ANCIENT

ITS WATER

JERUSALEM

SUPPLY
JOHN

AND POPULATION*

WILKINSON

The Plates for this article are between pages 76 and 77

Latin and Greek writers speak of Jerusalem as a large city, well supplied with water.! Yet, as is
well known, there is only one strong spring nearby, and the city could never have grown unless
water had been brought in from elsewhere. It is the purpose of this article to examine the
development of the ancient water-systems, and to ask what light they may shed on the growth
of the population. Such an examination may serve as an additional control for some of the
evidence for population numbers recently discussed by Mr Anthony Byatt,2 even though, in
the nature of our enquiry, we are unlikely to obtain final figures which are more than
approximations.
GIHON

Human beings first chose to settle on the site of Jerusalem because of the abundant spring
called Gihon, 'Ain Umm el Daraj, or the Virgin's Fountain. Nearby there is another spring, En
Rogel or Bir 'Ayyub, but this would hardly have played a decisive part in deciding the site of the
future city, since its yield is small and it is hard to defend. Gihon itself is not easy to defend, but
it is extremely productive.3 Even its minimum yield would provide two buckets of water a day
each for a population of 10,000 persons,4 but this does not mean that there were ever as many
as 10,000 in Jerusalem when it still depended on Gihon alone. The spring has today been
hidden by the accumulation of soil in the bottom of the Kidron Valley, but even when it was
still above the level of the valley floor it was in an unusually awkward position. Its natural
outflow would no doubt have provided good irrigation, but the water available for domestic
use was only the amount the inhabitants were able to draw before it flowed away to waste,5 or,
at the most, about a quarter. It would be absurd to think that the citizens of Jerusalem drew
their water with rigid discipline all day and all night, and we must therefore agree with
Professor Amiran's judgement that Gihon could effectively serve only 'the needs of a good-sized
village'.6 So long as Jerusalem depended on its single spring it can hardly have had more than
2,500 inhabitants,7 an estimate which agrees well with its small area (see Fig. 1 (1)).8

* The author

is most grateful to Professor Amiran, and

sixteen in Jerusalem (1925); twenty in villages in
also to ProfessorsJames Barr and R. M. Grant, Miss Liberia (1972); thirty in Barcelona (1888); thirty-six in
Mumia Sa'id and P. H. Stem, Esq, for advice in previllages in S.E. Ghana (1970); ninety-one in standpipes
paring this article.
in South Africa (1970); 204 in England and Wales
1 See L. H. Vincent and M. H. Steve, Jerusalem de
(1970); 227 in Scotland (1970); and 363 in the U.S.A.
['Ancien Testament, Vol. I (Paris 1954), 297f.
(197)
5 The small pool marked by the letters Land M in
2 A. Byatt, 'josephus and Population Numbers in
R. Weill, La Cite de David (Paris 1920),46, seemsto have
First Century Palestine', PEQ 105 (1973), 51-60.
been the earliest arrangement to make it easier to draw
3 Its minimum yield is 73,000 cu.m. per year, and its
maximum over five times as great: see D. H. K. Amiran
from Gihon, but it could not have stored the water in
in B. Mazar and others, Jerusalem, the Saga of the Holy . any significant quantity.
6 Amiran, Ope cit., 45.
Ciry (Jerusalem 1954), 45.
4 Two buckets contain about twenty litres, which
7 We here assume a consumption from city supplies
would be a low estimate for daily consumption. Com- of twenty litres per head per day. The product of
cisterns is discussed below, p. 47.
pare the following: three litres per head per day in
8 See K. Kenyon, Jerusalem (London 1967), 29.
Lebanon (recent survival test); fifteenin Madrid (1888);

1 KM.

I.

Fig. I. The Area of the City

Under theJebusites and David
2. Under Solomon

3. In the Late Monarchy

150 M.
Fig.

2.

The Hill-side channel from Gihon.

PALESTINE

EXPLORATION

Q.UARTERLY

In war time Gihon became even more inconvenient, since the citizens could only reach
their water by an underground system of tunnels, known by its excavators as 'The Dragon
Shaft'.9 The water from the spring was led into the hillside to the bottom of a well, and from
ground-level inside the city walls a staircase and rock gallery were cut to connect with the wellhead. This system cannot have remained useful when the city began to expand, and we may
therefore assume that an alternative arrangement had been made by the time Solomon's
reign was over, since during that period the city area was more than doubled. (See Fig. I (2)).10
The new system offered considerable advantages over the Dragon Shaft. It comprised a
channel cut in the hill-side (see Fig. 2, A-B and Plate VIlA), which led from Gihon to a receiving pool at the southern tip of the city, which is now called Birket ell:Iamra.ll Besides providing
for irrigation12 the new channel and pool made it far easier to draw and store the water from
the spring, and we may guess that the number of persons able to use it could have doubled.
But it was hard to defend, and though we may guess at possible courses for walls which may
have surrounded it (as in Fig. 2, (Z)) we cannot yet say for certain what protection it had.13
THE

