Did Ancient Jerusalem Draw Water Through Warren’s Shaft?

064

In 1867 the British engineer and explorer Charles Warren discovered a 52-foot vertical shaft, now called Warren’s Shaft in his honor, that for many scholars provided the key to unlocking the mystery of King David’s conquest of Jerusalem in about 1000 B.C.E.: By scrambling up this chimney-like shaft, which connected to Jerusalem’s water supply, the Gihon Spring, David’s general Joab secretly got inside the well-defended city and was able to unlock the gate for the invading Israelite forces. The Bible has David himself saying that whoever would attack the city’s defenders, let him get up the tsinnor, most commonly translated “water shaft.”^a Here, perhaps, was the actual water shaft through which Joab entered the city and surprised the Jebusites.

Aside from the philological question of whether tsinnor meant water spout (scholars suggested a number of other possibilities, including penis), the debate focused on whether it would have been possible for Joab to negotiate the ascent of this vertical chimney.

As a result of recent excavations by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, however, the focus of the debate has shifted. Their excavations have shown that this chimney is actually a natural karstic shaft, not dug by man, that was happened upon accidentally a couple hundred years after David’s conquest of the city when ancient diggers were excavating an alteration of the tunnel at the top of the shaft, a tunnel that led, in a different way, to ancient Jerusalem’s water source, the Gihon Spring. There was thus another water system through which Joab might have come that was referred to by the Hebrew tsinnor.

But Reich and Shukron also claimed that Warren’s Shaft had never been used to draw water. It was, they said, a rough natural chimney with protrusions along the way and with no rope marks at the top to indicate that it had been used to draw water.

This then became the new focus of the debate: Was Warren’s Shaft ever used to draw water?

The brilliant young Israeli archaeologist Avraham Faust wrote an article for us arguing that Warren’s Shaft could have been, and in fact was, used to draw water.

In response to Faust’s argument, we printed what appeared to be a devastating argument by a senior Israeli geologist and expert in plaster Aryeh Shimron: Warren’s Shaft was never used to draw water.

We thought that this would be the end of it. But when I saw Faust at an archaeological conference, he complained bitterly that we had not given him an opportunity to respond to Shimron. He was right. In fairness, he should have had that opportunity. I agreed to publish a response, but would allow Shimron to reply, and then Faust could have the last word in a short surrebuttal in the same issue.

We print here Faust’s response to Shimron (which was a response to Faust), Shimron’s response to this latest submission of Faust, and Faust’s rebuttal to Shimron’s response. The only thing we can say in addition is that we hope at this point everyone feels we have been fair, and that the debate is concluded—at least for a while.—H.S.

066

Shimron All Wet on Water System

By Avraham Faust

Warren’s Shaft has attracted much scholarly attention and public interest over the years. The new discoveries made by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron have significantly altered our perception of the system’s function and date.^b Understanding the function of the various elements in the various stages of the system’s development requires detailed knowledge of Warren’s Shaft and its components. Any conclusion should take into consideration all aspects of this impressive and complicated system. Ignoring some details is likely to lead to a wrong or insufficient conclusion. Aryeh Shimron’s attempts to study Warren’s Shaft are welcome,^c but since he ignores most components of the system, his conclusion is simply insufficient and wrong. Moreover, a broader look at the system reveals that even the points he does discuss are irrelevant.

First of all, Shimron misrepresented my views. For example, the fact that Father Louis-Hugues Vincent drew buckets through the shaft is not my “principal argument.” I presented a detailed scenario^d that took into account many small details of the complex system (most of which were simply ignored by Shimron), and this was simply a minor point, related to the fact that Reich and Shukron claimed that it was impossible to draw water up Warren’s Shaft. I mentioned this detail only to show that it was possible; not more than that.

The evidence for my scenario includes, for example, the fact that a tunnel connected the bottom of the shaft with the Gihon Spring, as well as the fact that the eighth-century B.C. diggers ceased to work on the upper level (above the shaft) as soon as they (accidentally) found the shaft. Shimron doesn’t even bother to suggest a reason for connecting the spring to the bottom of the shaft and ignores the “coincidence” of the timing of the cessation of the work in the upper tunnel.¹

Neglecting to address the system as such—and the lack of any attempt to understand it—results in Shimron’s “scientific” evidence being irrelevant for any discussion of the Warren Shaft system:

