The Biblical Archaeologist - Vol.59, N.3

60 Pages·1996·26.5 MB·English

by  American Schools of Oriental Research

ca7lllI
D
9 gptv 4es V.5
mon
R UAE S
S.J ..SII SIf.. ** 'S..I
SILOAMTUNNE
bu' IIt by
Hezekiah
or the
I07
~
II I)1 L~1 L
B
icalArchaeologist
Perspectiveos n the rld fromM esopotamiato the Mediterranean Volume5 9 Number3
A Publicationo f the AmericanS choolso f OrientalR esearch September1 996
W 138 Wast he SiloamT unnelB uiltb y Hezekiah?
____
JohnR ogersona ndP hilipR .D avies
A walk through Hezekiah's tunnel offers one of the unforgettable highlights of a
visit to Jerusalem.T he adventure of the scary passage through its narrow limestone
confines gives way to marvel over the engineering feat and multifarious associa-
tions with a rebellion narrated so fully in Hebrew Scripture.T op it all off with an
inscription telling of the final moments of the tunnelers' epic midpoint encounter,
and even the most inept guide cannot fail to rouse a tour group to a level of awe.
-1 But what if it's not Hezekiah'st unnel after all? Rogerson and Davies review the
history of the Gihon water system and of the line of the walls of the city,b iblical ref-
erences to the water system, and the genre and the paleography of the inscription.
Their conclusion? Will a walk through the Hasmonean tunnel still be thrilling?
Ile - -?rr
150 Syncretistica nd MnemonicD imensionso f ChalcolithiAc rt:A New
HumanF igurinef romS hiqmim
ThomasE . Levya ndJ onathanG olden
1 1, The large Chalcolithic( ca. 4500-3500B CEv)i llage and mortuaryc omplex of Shiqmim
in Israel's Negev has produced a unique diminutive human figurine. Its anthro-
pomorphic features are captivating, but it also shares in the abstracta rtistics tyle of
"violin-shape" figurines. Uniquely bringing together these two distinct southern
Levantine artistic traditions, the Shiqmim figurine permits us to see overlapping
cultural, stylistic, spatial, and chronological dimensions of the Chalcolithic cul-
ture of Palestine. The intrinsicallyb eautiful bone carving may also have had a more
A s
concrete social function: the authors suggest it may have served as a mnemonic
device.
160 A Typologyo f WestS emiticP laceN ameL istsw ith SpecialR eferenceto
Joshua1 3-21
RichardS . Hess
The heart of the book of Joshua offers place name lists, the origin and purpose of
which have long been debated. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the
Spae160 existence of many kinds of place name lists in documents from the larger West
Semitic world, especially the cuneiform tablets of Mari, Alalakh, and Ugarit.
Comparing these lists with the lists of Joshua 13-21 reveals the origins of particu-
lar lists and the fashioning of the whole as a land grant document contextualized
within a larger covenant document.
171 The OliveP it and RomanO il Making
E. LoetaT 7reea ndE vangeliaS tefanoudaki
The importance of olive oil in the ancient Mediterraneanw orld can hardly be exag-
gerated: from lighting to diet and cosmetics, no other oil came close to the olive's
multitudinous usages. The significance of olive oil contrasts with how historians
often demonstrate their ignorance about its production. Case in point: the repeated
assertion that Roman oil manufacturers pitted their olives before crushing them.
The authors debunk this notion in their reconstructiono f Roman oil production and
its specialized tools, examining modem oil production in the process. Since the idea
of Roman olive pitting arises in part from Roman writers like Cato who felt that
to crush the pit was to ruin the flavor of the oil, the authors add an experimental
dimension to their investigation as well. Variouslyp reparedo ils are put to the taste
test. Can even the connoisseur tell the difference between oils produced with or
without crushing the pit?
On the cover: The Siloam inscription,c ut from the rockw all of the Jerusalem
tunnel, had been located six meters from the tunnel's currento utlet. It records
the final moments of tunneling when workers digging with pick-axesf rom
opposite ends adjusted their excavation to the sound of their counterparts.
Almost universallyj udged to be contemporaneous with a late eighth century date
for the constructiono f the tunnel, the text may be paleo-Hebrewf rom a later
century accordingt o the authors of the lead article. Photo by ErichL essing.
