January-March 2003
Volume 6 Number 2.4
The Water System of Jerusalem and Its Implications for the Historicity of Joab's Conquest
As recent geological, philological and archaeological evidence converges in affirming the existence of some type of substantial water system in Jebusite Jerusalem, it appears that a reasonable case can be made for the plausibility of the depiction in II Samuel 5
Introduction
Within the last decade several significant discoveries have broadened our knowledge of the nature and history of Jerusalem and reaffirmed our understanding of the history of Jerusalem and reaffirmed in some ways the depiction of the conquest of the city in II Samuel 5:8. The most recent discoveries are a result of the archaeological work conducted by R. Reich and E. Shukron (1999; 2000; summarized by Shanks 1999a:20-29; 1999b:31-35; 2000:39-41). One of the purposes of their investigation was to explore the Gihon Spring in order to clarify the nature of the ancient building projects surrounding the spring. Although Reich and Shukron have provided some details of their discoveries and have published several short articles (Reich and Shukron 1997:3-8; 1998a:136-37; 1998b:5-13; 1999:22-33, 72; 2000:5-17; and 2002:75-80), including a few initial hypotheses that have emerged from their work (1999:22-23 and 72), scholars continue to await their conclusions. However, as we await these discussions we may nevertheless reconsider the history, and textual, philological, and archaeological evidence connected with the Gihon water system.
Reich and Shukron's work would seem to remove one of the challenges to the historicity of II Samuel 5:6-10 and I Chronicles 11:4-9. It has been argued by Shiloh (1981a:38; 1981b:170; 1984:23; 1987:219-20; 1992:292) that the Jebusites had not excavated a concatenation of subterranean tunnels connecting the Gihon Spring with their city and that what tunnels do exist were constructed by the Israelites after their conquest of the city. Reich and Shukron have discovered a fortification surrounding the Gihon Spring which they date to the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries B.C.E., and which they say was connected to underground tunnels leading into the Jebusite city (Reich and Shukron 1999:32). They believe, contra Shiloh, that there was an underground water system connecting the Gihon Spring with Jebusite Jerusalem, and further suggest that the horizontal tunnel (Vincent's Tunnel VI) connecting the bottom of the vertical (or Warren's) shaft with the spring is "rockcut" and did not exist prior to the eighth century B.C.E. (Reich and Shukron 2000:9). In addition, they believe that the horizontal tunnel near the top of the vertical shaft existed in Jebusite times and that these people had access, through it, to a pool which collected the waters of the Gihon Spring. Until further analysis is available, we do not have a full account of what they see as the significance of their discoveries for the history of ancient Israel and the biblical text (Shanks 1999a:29 and 1999b:35). So far they have left these concerns to others (Reich and Shukron 1999:72).
It is puzzling that Reich and Shukron claim that their conclusions can be made independently of the biblical text. It would seem that they have cultivated an archaeological positivism which operates independently of historical sources. Certainly, by not seeking the full range of sources, including the biblical text, they limit the helpfulness of their discoveries (Leavis 1986 and Whalley 1985;F2 cf. Rainey 2001). By ignoring the links between textual and material evidence they risk making inaccurate historical judgments concerning both the cultural remains and textual sources. Methodological isolationism creates a false dichotomy between types of evidence.
Shiloh's conclusions regarding Warren's Shaft deny any connection between the water system and II Samuel 5:8. Moderation is essential to the formulation of enduring critical judgments. Accurate critical judgment emerges from thorough reviewing of what has already been written on a subject, including evidence other than material culture. Shiloh (1984:23; 1987:219-20), for example, deferred to philological study that he appears not to have evaluated. Had he not relied completely on this approach, which departs from long-standing readings of the text, and been more open to the possibility that the biblical text preserves accurate history, his Conclusions might have been more enduring. Reich and Shukron also appear to have accepted this same approach, which they have not to this point critically evaluated. As mentioned above, they believe that their recent discoveries have no bearing on the question of the historicity of David's conquest of Jerusalem. At the same time, they are certain that their investigation has shown that the vertical (or Warren's) shaft could never have served as a water shaft for the inhabitants of the city and, therefore, believe that the link between the subterranean tunnels and the sinn�r of II Samuel 5:8 needs "massive reassessment" (Reich and Shukron 1999:22). Previous scholarship may be in need of revision, but Reich and Shukron seem to have missed the point. Had they reviewed the philological studies of Wellhausen (1871:164), Dalman (1915:65-67), Albright (1922:288-89), Sukenik (1928:12-16), Yadin (1963:308), Gluck (1966:98-105; Mazar (1975:168-69), and Aharoni (1982:234-35), all of whom proposed that the term sinn�r did not mean "water shaft," they would have had to acknowledge that the essence of debate for the last several decades was whether there was a water system at all in pre-Israelite Jerusalem which connected the city with the Gihon Spring. Philological evidence aside, the discoveries of this past decade, including Reich's and Shukron's, seem to provide evidence that there was a water system of some kind in existence before the time of David and that this system might have been used by him to conquer the city of Jerusalem.