Shimron claims that the bottom of the shaft was not plastered and that water would therefore escape: “[T]here is simply too much space allowing water to escape beneath this shaft for the cave to be used for water collection.” His facts are correct, but his conclusion does not follow from the facts. When Warren’s Shaft was used, all the water from the Gihon Spring was directed to the bottom of the shaft. Anyone who has walked in Hezekiah’s Tunnel (through which the water flows today) knows how strong the stream is and how much water flows there (the spring’s average flow is more than 1,500 cubic meters per day!).² It is simply impossible for all this water to “escape” from the bottom of the shaft when directed there instead of through the tunnel. For water to escape from the bottom of the shaft, one would have to imagine a huge hole in the bottom of the shaft going to the middle of the earth. “Small fractures” would never allow so much water to escape. The reader can compare it to a bathtub. If you open the drain, the water at the bottom of the tub will indeed escape rather quickly. If you add a little water at the same time, the amount of water might be stable, and if the tap is fully open and you add a lot of water, the level of the water might even increase rather than decrease. Now imagine that the drain is practically closed and only some water escapes through minor cracks in the stopper, while the tap is fully open. The basin would be full! Why should you bother plastering the small “cracks” at the bottom? You have far more water than you need. This is, of course, different from other water systems, which are designed to preserve as much water as possible. The difference is important, but you need to comprehend the purpose of the various systems in order to understand this.

The same is true for the second “scientific” point raised by Shimron: the lack of siltstone and tufa. He wrote:

[H]ad this cave ever held water for any length of time, we would find on the walls and floors deposits of siltstone and also a type of travertine (a mineral deposit) known as tufa.

Shimron said that these are found in Hezekiah’s Tunnel, for example, and adds: “[B]ut there is no evidence of this revealing sedimentary activity in the cave at the bottom of Warren’s Shaft.” He concludes: “[T]he reason is clear: The cave at the bottom of Warren’s Shaft never held water for any significant length of time.” Again, the data is probably correct but the conclusions are not! My scenario explains the lack of siltstone at the bottom of the shaft very well. I explicitly claimed that the shaft, and hence the cave that lies below it, were used to draw water for “a very short period of time,” only in emergencies. Comparing it with Hezekiah’s Tunnel, where water has flowed for some 2,700 years is ridiculous. The lack of evidence at the bottom of the shaft results from the fact that none is to be expected.

Had Shimron given any consideration to the function of the various tunnels—the human factor behind the system—he would have realized that it is almost impossible that water was not collected at the bottom of the shaft. After all, the bottom of the shaft was connected to 067the spring. Whatever the reason for connecting the two, water simply flowed from the spring to the bottom of the shaft. Reich and Shukron’s original paper accepted that, but claimed that the level of the water was too shallow to allow it to be collected in buckets and that therefore the shaft couldn’t have been used to draw water (and this is the claim my paper addressed). Any claim that water did not flow to the bottom of the shaft³ would require Shimron to present a new scenario regarding the purpose of the tunnel connecting the spring to the bottom of Warren’s Shaft and, in addition, to claim that there was a wall of some sort (a wall yet undiscovered) that blocked the water from getting into the bottom of the shaft. (The current wall is no earlier than Hezekiah’s Tunnel [eighth century B.C.E.], of course.) In the absence of such evidence (or even a theoretical rationale for it), it is clear that water did flow to the bottom of the shaft!

Shimron not only failed to present a realistic substitute to my scenario, he simply ignored most of the data that would counter his argument. Even the few points he discusses are simply irrelevant when examined in detail. Moreover, while “scientific” tests are extremely important, they should be conducted in a manner that will bring meaningful results; a scientific test per se, without a context, is meaningless. The scientific results presented by Shimron bear no relevance for the discussion. Geologists might, no doubt, bring new insights into the discussion of Jerusalem’s water system, but they should treat all the evidence and realize that archaeology is a discipline, not a hobby someone can flirt with.

Faust’s Major Errors

by Aryeh Shimron

In his first contribution to this debate (September/October 2003) Avi Faust wrote that “various lines of evidence indicate that it [Warren’s Shaft] was indeed used to draw water.” 068He then continues: “I will show, first, that it is quite feasible to use the shaft to draw up water from the spring below. Second, I will show that it was not only possible, but very probable that the shaft was used for this purpose.” This was the main thrust of Faust’s thesis that I tried to address in my response in the July/August 2004 issue of BAR.

Faust’s evidence for the first point is based entirely on Father Vincent’s description that it is possible to draw mud up the shaft, in support of which Faust quotes from Vincent’s writings:

After a few trials the right place was found to give the buckets a direct fall. They used to bang against the side of the rock, rebound, and then vanish through the narrowest part with an awful clatter. When it was a question of pulling it up again, the bucketful of mud was put on the hook below and pulled slowly up, hitting the sides all the way, making a dreadful fuss as it came through the narrow part; but in spite of all this fuss, very little ever dropped out the buckets.