From the Editor
BiblicalArchaeologist
Perspectiveosn the AncientW orldf rom
As the weeks of a summer field season pass and the pace of discovery gath- Mesopotamitao the Mediterranean
ers speed, news inevitably filters into dig camp about finds elsewhere in the Middle EditorD avid C. Hopkins
East. Travelersa nd e-mail bring word of more tablets at Ugarit, a rich palaeolithic Art DBiroeockt oRre Bvuiecwky E EddigtoetrtM , Liuchckely PF roordtiunc tions
site at the Azraq oasis of Jordan, a dedicatory inscription mentioning Ekron and Arti-FactsE ditors Brucea nd Carolyn Routledge
EditorialA ssistants
two of its kings from Tel Miqne (see this issue's Arti-Facts).D epending upon how
Mary PetrinaB oyd, Ellen Rowse Spero
unproductive your square is turning out to be or how few and far between are EditorialC ommittee
the recordable sites of your survey region, such news is often unnerving. Even a JefferyA . Blakely KennethG . Hoglund
neighboring square may look like a paradise of finds for its few broken figurines. EBleitzsayb Met.h BB rlyoacnh -Smith DMoaurgyl Jaosa An. L Kenitihg ht
It is easy to become overly focused on the treasures in the trash of the ancient J. P. Dressel Gloria London
world so that one loses contact with the larger archaeological endeavor. One ErnestS . Frerichs Jodi Magness
Ronald S. Hendel Gerald L. Mattingly
can also lose sight of the broad experience that participation in archaeologicalp ro- RichardS . Hess Gaetano Palumbo
jects affords,e specially those that transporto ne into a culturalw orld quite dissimilar Paul Zimansky
to one's home. Subscriptions Annual subscriptionr ates are $35
for individuals and $45 for institutions.T herei s a
Long negotiations for permissions and several years of waiting certainly raised special annual rate of $28 for students, those over
my level of anticipation with respect to what stupendous finds would greet my 65, physically challenged, or unemployed. Biblical
summer's digging. The large (13x16 m) ruralb uilding was well preserved on three Archaeologisits also available as part of the
benefits of some ASORm embership categories.
sides with at least 1.5 m of deposition. The mid-slope setting amidst terracedv ine- Postage for Canadiana nd other international
yard and fig trees appealed to my imagination of a scene from an idyll. There were addresses is an additional $5. Payments should
be sent to ASORM embership/Subscriber
cisterns and a substantial cave complex. Services, P.O.B ox 15399,A tlanta,G A 30333-0399
But none of these tantalizing leads proved reliable. The bedrock rose rapidly (ph: 404-727-2345;B itnet:S CHOLARS@
in the midst of the building, depriving it of much accumulation. The trenches that EMORYUI)V. ISA/Mastercardo rders can be
phoned in.
did delve deeply came upon a surface that had been well cleaned when the house Back issues Backi ssues can be obtained by
was abandoned, apparently in orderly fashion. Diggers unearthed very few items calling SP Customer Services at 800-437-6692o r
of material culture, and these were mostly broken. We learned much about the writing SP Customer Services,P .O.B ox 6996,
Alpharetta,G A 30239-6996.
structure of the building and its history, but there was nothing to stand up and
crow about at mealtime. Except for Miriam. APorcsthmaeaosltoegr iSsAte,n SdO aRdM dreemssb cehrasnhgipes/S tou bBsicbrliibcaelr
Miriam was the owner of the site, yet an extremely poor woman who lived Services, P.O.B ox 15399,A tlanta,G A 30333-0399.
twenty-five meters from the edge of our first square. Miriam and her blind mother Sadecdoitnidon-calla osfsfp icoesst.a ge paid at Atlanta,G A and
occupied a cinderblock shack half the size of the ancient building with no run-
Copyright ? 1996b y the American Schools
ning water and no electricity. She used the ancient cistern for her water supply. of OrientalR esearch.
The cave complex was a dove cote. The portions of the building site itself were Correspondence All editorial correspondence
part of her arable land. She harvested the grain, figs, and grapes. should be addressed to BiblicaAl rchaeologis4t,5 00
Miriam was our overseer from the moment we pounded in the first piece of M20a0s1s6a-c5h6u9s0e( ptthsA : 2v0e2n-u8e8 5N-W86,9 W9f;aa sxh: 2in0g2t-o8n8,5D -C86 05;
re-bart o the moment we raked over the backfilla nd said good-bye to all our labors. email [email protected])C. orrespondence
She was as much a part of the archaeological experience as the digging, sifting, regarding submissions for Arti-Factsc an be sent
to Brucea nd Carolyn Routledge, Departement
and recording. This unsought but unavoidable ethnographic dimension reminded d'histoire,U niversite Laval, Ste-Foy,Q uebec,
us constantly about the once-living who had built and abandoned the objects of Canada GIK 7P4.
our excavation and the now-living among whom we had the privilege, even Book Reviews All books for review should be
sent to: ProfessorM ichel Fortin,D epartement
the audacity, to work, imposing our values upon a foreign landscape. Miriam had d'histoire, Universite Laval, Ste-Foy,Q uebec,
her own set of values to protect and little patience for ours. Many of us would cer- Canada GIK 7P4. Books entering Canadas hould
be marked:E ducationalM aterialf or Review; No
tainly prefer to work autonomously, independent of the claims of another set of CommercialV alue-GSTE xempt.
values. Miriam reminded us regularly that such independence is no longer Advertising Correspondences hould be
realistic in our time and perhaps no longer ideal. addressed to Leigh Anderson, ScholarsP ress, P.O.