Previous Investigation
Fig. 1 Warren's Shaft from above. Photo by P. J. Ray.
On October 24, 1867 Charles Warren of the London-based Palestine Exploration Fund and his assistant Sergeant Birtles crawled through a chamber connecting the Gihon Spring with what would later be called Hezekiah's Tunnel. From Hezekiah's Tunnel they climbed a vertical shaft to a horizontal passage which, although filled with debris, connected the vertical shaft with the surface above. The vertical shaft has since been known as "Warren's Shaft." Warren and others (Vincent 1924:369; Amiran 1976:76; Shiloh 1981b:169-70; and Gill 1996:24) have thought the vertical shaft was the most plausible access between the Gihon Spring and the inside of Jebusite Jerusalem.
The overall system, which is sometimes referred to as Warren's Shaft System, includes: 1) the vertical (or Warren's) shaft (Fig. 1); 2) a horizontal tunnel (Vincent's Tunnel VI; Fig. 2) connecting the lower part of the vertical shaft with the Gihon Spring (today part of Hezekiah's Tunnel); 3) a horizontal tunnel that connects the top of the vertical shaft with the eastern slope of the hill; 4) an inclined tunnel which in turn ends on the surface within the city; and 5) a dead-end shaft which originates at the top of the inclined shaft inside the city wall. This complex has been understood to be in contradistinction to the two other water systems in Jerusalem, Hezekiah's Tunnel and the Siloam Channel (Channels I and II respectively) (Shiloh 1992:21-4; Gill 1991:1467).
Fig. 2 Horizontal Tunnel (Vincent's Tunnel VI) between the vertical (Warren's) shaft and the Gihon Spring; now part of Hezekiah's Tunnel. Photo by P. J. Ray.
Although Dan Cole (1980:9) has supplied a useful nomenclature for water systems in the ancient world, reserving the term "tunnel" for horizontal cuttings, "shaft" for vertical ones, and "stepped tunnels" for angling ones, it should not be assumed that those who have used the phrase "Warren's Shaft" meant only the vertical shaft to the exclusion of other possible subterranean tunnels.
In 1911 Vincent conducted further investigations. He concluded that Warren's Shaft was the sinn�r of II Samuel 5:8 and that Joab had climbed the shaft in order to capture the city (Vincent 1911:34 and 1912:147).F3 To be sure. Vincent was not the First to reach this conclusion. Indeed, there has been a long-standing tradition of translation from antiquity that had rendered sinn�r as "watercourse" or some closely related term. For example, Aquila's revision of the Septuagint has "watercourse" (krounismō), the Vulgate has "water pipes" (fistulas) and the medieval Jewish exegete Yefet ben Ely has "sewer" or "pipe" (mrz'b). The discover, of the shaft, however, seemed to have corroborated an ancient and common understanding of the depiction of the text in II Samuel 5:8. In this case, the archaeological evidence and the textual evidence seemed to converge, making a reasonable case that Warren's Shaft system, or some part of it, was used by Joab in the conquest of Jerusalem. Although some adjustments may need to be made in light of Reich's and Shukron's discoveries, this conclusion was a reasonable evaluation of the evidence.
Vincent's comprehensive and exacting knowledge of various types of inquiry: philological, textual, physical, and archaeological, provide a forceful and enduring account of the ancient usage of these tunnels, including the possible use by Joab to enter the Jebusite City. Vincent examined the available philological arguments and concluded:
The only meaning that would be even justifiable when attributed to the Biblical expression sinn�r is "passage in connection with water." Until a lucky philological discovery determines definitely the meaning of the s-n-r and the primal meaning of the derived nominal sinn�r the given meaning is the only one resulting from the later Biblical usage and the interpretation of the official versions. (Vincent 1911:34; 1912:147.)
