Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron excavated what I consider to be one of the most interesting discoveries of recent years related to the New Testament. Their work at the southern end of the City of David began when construction work on a sewer line accidentally revealed several beautiful stone steps.

After several years of work, the entire northeastern side of the first-century Pool of Siloam was revealed. Our IBEX students worked with the excavators on this project a few days at a time over the course of several years, and so the published results are of particular interest to me.

As with other chapters in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, the archaeologists wrote the report. They begin by sketching out the history of excavation in the area, with the surprising note that five steps from the southern side of the pool were already revealed by Biss and Dickie in their excavations in 1898. But they didn’t realize what they had found.

The pool itself measures 50 meters on the exposed side, and an estimated 60 meters on the perpendicular sides. They uncovered the entire length on the northeastern side, including both corners. Why didn’t they go further? The article only hints at the reason: The pool “is the property of the Greek Orthodox Church.” A less professional report would have added, “and it is ironic that it is Christians who obstinately refused to allow excavation of an important site mentioned in the New Testament.”

The pool was built in two phases, and this is more important than you might think. The first phase was made of plastered stairs, but these could not withstand the large numbers of people who used the pool. But here’s the interesting part: the construction style of this phase indicates that the pool was built by workmen who specialized in constructing ritual baths.

It is, of course, tempting to dismiss the identification of the Pool of Siloam as one large ritual bath on the grounds that the lead excavator (Reich) did his doctoral dissertation on ritual baths, and we know how you end up seeing your own specialty everywhere you look. But Reich supports this theory with two additional points: (1) holes to support modesty partitions have been found in the stone steps; (2) the design of the staircase, with five steps between landings, is ideal for people trying to reach the water level at varying levels.

The date of the pool is not controversial. The first phase was built in the mid-first century BC and the pool went out of use in the First Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70).

On the northern end of the excavation area, the archaeologists uncovered a paved esplanade that was made of stones similar to those in the Herodian street below Robinson’s Arch. They identified the location of a row of columns and found a number of column drums in various places in their excavations. One of those drums had a mason’s mark with two Hebrew letters (het, tsadi) and three vertical lines. A street led from this esplanade to the north, underneath which they found a large drainage channel. This has been publicized in the past because it was apparently used as a hiding place for refugees in the Jewish Revolt.

This is a brief summary of the whole. The article is 11 pages long and includes 12 photos and 2 diagrams, many of them large and excellent.

Eilat Mazar excavated the palace of David. That’s what she claims, and it’s an amazing possibility to consider.

Mazar summarizes her excavations of the summit of the City of David in a chapter in the new Ancient Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018. I told you last week that if you wanted fewer questions and more answers, you would prefer Mazar’s excavation report to Reich and Shukron’s.

The chapter proceeds through the excavation chronologically beginning with the earliest periods. But the discoveries were very limited from all of the pre-Iron periods, and so I am going to skip right over them in this summary. The lack of early evidence in this area may indicate that this area was outside of Jerusalem until the time of David.

As with all of the articles in this book, we are treated to some great photos. This article also has three fantastic plans that help you see what Mazar is explaining. The main feature is the “Large Stone Structure.” This is what Mazar (and others) believes is the palace of David. Or more precisely, she considers it to be “a new significant addition to the already existing Canaanite-Jebusite Palace-Fortress or Mezudat Zion; an addition built by King David during his initial rule in Jerusalem.” So I interpret that to mean that this is David’s pre-Hiram residence. (In another study I’m working on, I reject the notion that David built a pre-Hiram residence, but that’s another discussion.)

Just how “large” is this “Large Stone Structure”? Unfortunately the excavation area was limited and the building extends beyond the edges in several directions. But the outer eastern wall is 20 feet wide, and a portion of it stands on a rock cliff that was chiseled to a height of 22-25 feet. Kathleen Kenyon discovered a royal (proto-Aeolic) capital just below this, but Mazar did not find any more in her area.

A quarried channel discovered behind the Stepped Stone Structure (which is the large foundation of the Large Stone Structure, readily visible in “Area G)” dates to the early Iron Age IIA (= time of David), and Mazar identifies this with the tsinnor mentioned in 2 Samuel 5:8, by which David’s men conquered the city.

Did I mention how much I like the color diagrams?

The finds of later periods were not quite so impressive, and it’s surely disappointing that none of the royal treasures escaped the greedy hands of the many plunderers of Jerusalem. But we can note a few discoveries in brief:

• A wall possibly constructed ahead of Shishak’s invasion
• A Hebrew seal impression with the name of Jehucal son of Shelemiah son of Shevi (cf. Jer 38:1)
• The wall built by Nehemiah
• A seal inscribed slmt that may have belonged to Shlomit the daughter of Zerubbabel (1 Chr 3:19).