Accompanied by numerous finds or nothing worth mentioning, it is the broader, Box 15399,A tlanta, GA 30333-0399( ph:4 04-727-
2327;f ax:4 04-727-2348)A. ds for the sale
cross-cultural aspects of the archaeological experience that are fundamentally sig- of antiquitiesw ill not be accepted.
nificant. Likewise, we dare not lose sight of the cross-cultural dimensions of BiblicalA rchaeologist (ISSN0 006-0895)i s
archaeological interpretationt hat are necessarily involved in connecting the now- published quarterly( March,J une, September,
December)b y ScholarsP ress, 819 Houston Mill
living with the once-living. Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329,f or the American
Schools of OrientalR esearch( ASOR),3 301 North
Charles Street,B altimore,M D 21218. Printedb y
a/?vtL H-opkQ*
Cadmus Journal Services, Baltimore, MD.
t~ij\
Was the Siloam
Tunnel Built by
Hezekiah?
By JohnR ogersona nd PhilipR . Davies
SINCEED WARRDO BINSOENX PLORTEHDE TUNNEL
in 1837, it has occupied a prominenStI pLlOacAeM in the
EVER tellingo f theh istoryo f JerusalemT.h isp aperr eassesses
the placeo f what has becomek nowna s "Hezekiah's
tunnel"a ndp roposesa new theoryo f thed ateso f construction
of its variousc omponentsT. hea rgumentc onsiderst hrees ets
of evidence:f irst,t he historyo f the Gihonw aters ystem and
of the line of the walls of the city; second, biblical refer-
ences to the Gihon water system;a nd third,t he genre and
the paleography of the inscriptionf ound in the so-called
"Hezekiah'st unnel."T heb ottoml ine can be simply stated:
on the evidencea vailablet o us, the tunnelw as not built by
Hezekiahb ut severalc enturiesl ater.
Archaeology
TheG ihonW aterS ystem
The Gihon spring lies on the eastern ridge of the hill
known as the "Ophel"o r "Cityo f David."A series of chan-
nels and tunnels, made over several centuries,h as led the Aerialv iew of Jerusalemf rom the south shows the spur of the City
water from the Gihon spring to other places where it was of David.T he Siloamt unnel carriesw ater from near the mid-pointo f
more accessible.O f these, threen eed to be consideredh ere. this spurt o its southern tip. The date when this outlet was enclosed
Thef irsti s a complexc onsistingo f a steppedp assage,a shaft, within the walls of the ancient city is a cruciali ssue facing students of
and a tunnelw hichb roughtw aterf romt he springt o a point the water system.T he photo makes cleart he topography with which
where it could be accessed from the top of the shaft the builderso f southern and western walls would have reckoned.
reachedb y the passage. The shaft itself is known as "War- Photo courtesyo f RichardC leave.
ren'sS haft,"a ftert he explorerw ho discoveredi t in 1876.T he
passage and the shaft are partly natural, which explains of the spring and thus would have put the city's own sup-
the curiousl ayout of the entires ystem (see Gill 1994).T his ply in jeopardy. It was therefore unlikely to have been
provisioni s obviouslys trategica, nd its design presupposes constructedi n times when therew as even a threato f war.
that,a t the time of its constructiont,h e city wall ranb etween Finally,t herei s a tunnel,w hich runs undergroundt o a
the springa nd the accesss haft. spot near the present" Poolo f Siloam."T he tunnelu tilized
The second system was once known as the "SecondA que- part of the shaft system at its northerne nd and part of the
duct,"t hough we shall follow Y.S hiloh in calling it the "Siloam channel at its southern end, where it reversed the chan-
Channel." This waterway is partly rock-hewn tunnel and nel's earliers lope and thus the directiono f the flow.B ecause
partly stone-covered conduit, and it runs through to the bir- of this apparentr euseo f parto f an earliers ystem,i t looks as
kete lhamrao r "Old Pool of Siloam."T he choice of this outflow if the tunneli s latert hant he channel.U ssishkin( 1976)h as a
was probably due to the existence of a reservoir collecting differenti nterpretationp, ositing an originallys hortert un-
rainwater running down the Tyropoeon valley. However, nel. It is, in any case, intrinsicallyim probablet hat aftert he
small apertures in the channel suggest that it also served to tunnel was in use, an external channel was also cut to
irrigate the Kidron valley or perhaps even some terracingo n bringw atert o a pool very neart he tunnel'se xit. It is impor-
the slopes. As all excavators agree, this was a water system tant to remembert hat the volume of water fromt he Gihon
which, unlike the shaft, was operable only in times of peace. is neitherh uge nor constanta, nd the tunneli s capableo f car-
Not only did the channel run outside the walls, it would have ryinga ll the availablew ater;s ubsequentw aterworksw ould
drawn the attention of any besieging army to the presence not increaset he capacity.