Vincent (1911:12-14, 36-37) also made meticulous reports on the tunnels and recognized the presence of natural (or karstic) features, as geologist Dan Gill more recently has also observed. Vincent provided a lengthy account of the strengths and weaknesses of his own archaeological investigations and discoveries. When Vincent's work is read one gains the impression that in those areas of knowledge in which he was aware that he was weak, he engaged in further study because he knew his work would be incomplete without it. However, some modern investigators seem to think that their investigations are scientific if they a priori exclude textual evidence. It is Vincent's type of inquiry that should serve as a model for our research.
In the late 1800s, however, philological speculations regarding the meaning of sinn�r began to emerge. Wellhausen (1871:164) proposed that the sinn�r was a type of "pipe" or "throat," and that David was challenging his men to attack the Jebusites in the throat. Other parts of the human anatomy were soon considered as serious contenders for the translation of sinn�r. Dalman (1915:65-67) claimed that sinn�r should be translated as "penis," (cf. Gluck 1966:98-105), and Albright (1922:288-89) suggested the translation "joint of the neck." Sukenik (1928:12-16) argued for "hook," "weapon," or perhaps some type of "grappling hook" for scaling the walls (cf. Yadin 1963:12). On this basis the New English Bible uses the reading "grappling hook." However, the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New Jerusalem Publication Society Translation continue to use a translation closer to the traditional view such as "water shaft," "water channel," or "water tunnel."
In 1981, after several seasons of archaeological work at Jerusalem, Shiloh expressed reservations regarding the pre-Israelite existence of the water system. He (1984:23; 1987:219-20) concluded that the sinn�r of II Samuel 5:8 could not refer to Warren's Shaft because this shaft had apparently not been built until after the Israelite conquest of Jerusalem. Warren's Shaft was therefore not Jebusite. In a series of articles Shiloh (1981a:38; 1981b:170; 1984:23; 1987:219-220 and 1992:292) argued that the water systems of Jerusalem were made by the Israelites after their conquest of the city. It should be pointed out that Shiloh was aware of the philological suggestions by Albright, Yadin, Aharoni, and others. Although he never stated which of the philological translations he thought fit best, he did concur that the translation should not be "water shaft" or any term which suggests that any of the subterranean tunnels were constructed by the Jebusites. His early reflections on the date of Warren's Shaft emerge from comparisons between the Jerusalem shaft and other water systems in Palestine. The water systems at other sites such as Megiddo, Gibeon, Hazor, and Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, and perhaps also Lachish and Beer-Sheba, were all dated no earlier than the tenth century B.C.E. (Shiloh 1992:291-292). In other words, they were all Israelite constructions built during or after the United Monarchy. Shiloh (1992:219-220) admits the difficulty of dating Warren's Shaft because of the lack of direct chronological and stratigraphical criteria. Lacking this data he stressed comparative typology with the water systems discovered elsewhere in Palestine from Iron Age II to argue that water system of Jerusalem must likewise date from Iron Age II.F4
For example, he writes:
We have no proof that this water system was Jebusite, belonging to Canaanite Jerusalem. The popular explanation developed by Vincent, that this water system was the sinn�r, through which David's soldiers, led by Joab, penetrated the city (2 Sam 5:6-10; 1 Chr 11:4-9), is not accepted today for several reasons by scholars such as Mazar, Yadin and Aharoni, and we join them. We think the ancient water systems were an important element in Israelite city planning, as found in the royal centers of Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer and in the cities such as Gibeon and even perhaps in Beer-Sheba and Lachish. (Shiloh 1981 b:170.)
In Shiloh's last article (1987:203-244; 1992:275-293) on the Jerusalem water shaft, he concurs with those who reject the translation of sinn�r as "water shaft" and affirms that Warren's Shaft was not Jebusite, but built by the Israelites in Iron Age II.
Shiloh's influence on the dating of the water systems gained considerable acceptance, although his was certainly not the only view available. Kathleen Kenyon, whose archaeological investigations of Jerusalem predated Shiloh's, had agreed with Vincent that the Warren's Shaft complex of tunnels was Canaanite or early Israelite, although she was somewhat skeptical of his use of sherds to provide this date (Kenyon 1974:84-89). However, in the second edition of the book The Bible and Recent Archaeology (Kenyon 1987) updated by P. R. S. Moorey, he criticized Shiloh's late dating of the water system, but also says that: "it is arguable that the story of David's capture of Jebusite Jerusalem, with the help of volunteers penetrating its defenses up a water conduit, is a misrepresentation of a corrupt passage in the text, or indeed may refer to something other than Warren's Shaft" (1987:92).
