Cited by 62Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesBiblical Studies and InterpretationWater management and technologies

Radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem

Frumkin, Amos, Shimron, Aryeh, Rosenbaum, Jeff·2003·Nature

Abstract

The historical credibility of texts from the Bible is often debated when compared with Iron Age archaeological finds (refs. 1, 2 and references therein). Modern scientific methods may, in principle, be used to independently date structures that seem to be mentioned in the biblical text, to evaluate its historical authenticity. In reality, however, this approach is extremely difficult because of poor archaeological preservation, uncertainty in identification, scarcity of datable materials, and restricted scientific access into well-identified worship sites. Because of these problems, no well-identified Biblical structure has been radiometrically dated until now. Here we report radiocarbon and U-Th dating of the Siloam Tunnel, proving its Iron Age II date; we conclude that the Biblical text presents an accurate historic record of the Siloam Tunnel's construction. Being one of the longest ancient water tunnels lacking intermediate shafts, dating the Siloam Tunnel is a key to determining where and when this technological breakthrough took place. Siloam Tunnel dating also refutes a claim that the tunnel was constructed in the second century bc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature01875

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Radiocarbon dating was rarely applied for the Iron Age period in Jerusalem, and chronological frameworks were based solely on pottery typology, stratigraphy, and integration of textual sources.

    “Surprisingly, though, radiocarbon dating was rarely applied for this period in Jerusalem (1–3), and the chronological frameworks were based solely on pottery typology, stratigraphy, and integration of textual sources.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frumkin, A., Shimron, A., & Rosenbaum, J.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Geological Survey of Israel (IL)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Corresponding author
Frumkin, Amos
Venue
Nature
Published
2003-09
Volume
425
Issue
6954
Pages
169-171
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2031242241
Cited by
62
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Grains Research and Development Corporation
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Water management and technologies
Keywords
radiocarbon dating, U-Th dating, Iron Age II, biblical archaeology, Second Temple period

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review