Dig Shiloh: The Archaeology of Israel’s First Jerusalem for 305 years (1399-1094 BC)
Archaeology of the Area D Kosher bone dump as evidence of the Hebrew Tabernacle
“What you read in the Book you find in the ground!”
SHILOH VIDEO BY STEVEN RUDD: Field Multi-Spectral Ostraca Imager and Arad/Zedekiah correspondence
Shiloh Faith lesson:
1. Shiloh was destroyed because Eli and his two sons did not give enough weight/glory [kābōdh].
a. "‘Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor [kābōdh] your sons above Me, by making yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of My people Israel?’ “Therefore the Lord God of Israel declares, ‘I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever’; but now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from Me—for those who honor [kābōdh] Me I will honor [kābōdh], and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed. ‘Behold, the days are coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father’s house so that there will not be an old man in your house." (1 Samuel 2:29–31)
2. Eli died under his own weight [kabed] when he fell back
a. "When he mentioned the ark of God, Eli fell off the seat backward beside the gate, and his neck was broken and he died, for he was old and heavy [kabed]. Thus he judged Israel forty years." (1 Samuel 4:18)
3. The grandson of Eli was named “Ichabod” = no glory or weight
a. "And she called the boy Ichabod [Iy-kabowd], saying, “The glory has departed from Israel,” because the ark of God was taken and because of her father-in-law and her husband." (1 Samuel 4:21)
4. The Hebrew word kābōdh, denoting glory, honor (the most frequent word), literally means “weight,” hence Paul’s mention of the “eternal weight of glory” (2 Corinthians 4:17)
a. "For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:17–18)
5. We need to give weight and glory to the things God has commanded us or we will die under the weight of our own sins.
A. Biblical Shiloh:
1. On the first sabbatical 7th year in 1399 BC, the tabernacle tent was set up at Shiloh for 305 years until the Philistines burned the city in 1094 BC.
2. Tracking the Ark of the Covenant from Shiloh to Jerusalem:
a. From Shiloh the Ark of the covenant travelled through Philistine territory for 7 months until it arrived at Beth-Shemesh.
b. From there the Ark was moved to Kiriath-Jearim, where is spent 92 years from 1093-1001 BC. The Ark was moved into “the tabernacle of David” where it rested for 41 years between 1001-960 BC.
c. Two tabernacle tents stood nearby each other at the same time. The tabernacle of David merely housed the Ark but no sacrifices took place. The tabernacle of Moses stood 3 km north at Gibeon where the high priests offered official animal sacrifices.
d. Solomon then moved the Ark from the tabernacle of David in Jerusalem into his new Temple in 960 BC for the next 373 years (2 Chronicles 1:3-4).
e. The Ark was captured by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC and was never seen again.
f. There was no Ark of the Covenant in Herod’s temple at the time of Jesus.
3. Tracking the tabernacle tent from Shiloh to Jerusalem:
|
|
The tabernacle tent of Moses was moved from Shiloh to Nob (near Mount of Olives) in 1094 BC where it was in service for 96 years between 1094-1018 BC until King Saul slaughtered all the priests. Saul then moved the tabernacle of Moses to Gibeon where it was in service for sacrifices for 58 years between 1018-960 BC. When Solomon dedicated the new temple, he moved the Ark of the Covenant from the tabernacle of David into the temple. Solomon used the Gibeon tabernacle for sacrifices before the new temple was built (1 Ki 3:4-5). Solomon he dismantled the now extinct tabernacle of Moses at Gibeon and put it into storage in the new temple (1 Ki 8:3–4). The messianic prophecy (Amos 9:11-12) of the tabernacle of David (not Moses) was fulfilled and restored in the church of Christ (Acts 15:16) at proof that both Jew and Gentiles could be saved without circumcision. The tabernacle of David became the temple, which is the church. |