138 BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :3 (1996)
The Old
City
Soiloola m
Central Valley
Se\
City Wall The Citadel
City Wall
Sel W Warren'-sSaf.
Gihon Wpring
Kedron-Valley
0 m 100
A The illustrations hows the three Gihon
water systemsd iscussedi n this article: City Wall
Warren'sS haft (crossingt he line of the city
wall at the time it was built),t he "Siloam
Channel"r unningo utside the line of the
walls, and the "Hezekiah'sT unnel,"e nding
in the Siloam Pool outside the city wall.
Shiloh 1984:66-67,f ig. 30.
Vertical Shaft
> Thiss hows the Warren'sS haft system,
with the shaft on the right descending to a Hezekiah's Tunnel
basin into which the Gihonw ater flowed, a
staircasea nd a semi-circularp assage leading - -To the
undert he wall and, on the left, the entrance - Tth
Vaulted
chamberi nsidet he walls. The course of the Chamber ,, Gihon Spring
later tunnel can also be seen. Shiloh 1984:68,
fig. 31.
The reason why a tunnel should
haveb eenb uiltw hen an existingc han- m 5
nel broughtt he water from the spring M0 -:M3-M -Z
to very nearly the same spot is pre-
sumablys trategic,f or a tunnels ecures
the waters upply fromt he Gihons pringf roma ccesso utside logic,p ointst o the tunnelb eing the latesto f them.I t is there-
thec ityw all.S ucha featw as thereforme ostp robablyp rompted foren ow necessaryt o try to put these systemsi nto a firmer
by a seriousa nd perhapsu rgentn eed.A t all events,t he chan- chronologicasle quencea nd assignd ates.S inceb otht he shaft
nel must have been eithert emporarilyo r permanentlyc ut and tunnels ervet he strategicp urposeo f bringingw aterf rom
off when the tunnelw as hewn. outside the wall to a place inside the wall, the crucialf ac-
We can draw reasonablec onclusions about why these tor in dating these waterworks is the line of the city wall
three systems were built, and the evidence, as well as the duringt he historyo f Jerusalem.
BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :3 (1996) 139
\kI
/ N \\> \ \\W~\&(
(,0
- --- according to Kenyon
- according to Geva
...........a ccording to Grafman
\\h - I)
mI
I. / ~. ,,O j!j,
M5 NT
\\~\ ~i I ~-\~~__~A\\~~!i~ j
vigad's Wall
..
Site of
alley Gate '7i /i :I I)'
.\
QI iJL
Wallo f Old City -- ~ 1ij !! /1l1ii 61
`66
101
07l!l
Siloam
2~O0M 2 / M \. I
HinnomV alley
....... ......-' 0 m 200
Three proposed reconstructionso f the WesternW all of Jerusalema t
the time of Hezekiah,s howing how two of them encompasst he pool
of Siloam.T he earliers ize of the city wall appearsa s a thin unbroken
line (right).T he thickeru nbroken line representst he modern wall.
Williamson1 984:86. Thiss hows the relationshipb etween IronI Is ites and Avigad's
reconstructedw all (later finds on Mt. Zion [insidet he southwestern
The Walls of the "Cityo f David" corner of wall] are not shown). No finds are shown anywhere in the
Since the excavations of Kenyon (1961-67),A vigad (1969- southeast corner.A vigad 1980:58,f ig. 36.
71), and Shiloh (1978-82), there is general agreement about
the line of the eastern city wall of Jerusalem from the Mid- few scholars subsequently have put it as early as MB. But
dle Bronze Age onwards, but the same is not true of the other at any rate, archaeologists agree that, regardless of its date
city walls. We must therefore deal with the crucial eastern of construction, the eastern walls of the city ran between the
and western sides separately. shaft and the Gihon spring until the Persian period.