ETAM

SYSTEM

By enlarging Jerusalem and raising its standard of living King Solomon increased the need for
water. Should we therefore accept the tradition that he was the maker of 'Solomon's Pools'?
The traditional name describes three reservoirs which receive the water of some strong springs
11.5 km. south ofJerusalem,14 which are in fact the nearest large supply of water at an altitude
greater than that of the city, and are connected with Jerusalem by aqueduct. Its channel runs
past Khirbet el Khokh,15 and along the eastern slopes of the main ridge like a contour line (see
Fig. 3) till it reaches the west side of the Valley of Hinnom.16 Crossing the valley above Birket
es Sultan it passes round Mount Sion (see Plate VIllA), and runs along the city wall (see Plate
VIIIB) till it passes through it about 100 metres west of the Dung Gate. From this point it
travelled north to Wilson's Arch, over which it was carried into the l:Iaram esh Sherif.17 The
total length of the channel is 22.5 kilometres.ls
A relatively late tradition that Solomon made 'pools from which to water the growing trees'
is to be found in Eccles. 2 :6, and Josephus describes Solomon's chariot excursions to Etam.19
Indeed the pools at Etam are first said to be his only in the Talmud.20 But though our
documents are inconclusive we may reasonably regard at least one of the pools and the aque9 See H. v. [alias L. H. Vincent] Underground
Jerusalem (London 191I), 12, plates 3a and b. The shaft
was associated by its excavators with the 'tunnel' by
which they believed that Joab climbed up to capture
the city. But neither the obscure phrasing of 2 Sam. 5: 8
nor I Chron. I I : 6 demand the existence of such a
tunnel, as evidenced by the translations of these verses
in the LXX and N.E.B.
10 K. Kenyon, Opecit., 57.
11 This would thus be the first 'Pool of Siloam': see
Isa. 8 :6, and compare J. Simons, Jerusalem of the Old
Testament (Leiden 1952), 167f.
12 Through the short eastern channel and outlets
from the ma in channel.
13 K. Kenyon, Ope cit, 69, 71 and 77 proposes a
different arrangement: contrast P. Benoit, RB (1969),
264-5.
14 Their combined yield is 73,000 cU.m. per year
(Amiran, lococit.). The three springs called 'Uyun ~alil;1,
el Faruja, and 'Atan are shown in SWP III, 89 and by
C. Schick, 'Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem',
ZDPV I (1878), plan facing 176, but these two

authorities disagree over the position of the fourth

spring.
15 The site of biblical Etam. For the course of the
aqueduct see the new survey by A. Mazar, 'The
Ancient Aqueducts ofJerusalem', (Hebrew), Qadmoniot
5 (1972), 120-4 and map.
16 It is displayed in front of the Montefiore cottages.
17 See G. Adam Smith, Atlas
of the Historical
Geography of the Holy Land (London 1915), map 49-50.
18 The fall of the channel is 38 m, resulting in a
gradient of I: 3,125. This would have produced a rapid
flow likely to have worn the sides of the channel, which
would account for the many re-linings and repairs
visible on the remaining sections of this aqueduct. Most
of the earthenware pipes in the aqueduct were placed in
the channel in the seventeenth century, and the last
known repair was made in anticipation of Kaiser
Wilhelm's visit (see D. Yellin, Hamelitz, May 1898). In
1902 the Turkish Government is said to have installed
metal pipes to replace the old aqueduct between the
tunnel below Bethlehem and Jerusalem.
19 Ant.8.186:
cf. S. ofS. 3: 6-10.
20 Zebaim 54b.

ANCIENT

JERUSALEM:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

POPULATION

37

duct as products of the Israelite monarchy. To survey and construct a system of this kind is a
large undertaking, but does not require any skills which cannot have been available in that
period, as any farmer knows who has made field-drains. It is therefore an attractive possibility
that Ahaz met Isaiah beside this very aqueduct, described as 'the conduit of the upper pool' in
Isa. 7:3. In this case the pool was probably somewhere in the Temple area, and the implied
'lower pool' would have been Birket el I:Iamra, with the conduit from Gihon. The enlargement
in the water-supply probably accompanied the increase in city area implied by the broad wall
discovered by Professor Avigad,21 which was built in the late monarchy (see Fig. I (3)).

ETAM

5KM.

Fig. 3. The Etam System.

HEZEKIAH'S

TUNNEL

Ahaz was succeeded by Hezekiah, a king whose memory was honoured partly because he 'made
the pool and the conduit, and brought water into the city' (2 Kings 20:20).22 Yet his famous
tunnel, while certainly an improvement on the hillside channel from a defensive standpoint,
did not necessarily increase the amount of water available in the city. A passage in Chronicles,
which may well have been based on annals in the royal archives, expands on the words we have
quoted, saying that Hezekiah 'planned to stop the water of the springs that were outside the
city' (which we take to mean Gihon) ... 'And they stopped all the springs, and the brook
which flowed through the land' (which we take to mean the hillside channel), 'saying, "Why
should the kings of Assyria come and find much water?" , (2 Chron. 32: 3-4). Later in the same
passage we are told that Hezekiah 'closed the upper outlet of the water of Gihon and directed
them down to the west side of the city'.23 Whatever the theological overtones of this account24
21 See N. Avigad, IE] 20 (1970), 129. Our suggested
line for the city wall followshis conjectural wall I, and
the outline most recently published in Qadmoniot 5
(1972),94. A. Mazar, Ope cit., 123, showsa photograph of
a tunnel forming part of the Etam aqueduct which looks
very like a section of Hezekiah's tunnel. It may perhaps belong to the same general period, though Mazar

has found no parts of this aqueduct which he would

date earlier than the Second Temple period.
22 Compare Ecc1us.48: I 7.
232 Chron. 32: 30, compare Isa. 22: 9-11
24 See P. R. Ackroyd, I and II Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Torch Commentary (London 1973), 190ff.

PALESTINE

EXPLORATION

Q,UARTERLY

its information corresponds precisely with the archaeological discoveries,25 and we may therefore safely assume that the hillside channel and Birket el I:Iamra were already in existence
before Hezekiah came to the throne in 742 B.C., and that he replaced the channel by his tunnel
between 705 and 701 B.C., as a defensive measure on the eve of the Assyrian invasion.
THE

'ARRUB

EXTENSION

At some stage in the Second Temple period the Etam system proved inadequate to the needs of
Jerusalem, and was extended southwards to 'Arrub (see Fig. 4). The pool at 'Arrub (see Plate

JERUSALEM

:::;t~ HERODlUM
5 KM.