Much of this material has appeared before in news reports and BAR articles, but this article provides a single summary that pulls it all together in a convenient fashion, with great illustrations.

In a nutshell, Ancient Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018 is a summation of the results of a couple dozen excavations all over Jerusalem. Each article is written by the excavator(s), with the result that you feel like you’re standing at the site, getting the final synopsis of what they discovered. The volume is loaded with photographs and diagrams.

My intention is to summarize a few of these articles in upcoming posts. There are four articles from the “Old Testament” period (Bronze and Iron Ages), and today’s post is about the first one.

Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron excavated in the City of David for 14 years (1995-2008), and their chapter on “Recent Discoveries in the City of David” focuses on two subjects: (1) the rock-cut pool and (2) the Gihon Spring fortifications. Both of these are in close proximity to each other, and both of them have proven quite difficult to understand.

The Rock-Cut Pool was not a pool, but its walls chiseled into the bedrock at a height of [oops – the article doesn’t even say; I’ll guess 20 feet] are amazing. But holes in the bedrock, even really large ones, do not tell stories, and so the excavators focus all of their attention on what they found inside the “pool,” which necessarily dates to a period later than the “pool’s” earliest use.

What did they find inside the pool? (1) Lots of pottery, mostly from around 825-750 BC, which was tossed in from the surrounding area when someone built (2) a house. Yes, this seems like a strange place to build a house, but someone did. The excavators compared it to the house of Ahiel in Area G.

(3) Fish bones. A lot of fish bones. And strangely enough, this is the only place in Jerusalem where they have found lots of fish bones. Of the 10,600 fish bones, they identified 14 different fish families, but the favorites on Jerusalem dining tables were Sparidae (porgies) and Mugilidae (mullets). All of these were obviously imported, and a study of their size indicates that only small fish were transported, possibly because of the need to package them for transport up into the hill country by donkey.

(4) About ten seals and scarabs as well as fragments of more than 170 seal impressions. Because they were from an earlier period than the collection found in Area G, they did not have inscriptions in any Semitic languages. A few had Egyptian inscriptions. And there were some cool decorations such as boats, fish, sphinxes, and palmettes. The archaeologists believe that an administrative center existed near the Rock-Cut Pool. (5) An ivory pomegranate with a dove perched on top.

The archaeologists believe that these finds point to ties with Phoenicia, a proposal which corresponds with the presence of Queen Athaliah (the daughter of a Phoenician princess). The article only hints at the possibilities here, but the date seems to line up.

The second major subject of the article is the Gihon Spring fortifications. The main point of this discussion is that the Pool Tower is not a tower but a fortified passageway. Now this passageway is very impressive, with its northern wall preserved to a height of 25 feet! They traced the parallel walls for 75 feet before they had to stop because of modern obstructions. The problem is that the excavators cannot figure out what this (obviously expensive) fortification did, and they seem to conclude that it went out of use before it came into use, being replaced by a subterranean equivalent known as “Warren’s Shaft.” All of this they date to the Middle Bronze Age.

The authors are honest, and I appreciate that. Here’s a sample paragraph that reflects their wrestling with the difficulties:

The key question is: How did those drawing water reach the place above the northeastern corner of the Rock-Cut Pool? Did they descend from the city between the two parallel walls, or perhaps through the subterranean tunnel (of the Warren’s Shaft complex), to emerge from it at the eastern end of those two walls, and then turn south toward the deepest part of the Rock-Cut Pool? Were these routes perhaps in use at different periods of time? We have no stratigraphic data that might point to such a sequence of phases of use and they should, therefore be interpreted based upon contemporary logic.

I’m not too impressed with the use of logic in archaeological interpretation, but it’s nice that they don’t pretend that they have evidence that they don’t.

I’ll conclude where they conclude, with what I see as an astonishing admission of our lack of knowledge about the most basic question of them all: where was the city of Jerusalem at this time?

Answer: the city may have been north of these fortifications. Or it may have been south. The fortified passageway may be in the southeastern corner of the fortified urban area, or it may have been in the northeastern corner. I guess I’m just glad that the Kidron Valley is on the east side of their excavation, or we probably wouldn’t even know if this was the eastern or western side of the city!

If you like a little bit more certainty (or a lot!) in your archaeology, check back next week for my summary of Eilat Mazar’s excavation of the palace of David.