These developments are crucial for understanding the current consensus. In scholarship subsequent to Vincent, there has been a convergence of evidence from two independent sources. First, studies on comparative philology have suggested alternate meanings for the word sinn�r, all of which have argued that it has no relation to the water system of Jerusalem. Second, the examination of various water systems in Palestine seems to indicate an Iron Age II date for their construction and by analogy suggests the same dating for Warren's Shaft, placing the water system after the Davidic conquest of Jerusalem. The conclusion from these assumptions is that Warren's Shaft was not built by the Jebusites and therefore, the biblical text (II Samuel 5:8) was either unhistorical, or, at the very least, had nothing to do with the water system of Jerusalem.
Recent Developments
The geological report of Dan Gill (1991:1467-1471; 1996:1-28) was the first major breakthrough on this issue. Gill argues that the formation of significant portions of the waterworks of Jerusalem was karstic, that is, they were formed naturally by water rather than by man. Gill does not deny that these waterworks have been extensively reworked, but says that the ancient engineers simply improved and expanded upon what was already available. Gill's argument is also significant because of the date he assigns to the water systems. The karstic nature of the tunnels makes them ancient in existence, long before either Jebusite or Israelite occupation. Both peoples may have indeed had a hand in carving out sections of the larger system, but the tunnels were already created by the process of water trickling through bedrock (Gill 1991:1469-1470; 1994; 1996:24-25).
Fig. 3 Jerusalem Water System (modified from Gill 1996:7 and Reich and Shukron 1996:26).
Gill's argument is based upon observations of the anomalies of the waterworks (Fig. 3), the manner of construction of tunnels, and the peculiar developments of dissolution channels where soft Meleke limestone lies on top of hard Mizzi Ahmar dolomite, which is what is present in the rock layers underlying Jerusalem. The anomalies consist of irregularities in the route, slope and dimensions of the tunnels in Warren's shaft system, the adjacent tunnels and Hezekiah's Tunnel; a dead-end shaft descending from the horizontal shaft at the top of Warren's Shaft; the semicircular nature of the horizontal shaft; and a scarp in the horizontal tunnel. These anomalies would all be unnecessary complications in the construction of man-made tunnels. In other words, they would cause the work to take longer and make the product less usable. If, on the other hand, the miners were hewing already existing natural fissures and dissolution channels in the rocks, these channels would significantly mitigate their labors.
Gill (1991:1468; 1994:30; 1996:19) has also argued that there are two main problems in the construction of the water tunnels. The engineers faced immense problems due to a lack of ventilation as well as orientation in building such tunnels. Candles would burn up the oxygen rapidly unless there were fissures or dissolution channels that already existed to allow the movement of air through the tunnels. Moreover, the orientation of the miners through the rock is a formidable task. Here again, the existence of natural fissures or dissolution channels would make direction easier. The winding nature of the tunnels can be explained because the workers were following these fissures rather than tunneling as straight as possible.
In addition, and perhaps most importantly, Gill (1991:1468; 1994:26-27; 1996:13-16) has argued that it is the geological formations of soft Meleke limestone above the hard Mizzi Ahmar dolomite that caused water flowing along the surface of the dolomite to form a horizontal cave in the softer limestone at precisely the level where the horizontal tunnel of the Warren Shaft system is now located. In other words, the caves that were later carved horizontally along the surface of the dolomite were originally formed in part by karstic processes. Water draining through the soft Meleke limestone would have reached the dolomite and flowed along it rather than down into the harder rock.
Although Gill's geological conclusions are helpful, he was not in fact the first to make the suggestions that the tunnels had karstic features. Gill (1996:23-24) notes that Vincent had described many conspicuous aspects of the karstic nature of these tunnels and also acknowledges the suggestion made by Sulley (1929:124; cf. Amiran 1951:35-38, 1968:13-18 and 1976:75-78) that the sinuous course of Hezekiah's Tunnel may have been caused by a natural cleft in the rock through which water from the Gihon flowed. He, however, clarifies and corrects Vincent's account of the rock formations to better account for the karstic features. Gill (1991:170; 1994:30; 1996:24-25) suggests that the biblical attestation that the city was conquered through the use of these waterworks is plausible. His argument also reopens the inquiry into the dating of other water systems such at Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Gibeon and Ibleam because it assigns Jerusalem's water system to a much earlier date. Reich and Shukron's discoveries confirm the antiquity of Jerusalem's waterworks, and raise questions for further investigation.
