
 of 83', and the eastern wall of which forms the western wall of the temple area. As to this 
 
 * 
 
 point, I am quite certain that, contrary to the plan, the western side runs straight south and 
 north. The southern projection is equally false, as I have learnt from ocular inspection, and as 
 it is distinctly shown by Ulrich Halbreiter, in his representation in the middle part of leaf II. The 
 same is maintained by Ed. Robinson, Bartlett and recently by Joseph Francis Thrupp*), so that 
 it is not possible to doubt it. This essential misrepresentation has, however, been the principal 
 cause of a series of errors. The south-side of the Haram is given correctly in round numbers 
 at 900' (more exactly 927'); but in consequence of the projections, extending on the west-side to 
 a distance of 260', first the Haram becomes too broad further north (close to the b&b es-sinsleh, 
 in round numbers 1150' instead of 940'), and secondly, in consequence of this erroneous push- 
 ing forward of the temple area* westwards, the space between this and the western city -wall, 
 which, being a fixed object, could not be altered, is contracted. This leads us to a nearer 
 consideration of the net of streets. In consequence of the necessary contraction of space, the 
 corresponding streets, running west and east, have been shortened. This curtailment is especially 
 striking between the „Mret en-Nassara” and the „sfik es-sem&ni”. Williams could but 
 scantily trace the church of the sepulchre, including the chapel of St. Helen, in the square 
 south of the „h&ret el - IGiankeh”, and made the wall of the sepulchral rotunda border 
 upon the „hAret en-Nassara’', while there in reality this rotunda is not visible, tho’ 
 buttresses are to be seen, which, belonging to another building, once afforded protection to the 
 palace of the Latin Patriarch of the crusaders. The truth is , that there are between this 
 street and the sepulchral rotunda in the first story several rather large rooms, in which the 
 corn, brought in by the Fellahin as tithe or the like, are measured under the superin- 
 tendance of the pasha’s clerk, and then stored up, and that the second story is occupied by 
 a long, lofty and entirely empty gallery, which is connected on the north with the house of 
 an efendi, while the blind wall on the south-side adjoins the buildings of the large Greek 
 monastery, comprising kitchen, mill &c. In the map of the engineers the „Mret el-Khankeh”, 
 not including the breadth of the „suk es-sem&ni” and the „haret en-Nass&ra”, measures 350', 
 
 *) Antient Jerusalem. Cambridge 1855, p. 296 in note. 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 while, according to my original sketch, it measures 219 steps, and according to a measurement 
 which was kindly sent to me from Jerusalem in 1855, it measures 463 English feet — a 
 considerable difference, and a difference which I account the greater, because, according to 
 the erroneous curtailments of the English plan', the description of the Anastase and the Basilica 
 of Constantine together with the Propylaea as described by Eusebius, could not be correctly 
 explained, as may by seen, for instance, in Robert Willis ’ „ Architectural History of the Church of 
 the Holy Sepulchfe”, which distinctly mentions 360' as the length of the street alluded to (p. 109). 
 The same may be said of the „haret el-Bisar”. The dimensions immediately east of the 
 „Mret deir el- Armen” and of the „Maukaf” (the Citadel square), are also too short. According 
 to my original sketch, the „Mret el -Armen” or the street which borders on the north the 
 Armenian convent as far as the „haret deir es-Siri&n”, measures 151 steps, without including 
 the intervening space, stretching from south to north, whereas the English plan shows only 
 as many feet. Not less strikingly crippled, as it were, is the „Mret Yakublyeh”, north of 
 the protestant Christ Church. Consequently, were any one, in reliance on this ground-plan, 
 executed under particularly favourable circumstances by a company of professional men, to 
 undertake to draw inferences from this quarter as it is delineated in the plan for the puiv 
 poses of scientific argumentation, it would be inevitable to commit many errors. To this 
 must be further added that several streets are wanting, or are traced in a wrong direction. 
 In this case it may perhaps be said in excuse, that it was exactly in the interval from 1841 
 to 1845, that the alterations in the net-work of streets took place, which were to be marked 
 on the new plan. I remember, indeed, that in 1846 when the Anglicans were building their 
 Christ Church, they suddenly gave to the „haret Yakublyeh” another direction, so that I was 
 obliged on this point to alter my plan, which in 1845, at least as regards the upper part of 
 the street, agreed with the English one. However, I do not attribute the omission of many streets 
 in Symonds and Aldrich's plan exclusively to the changes that have been made in building, but 
 also to the want of proper attention having been given to the smaller, less frequented and 
 striking streets, and more especially to the culs-de-sac . I confess that some small streets would 
 have escaped my notice, had not my long sojourn in the Holy City led to a more intimate 
 knowledge of them. But I now pass from generalities to particulars, and have to announce 
 that several streets in the Jewish quarter, the cul-de-sac eastwards near the English hospital, 
 another between the „haret deir es-ssethneh” and the „haret el-Jaw&in”, the „Mret deir es-sult&n”, 
 