Eastern Wall In the Persian period, the wall ran higher up the
The excavations by Warren,G uthe, and then Macalister eastern hill, and the access to Warren'sS haft would then have
concluded that the city wall of the Jebusite-Davidic and been outside it. The eastern wall does not seem subsequently
Solomonic period had run along the crest of the hill. But this to have been moved furtherd own the hill, and the shaft there-
wall, as Kenyon showed, would have run some twenty-seven fore remained strategically useless, though in times of peace
meters west of Warren's Shaft. This posed something of a it afforded a convenient enough way of getting water, per-
problem,b ecause, like nearly everyone else at the time, Kenyon haps by the "WaterG ate" mentioned in Neh 3:26;8 :2, 3, 16;
assumed that 2 Sam 5:6-8 described Joab clambering up a and 12:37.
sinnor to capture the Jebusite city. When she came to exca- WesternW all
vate, she therefore concluded that the Jebusite wall already There are several suggestions as to the line of the west-
must have run between the spring and the shaft. This is ern wall. The three basic proposals-from Kenyon, Grafman,
why her trenchr an dose to the Gihon spring (Kenyon 1974:76). and Geva-enclose increasingly large areas. In Kenyon's
The wall running along the top of the ridge, as she argued, view, there had been no settlement on the Western hill
and as is now generally accepted, belongs to the Persian until the Hasmonean period. Thus Hezekiah's undertak-
period. Kenyon's excavations uncovered part of what she ing posed something of a mystery. According to various
dated as a Middle Bronze wall, running between the (especially Israeli) archaeologists, however, the mystery has
spring and the shaft, about two thirds of the way down the been solved and Kenyon proved wrong. Evidence was found
slope towards the spring. In fact, she argued that the line of settlement on this hill from the late Iron II period (eighth-
of this wall deliberately ran towards the spring so that the seventh centuries). The evidence is not in great quantity,b ut
shaft system could be constructed. However, although War- it is spread over a fairly large area, within the Old City in the
ren's Shaft cannot be dated on purely archaeologicalg rounds, Jewish Quarter, the Citadel, and Mount Zion (on the latter,
140 BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :3 (1996)
\V
wall needed to be settled. But, first of all, it is unlikely that
a wall would be built covering a larger area than necessary
except for topographical reasons which do not obtain in this
case. Secondly, once a wall is built, settlement would be
expected to take place within its haven over time. This seems
not to have happened. Kenyon's case is not, then, a mere
N argument from silence: it is a reasonable inference that unless
the south-eastern slopes yield evidence of settlement, the
<I area was not inside the wall. Shiloh's counter-claim (Shiloh
./ (I I\- :\I
7.4 1984:25, 35 n.16) that Kenyon's conclusions were based on
) 72/\ 3 7 673 too limited evidence bypasses the fact that his own excava-
7\2i 750 r '^I 3 tions were unable to provide any either (see also Geva 1994:6).
This is a loud silence!
57, There is a further consideration. The reservoirs and asso-
ciated fortifications in the Tyropoeon valley into which the
"1 <7~37 j7 35- tunnel and channel flowed are all dated by the Shiloh inves-
0 250Mi I1,c tigatorst o the Second Templep eriod. The investigatorsa ssume
that FirstT emple period reservoirs were on the same site, but
have found no evidence to support this supposition (see
Shiloh 1984:23). Again, we have an absence of data upon
which an unjustified assumption has been laid-purely on
the basis, as far as one can see, that the Siloam tunnel was
built by Hezekiah. Here is a classic instance of the biblical
60 text (or rather,a n interpretationo f it) overriding clear archae-
ological indications.
In fact, it is more likely that the Hasmoneans (ca. 152-
37 BCEn),o t Hezekiah,e nclosedt he pool. Avigad'sr econstruction
The line of the city walls in the Hasmoneanp eriod. The unbroken fares better this time than Kenyon's. Kenyon does not have
line representse xcavated sections, now clearlyb eyond the Siloam the Hasmonean wall enclosing the pool. But her line of city
pool. Avigad 1980:66, fig. 38. wall is less logical because it is unnecessarily long; it outlines
but does not cross the Tyropoeon valley. While at present the
see Chen et al. 1994). The crucial structure, however, is a sec- line of the Hasmonean wall cannot be fully reconstructed, it
tion of seven-meter thick city wall, unearthed by Avigad. The is only in the time of the Hasmoneans that we can say the
wall segment suggests that at some time during the Iron Age pool was very probablyi nside the wall while the spring and
the western wall of the city included part or all of the west- shaft were both definitelyo utside.T his period is therefore the
ern hill. However, no more wall has been found to indicate most probable time of construction of the tunnel, and until
its extent southwards. there is evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to accept
This is very unfortunate, and in the absence of further such a date.
data wall reconstructions have proceeded on the basis of If we now put the water systems and the lines of the walls
assumptions. On the assumption that the Siloam pool was together,w e get what seems a very neat and logical sequence.