Fig. 4. The 'Arrub Extension and the Herodium aqueduct.

lXA), which collected thewater of three strong springs,26 was eight kilometres beyond Etam,
but the new aqueduct meandered so violently that it had a total length of 44.7 kilometres,
despite the inclusion of a bridge (Plate XA) and tunnels (Plate XIA)27 to reduce the length as
far as possible. Etam now became the regulating-point
for the complete system, and it is
probable that the original lower pool was enlarged and the middle pool constructed at this time
as a means of contro1.28
Though we do not know the exact date of the 'Arrub extension, there is another dated
aqueduct nearby. In 25-24 B.C. the droughts in Judaea were so severe that they caused plague
and famine,29 and Herod the Great immediately took steps to provide relief. Then in 23 B.C.,
perhaps to ensure employment for some of those who had suffered, he began building two
palaces, one in the Upper City of Jerusalem, 30 and the other at Herodium, where, according to
Josephus, there were pleasure grounds 'worth seeing because of the way in which water, which
H. V., op.cit., 31.
'Ain 'Arrub (at Birket 'Arrub), 'Ain Kuweiziba,
and Bir Kufin.
27 A. Mazar, Ope cit., (map) shows the bridge in Wadi
elJi~r, ref. 1668 1186, and the tunnels at reff. 1679 1143,
1680 I 150, and 1682 120 I. He identifies the masonry of
the extension (see Plates XB and XIA) as belonging to
the Second Temple period, Ope cit., 122.
28 A. Mazar, Ope cit., 123 reports that the supply from
the springs was improved in Roman times. F.-M. Abel,
Geographie de la Palestine (Paris 1933), Vol. I, 453
25

26

suggests that the third pool may have been built only in
1480-3 by Sultan Qait-Bay, since a document
mentions the existence of only two of the pools in 1469.
In any case it seems unlikely that the upper pool was
part of the Low-level Aqueduct, since it is at a higher
level. We may therefore guess that when the section of
the High-level Aqueduct between Etam and Jerusalem
no longer functioned, the upper pool had to be made to
receive the product of Bir el Daraj. See below, pp.
A.D.

45f.
29

Josephus, Ant. 15.299-304.

30

Ibid. 318

ANCIENT

JERUSALEM:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

POPULATION

'39

is lacking in that place, is brought in from a distance at great expense'. 31 Herod's effective
famine relief won him unusual popularity, but he stood to lose it if he could be accused of
supplying his palaces with water at the expense of the systems serving the city of Jerusalem.
Such an accusation would have been easy to contrive, since the aqueduct for Herodium came
from 'Artas,32 very close to the one from Etam of which it may even have been a branch (see
Fig. 4). There is thus good reason for Herod to have improved the supply to the city in 23 B.C.
The whole system from 'Arrub to Jerusalem, now known as the Low-level Aqueduct,
covers a direct distance of 19.3 km. with a channel 67 km. in length, and supplied the Lower
City of Jerusalem of Herodian times: indeed it is possible that the distribution channels of this
aqueduct, traceable at the beginning of this century33 (see Fig. 5) are some of them ~ven older,
and witness to the continuing importance of this system for more than two thousand years. In
the Israelite Temple it supplied the High Priest's ritual bath and the Sea ofBrass,34 and at the
beginning of the Ottoman period it was supplying at least four of the city fountains installed by
Suleiman the Magnificent.3s But it is probable that the southern section of the system, between
'Arrub and Etam went out of use long before the Ottomans, since it has in many places
disappeared, and that the much-repaired
northern section from Etam to Jerusalem36 is the
only part to have been in use for the past thousand years.
RAIN-COLLECTING

POOLS

The land to the north and west of Jerusalem rises higher than the city within the walls, and
thus provided the potential for a considerable water supply. In four of the valleys in this area
ancient pools are (or have recently been) visible (see Fig. 6) which were clearly intended t~
collect rain from their surrounding catchment areas (see Fig. 7), and since the pools are all
high enough to supply the city, we shall for our present purposes assume that this was their
function, even though it is not yet clear where all the connecting channels ran .. Equally it is
clear that two of the surviving ancient pools37 could never have collected much rain, since they
are sited on spurs.
It is possible that the first rain-collecting pools had already been constructed in the period
of the Late Monarchy,38 but there are no clear literary references to them. In the Hellenistic
period we hear of a pool which may have been designed for this purpose, since Ecclus. 50: 3
informs us that in the days of Simon, son ofOnias (i.e. in about 200 B.C.) 'a cistern for water was
quarried out, a reservoir like the sea in circumference', 39 but we cannot identify it. In his
account of Titus' siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 Josephus mentions three pools. The first, which
he calls the 'Strouthion',4o was perhaps made by Hyrcanus I in about 134 B.C. to provide the
supply for his fort, the Baris, and the others, the 'Amygdalon'41 and the 'Serpents' Poo1'42 were
in existence at latest by the time of the siege.
Fortunately we do not for our present purposes need to know how all these pools were
31 Ibid.

323-6.
See the map in A. Mazar, Opecit., nos. 3D-33.
33 See G. A. Smith, loco cit. The direction of the
supply-pipe of Birket el Hijja suggests that it was connected with the Low-level system, pace Vincent and
Steve, Opecit., 303.
34 According to Talmud (Y)Toma 3.8, (B)Toma 31a.
35 A.D. 1536-7.
36 The water from Bir el Daraj (seebelow, pp. 45f.)
was later diverted into this section, and augmented the
supply from the Etam springs.
37 Birket l:Iammam el Batrak and Birket l:Iammam
Sitti Miriam: the form of the names (Pool of the Bath
of ) suggests a similarity.
32

38 'The Dragon's Well' of Neh. 2 :13 could be the

same as Josephus' 'Serpents' Pool' below, as suggested
by Vincent and Steve, Opecit., 299.
39 A. Duprez, Jesus et les Dieux Guerisseurs (Paris
1970), 36, suggests that this may have been the
Probatica.
40 War 5.467. SeeVincent and Steve, Opecit., 300 and
P. Benoit, 'L'Antonia d'Herode Ie Grand et Ie Forum
oriental d' Aelia Capitolina', Harvard Theological Review
64 (1971), 139-58.
41 War 5.468. Now Birket 1:1. el Batrak, Vincent and
Steve, Opecit., 300.
42 War 5.108. Now Birket es Sultan, Vincent and
Steve, Opecit., 299.