 V. 
 
 and a few in the „hsiret el - Mogharibeh” are missing. The street by the windmill, given as 
 forming a thorough-fare to the „Mret deir es-ss6tftneh”, is incorrect, at least as regards 1845; 
 between the „stik el-lahem” and the „shk el-att&rin”, there is a cross-street too many, while, 
 on the other hand, the square of the „Khan es-shk” is wanting ; the „akbet el-Khadher” does 
 not run northwards from the street of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre into the „h&ret 
 en-Nass&ra”, but twelve steps south of it ; close to the Ecce-Homo arch there is a cross-street, 
 
19 
 
 and the street which runs from the „tarik Sitti Mariam” to the northwestern angle of the 
 temple area, does not commence so far westward. The street south of the Damascus gate 
 is too narrow and, upon the whole, somewhat confused. The „birket hammam el Batrak” 
 ought to be drawn as an oblong square. The mouth of the upper part of the subterranean 
 
 xi 
 
 channel is traced much too far south of the Dung -gate, and the course of this channel, 
 which forms a curve towards the east, ?s also given incorrectly. In inserting the proper 
 names of places, Williams has followed a very peculiar plan. He did not ask the natives 
 for information, but selected a mixture from the times of the Jewish kings, from the period 
 of the crusades, from the year 1495 (Mejir ed-Din), and from modern times ; besides this, the 
 selection of characters is often such as must necessarily lead to confusion, or must render it 
 difficult for the uninitiated to understand the plan. This plan was soon made generally 
 known in Germany by the celebrated geographer Karl Ritter , who left out a number of names 
 and inserted a few T others from my plan, and, moreover, with the help of H. Lang, partially 
 improved the terrain. Then followed the physician Chas. F. Zimpel , with a ship -load of 
 archaeological nonsense, and with the incorrect additions that the „Wady en-N&r” south of the 
 „ J ebel Baten el-Hawa” is traced from west to east instead of in a southeastern direction. That 
 both these Germans have abandoned the guidance of the English engineers, and followed that 
 of older planographers in tracing little brooklets in the ravines of Ben Hinnom and Josaphat, 
 must be pointed out as a retrograde step. In Holland the circulation was promoted by C. 
 W. M. van de Velde after the original measurements of the British military engineers Aldrich and 
 Symonds, and „met verbetering van den Z. W. hoek der muur van den Haram el-Sjerif” (1852)*). 
 This improvement on the west-side of the temple area, which necessitated other improvements 
 in the net of streets as far as the western wall of the city, but which, for want of knowledge 
 of my measurements, have. been attempted arbitrarily or at random, balances the faulty de- 
 lineation of the configuration of the ground. 
 
 Gadow , who spent about one year (1846/47) in Jerusalem, made it his particular object 
 to draw a correct plan. The fruits of his endeavours appeared on a reduced scale in Dr. 
 Philipp Wolffs Travels in the Holy Land; and was needlessly copied, without mention of 
 the original, by Dr. Fr. Liebetrut in his „Reise nach dem Morgenlande”. The plan in question, 
 which is devoid of a scale, gives evidences of considerable degeneracy in the drawing of 
 the ground, even appearing in the somewhat coarse execution, which may probably, however, 
 bu owing to the lithographer. In the city the ground was omitted, and as regards the ground 
 in the environs, it is sufficient to know that the ravine beginning at the Dung-gate, is drawn 
 exaggeratedly broad and in a straight line southwards, the same as in Pqcocke’s plan, so 
 that, according to this, the Dung -gate would command a view of fhe whole length of the 
 
 *) Reis door Syrie en Palestina. Utrecht 1854. See the plan in vol. 2, p. 231. Also in English and German. 
 