obviously within the city walls when the tunnel was con- The shaft system is built first, at a time when the walls run
structed, and since the book of Kings says Hezekiah built a between it and the spring. Next comes the channel. But the
tunnel, Avigad, followed by other archaeologists, simply channel betrays the water source and therefore jeopardizes
drew the late Iron II wall accordingly. Yet Avigad's map of the security of the shaft. It also feeds a reservoir that lies out-
Jerusalem'sw all (previous page, right side) shows two pecu- side the city walls, greatly to the benefit of any besieging
liar features. First,e xcavated sites congregate at considerable army. So the channel most probably belongs to a time both
distance from the southern line. Second, the southern wall when the shaft was strategically useless, such as when the
follows an unsuitable and unnecessary line down and up a walls were higher up the slope, and also when no immedi-
steep slope as it crosses the Tyropoeon valley. Avigad asserts ate or recurrentt hreat of hostilities was present. The channel
that this is the correct line of Hezekiah's city wall: "it must supplied irrigationf or agriculturet hat developed on the side
have been, according to the Bible, as well as according to of the hill below the walls. The most likely time for building
logic" (1980:60).B ut logic is not on his side at all, and we shall such a channel is the Persian period.
see presently that the Bible is not either. Last comes the tunnel, whose constructioni mplies a water
As for logic, Kenyon objected that her own excavations source outsidet he walls, a pool insidet he walls, and suggests
on the south-eastern slope of the western hill yielded no Iron a period of hostility, when the city might be attacked. The
II relics. Avigad argued that not every place within the Hasmonean age fits these requirements very well indeed.
BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :3 (1996) 141
The political situation under the Has-
moneans required a protected water
supply, since therew as a continuale xter-
nal threatf rom the Seleucids. To enclose
---
the reservoir pools within the walls, TEMPLE PLA rFORM
block off the Siloam channel, and build
a tunnel is a plausible enterprise at this
time. In addition to fulfilling the archae-
ological data dealt with above, a
Hasmonean date for "Hezekiah's"t un-
nel both fits the historical sequence of
Gihon systems and furnishes the most
likely circumstances for such a system.
Before leaving this part of the argu-
ment, we can return to Warren'sS haft.
Can it be dated more precisely?K enyon ori i
,j
thought, as already mentioned, that the
Middle Bronzew all was connected with
the construction of the earliest water
system, the shaft;s he actually dated this I'O
wall to "as early as 1800" (1974:78),
which would imply that the shaft was
also as old. But she also seems to accept 110
a datingf or the shafto f "LB-EI.B" . Mazar
realized that if Kenyon's reasoning was
right,t he shaftm ust go back to the "early
second millennium," and that is what
he opted for (1975:163).B ut Shiloh puts n ....~lc....... . .
o wt8:01
the shaft in the tenth-ninth centuries
(1984:23). He gives a reason for this:
"Warren'Ss haftw as built according to the usual formulae for Kenyon'sr econstructiono f the Hasmoneanc ity wall, excludingt he
undergroundw ater systems at royal centresi n the tenth-ninth Pool of Siloam,f ollows a good strategic line along the crest, but the
centuries BCE."H e is thinking of the similar installations at same strategicc onsiderations( necessarya t that time, but not earlier)
Gibeon, Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor, for which he even sup- make it all the more likelyt hat the pool lay insidet he walls. Kenyon
plies a comparativet able of the gradients (1984:22)T. he water 1974:200,f ig. 29.
systems at Megiddo, Yible'am, and Gibeon include stepped
passages and tunnels designed to bring water securely from BiblicalR eferences
outside the city to inside. These systems are variously assigned The primary historical value of the relevant biblical texts
to the period of the Judeana nd Israelitem onarchies.A . Mazar is to give us information not about the time of Hezekiah, but
dates Warren'sS haft to the "divided monarchy,"e xplaining about the time of the writers. In this respect, several texts are
that this kind of system was a great Israelitei nvention (Mazar very important for gauging the history of the water systems.
1990:480).T here are, indeed, no precise indications of date, Our discussion of these texts must necessarily be perfunc-
but it seems to us rather excessive to assign both Warren's tory.