400 M.

Fountain
2. Fountain
3. Fountain
4. Fountain
I.

Fig.
in
in
at
in

5. Distribution Channels connected

Hospice adjoining et Takiya
5.
Tariq el Wad
6.
Bab ~itta
7.
Tariq el Wad (?)
8.

with the Low-level Aqueduct

Birket Hijja (?)
El Kas
'The Great Sea'
Fountain on south wall of Birket es Sultan.

ANCIENT

JERUSALEM:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

41

POPULATION

1 KM.
-

Fig. 6. Some ancient pools near Jerusalem, with landmarks

POOLS: I. Birket I:Iammam Sitti Miriam; 2. Probatica; 3. Birket Isra'il; 4. Strouthion;
5. Birket el Miya'a; 6. Amygdalon (now Birket I:Iammam el Batrak); 7. Birket es Sultan;
8. Birket Mamilla; 9. Birket I:Iusseini; 10. Possible site for a North-West Pool.
LANDMARKS: A. National Palace Hotel; B. Sheikh Jarrah Mosque; C. District Health
Office; D. Academy of Medicine, Prophets' Street; E. Russian Cathedral; F. King David
Hotel; G. Ratisbonne Convent; H. The Knesset Building; J. Monastery of the Cross.

connected with each other, since we are concerned with their overall product and its effect on
the population of the city. Ifwe make the assumption that rainfall in the Jerusalem area has not
changed since the pools were made,43 we can make a reasonable guess at the total amount they
43 See the working figures in Table 2, p. 51 below.
We take rainfall in the Jerusalem area to have been 600
rom. per year (seeAtlas of Israel (Jerusalem/Amsterdam
1970), Map IV/2.A) and the run-off coefficient (the
proportion of the total rainfall actually running into
the collection pool) to have been thirty per cent of the

volume falling in the catchment area. This estimate

agrees with the observation by D. H. K. Amiran, Ope cit.,
50, that in 1953 Birket Mamilla 'fills to the brim almost
every season', which implies that the pool received 33
per cent of the total rainfall.

PALESTINE

EXPLORATION

Q,UARTERLY

-----

1 KM.

BIRKEl EL MIYAA

Fig. 7. Catchment areas near Jerusalem.

would have supplied.44 In some cases, however, it is possible to envisage the way a system
may have grown, even though in the present state of our archaeological knowledge it is not easy
to be sure about chronology.
Since the Upper City was already enclosed by a wall in 165 B.C. we may suppose that Birket
Mamilla was constructed to supply it with water.45 But the pool sets us an interesting problem,
44 Lossesoccurred through evaporation and leakage.
Gross annual evaporation in the Jerusalem area is
calculated at 1.6 metres (see Atlas of Israel, Map IV!
3.T) : since rain fell into all surface water the net annual
figure for this loss is I metre. Leakage is assumed to be
25 per cent of intake for the longest system and less for
those which were shorter: see Table 2, p. 51 below.

45 G. A. Smith, lococit., showsthe channel connecting

Birket Mamilla with Birket J;Iammam el Ba!rak, but
this was only one element in what must have been a
more complex distribution system. C. N. Johns, P EQ
(1941),52 describes a pipe laid after A.D.70which then
formed part of it, and no doubt succeeded some more
lavish method of supply devised for Herod's Palace in
the Citadel area: seeJosephus, War, 5.181,304.

ANCIENT

JERUSALEM:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

POPULATION

43

since it is almost twice as large46 as it would need to be47 if it was simply to receive and deliver
the rain run-off from its catchment area. It is possible that it was made this size so that it could
store water, but it is also possible that Mamilla received additional water from some other
source.
The 'Serpents' Pool' gets its present name, Birket es Sultan, either from Suleiman the
Magnificent, who adorned it with a fountain in A.D. 1536/7, or from Barquq (1398/9) who is
known to have restored it.48 It is also known that the Teutonic Knights had restored it in the
I 170s. But it seems probable that the pool grew to its present size in ancient times. In its first
phase its capacity corresponded very closely with the rain run-off it would have received,49 and
even though no trace of an aqueduct has yet been found it is hard to believe that the pool was
not connected with the Lower City in the way suggested in Fig. 8. In its second phase its
capacity was doubled, which raises the same problems exemplified by Mamilla.
Though the Amygdalon, the present Birket J:Iammam el Batrak, was at some stage connected with Mamilla, its main supply probably came through an aqueduct which runs into the
north-west corner of the present walled city.50 The other end of this aqueduct seems to lead to a
very small catchment area near Mahane Yehuda, but there was probably another branch
leading towards the more useful catchment area near Romema which we have indicated as a
possibility on Fig. 8.51 The Amygdalon alone would hold only about half the product of these
areas, but it is possible that there were collecting pools which would have stored the water as
well as feeding the aqueduct, and the whole system must have been in operation before A.D. 70.52
The suburb called -Bethzatha,53 immediately to the north of the Temple area, was in the
earliest stage of its development probably served by a pool in the position of the present south
pool of the Probatica, which collected rain run-off. But the catchment area was only large
enough to supply about 2,750 people, and if such a pool ever existed it would have hardly
remained adequate for long. Whether or not there was an earlier pool at the site, the present
pools are clearly intended to receive more water than the catchment area could supply. It seems
evident that the extra water was brought by aqueduct54 from Birket el Miya'a (see Fig. 8), and
it was distributed through Birket J:Iammam Sitti Miriam not only to the Probatica, but also that
to Birket Isra'il. Since Birket Isra'il seems to have been constructed in conjunction with the
north wall of the Temple area we may guess that the whole system was completed by Herod the
Great when he was enlarging the Temple area between 18 and 10 B.C.55
Since the total capacity of the system agrees well with the rain run-off in the catchment
areas, we should probably envisage the function of the pools as follows. Birket el Miya 'a
46 See Table 2, p. 51 below. Capacities there shown
are based on the following: for B. Mamilla, C. Schick,
PEQ (18g8), 226; for present B. es Sultan ibid, and its
earlier phase, C. Schick, PE'Q (18g8), 227f; for the
Probatica north pool N. Van Der Vliet, Ste Marie OU
elle est Nee et la Piscine Probatique (Paris I 938), I gof; for
the Probatica south pool Duprez, Ope cit, 34; for the
Strouthion M.-Aline de Sion, La Forteresse Antonia a
Jerusalem et la questiondu Pretoire (Jerusalem I 956), pI. 22;
and for Birket el Miya'a C. Schick, PEQ (18g2), 9-13.
Other capacities are based on the SWP and D. H. K.
Amiran, Ope cit.
47 The last heavy rain in Jerusalem may fall in
March, and be the last till November. Thus the
minimum size for a rain-collecting pool to serve the city
must be two-thirds of the volume of rain/run-off from
its catchment area, so that it can store enough for eight
rainless months.
48 See Amiran, Ope cit., 50, and Vincent and Steve,