 3* 
 
20 
 
 narrow passage as far as the southern slope of the valley of Ben Hinnom. On the other 
 hand, the direction of the wall, from the northwestern angle of the city to the Damascus- 
 gate, has Ibeen improved by being pushed outward to the north, as is likewise the case in 
 the plan of the British engineers. If we further examine Gadow’s plan, we find indeed that 
 he does not repeat the fault of broadening the area of the great Mosque at the expense of 
 truth, and contracting the area between it and the western city -wall; but the streets are 
 incomplete and not to be relied upon. Thus about half the streets are wanting in the Jewish 
 quarter, as also in the northwestern division of the city from the „haret el-Khankeh” and 
 „haret deir el-Franj”; and the group of streets in the bas&r is also faulty. Of the culs-de-sac , 
 which are so numerous, and which form so striking a criterion in regard to the ground-plans of 
 oriental cities, only about four are inserted. In addition to this, the direction of the streets is 
 much too straight or too stiff and regular; the one that leads into the „haret el-Mogh&ribeh”, 
 commences incorrectly east (instead of west) of the steps of „el-Wfid”. In the citadel not all 
 the towers are given. Otherwise it may be called a bright idea, to mark all the remains of 
 ancient buildings in deep red colours. This plan has required more detailed criticism, because 
 it is likely to commend itself by its independance , and because Karl Bitter, and also, on the 
 recommendation of Professor Tuch of Leipzig, the German Oriental Society has undertaken 
 to patronise it,* and has long ago promised to publish it, tho’, for reasons which are perhaps 
 not purely financial, they have not as yet fulfilled this promise. Should the publication ever 
 take place, I sincerely hope that the great original may in many respects differ from its 
 unfortunate .forerunner. 
 
 In constructing -my own plan, I gave the most minute attention to the configuration of 
 the ground within and without the city. I was the first who put in the little valley in the 
 „sfik haret el-Yehfid”. The course of the .Tyropoeon and the „WMy en-N&r” I was enabled 
 to determine more correctly by means of measurements. On the south-side of the „VMy er- 
 Eababy” I .have likewise introduced the remarkable ancient Jewish sepulchres according to mea- 
 surement, and have numbered them. in accordance with the numbers in my description (Topo- 
 graphie 2, 237 sqq.), a measure which seeimed to me absolutely necessary, if the confusion which 
 has hitherto existed, were to be put an end to, and the guide to be made easily and perfectly 
 comprehensible. On the other hand, the tracing of the city-wall from the northwestern angle 
 to the Damascus -gate is faulty, according to the precedent of Robinson, whom I believed to 
 be correct on this point. When indicating the net -work of streets in the space encircled by 
 the city -wall, I soon discovered that the area was too confined there, so that I was even 
 obliged arbitrarily to carry the wall a little outwards towards the north in order to avoid 
 making the streets, inserted in the neighbourhood, too contorted ; but to carry the wall 
 outwards did not suffice, so that not only this portion of the wall, but also the streets in the neigh- 
 bourhood, in some cases, have obtained a false direction. Altogether I would not so much 
 
