Radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Radiocarbon chronology of Iron Age Jerusalem reveals calibration offsets and architectural developments (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Regev, J., Gadot, Y., Uziel, J., Chalaf, O., Shalev, Y., Roth, H., Shalom, N., Szanton, N., Bocher, E., Pearson, C. L., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2321024121 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- 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
- ORCID
- 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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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