Ope

cit, 302.
49 It held 58,400 cu.m, and two-thirds of the run-off
amounts to 60,000.
50 See C. Schick, PEQ (18g1), 278-80.
51 Note that no trace of a Romema branch has been
found.
52 Notwithstanding the probability that the aqueduct in its present form seems to be Byzantine.
53 John 5: 2; Josephus, War 5.108.
54 C. W. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem
(Southampton 1856), Vol. I, 79, and C. Schick, PEQ
(18g2), 9-13. The pool (now buried) is in the upper
Kidron Valley, about 100 metres west of the Nablus
Road at map ref. 17165 13315, and a section of the
aqueduct is visible '325 feet east of Burj el Laqlaq, cut
by the road'.
55 Compare Josephus War 1.401 and Ant. 15.380. If
there was an earlier pool it was probably constructed in
about 200 B.C.: see Duprez, Ope cit., 37.

PALESTINE

44

EXPLORATION

Q,UARTERLY

- -1 KM.

BIRKET

EL M IYA 'A

ROMEMA

flJ-- ...
,

... ... ,

,,

"'

BIRKEl

HUSSEINf
\

"

BIRKET
HAMMAM
51TTI MIRIAM

,
\
\
I

I
f

\
",

l
I

'_,

I
\

,.- BIR KET

.1'- .....
"".,
I
,'"

I,_........

," ES SULTAN

"

(,

t,-- ......... .- ....,...---,

BIRKET EL HAMRA

\
,

-SIR

'AYUB

Fig. 8. The Water-systems near Jerusalem.

received the run-offfrom the upper Kidron Valley, and sent it by aqueduct to Birket I:Jammam
Sitti Miriam, where it settled. At the same time the north pool at the Probatica was receiving
the run-off from its own catchment area, and allowing it to settle. From the north pool there is
an outlet channel running beneath the south pool56 which forks, one branch continuing southwards towards Birket Isra'il, and the other east, whose destination is unknown. The immediate
destination of the run-off collected in the north pool therefore seems to have been Birket Isra'iI,
whilst the supply fed through Birket l:Iammam Sitti Miriam was probably received after
settling into the south pool of the Probatica57 and also into Birket Isra'il. It is hard to imagine
See Duprez, Ope cit., p. 34.
Such an arrangement would account for the fact
that Eusebius could see 'reddish' water in one pool (no
56
57

doubt the northern settling pool receiving the direct

run-off) and 'rainwater' in the other, Onomasticon
(Klostermann), 58, lines 23f.

ANCIENT

JERUSALE:M:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

POPULATION

45

how the water from these pools could have been led into the Temple area, since their level is
so low,58 and it is more likely that aqueducts were made to lead some of the water they contained to some part of the Lower City, perhaps near the Double Gate of the Temple. This
supposition is strengthened by the fact that the Bethzatha area, which covered less than oneeighth of the area within the walls after the time of Herod Agrippa, would have been receiving
nearly one-third of the city's .water supply unless some of the water was destined for use
elsewhere.
Birket I:Iusseini59 may well have been deep enough to provide storage for most of the
water it collected. I~ as suggested on Fig. 8, it was connected with the city, it may have
delivered through Mamilla, but since no connecting channel has been found there are many
other possibilities open. We have included the product of this pool in our figures, though the
date of its original construction is unknown, and may be as late as the third century A.D.60
The Strouthion ('The Swallow') seems to have been designed to serve the needs of the
garrison in the Baris, the fortress later re-named Antonia,61 since it appears to have had a very
small catchment area, and is unlikely to have served more than about 1,000 people.
The overriding importance of Gihon and Siloam belonged to the period before the construction of the Low-level Aqueduct, and of Birket es Sultan, if we are right in surmising that
this supplied the Lower City. In the Hellenistic city the low altitude and remote position of
Siloam probably meant that except for those living in its immediate neighbourhood its
function was largely ornamentaL
I