21 
 
 hold up to view the streets as being correct in direction beyond any further doubt, as I would 
 point out the completeness of the net- work, a completeness which has not, to my knowledge, 
 been attained in any other existing plan. I visited all the streets, in the course ,of my last 
 journey, also those in the neigbourhood of the area of the great Mosque. As regards the proper 
 names of the squares, streets &e., I have spared no trouble to learn them from the lips of 
 the natives. The erroneous opinion that the streets had no names, seems to have prevailed 
 pretty generally. Mejtr ed-Din, as is well known, quoted a number of names. Is it likely, 
 then, that the people should, in the course of ages, have abandoned all names ? This is not 
 conceivable. In like manner as necessity originally called the names into existence, it con- 
 tinued also in after times to require the streets to be designated by one word and without 
 loss of time. At the time of the crusaders we find that a regular list of names already 
 existed. When in 1187 the Saracens drove the Franks out of the Holy City, the language 
 of the Franks was also obliged to give way, and but few Latin or old French (most likely 
 principally Prove^al) names seem to have been translated into Arabic, nor is it probable that 
 previously the Arabic names had been frequently translated into French or Latin. However, the 
 ancient Frank „vicus David” corresponds with the present „chot en-NebyDMd”, as does the „ruha 
 balneorum Patriarchs” with the present „Batrak” (and also the ha,ret en-Nassara),^and the „vallis” 
 with the present „el-WM”. The names of the gates have been maintained in greater number. 
 We also observe, in regard to these latter, that the names given by the natives are more 
 long-lived than the others ; for among the Arabic names of the gates known to the crusa- 
 ders, such as „bab el-Mihr&b”, „b^b amfld el-Ghor&b”, „bab el-Asbat”, „b&b er-ahmet”, „bad) 
 es-Ssaihftn”, all, with the exception of „b&b el-Mihrab”, which tho’ antiquated, nevertheless 
 occurs in Mejir ed-Dtn, are still extant, while „porta David” has been changed into Yafa- 
 gate &c. , „porta S. Stephani”, into Damascus -gate, porta Magdalen ae *), into Herod’s - gate, 
 „porta vallis Josaphat”, into Stephen’s - gate , and only the golden gate and Sion -gate have 
 remained. It is much to be deplored that a list of the Arabic names of the streets at the 
 period of the crusades has not also descended to us, so that we might compare it with the 
 existing one from 1495. But to return, the necessity for having names to the streets must, 
 I know, exist now as it did previously, and by reading the writings of Scholz and Berggren, 
 by repeatedly enquiring of the natives, also by interrogating once in presence of the deceased 
 Mr. Schultz his Arabic teacher, a sh6kh, I, at length, succeeded in collecting a considerable 
 number of proper names, in regard to which I am only surprised that a greater number of 
 the Arabic names from the fifteenth century, have not been retained in the popular language, 
 and that some of them that have, should be so corrupted. I consider the mention of as many 
 proper names as possible, very essential, because they are of great service in the description 
 
 *) Muratorii Ital. Rer. script. 6, 796. Porta della Maddalena. Hist. Patriae Monument, scriptor. Aug. Taurini 1848. 3 , 1125. 
 
22 
 
 of details, and more especially on occasions of scientific digressions, as they serve to 
 give correctness and distinctness to the expressions. The distrust which has been provoked*) 
 against my list of names, I conceive to have its origin in the fact that this treasure of 
 Arabic words had not been dug out to any considerable amount before my time, and the 
 great number offered to the public by me, has caused surprise; probably, however, this 
 distrust will gradually be dissipated when it shall be recalled to mind, that my collections 
 correspond here and there with the traditions of Mejir ed-Dtn, and with the collections of Scholz 
 and Berggren, besides others. I was careful not to extort from guides names of their own inven- 
 tion, and if now and then the spelling should not be the most correct, or the name should be 
 somewhat far-fetched and uncommon, I nevertheless venture to maintain that, upon the whole, 
 the proper names are reliable to an extent which must render them very valuable. Ought 
 the names of the „Holy Places” to have been accepted on the authority of the monks? I did 
 not hesitate to satisfy the desires of the pilgrims herein, more especially as this enabled me, at 
 the same time, to facilitate the understanding of the" ancient as well as the more modern books 
 of pilgrimage. I have, however, on the contrary been purposely sparing**) of such paheoto- 
 pographical names which* tho’ representing merely the suppositions of one or more individuals, 
 form the chief adornments of many existing plans. 
 
 From this survey of the ground-plans it results that no single one thoroughly satisfies the 
 claims made upon it. The older plans possess at present only a historical value, and many 
 new ones, such as Sieber’s, Robinson’s, William’s, Schultz’s, Krafft’s, may be totally or partially 
 set aside, except they be used merely for the better understanding of their writings* Even 
 Gadow’s ground-plan may, without much inconvenience, be set aside. In Catherwood’s plan 
 the temple area, more particularly in Fergusson’s edition, is as yet indispensable. But when 
 the failings in the English plan and in mine be balanced against the many useful features, 
 which, according to my judgement, both, but more especially the former, contain, it strikes 
 one at once as highly desirable that a plan should be worked out combining the ad- 
 vantages of both , while avoiding their errors. This idea has not occurred to me only recently. 
 When Louis Erbe in Stuttgart applied to me for guidance in the construction of a geoplasma 
 of Jerusalem, I used my influence to induce him to combine both these plans; which combination 
 was indeed accomplished to my great satisfaction, altho’ a geometrician would perhaps censure 
 some parts of the copies transmitted to me , which did not yet contain the improvements of 
 
 *) In the Boston edition of his work (1856, vol. I, p. 267 sq.) Robinson observes : „Very few if any of them (streets) hear 
 names among the native population. . .” „Our friends, who had resided several years in the city, and made frequent inquiries, ha4 
 never been able to hear of any, except in a few instances.” Why did not these friends then, and why does not Mr. Robinson name 
 these few streets? ^ 
 
 **) See the announcement of my plan by myself in the „Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenl&ndischen Gesellschaft 5, 372 sqq. n , 
 as also my article „Die neuesten Leistungen in der Planographie von Jerusalem” ibid. 7 , 223, written already in 1851. 
 
