The gate is proved by the following points:—(1) The dressed masonry from the inside to the outside corner, which would not occur in the width of the wall taken at random. (2) The slab under the corner-stone of the wall at B' projects out to form (with others) the sill of the gate, for while the part beyond the corner is smoothed, as by the tread of feet, the part projecting from under the corner is not thus rubbed. (3) Above the sill there are stones built in a totally different manner from the careful masonry of the wall; the joints are wide, and one stone is part of a broken column. In other words, they point to a later blocking up of the gate. (4) The tracing of the paved road for almost 250 feet to this point in the wall.
The finding of a sewer immediately under this gate, at a point which cannot be far from the limits between which the Dung Gate has been placed by various theorists, establishes its identity with a strength of proof considerable indeed for archæology, where identifications are adopted and clung to with a tenacity arising from indications far less satisfying. Moreover, the sewer not only passed under this gate, but poured its filth into the valley of Hinnom, scarce 20 yards away.
Beyond the gate we followed the wall for 25 feet more, where it has turned a few feet to the south-west as if to form a tower. Here the masonry is of the same character as at the points described before, save that a shallow draft (18 inch) appears. This shows that in the same wall, and in all probability at the same time, both drafted and undrafted stones may occur. The courses are 2 feet high, and the stones, say in length, from 1 foot 9 inches to 4 feet 4 inches.
I have long felt that the question of ancient masonry rests on insufficient data. Not enough Jewish buildings are known. Because the Temple substructure and the Haram of Hebron consist of huge, drafted blocks, it is generally assumed that Solomonic and Herodian masonry was all massive. Smaller work is placed later. In regard to this wall Mr. Schick writes me that it may be the remains of a wall built in about 440 by the Empress Eudoxia, as Bishop Eucherius (440) says that Zion was included in the city (which it was not in Hadrian's time), and that the Pool of Siloam was also included. Theodosius (520-530} and Antonius of Platentia (570) always refers to Siloam as inside the wall, and the latter emphasises the fact thus: "It is now inside," as if it had been included by the Empress Eudoxia, who built new walls of Jerusalem.
My own opinion I reserve until we have traced this wall further, when new light may be hoped for. However, I am inclined to assign it to pre-Christian times, as the proof of a wall at this point at later periods is not furnished by much direct testimony. And the smallness of the masonry does not trouble me. We do not know that small undrafted stones were not used by Herod.
A very interesting question is the relation of this wall to the outer scarp. It runs fairly parallel to it from the gate to the counter-scarp of the fosse, but it takes no account of the bastion west of the gate. In
