The why, how, and when of the siloam tunnel reevaluated: A reply to sneh, weinberger, and shalev

In a recent article in this journal, geologists Amihai Sneh, Ram Weinberger, and Eyal Shalev proposed a new model for the why, how, and when of the Iron Age II Siloam Tunnel in ancient Jerusalem. Here we focus on the how of their contribution. Offered without presentation of new data or discussion of recently published evidence, their model is a refinement of ideas introduced since the early 20th century, mostly by scholars who had little geological knowledge and/or who failed to observe the internal features of the tunnel. Their model suggests that the tunnel follows a natural winding route of interconnected karstic cavities along fissures and bedding planes by jumping from one into the other close to the water table. Although theoretically possible in other karstic terrains, such a model is not applicable to the Siloam Tunnel because it clashes with the geological and other field evidence manifested along the tunnel. Our field observations show no indications of a groundwater water table close to the tunnel, nor does the tunnel follow fissures, bedding planes, or karstic voids for longer than a few meters. Such geological features, where existent, are accidentally crossed by the tunnel, whose route was determined by other considerations.