THE

HIGH-LEVEL

AQ,UEDUCT

Probably the last major external source to be harnessed to the needs of ancient Jerusalem was
Bir el Daraj, fifteen kilometres to the south.62 Its aqueduct begins as a tunnel (see Fig. 9)
stretching the greater part of the way to Etam below the Wadi el Biyar (The Valley of Wells),
so called because of the regular shafts visible along its bottom (Plate XIA). Mter a short
journey in the open it passes under a saddle in a second tunnel and runs round the Etam pools
at a level roughly twenty metres higher than the Low-level channel. Two kilometres further
east its course is lost, but nearly three kilometres further north it re-appears, descending
towards Rachel's Tomb in a massive stone pipe63 (Plate XII A and B). The pressure thus
created enabled the water to rise high enough to cross the saddle between Tantur and Mar
Elias Monastery before continuing its descent to Jerusalem, but its course is again lost three
58 Eusebius (loc. cit.) connects the reddish water with
the Temple sacrifices,which could reflect a connection
between the Probatica and the Temple. But the bottom
of the Probatica north pool is at about the same level as
the floor of 'Solomon's Stables', and the bottom of
Birket Isra'il, when it was visible, was the lowest point
within the present walled city.
59 See C. Schick, PEQ (1895), 109. The pool is
today concealed by Gan Sacher, but was examined by
Dr L. Y. Rahmani on behalf of the Department of
Antiquities before it was covered.
60 I am grateful to Dr Rahmani for this information.
61 Josephus,
War 5.467. The aqueduct which
supplied it runs under the present 'Aqabat esh Sheikh
Rihan towards the Damascus Gate, where it turns
north-east (see G. A. Smith, Opecit., map 51). Its catchment area may have been in the shallow depression
which includes the present Y.M.C.A. (East), the
Ecole Biblique, and Schmidt's Girls' School. Note that
there is a deeper depression to the west of the Damascus
Gate, which seems to have been known in Crusader

times as the 'Lac Leger' (seeVincent and Steve, Opecit.,

302f.), and therefore to have been used for watercollection, but the destination of its water is at present
unknown.
62 Map ref. 1638 1195, see A. Mazar, Opecit., map.
For its yield in 1931 see A. Koch, Eighth/Tenth Annual
Report on the Operation of the Jerusalem Water Supply
(Jerusalem 1932),which was not available to the present
author at the time of writing. The yield was supplemented by seepage from the soft bed-rock of the
three-kilometre tunnel leading from the spring (see
Mazar Opecit., 123) but the amount thus added is unknown to the present author, and has not been included
in the calculations in Table 2, p. 5 I.
63 The bore of 40 em. diameter is enclosed within a
section I m. square, and each pipe is about 60 em. long.
A similar siphon system (in large earthenware pipes),
presumably constructed by Herod the Great, is to be
seen in the part of the aqueduct to Cypros which crosses
the Turkish road to Jericho at map ref. 1880 1375.

46

PALESTINE

EXPLORATION

Q.UARTERLY

kilometres south of the city. 64Under the arrangements we have so far envisaged the water may
have been fed into the city through Mamilla (even though a newly discovered channel which
may belong to this aqueduct is at a lower level).65 We should therefore regard the High-level
aqueduct as feeding direct into the Upper City, but overflowing when necessary into Birket es
Sultan, which may have been enlarged to serve this purpose. 66

SIR EL
DARAJ

, ,.,.:.J~ -"\

~RRUB

MAMILLA

<:::::::::. .
JERUSALEM

~N

5 KM.
~:~HERODIUM
Fig. 9. The High-level Aqueduct.

In A.D. 70, we are told, the rebels destroyed 'the canal from Etam', 67a phrase which might
by itself denote either the High or the Low-level aqueduct. But since as a result of the rebels'
action the water failed in the Upper City, it seems clear that this Talmud passage refers to the
High-level system, whose date we must therefore seek in the Second Temple period.
Although we remain ignorant of all the connecting channels from the High-level Aqueduct,
we would expect a system of this sophistication to supply the Upper City, whether or not the
Talmud is reporting correctly the situation in A.D. 70. The inscriptions connected with the
aqueduct are all later, but may record repairs,68 and it remains possible that this was
the aqueduct built by Pontius Pilate soon after A.D. 26.69 For the purposes of the Tables below
we shall assume this date.
CALCULATING

THE

POPULATION

Our study of the Jerusalem water-supply has led us to make a good many conjectures, but in
calculating the population we have to make more. Such a predicament is, however, the lot of
those who set out to interpret the kind of evidence available. Thus there are some cities for
See Mazar, Ope cit., map ref. 17040 12775.
Mazar, Ope cit., map ref. 1712 1310, shows the
channel, but the aqueduct may have forked at some
point further south, so that one branch led to Mamilla
and the other straight towards the Upper City.
66 Possibly there was also a connection between the
High and Low-level systems half a kilometre north of
Mar Elias monastery, where there is a small pool at
map ref. 17040 12775, and a heavy line of masonry
which almost stretches as far as the line of the low-level
64

65

channel at map ref. 175 127.

67 Midrash Ekha Rabba on Lam. 4: 4.
68 See C. Clermont-Ganneau, Receuil d'Archlologie
Orientale, Vol. IV (Paris 1901), 206-8, F. M. Abel, RB
(1926),284-8, and L. Vetrali, LA 17 (1967), 149-61.
69 Josephus gives its length as fifty miles in War
2. 175 and twenty-five in Ant. 18.60, which is inconclusive, since the High-level Aqueduct would have been
nearer ten and the Low-level about forty.