23 
 
 a later date*); the bee was only to extract the honey from both flowers. If the love of 
 truth caused me not to overvalue my own production, and not to underrate the production 
 
 i 
 
 of others, too much merit must not be imputed to me ; no man who has once emerged from 
 his narrow self into the great human totality, and who has at the same time retained, in an 
 unprejudiced heart, a degree of healthy conscientiousness, could have acted otherwise. In 
 the same way Tlvrupp (1855) — deviating from the example of the two above named Ger- 
 mans, who, as is not unusual in their country, did not give so much credit to German 
 literature — amalgamated the Aldrich - Symonds plan and my plan in his**); and tho’ the 
 endeavours of this learned Briton deserve to be acknowledged — for he has constructed a 
 net-work of streets selected, with just discrimination and without partiality, from both plans, 
 avoiding, at least in a great measure, the faults of both, as, for instance, in allowing exactly 
 100' more to the length of the „hAret el-KMnkeh’’ than the English engineers — - nevertheless 
 greater completeness might have been expected and would have been possible after the given 
 models, for instance as regards the deficiency in the number of cross - streets between „stlk 
 el-lahem” and „sfik el - attarin”, and altho’ the little valley of the „suk haret el-YehM” is 
 introduced, indeed, a little too distinctly in the neighbourhood of the city-wall — I say this; 
 even tho’ it be to the detriment of my hypothesis • — yet the treatment of the ground leaves 
 a great deal to be desired, in addition to which it must not be forgotten that the artistic 
 supplement, in fact, serves principally to give a more distinct view of the author’s Very pe« 
 culiar notions regarding ancient topography, for instance regarding Moriah and Sion. Re- 
 cently (1856) Ed. Robinson has followed in Thrupp y s footsteps. He also has combined the 
 English plan with mine ***), but he has carried off the prize in as much as relates to the 
 very neat execution. As for the streets that occur in this plan, I cannot allow them to pass 
 without censure, observing at the same time that the faults I have to censure, are not the same 
 as in the plan of Mr. Thrupp . I would refer, for instance, to the opening of „Akbet el-Khadher” 
 into the Christian-street, to the „haret Yakubiyeh”, „ha;ret el-Bis&r” and the three parallel 
 stik. What the brook of Hinnom is meant to indicate, cannot here either be understood. If 
 Robinson’s description of the ground seems to be, or is, correct, we are surprised to find in a 
 map, published in London by John Murray, a northwest hill and a northeast hill within 
 the city, as on older maps, tho’ contrary to truth, and we must from this draw the inference 
 that the work has not been carried on throughout under Robinson’s eye. Yet this very 
 incorrect representation has been introduced by Kiepert into the schools in 1857. As a tribute 
 
 *) See my Topographie 2, 1011 sq. 
 
 **) Jerusalem. Based upon the English Ordnance Survey and on the map of Dr. Tobler; in the before named work „Antient 
 Jerusalem.” It is through this English mediation that my plan has quite lately met with greater attention in Germany. See Phil. 
 Wolff's Jerusalem. Leipzig 1857. Plan and p. 19. 
 
 ***) „Sketch-map of Jerusalem reduced from the plans of Symonds and Tobler with many corrections”. This sketch is wanting 
 in the German translation. 
 