This is Faust’s main line of evidence for the first point, and he concludes “I have shown that in ancient times it was quite possible to draw water up the shaft.”

In order to justify the second argument, he then follows with “but did the ancient Israelites use it for this purpose? I believe the answer is yes.” To prove the second point, Faust argues that there are grave problems with the Reich and Shukron idea that the tunnel at the bottom of the shaft was dug from the shaft to the spring. His argument here is that since the cave-like enclosure beneath the shaft was not enlarged in order to make work easier, thus also allowing rocks and stones to fall on the workers’ heads, “suggests that the tunnel was not dug from this spot, but was the end of the tunnel that started at the spring.”

In my obviously futile efforts, I tried to focus on major errors in Faust’s thesis, both pertaining to the morphology of the two spaces beneath the shaft: (1) the cave-like continuity beneath the shaft and (2) the tunnel that connects the cave with the Gihon Spring.

I showed that (1) the cave was indeed enlarged to the east; tool marks very clearly testify to this, and the modified cave enclosure was such that rocks and stones would not fall on workers heads; and (2) the cave cannot and did not hold water for any length of time since there is no evidence of the kind of sedimentary activity (siltstone and travertine) and plastering that covers all passages where water from the Gihon passed through. Finally, I stressed (as indeed did Reich and Shukron and Vincent) that the direction of tool marks and, most significantly, the two correction niches near the east end of the tunnel show that this connection between the shaft and the spring was hewed from the shaft to the spring.

In his response to my comments, Faust presents some powerful new arguments and repeats a number of old ones in support of his thesis. But besides those, he proclaims that I have ignored most components of the Warren’s Shaft system, that my conclusions are simply insufficient and wrong, that I have neglected to address the system as such, that I did not attempt to understand it, that I failed to present a realistic substitute scenario and that even the few points I discuss are simply irrelevant when examined in detail, that my “scientific” evidence is simply irrelevant for any discussion of the Warren Shaft system, and that “while scientific tests are extremely important, they should be conducted in a manner that will bring meaningful results.” In conclusion comes Faust’s principal thrust: “Geologists should treat all the evidence, and realize that archaeology is a discipline, not a hobby someone can flirt with.”

Sifting through what remains in the murky clouds of Faust’s response, I will address the brunt of his new arguments. (1) “For water to escape from the bottom of the shaft, one would have to imagine a huge hole in the bottom of the shaft, going to the middle of the earth. Small fractures would never allow so much water to escape.”

There is no need for a huge hole going all the way to the middle of the earth. Water will easily escape through the four major fractures that cut through the cave and down the dissolution tube at the east edge of the cave, where the continuity of Warren’s Shaft plunges eastward. Here it would rapidly be absorbed within the karstic aquifer immediately underneath. Furthermore, historical sources (as well as the name, Gihon) tell us that in the past the spring was a “gusher-type,” erupting to the surface only periodically, thereby allowing water plenty of time to escape down the voids. Faust’s “bathtub” was thus never full.

(2) Faust’s next new argument is that “Shimron doesn’t even bother to suggest a reason for connecting the spring to the bottom of the shaft and ignores the coincidence of the timing of the cessation of the work in the upper tunnel.”

In my initial response to Faust’s thesis, I clearly referred to the two correction niches near the east end of the tunnel. These correction niches clearly reveal, without any ambiguity, that the channel was hewed from Warren’s Shaft toward the spring, and this during the initial stage of hewing. There is no need for me to provide a reason as to why the spring was connected to the bottom of the shaft, because it wasn’t; it was dug from the bottom of the shaft to the spring.⁴

It is true that the wall is no earlier than Hezekiah’s Tunnel. As a matter of 069fact, it dates to the Ottoman period, put up by the Parker mission to replace an earlier Iron Age II wall (mentioned by Vincent). The significance of the blocking wall, and its predecessors, is that it clearly demonstrates the necessity of isolating the karstic cave (as well as the neighboring channels) beneath Warren’s Shaft from the rest of the waterworks because of the danger of water loss. Cut off from the water channels, it is the main reason why the cave is not sedimented and was not plastered by Hezekiah’s engineers who, on the other hand, did plaster, floor to almost ceiling, all tunnels and channels (small fractures especially) that were meant to carry water.