In terms of philology, the use of the word snr in several Ugaritic texts may also be of help (Kleven 1994). Of the four uses in the Ugaritic texts, three appear to be personal names. The fourth use of snr is found in a list where the word is parallel with the word "homes" in the phrase "builders of homes." After one list of names, the phrase "builders of homes" is found, but after a second list of names, the workers are called "builders of snr." Cyrus Gordon translates the second line as "the craftsmen of pipes" or "pipemakers" (Gordon 1965: entries 1776 and 2177). Although we cannot be sure of the nature of the constructions, it is not implausible that they were constructing water systems of some kind to move water either to or from houses. When the Ugaritic usage of snr is compared with Aramaic or Arabic, it is even more helpful. Moreover, since even in Biblical sinn�r is not a hapax legomenon, its translation as some type of water shaft or tunnel is merely a confirmation of the usage of the same word in Psalms 42:7 (Heb. v. 8). It is unusual in a philological argument for priority to be given to an Arabic cognate over the usage in the Hebrew Bible itself. Unfortunately, the Ugaritic evidence is not conclusive in that only one usage has been found. On the other hand, one can hope that further discoveries from Akkadian or Eblaite, for example, may confirm and expand our understanding of this word. Nevertheless, the Ugaritic evidence still seems to confirm the traditional interpretation of the biblical text in that two independent lines of evidence have converged. It would seem that lexical analysis and geological evidence have collaborated to support the traditional reading of the text. The geological evidence, of course, also has implications for the archaeological assessment of the date of construction of the water system.
Fig. 4 Cyclopean Stones of the Spring. Photo by P. J. Ray.
Reich and Shukron (1999:27) have recently begun to remove piles of debris along the eastern slope of the City of David above the Gihon Spring, a project that Kenyon said might well yield dramatic results but which she did not have enough capital to execute (Kenyon 1974:88). In the process, they discovered monumental rock cuttings. After further work, they uncovered sufficient evidence to conclude that the Gihon Spring had been surrounded by a huge tower (Fig. 4) to protect it from invading armies (Reich and Shukron 1999:27-30). The walls of this tower are more than 3.5 in thick and its dimensions are ca. 13.75 x 16.75 m. Reich and Shukron (1999:30) call the undressed blocks "cyclopean" because of their size, and say the stones were parallel in extent to many of the stones used by Herod to construct the Second Temple. They have called this fortification "the Spring Tower."
Water flows out of the Gihon Spring, which is located beneath and within the Spring Tower, through a conduit and down a channel (the Siloam Channel or Vincent's Channel II; fig. 5), which extends the length of the east side of the City of David. From this channel a another tunnel (Vincent's Tunnel III; cf. fig. 6) flows into a large pool that at this point has only been partially excavated. This pool would have held a supply of water that was available for the inhabitants of the city. On north side of the pool another tower was discovered, presumably to defend the pool from enemies. This "Pool Tower" is built of the same type of huge cyclopean stones as the Spring Tower. Although further work is yet to be completed, it is presumed that another tower existed on the south side of the pool as well (Reich and Shukron 1999:30).
Fig. 5 Siloam Channel (Vincent's Channel II). Photo by P. J. Ray.
Reich and Shukron (1999:30, 32) date these towers to the eighteenth or seventeenth centuries B.C.E. (Middle Bronze II). Sherds from this period were found in both the Pool Tower and the Spring Tower. Furthermore, they claim that this type of mammoth stonework has been found at Gezer, Tel Balata (Shechem) and Tel Rumeida (Hebron), all of which date to the Middle Bronze Age II as well. The existence of these monumental towers, along with the rest of the system, provide ample reason for the Jebusites to have taunted David and his men with the statement that the blind and the lame could withstand David's army (II Samuel 5:6). Assuming that the Middle Bronze Age II defenses of the city were still in use, they would have been formidable. Reich and Shukron's discoveries help us better appreciate the ancient Jebusite city of Jerusalem and its fortifications.