Shafta ndH ezekiah'tsu nnelt oJ udeank ings.A ftera ll, if in Hezekiah's The first biblical passages is 2 Kgs 20:20, with which we
time therea lreadye xisteda perfectlys afe waters upply,o ne pos- begin not because we think it is the earliest text, but because
sibly of recent construction, why would he need to build it is one of the more straightforward:
another one, especially one which went underneath the city
and came out on the other side? However, if Hezekiah did
not build the tunnel, there are no reasons why Warren'sS haft
should not be assigned to Hezekiah's time nor indeed to his
reign. Indeed, this suggestion, though it cannot be proved,
is supported by the biblical evidence, as we shall see. In such
a case, we should probably think of Hezekiah improving the The rest of the deeds of Hezekiah, and all his might, and
existing natural system used, presumably,b y the inhabitants how he made the pool and the passage and brought water
in former times (Gill 1994). into the city,a re they not written in the Book of the Chron-
icles of the Kings of Judah?
142 BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :3 (1996)
:_U;~"?H~ f:;.~i'i~;Y~_~;BL~jF~~i-~~5 ~:--~?li~RRL~;i~I~?f?llC7~-~T?r7;-.
c~
TI-- '
?, h
"~L~i~~ 4) ..'.IC~ L. :? ~". ;,
~:i?d.~'YP;oi',~,;t~3? if~Ff:g? clcl ~4lr; ??~L:l4~~cjri~4?Y;:~r wLt~? ??.'~r~5~ Crai-~Fl li~~; H?y.U I:I 1YF:?rji:ti"?~-t- pV3r ~ ^ l14 ,'i .?Y?c;yJ. ~~r3a~Cgl1k` L..~. F:n,;'E.'r~;:f7:Y~P~"3':~` ~I'h" n~\' :L ~-~ t' athned u Sphpeearr p-joaoslh uobn ytohuer h sigohnw, aaty t htoe ethned Fouf ltlhere' sp aFsisealdg.e" of
?r , x~1-?: :-C ?-i~r?J? ~ ':~ "~:~ 4
~,"zi~ ;i ?;r~i" 4
-i, -?OC,I: ;Ie'rY3 iZI?Ct~~ I? L~F; :71 The spot referredt o is the same one mentioned in Isa 36:2
:M h~*:-Ljc i: '"3r '?r~~sce'''~:i:_tr:? ?,e:i :i~ .*l..riO .?~-L i. (2 Kgs 18:17) as the place where the Assyrian commander
ri~ met Hezekiah. It is clear from these other texts that the
spot is outside the city. There are several reasonable guesses
one could make as to its location. One is that the reference is
not to the Gihon system at all. But if it is, we must remem-
ber that we cannot date this story. It could originate from the
~aYI~C postexilic period (the dating of any part of the book of Isa-
iah is notoriously disputed), when the walls of the city were
f~ : on top of the hill, and the shaft was outsidet hem. In this case,
II ? I
the writer would also have known of the channel! The
pool under the shaft would then be known as the upper pool,
and the pool at the end of the channel the "lower pool."
b '~~t ":l,";d~? : But this is unnecessary speculation: because of the uncer-
?Pi tainty of dating, we simply cannot be sure of the meaning
~?CPi~-; .i ' attached to the terms. All that matters, in any case, is this: we
?ri: can say that in 2 Kgs we still find no reference to a tunnel.
2 Chr 32:3-4 is another relevant text:
He planned with his officers and his mighty men to stop
c,
The Siloam pool-which dates to the Second Templep eriod-as it the water of the springs that were outside the city; and
currentlya ppears. Ift he tunnel transportedw ater for strategic they helped him. A great many people were gathered,
reasons,t hen this pool must have been within the walls of the city.I t and they stopped all the springs and the brook that flowed
is much more likelyt hat this was the case during Hasmoneant imes throught he land, saying, "Whys hould the kings of Assyria
than duringt he era of Hezekiah. come and find much water?"
Of what water system is the writer thinking?I t is not clear From this passage we might deduce that the Siloam chan-
what htlh might refer to exactly: the verbal root clh means nelw as in existencea t the time of the Chronidlerw, ho supposes
"go up, rise, climb, ascend," that is, vertical and not hori- (or lets his readers suppose) that it existed earlier and that
zontal. But the uses of the noun in the MT suggest a number Hezekiah stopped it up, together with all the other water-
of meanings, including "trench," but not "tunnel" (See sources. It is strange, however, that the construction of an
also 1 Kgs 18:32,3 5, 38;J er3 0:13;I sa 7:3;a nd Ezek 31:4).M ore- alternative water supply for the city is not mentioned at
over, Warren's Shaft itself comprises a horizontal passage the same time, but only at the end of the chapter, where v. 30
leading water from the spring to a pool, from which the water reads:
is accessible from a vertical shaft. So there is no exegetical
argument in favor of the tunnel and against the shaft system.
. . :
It is simply wrong to say that this verse ascribes the tunnel
to Hezekiah. We think it ascribes the shaft to him, and we
think it had to do so, because at the time Kings was writ-
ten there was no tunnel. This same Hezekiah closed the upper outlet of the waters
We should also look briefly at Isa 7:3: of Gihon and directed them down and west to the city of
David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.