24 
 
 to the truth I must add that a ground-plan published in the same year by Crocker in Boston *), 
 represents the ground — which, in general, differs materially — more correctly, especially 
 also in the northeast and northwest of the city, so that no hills offend the eye in these 
 portions of the city. For our own part, I have to state that in order to put into execution 
 the idea which I have alluded to, the well known chartographer C. W. M. van de Velde 
 resolved to undertake the technical part, and I would particularly draw attention to the 
 manner in which the configuration of the ground is drawn by him. We went carefully over the 
 
 ground together ; we tested street after street, consulting anew my original sketches ; and, as 
 
 • \ 
 
 a matter of course, the fixed points in the plan of Aldrich and Symonds, according to the 
 original in the Board of Ordnance, were most carefully examined, their surpassing value being 
 fully acknowledged. As our ground -plan is not meant to be a theatre for the conflicts of 
 partizans, nor a place of deposit for hypotheses, we excluded almost entirely all names of 
 remote antiquity, hardly one of which, moreover, is undisputed, and also those from the middle 
 age , contenting ourselves with forming out of the plastic and linguistic materials extant , as 
 distinct and true an image as possible, such a one as will be most useful to a sober anti- 
 quarian, and with which he is most likely to be pleased best. In addition to this, we took 
 no little pains to insert all that is most interesting among the recent discoveries and recent 
 buildings. Tbits the Anglican cemetery on Mount Sion, and the house for Austrian pilgrims, 
 still in course of erection, will be found in the plan. 
 
 With much pains a map has thus been constructed which is equal to the demands of 
 the present day , and which will, we trust, be as welcome to the intelligent pilgrim as to the 
 scientific investigator, altho’ we will not conceal that we sympathize with the latter in the 
 regret he will no doubt feel, that in some places still more exact measurements and observations 
 have not been made, so that the work might be unconditionally recommended. 
 
 Supplement . While the foregoing was in the press, I became acquainted with two new plans 
 of Jerusalem, seeming to acquire attention. One of them is the large plan of Errnete Pierrotti, 
 executed during the year 1855 and published at Genoa. The author, an architect and Engineer, 
 stayed some time in Jerusalem for the purpose of constructing this plan. I have now the oppor- 
 tunity to test the correctness of it by going over the ground, and shall not thus be likely to fall 
 into errors by criticising others. In visiting the town with the said plan in hand, I was soon 
 
 *) See among the four maps to accompany the Biblical' Researches in Palestine of Ed. Eobinson and Eli Smith (drawn by 
 Heinrich Kiepert) the „Plan of Jerusalem, originally sketched from Sieber and Catherwood, corrected by the measurements of 
 Eobinson and Smith . The streets corrected from the plans of Tobler and the English engineers”, on a somewhat larger scale. The 
 net-work of streets in the two plans is not quite alike, differing most in the „hdret el-Mogharibeh”. On the London plan tbe streets 
 are drawn more completely and better, tho’ exaggeratedly broad. It deserves to be noticed that both plans published as Robinsonian 
 are from the same year. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 (These Errata occur not through the carelessness of the Author.) 
 
 Pag. 
 
 » 
 
 » 
 
 13, line 2 from bottom, for „sur” read „suk”. 
 
 24, » | for pj erro tti” read Pierotti”. 
 
 25, „ 4 and 6 S 
 
 25, „ 10 for ,, except the house of the female Pope Johanna” read 
 
 % 
 
 „except the house of the high priest Annas”. 
 
25 
 
 convinced that it has no claim, strictly speaking, of being considered thoroughly reliable. 
 In three places thoroughfares are indicated where there are mere cuts -de- sac. The three 
 market-streets (bazaars) being, as far as I can recollect, incorrectly drawn on all plans hitherto 
 published, I devoted full attention to their topography, and found that Pierrotti also has fallen 
 into the common error, and that our plan alone is correct in these points. But I must acknow- 
 ledge, on the other hand, that Pierrotti’s plan shows several features more correctly. 
 
 There are also specially distinguished on his plan the residences of the Latin Patriarch, 
 the Latin Nunnery, the* Greek Convent, the residences of the English, Prussian, French, 
 Austrian and Spanish Consuls, and the Offices of the French and Austrian steam - packets. 
 The names of all places famous in Holy History, are carefully indicated, except the house of 
 the female Pope Johanna, thus indicating the incorrectness of the site hitherto assigned to it. 
 
 With regard to the delineation of the hills and the configuration of the ground in general, 
 the plan is very often inaccurate ; thus, for example, near the Mulawieh-Mosque a considerable 
 hill is shown, which I have looked for in vain and which, in reality, does not exist. The 
 technical execution of the plan, in general, is not creditable, and the writing not well finished. 
 Had the plan appeared with that of Sieber, it would have been much more valuable, and 
 while we must give credit to the author for his work on account of its originality, we cannot 
 consider him to deserve any praise for not having paid attention to, or availed himself more fully 
 of, the labours of others. Plans and maps should be drawn in so clear, perspicuous manner 
 as to be at once intelligible to different nations. 
 