Finally, Faust argues that I failed to present a realistic substitute to the Faust scenario. Reich and Shukron had already done this quite capably, and besides, I was not writing a paper on Warren’s Shaft, consequently this was not my task or purpose. I am grateful to Faust, however, for pointing out that archaeology is a serious discipline, not a hobby for someone to flirt with. I was not aware of this, but will now most certainly keep it in mind during any future archaeological flirtations.

Final Comment

By Avraham Faust

I read Shimron’s reply with bewilderment, concerning both its content and style.⁵ Shimron simply didn’t really reply to most of my arguments, and he continues to ignore the bulk of the finds.⁶

Notably, Shimron drags the discussion into the unimportant debate on the direction of the digging of the tunnel that connected the bottom of the shaft and spring, and by concentrating on the subordinate, he ignores the main point: The two were connected. Even if he is correct regarding the direction of the tunneling (and he isn’t),⁷ nothing changes the fact that the two were connected! The bottom of the shaft is lower than the spring, and water had to be collected there. Not only doesn’t Shimron explain why this tunnel was dug (no matter how), but he ignores the fact that water had to flow to the bottom of the shaft (as was accepted by all, including Reich and Shukron!).⁸ There is no value to any speculation or “scientific” tests; unless the laws of physics had changed,⁹ there had to be water at the bottom of the shaft! Shimron simply doesn’t reply to this argument! And practically, this should have sufficed to conclude the debate.

Still, I would like to address his other arguments. First of all, the amount of water that passes through the Gihon cannot simply disappear through fractures. We are discussing one of the largest springs in the Judean mountains, with an average daily flow of more than 1,500 cubic meters. That it was a “gusher-type” spring (which is not doubted) doesn’t change that. The amount of water is simply too large, and my “bathtub” example is valid. Actually, since nobody so far contested the view that, by gravity, water had to be collected at the bottom of the shaft, the mere fact that it was not plastered seems to prove that it was unnecessary to do so. Furthermore, Shimron seems to have abandoned his main scientific argument: that siltstone and tufa were not found below the shaft. It appears that he now accepts my opinion, that none is to be expected.

Shimron ignored most components of the system, and in his defense claimed that it is unnecessary for him to deal with all the details and to present a reasonable explanation for them, since “Reich and Shukron had already done this quite capably.” But Reich and Shukron accept that there was water at the bottom of the shaft! The only point on which Shimron opines is in contrast to the view of those whom he claims to follow. Shimron therefore has to present an alternative scenario.

And finally, since the debate was dragged to side alleys and it is likely that the readers have totally forgotten that we are discussing the Warren Shaft, I would like to return to the larger picture and to present it again briefly.

Until a decade ago, it seemed clear to all that Warren’s Shaft was used to draw water. A couple of years ago, following their exciting discoveries, Reich and Shukron reexamined the entire circumstances surrounding the construction of Jerusalem water systems and presented 077new and important insights. And most of their observations are, in my opinion, valid. They showed that the shaft was incorporated into the network of tunnels only in the eighth century B.C.E., and preliminarily suggested that it was impossible to draw water through it, due to both the protrusions that disabled any simple process of lowering and raising buckets and the fact that the level at the bottom of the shaft was too low and a bucket could not have been filled with the water that collected there.

My original paper in BAR intended to show (1) that it was possible to draw water through the shaft and (2) that it is likely that it was used for this purpose. For the first purpose I showed that it was technically possible to draw water and that, moreover, despite the difficulties, Vincent used it for practical purposes when cleaning the tunnel. I also explained that the level of the water was raised and was therefore high enough for water to be drawn. For the second purpose I simply reminded the readers that a tunnel brought the water from the Gihon Spring to the bottom of the Warren’s Shaft (regardless of the way the tunnel was dug). This fact was never challenged. But why was it dug? I suggested that the only reason for bringing the water there was to use it, even if only for a short period of time and for emergencies.

Shimron claimed that there was never water at the bottom of the shaft, but he didn’t explain what prevented the water from flowing there (and now, moreover, seems to have abandoned his main “scientific proof” for this claim). There is currently nothing that necessitates any modifications to the original scenario I presented.

In 867 the British engineer and explorer Charles Warren discovered a 52-foot vertical shaft, now called Warren’s Shaft in his honor, that for many scholars provided the key to unlocking the mystery of King David’s conquest of Jerusalem in about 1000 B.C.E.: By scrambling up this chimney-like shaft, which connected to Jerusalem’s water supply, the Gihon Spring, David’s general Joab secretly got inside the well-defended city and was able to unlock the gate for the invading Israelite forces. The Bible has David himself saying that whoever would attack the city’s defenders, let him get up the tsinnor, most commonly […]