However, Reich and Shukron (1999:30) are particularly adamant that Warren's Shaft could not possibly have been in use inside either Jebusite or Israelite Jerusalem. The stepped and horizontal tunnels inside the city wall, which lead to the vertical shaft, have been known for some time to continue past the top of Warren's Shaft and to exit on the eastern slope. This tunnel exits above the pool, which means that the inhabitants of the city could have walked down to the top of the pool and drawn water from it, thus ignoring Warren's Shaft. Although Reich and Shukron (1999:33) mention that there may be certain karstic elements within the water system, they do not explain the karstic origin of the system, either for construction of the various tunnels and shafts or the implications of these elements for dating. They claim that the cutters who constructed the stepped and horizontal tunnels from inside the city to the pool were in fact several meters above the top of Warren's Shaft. They claim that Warren's Shaft was "not visible" to them and was only discovered "accidentally" as the miners sought to enlarge the tunnel to the pool at a later time. They do admit that Warren's Shaft is a "natural dissolution fissure." However, they miss the significance of the natural cavity. If the vertical shaft, which Gill (1991:1470) calls a sinkhole, was formed by natural dissolution, it had to have been made by water which seeped into a vertical fissure, thus creating the shaft. In other words, the vertical dissolution channel was connected to another dissolution channel in the Meleke limestone. Reich and Shukron provide no explanation for this. They claim that the cutters simply did not know of the vertical shaft, even though there would have been a natural connection between the horizontal tunnel and Warren's Shaft in existence at the time.
Fig. 6 Connecting Tunnel from Channel II to the Pool (Vincent's Tunnel III). Photo by P. J. Ray.
Reich and Shukron (1999:33) also argue that Warren's Shaft had sides that are far too rough for drawing water and that buckets would not have been able to scoop water from the bottom of the shaft. Shanks (1999b:31-35) reiterates their view that this fissure could not possibly have been used as a water shaft because it would have been too awkward to raise buckets of water through it. However, these arguments of modern investigators do not necessarily take into account the needs of ancient peoples. The ancients, like people today, often do what is necessary, especially in a time of war, not what is easy. We cannot assume that the absence of rope marks indicates that the shaft was not used for drawing water. As further support for Reich and Shukron's dismissal of the role of Warren's Shaft in Canaanite Jerusalem, Shanks (1999b:35) explains how he laboriously climbed the shaft and suggests that even though he could get up the vertical shaft, Joab could not have accomplished the same feat. It seems more plausible to conclude that if Shanks made the ascent, one of the strongest individuals in ancient Israel might well have been able to do so as well.
Reich and Shukron (2000:9) have since suggested that the tunnels connecting the bottom of Warren's vertical Shaft (fig. 7) were built only in the eighth century B.C.E., when Hezekiah's Tunnel was dug. If this dating is correct, it would mean that Warren's Shaft was in no way connected with the Gihon Spring during Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age Jerusalem. Yet Reich and Shukron do not give an account of where the water descending Warren's Shaft would have gone if these natural karstic features (tunnels) which would later become a part of Hezekiah's tunnel never existed. That there was a connection between the city and the Pool Tower through the stepped and horizontal tunnels rather than Warren's Shaft, a suggestion made earlier by Kenyon (Kenyon 1974:88), may well be one of the enduring contributions of Reich and Shukron's research. Nevertheless, perhaps they have made too light of previous suggestions as to a means of access into the city through Warren's Shaft. What Vincent, Gill and others were addressing was the challenge that there seemed to be no water tunnels or shafts in existence that could have been used by David's army. Their argument that Joab climbed into the city through Warren's Shaft was a plausible explanation. Furthermore, Reich and Shukron's discovery of the towers, which date so early, appears to confirm the argument that subterranean waterworks were indeed in existence in Jebusite Jerusalem, even if certain details of the nature of the water system still need further clarification. One wonders why Reich and Shukron have not themselves made this suggestion. The most essential and least controversial elements of their discoveries have thus converged with and support the arguments made by Vincent, Gill and others that there was indeed a subterranean water system in Jebusite Jerusalem.
Fig. 7 Bottom of Warren's Shaft, now with blocking wall. Photo by P. J. Ray.