 The other plan, that may be said to be of greater, and indeed of considerable impor- 
 tance, bears the title: „ Jerusalem and Environs. From actual and minute Survey, completed 
 on the spot and shaded from a verified Model by J. T. Barclay and Sons”, with a statement 
 of the price, and the words : „copy right secured” , and has been published at Philadelphia 
 (Jas. Challen and Sons) in 1856. This large plan is furnished with a scale and compass, 
 and, notwithstanding its being tastelessly marginated with an old-fashioned garnish, offers, 
 in its new appearance, much that is of interest. No other plan represents the configuration 
 of the ground more accurately; the rivulets of Kedron and Ben Hinnom are fortunately 
 omitted. In the interior of the city the Barclays have drawn three hills : two in the south — 
 one of them in the upper part (Armenian quarter), the other in the lower part (Jewish 
 quarter) — and the third hill in the northeast. The latter, on the top of which there is the 
 Mulawieh Mosque, ought to have been omitted; the two southern hills, however, are in 
 accordance with my own orographical ground -plan, though I .must say that they do not 
 fall off so abruptly towards the south within the city, as they have been drawn. The outline 
 of the „Haram esh-Sherif, and, more particularly, of the platform on the top of the rock 
 shows very distinctly the form of a trapezium, and the western side of the temple area runs 
 
 in a straight direction. In no other plan the streets are drawn more correctly and completely ; 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 the „haret el-Kliankeh” has its due length. In the northwestern quarter of the city, however, 
 which I surveyed myself anew in 1857, three cuts - de - sac , that have 19, 20 and 25 steps in 
 length, are omitted, while, on the other hand, the cross-street connecting the „akbet el-IOiadher” 
 with the by-street of the ,^haret deir er-Rlkn”, northwest of the „birket hammam el-Batrak”, 
 does not exist. For, with great conformity^ it is neither found in the English plan, nor in 
 Pierotti’s and my own. The three paralleFshk are almost perfectly correct. Names of places 
 are but sparingly inserted , here and there they are scarcely legible , the Arabic is somewhat 
 neglected, viz. „dier” instead of deir” or „der” ; „en-Nair” instead of „en-Nar, jUlf.” The technical 
 execution of the plan is not quite satisfactory. However, the work deserves to be warmly 
 recommended. 
 
 Printed in Engelhard - Beyher’s Office, Gotha, 
 
Zl- 'T en T o . 
 
 ARCULF’S PLAN 
 
 O .EL I 3 ** 5 
 
 0 Q C| I D e K g 
 
PLAN OF THE Nil CENTURY. H. 
 
 II In btif IJlurUui 6 
 
 q>on 
 
 bia.\)oVo' , 
 
MARINO SANUDOS PLAN. 
 
/^Tomb of Simon the Just 
 
 Christian Quarter. 
 
 1 Convent of S* Euihg mins 
 
 2 J)eir es-Sitti 
 
 3 House for Greek pilgrims 
 
 4 Traditionary Sepulchre of Christ 
 
 5 Traditionary spot of the Crucifixion 
 
 6 Is aks convent 
 
 7 Aby Sudan convent 
 
 8 Subterranean chapel of Helena 
 
 9 Latin convent 
 
 10 Armenian convent 
 
 1 1 Tome r ( steep le) 
 
 12 Courtyard 
 
 13 Here ends the Via Dolorosa , which begins in the Tarik Silti 
 Mariam at Dilates house , and goes down el -Wad, ascen- 
 ding Tarik el-Aldm to ITaret el -Khdnkeh . 
 
 14 Porta Judicial is 
 
 15 Ancient remains of arches (Abd er-Rasek) 
 
 16 ALelana convent 
 
 17 Copth convent 
 
 Mohammedan Quarter. 
 