Despite the impression given by many paraphrastic trans-
Andt he Lord said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you lations, the Chronicler's Hebrew can mean that Hezekiah
closed off the pool formed by the spring, and diverted the
And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you water downwards and westwards, into the city of David.
BiblicaAl rchaeologis5t9 :3( 1996) 143
VV W' -4 -7Z I
17-x
This is precisely what the shaft sys- a-t4? J~~-c?rsrrTwJ
tem does. The tunnel in any case does tll
not bring the water either west of the
city of David (a possible translation) or
into the city of David. The Chronicler
appears to have deduced, sensibly
enough, that the shaft must at one time
have opened inside the city,e ven though
it did not in his own day. So he makes
the reasonablei nference:H ezekiah built 4 *~ ~ . x
this shaft. Thus what the Chronicler
says, like the author of Kings, can be
used to support our view of the matter, 130* *' jVnPN .*N ~ I'P * .( iy l.19 *.? rn*p . '2 '* r ' wit. M m . 01 1
attributing a shaft, not a tunnel, to 81811Mr 0N . Dbi n* ~.* ~ m2 * b. t. * WKiM3. D~3n' n .W%ow 19*8 M*r*n. } 8 D.8 'ti
Hezekiah. ;In . i . n. '~
(N~ ~ DE]1Y2~1 .78.~ nn . tOKt MAl hf
The next text, Isa 8:6-8, also seems
to be referring not to the tunnel, but
to the channel: Drawinga nd transliterationo f the Siloam inscriptionT. he text narratest he final meter and a
third of excited tunneling as two teams of diggers approacht heir meeting point. It reads:
[See]t he boring.A nd this was the mannero f the boring.W hile [the stone masonsw ere] still
[strikingw ith] the pick-axe,e ach man towards his comrade,a nd when there were still three
IT : ' ells (1.35 m) to bore thro[ugh,t here was hear]dt he voice of a man shouting to his comrade,
as there was a resonance (?) in the rock,i n the south and i[n the nor]th.A nd on the day of
the boring the stone masons had struck,e ach towards his own comrade, pick-axea gainst
[pick]axe.T hen the water ran from the springt o the pool for 1200 ells (540 m.). And 100 ells
ji g was the height of the rocko ver the heads of the stone masons.D rawingf rom Gesenius,
T T TT Kautzsch,C owley,H ebrew Grammarf,r ont matter Translationb y K.A . D. Smelik,W ritings
ITt TT from Ancient Israel.T ransb. y G. Davies.L ouisvilleW: estminster/JohnK nox, 1991,p . 70.
z0t lv rrtov c6zoi,
'EiKtcas CXOIpo0cv
aca'ci iu yaycv Eusj fCLov cV ov tbv i( ?&))o p
6cpu1ev Ct6-ilpqdpK cpzorov,
Because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah Kai (o6%ovicTv Kpflvas ets l6cUaa.
that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the
son of Remaliah; therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing Hezekiah fortified his city and brought the water to its
up against them the waters of the River,m ighty and many, midst; he pierced the rock with iron and enclosed the pool
the king of Assyria and all his glory; and it will rise with mountains (the Greek has something like: "built
over all its channels and go over all its banks; and it fountains/springs to the waters").
will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on,
reaching even to the neck; and its outspread wings will Does this Jerusalem resident know of a tunnel? His words
fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. are poetic and not easy to paraphrase precisely into prose.
But the languagef its the shaftb ettert han the tunnel.H ezekiah's
The contrast made here seems to be between the partly vis- traditional pool-the Siloam pool-is not, unlike the pool
ible watercourse outside the walls, with the gentle gradient, within Warren'sS haft, "enclosed with mountains." But the
from which water flows into irrigation channels, and an description would nicely fit the only underground water sys-
Assyrian army outside the walls ready to destroy the city. tem connected to the Gihon in Ben Sira'sd ay-Warren's Shaft.
Again, this text cannot be dated, but if our dating of the chan- The final text, again often cited in this connection,
nel is correct, it was written in the postexilic period. (The refers to pools made by Hezekiah (Isa 22:8-10):
channel may also underlie Ezek 47:1.)
Ben Sira 48:17 [19] is often quoted in connection with the
tunnel and is an especially important text because of its dat- :?yst nfi 3pj'L" N~o 0 nm
ing, just before the Hasmonean period: 12m DW 1 rr'- n'pNp
sT* /- T
:rni "'
nipm mSnn, vonr var3~ nvn= =:mifns
144 BiblicalA rchaeologist5 9:3 (1996)