Reich and Shukron need to interact more with the geological evidence and consider more fully the karstic origins of the horizontal tunnel, Warren's Shaft, and Hezekiah's Tunnel. Initially, they limited their acceptance of the karstic formations used in the water system to saying that the cutters entered a "natural cave" on the eastern slope and proceeded to cut most of the horizontal and stepped tunnel of the Warren Shaft system until they met another group of cutters working from within the city who themselves were following some type of natural rock line between the Meleke and the Mizzi Ahmar (Reich and Shukron 1999:32-33). More recently they say that the rock-cuttings connecting the bottom of Warren's Shaft with the Gihon Spring (Tunnels VI and VII) followed natural fissures and occasionally encountered karstic cavities (Reich and Shukron 2000:12).
Since Gill's studies, there have been several articles examining the question of whether the karstic origins of Hezekiah's tunnel are established. Stephen Rosenberg (1998:117) admits that Gill's argument regarding the karstic nature of both the north and south ends of Hezekiah's Tunnel is accurate, but seeks to refute the notion that the central portion of the tunnel, a distance of about 300 meters, is karstic. His two main criticisms of Gill's argument are:1) that, except for a few fissures, there is insufficient evidence of chambers and channels created by karstic action adjoining the tunnel, and 2) that the mistakes of the miners in arriving at a meeting point are inexplicable if they were following a karstic channel. Steven P. Lancaster and G. A. Long (1999:15) responded to Rosenberg's suggestions by showing, through a detailed examination of the tunnel, that there are indeed numerous karstic features within 30 to 50 m. of the meeting point of the miners working from both directions and that these features guided the directions they took in building the tunnel. Lancaster and Long believe that Gill overstated his case in suggesting that a karst phenomena connected the whole length of the tunnel and that it was large enough for a man to crawl through. Subsequently, Reich and Shukron (2002:76) have claimed that it is unacceptable to conclude that there was a continuous karstic crevice present throughout Hezekiah's tunnel, and that the karstic features, which are present within the rocky hill of the City of David, are limited in nature. Whatever their extent, it is now accepted that the construction of the tunnels of the water system were dependent to some degree on natural (karstic) features.
Gill's argument for the karstic nature of Jerusalem's water system also suggests an earlier date for this system (see Abells and Arbit 1995:18-19 for a recognition of the significance of the karstic nature of the system on its date). Jerusalem's waterworks may have been earlier than other water systems in the land. Hazor and Gibeon had previously been considered contenders for the earliest system (Shiloh 1987:237) and were the basis for dating the Jerusalem water system to the tenth century B.C.E., after the Israelite conquest of the city. In addition, the water system at the Jordanian site of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, nine miles north of Irbid, which dates to Early Bronze Age II-III (2950-2350 B.C.E.) (Grewe 1998:52) is evidence that these types of features could be earlier than previously believed. Yadin (1969:59, 70) and Shiloh's dating of the water systems at Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Gibeon, Ibleam and Jerusalem to Iron Age II or later is hence in need of further evaluation.
Gill's identification of karstic features in the tunnels does nothing to negate the significance of the discovery of the towers of the Jerusalem water system, nor Reich and Shukron's account of the way the inhabitants of the city gained access to the pool through the horizontal tunnel. Quite the opposite! Gill's geological studies suggest the possibility of a much older date for the water system than allowed in Shiloh's work. The system was complex with alternative routes. If access to the pool through the horizontal tunnel was shut off in some way, Warren's Shaft was available.
Furthermore, neither-the geological evidence nor the archaeological discoveries recently made by Reich and Shukron lead to the conclusion that the textual depiction in II Samuel 5 is impossible. In the biblical account, the Jebusites seemed to have had good reason to be confident in their taunts. The massive fortifications guarding the water system that surrounded the Gihon Spring would have been a formidable challenge to David or any other invader who tried to capture the city. The exact method used by Joab to get into the city may never be known, but the evidence seems to be firmer than ever that there was a water system in existence at the time.