 18 Deir el -Ades 
 
 19 „ F.cce Homo - arch 
 
 20 Traditionary spot where Simon took up the cross 
 
 21 Kandter Akhta Bek 
 
 22 Traditionary house of Lazarus 
 
 23 Traditionary house of Hives 
 
 24 Traditionary house of Veronica 
 
 25 Suk el-kebir and esh -Shamazn 
 
 P 6. A/a hha meh (. In r! nnn>ni hall ) 
 
 Welv Shekli J err ah 
 
 
 Tohlfr& of the kj 
 
 illUJ liiijj 
 
 ruin. 
 
 tank 
 
 mm 
 
 s§s 
 
 mmm 
 
 SBMSt 
 
 ibs of the Martyrs 
 
 A?// 
 
 n \\ ■ , V/ ; 
 
 wu\um//Vy/y . I// B, 
 
 ruin 
 
 
 4ffll 
 
 
 Quarry 
 
 
 27 Medeneh es- Serai 
 
 28 Oratories 
 
 29 High schools 
 
 30 Fatimes Oratory 
 
 31 The celestial gate 
 
 32 Gate of David 
 
 33 Gate of prayer 
 
 34 Kubbct es-Sakhrah el -Barraneh 
 
 35 House of the chief shekh 
 
 36 Bab el -Kattdnin 
 
 tturj .Tebfl 
 
 mm 
 
 iri Garni 
 
 
 
 Da ma sens 
 Bab el - A rr 
 
 mfilll 
 
 1 \\\"\W /' >')/' 
 
 i lltw 
 
 37 Bab el-Matara 
 
 / ///< 1 1 wit ///'ii i ! ! W/ff. 
 
 EEf-rj / /// 
 
 Hi mm 
 
 WM 
 
 38 Bab es-Sinsleh 
 
 39 Medeneh el - kadhi 
 
 40 Bab el-Moghdribeh 
 
 41 Medeneh el -Fakheriyeb 
 
 42 Column of Mohammed 
 
 Armenian Quarter 
 
 43 Ancient tower 
 
 Church o 
 
 
 rfZd o f Bocks . - . 
 Bab el - Ohoroctrb 
 
 
 (rethsi 
 
 el-Kkhnut 
 
 loTO-OI^ 
 
 ■hroru f 
 
 s lvalVj* [ 5 r 
 
 44 Ancient arch 
 
 45 Suk el - Khosur 
 
 46 Suk el -Yds surah 
 
 Quarter of Moeiiaribeh . 
 
 47 Jew's Wailing place 
 
 Out side of the walls . 
 
 48 Traditionary spot where Si Stephen was stoned 
 
 49 traditionary spot where Jesus sweat blood 
 
 50 Traditionary spot where the Apostles Creed was made 
 
 51 Traditionary spot where the three disciples slept 
 
 Supposed spot tv here Church. ot 
 
 the City S. Pelagia, 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 of Jehu 
 ?orp'h of Abs 
 
 .Fountain 
 
 C agg_c4 ^SV Jaanes 
 Zecltai 
 
 
 Explanatory notes . 
 
 2 signifies a mask or minaret 
 
 + signifies a Christian church , chapel or convent 
 
 Ain means spring 
 
 Akbet means ascent (street) 
 
 Up. 
 
 r %#sj 
 
 s of Prophet f? 
 
 Abu Be 
 
 Bab n leans gate 
 
 Bir means well or fountain 
 
 Birket means pool , tank or reservoir 
 Chot,H. or Haret, Tarik SrSekkah mean street 
 
 
 I ^ 
 
 Shlni bifls 
 
 polish views) 
 
 Sbu'ort} 'J\ 
 iiiimerv III 
 
 r, | **r Y^ajb , | 
 
 Armenian - 1 
 Convent «>F SfvlaM^W 
 
 Jebel means mountain 
 
 Medeneh means minaret 
 
 7 / Entrance of 
 sub ter V Channel 
 
 mm 
 
 Suk means market 
 
 Bnrj el-< 
 Kfbriwl 
 
 ?(I)eir rJ//S^t«neh ; 
 
 «v (SCI 
 
 Wady means v alley 
 
 t signifies houses or places not now existing or no 
 more used for the purposes 'indicated . 
 
 )_ _to Bethany and Jericho 
 
 EMM 
 
 suhfei 
 
 Latin 
 
 rmeiiLanfo 
 
 Pllou^nf. 
 
 PLAN OF 
 
 row it mid fir 
 
 taxai 
 
 Wm 
 
 
 onour 
 
 Birket 0m el- H mould 
 
 800 
 
 400 300 
 
 1600 
 
 2000 
 
 r. bv BieAermarui,'J*rberiiardt and Stichardt