ANCIENT

JERUSALEM:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

POPULATION

47

which there are records of the number of citizens,70 but guesswork is the only guide to the
number of inhabitants who did not have citizen status. Again, there are well-excavated Roman
cities like Ostia Antica 71 for which it is possible to calculate fairly accurately the amount of
living accommodation, but we are still left to guess at the number who lived in each apartment
or room. Siagu is an excavated city in North Mrica for which both the city area and watersupply have been discovered, 72 but we cannot tell how much of the water was used for irrigation
and how much for domestic consumption. 73 Similarly Byatt, after gathering the figures given by
Josephus, is unable to offer us a total more precise than 'part population enumerated'. 74 It is,
furthermore, a possibility that times of unusual prosperity on the one hand, or wars and famine
on the other, may have caused rapid changes in population figures.
In the Holy Land comparisons between cities are exceptionally difficult, since we have no
cities which have been as completely excavated as Ostia Antica, apart from those in the
exceptional circumstances of the Negeb. But when we turn to Jerusalem we are on slightly
firmer ground. The archaeological work of the last ten years has allowed us to form a generally
credible picture of the city area as it developed through six stages75 (see Figs. 1 and 10), and
over the last century we have reached an overall understanding of the development of the
water supply which is accurate enough to be useful, even though many details remain obscure.
Our advantage in studying Jerusalem is not, therefore, that we have precise figures for any
given period, but that we can compare different periods, and relate development in area to
growth in water supply.
Before undertaking our calculations we must modify some of the assumptions we have so
far taken for granted. We have taken water consumption to have remained at the low rate of
twenty litres per head per day, and the population-figures in the last column of Table 2 (p. 51)
are simply the number of people who could have been supplied with water at this rate. But we
should envisage a higher consumption per head, probably for the whole period we are considering, and an increasing consumption both for public and private purposes in the progressively
Hellenised Jerusalem of Hasmonean and Herodian times. 76
Since we do not know the rates of consumption at any period, we have to make adjustments
on an arbitrary basis. For our final figures (set out in Table I) we have therefore worked on the
basis of a supply at the rate of twenty litres per head per day from the systems we have examined,
but assumed the existence of cisterns which supplied extra water. We may reasonably assume
that most houses were equipped with cisterns, even though no excavations so far have covered
an area large enough to suggest their capacity. We can, however, calculate the amount of rain
which would have fallen within the area of the city at any given period, and of this we shall
70 Thus Apamea in A.D. 6 had 117,000 citizens,
GIL 111.6687(=H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae,
Berlin 1892-1916, 2683). R. P. Duncan-Jones, in his
article 'City population in Roman Africa', JRS 53
(1963),85-90, reproduces Galen's statement that there
were 40,000 citizens in Pergamum in the second century
A.D., and a report that in Autun there were 32,000 'free
men and women' in the time of Constantine.
71 J. E. Packer, 'Housing and Population in Imperial
Ostia and Rome', JRS 57 (1967), 80-89 suggested for
Ostia a maximum population of27,000 in a town made
up of insulae and occupying 69 hectares. See also his
study, The Insulae of Imperial Ostia and Rome, (Memoirs
of the American Academy in Rome, 3 I Bergamo 197I ), esp.
65-71.
72 See P. Grimal, 'Les Fouilles de Siga', Melanges
d'Archeologie et d'Histoire de l'Ecole Franfaise de Rome, 54
(1937), 108-41, and Duncan-Jones, op. cit., 86-88.

73 Duncan-Jones' estimate of about 17,000 persons

in an area of 55 hectares seems low, since it involves a
daily consumption of 530 Htres per head per day for
domestic use and irrigation. In fact it is impossible to
evaluate this suggestion without knowing how much
water was delivered in the city area.
74 Byatt, op. cit., 54.
75 For growth between the Jebusite period and the
reign of Solomon see Kenyon, op. cit., especially29 and
57; for the late monarchy N. Avigad, op. cit., with the
t"evisedarea he proposes in Qadmoniot 5 (1972), 94 (on
the basis of wall I); for the Herodian period compare
Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible
Atlas, (New York and London 1968), map 221; and for
Herod Agrippa seeJ. B. Hennessy, Levant 2 (1970), 24.
76 Thus besides its bath Herod's Jerusalem palace
garden contained canals and 'pools everywhere',
Josephus, War 5.168, 181.

1 KM.
--

----

,
,
~,

,.""~'"

,..-I--"~

~~~.

~~

~,

.~

..

~
~~~rt4t-~~

~rr

----J~~~r~~
~~

L-

....~

I
\
I

"

--, ~,

II""

",

IiiiiiiI

C.

loot

~t

,.-

7
7
I
I

-I

~
~

~.,.

..
'r
I
J

---- ~

/.

"- ~

I
I
I

-,

..........

"'""'- --............

Fig.

I
7

.........

-----

--,

-,I
~

Area under Herod the Great.

Aelia Capitolina.

10.

OVERLAP

HerodianJerusalem
Under Herod Agrippa the walled city extended northwards to cover its maximum area. The
south wall of Aelia corresponded roughly with the line of the modern south wall.

ANCIENT

JERUSALEM:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

POPULATION

49

assume that halfwas collected in cisterns. When we add this water to the twenty litres per head
per day from the external systems we approach a more reasonable estimate of consumption.
It is hard to estimate the amount of water which was used for public purposes as opposed to
domestic consumption. Here again we have adopted an arbitrary figure, on the basis of the
figures for Rome in the first century A.D. reported by Sextus Julius Frontinus. He tells us that
of the water delivered in the city 28 per cent was used for public works,77 and since this is the
best guide available we have deducted 28 per cent from all population-figures suggested for
dates after 200 B.C.
It is hoped that the resulting figures, shown in the graph (Fig. 1I) and Table 1 (p. 50)
appear generally credible. The probability that they are a fair indication of the development
of the city is strengthened by the fact that the estimates of area are the results of archaeological
work independent of our own conclusions on the basis of the water-supply. At the end of the
Table we have added figures for Jerusalem in 1918, since in that year the population of the Old
City (equivalent in area to Aelia Capitolina) reached the highest figure recorded in modern
times. The inhabitants were then depending on cistern water alone, which provided them with
about sixteen litres per head per day, and frequently ran out.78

Area

x 1.000 Sq.m.

800

700

600
500
400

AREA
GROWTH

300
200
100

o
J'

I:}~
;)<:::?

')"8

~v

'li

~tri

#
?f

~~

?if

"
Fig.

I I.