In light of the recent archaeological discoveries we can now reexamine the philology of sinn�r again. As is so often the case in the study of the ancient world, what may appear at first to be inconsistent and nonsensical often proves to have had good reason behind it as our know ledge improves. The word sinn�r; as used by the author of II Samuel, may not have been limited to the horizontal tunnel or Warren's Shaft, but may well have referred to the water system as a whole, to its towers, pools, and tunnels. If this was the case, several alternate ancient translations now seem to make better sense. Symmachus translated sinn�r as "battlement" (epalxeōs). The Targum Jonathan has "let him begin to uncover the fortified place" (fortified place: Aramaic karka'). The Peshitta has ski' which also means "shield" or "shielded place." These translations suggest the existence of an ancient fortification built to protect the most vulnerable part of the city of Jebus. The towers may have been considered a battlement, fortified, or shielded place. There is thus some ambiguity as to whether sinn�r refers to the towers, the tunnels and shafts, or the entire water system complex. Perhaps the Greek and Aramaic translations reflect synonyms of the word sinn�r. In light of recent philology, these alternate readings do not appear to be the best, but they do give testimony to the existence of significant fortifications in ancient Jerusalem.
Conclusion
Vincent examined the archaeological and physical evidence on and beneath the eastern slope of Jerusalem and concluded that the depiction of the capture of city by the Israelites in II Samuel 5:6-10 was historical. His judgments have survived the test of a century of criticism. Philological arguments since then have tended to ignore the evidence available in the biblical text and its ancient translations in preference for rare and isolated meanings found only in later Aramaic and Arabic usage. These meanings do not appear to provide the best reading of the passage. Evidence from some Ugaritic texts seems to confirm the most ancient reading. The conclusions of Shiloh, which denied historical accuracy of the biblical text by questioning the existence of a water system in Jebusite Jerusalem, are now in need of reinvestigation. More recent research by Gill and Reich and Shukron appears to indicate that the Jerusalem water system was pre-Israelite. Reich and Shukron claim they have no interest in whether their discoveries help or hinder the understanding of the manner of Joab's conquest of Jerusalem. However, as ancient historians and inquirers of truth, we have a responsibility to evaluate evidence from a variety of sources, even the Bible. As recent geological, philological and archaeological evidence converges in affirming the existence of some type of substantial water system in Jebusite Jerusalem, it appears that a reasonable case can be made for the plausibility of the depiction in II Samuel 5.
This article reprinted with permission. It has been reformatted for the world wide web. The original appeared in the Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin (see Kleven 2002).
NOTE: the following words in this article do not appear in the same form as in the original article due to font limitations: karka', sinn�r, mrz'b, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, We suggest you refer to the original article in the NEAS Bulletin for exact details (see Kleven 2002).
F1A version of this paper was originally presented at the Midwestern Regional Meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society at Northwestern College in St. Paul, MN in February 1999 and at the Annual Meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society in Danvers, MA, in November 1999.
F2Although there has been considerable criticism of "positivism," its persistence in literary and historical studies, especially in Ancient Near Eastern and biblical studies, needs to be pointed out. For an account of the alternatives to positivism, see Leavis (1986) and Whalley (1985).
For a description of Parker's expedition and Vincent's relation to it, see Silberman 1980. This typology is not without its problems. Dever (1969:71-78) has criticized Yadin (1969:50-71) for his redating of the Gezer water system to Iron Age II (ninth century B.C.E.) on the basis of the construction of the Hazor water system and has argued that the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B.C.E.) is the most likely date of the Gezer water system. It, like the Hazor and Jerusalem water systems, is tunnels that descend through bedrock to the water. The significance of comparative typology is not lost on Dever (1969:74) who, writes: "The date [of Gezer's water system] is crucial, especially if one is to compare it with the water system at Jerusalem (the famous "Hezekiah's Tunnel") and those discovered more recently at Megiddo, Gibeon, and now at Hazor. The others are mostly known to belong to the Iron Age, specifically to the 9th and 8th centuries B.C." Yadin's dating of the water system at Hazor to the ninth century B.C.E. had considerable influence on his redating of the water system at Megiddo from twelfth century B.C.E. to the ninth century B.C.E., that is, to the time of Ahab. Dan Cole (1980:25) argues that the water system at Gibeon is the first in a series of water shafts, dating it to the tenth century B.C.E. This was the dating given by Pritchard to at least parts of the water system at Gibeon (Pritchard 1962:63). Pritchard (1962:71-72) dates the pool to Iron I, or twelfth to eleventh centuries B.C.E. The biblical description in II Samuel 2:13, which depicts a battle that follows shortly after the death of Saul, would indicate that the pool at Gibeon would have been in existence by the end of the eleventh century B.C.E.
Page last edited: 12/18/05 05:14 AM
|
starting web/internet resource by the