&fli

:S~

#-.!!:~
.::!

tri

b~

J'\!
~'lJ

~~
.S
~
v

9.~

&fli
'S(b~

~o
~'lJ

~!!'

-f

Graph comparing development by Area and Water-supply.

77 Frontinus, de Aquis 78: 28 per cent represents his

proportion for munera and operapublica.
78 See the Royal Engineers' report in PEQ (1919),

14-27, and the valuable study (which they used) by

G. Franghia, Projet sur l'Adduction des Eaux d'Arroub,
(Constantinople 1912), 4.

PALESTINE

5
TABLE

EXPLORATION

I-DEVELOPMENT
POPULATION

AREA

CEILING

Less
after

1,000

28%

sq. m.

JEBUSITES

AND DAVID

SOLOMON

USING

USING

GIHON

B. EL l}:AMRA

MONARCHY

WITH

POOLS

GREAT

c.I-6

THE

SYSTEMS D-E
HEROD

LEVEL
AELIA

WITH

1,000

36

37

42

410

26

52

36,280

41O?

88

27

7,398

615

114

27

76,13

895

84

WITH

2)

(LATE)

(TABLE

AGRIPPA

20 litres and
addition from
cisterns per
head per day

ETAM

(EARLY)

(TABLE

GREAT

CONSUMPTION

Persons
per

5
135

10,633

THE

HEROD

2,50
5,000

SYSTEM
HEROD

DENSITY

sq. m.

200 B.C.

LATER

Q,UARTERLY

WITH

2)
HIGH-

AQUEDUCT

CAPITOLINA

USING

Jerusalem

ALL

SYSTEMS

76,130

705

108

28

1918

using cisterns only

36,000

75

51

16

CHECKING

THE

ESTIMATES

Scholars who have discussed the population-figures for ancient Jerusalem have received little
help from contemporary documents, which concern themselves mainly with exceptional
circumstances.79 They have therefore based their estimates on other factors, such as density. 80
Our study of the water-supply thus suggests a supplementary method of narrowing the field of
conjecture, since it points towards a probable population ceiling at different periods. Of the
suggestions set out in Byatt's article we would therefore agree most closely with that of Professor
Jeremias, who proposes a population of about 55,000 in the city before the reign of Herod
Agrippa, and a maximum density which, stated in the terms used in our Table, amounts to 52
persons per 1,000 sq. metres.81 Using our own calculations as a basis we must regard Byatt's
own estimate of220,000 persons living in 'Jerusalem and environs (Bethany, Bethphage, etc.)'82
as too high, for if we regard the majority of this number as resident within the walls of
Jerusalem we discover that their consumption of water would have to have been at an improbably low rate, less than ten litres per head per day.
During the past century several important elements in the water-systems of ancient
Jerusalem have disappeared beneath new housing estates. Dr Amichai Mazar has provided us
with a valuable up-to-date survey of the major aqueducts coming to the city from the south,
and it is now to be hoped that the remains of the rain-collection system can also be surveyed,
and, if possible, dated. Such work would not only correct and complement our rapid examination of the Jerusalem water systems, but might also provide a useful means of measuring the
development of Jerusalem from a 'good-sized village' to what Pliny called 'far the most
illustrious of the cities of the Orient'. 83
79

Number in the city at feasts (see J. Jeremias,

Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London 1969), 77-84) or

during Titus' siege (seeByatt, op. cit, 57). Compare also

Jeremias, op. cit, 83, n.24.
80 See Byatt, op. cit., 58.
81 Jeremias, op. cit., 83, n.24: note that Jeremias is

working on a different area for the city. The densities

proposed for Siagu (39 per 1,000 sq. metres) and Ostia
Antica (minimum 18, maximum 39) are thus considerably lower.
82 Byatt, op. cit., p. 56.
83 Pliny, H.N. 5.14.

ANCIENT

JERUSALEM:

ITS

WATER

SUPPLY

AND

51

POPULATION

TABLE 2-WORKING
FIGURES
Water figures are in cubic metres. Population ceilings are calculated at 20 litres per head per day.
Capacities and areas are based on the sources mentioned on p. 43, n. 46.
INTAKE
Capacity
WASTAGE
PRODUCT ADD TO
s=spring
IN
POPULATION
Evaporation
Leakage
CITY
CEILING
r=rain
A.

B.

c.
I.
2.

3.
4.

5.
6.

D.

E.

F.

GIHON-spring
With B. el ~amra
ETAM
Lower Pool (now)
90,000
Aqueduct
POOLS BEFORE 25 B.C.:
MAMILLA (now)
119,200
N-W. AQUEDUCT
Pool (?)
B. ~. el Batrak
20,600
B. l}:USSEINI
Aqueduct
B. ES SULTAN
Early Pool
58,400
Aqueduct
PROBA TICA NORTH
8,100
STROUTHION
6,000
Aqueduct
'ARRUB EXTENSION
B. 'Arrub
22,000
Aqueduct
Etam Mid. Pool
45,000
B. EL MIYA'A
77,357
Aqueducts
B. If. S. Miriam
5,800
Probatica South
31,760
B.Isra'il
30,120
HIGH-LEVEL AQ.
Aq. half-covered
Mar Elias pool
B. es Sultan (now) 119,900

s 73,000

2,500
2,500

s 73,000

r 102,750
r 59,400

r 63,600

9,558
7,720

20%

41,122

5,633

5,586

12%

84,834

I 1,621

2,000?
3,160
11,410
2,000

15%

45,330

6,210

20%

62,910

8,618

15%
10%

69,960
19,980

9,584
2,737

12%

7,192

985

25%

79,285

10,861

12%

169,779

23,257

20%

57,115

7,961

r 90,000

r 23,400
r
9,000

5,840
700?
1,080
728

S 145,000

r 202,500

3,368
17,880
8,127
2,324
1,190
832
2,640
1,255

S 89,000
4,550
175
8,360