B. Archaeological excavations at Biblical Shiloh by Israel Finkelstein:
|
Israel Finkelstein’s Shiloh Occupational Stratum and Archaeological dates |
|||
|
Finkelstein’s Stratum |
Finkelstein’s Labels |
Finkelstein’s dates |
Steven Rudd’s Christian Archaeological Dating (C.A.D.) |
|
Stratum VIII: |
mid-MB II-early MB III4 |
1750-1650 BC |
1750-1656 BC |
|
Stratum VII: |
late MB III |
1650-1550 BC |
1656-1556 BC Hyksos |
|
Stratum VI: |
LB I- LB IIA (Note: LB IIA = LB II. LB II B = LB III) |
1550-1350 BC |
LB IA: 1556-1464 BC Ahmoses I to 1st yr. of Thutmoses III LB IB: 1464-1406 BC Tuthmoses III – Conquest of Joshua LB IIA: 1406–1295 Campaign of Seti I in Canaan in 1295 BC |
|
UNOCCUPIED |
LB IIB, IA I: 1177-1100 BC |
1380-1100 BC |
1400-1094 BC Conquest to destruction of Shiloh LB IIB: 1295–1177 BC |
|
Stratum V: |
Iron Age I |
1100-1050 BC |
Iron Age IA: 1177-1051 BC Philistines to yr. 1 of King Saul Iron Age IB: 1051- 1010 BC Saul to yr. 1 of David |
- Israel Finkelstein is a minimalist, meaning he believes Abraham, the Exodus, David and Solomon are all mythical figures invented by Jews in the 7th century BC to create a cultural backdrop.
- Finkelstein excavated Shiloh in the 1980’s and concluded in his 1993 report at that Shiloh was unoccupied 1400-1100 BC, the precise period when the Bible says the tabernacle tent was active.
- Echoing Kathleen Kenyon, Israel Finkelstein knew his conclusions destroyed the inspiration of his own Jewish Bible.
- In archaeological terms, Finkelstein reported he found no ceramic evidence of occupation during between 1350 and 1100 BC, concluding the site was abandoned:
- Shiloh was abandoned and unoccupied the last part of the Late Bronze Age IIA: 1350-1295 BC
- Shiloh was abandoned and unoccupied all of the Late Bronze Age IIB: 1295-1177 BC
- Shiloh was abandoned and unoccupied the first part of the Iron Age 1A. 1177-1100 BC
3. Finkelstein proposed Shiloh as a Canaanite cult site but never a central Hebrew worship center.
a. Finkelstein says that Shiloh was a Canaanite cult site (worship center) from 1500 – 1350 BC.
b. He says Area D contains LB I to early LB II (1500-1380 BC – Joshua died in 1356 BC) cultic materials from the “pre-Israelite cult site”.
c. Finkelstein has Shiloh abandoned and unoccupied for 280 years from about 1380 to 1100 BC.
d. Biblically, the Philistines captured the Ark, Eli died, and Shiloh was burned in 1094 BC.
e. After Shiloh had been abandoned for 280 years, the Hebrews arrived in 1100 BC and scraped off the Canaanite cult site located at the summit and dumped it in Area D, in preparation for new domestic storage buildings.
f. After about 50 years, around 1050 BC, Shiloh was then burned, and the Hebrews abandoned the site. Saul became king in 1051 BC.
C. Important excerpts from Israel Finkelstein’s Shiloh final excavation report: 1993 AD
1. Finkelstein says that Shiloh was a Canaanite cult site from 1500 – 1350 BC. All cultic evidence he found at Shiloh was pagan Canaanite worship that predated the arrival of the Hebrews. There is a 50-year overlap in chronology between when Finkelstein says the Canaanite cult center was abandoned in 1350 BC and when the tabernacle of Moses was in operation starting in 1399 BC. Conveniently, Finkelstein sweeps aside any evidence for the Hebrew tabernacle by agreeing it was cult activity, but that it was Canaanite, not Hebrew.
a. “We would therefore date the revival of Shiloh as a cult site to the later phase of the LB IA (1556-1464 BC), namely, to the end of the 16th (1525-1500 BC) or beginning of the 15th century B.C.E. (1499-1475 BC) at the latest. The majority of vessels found in Debris 407 belong to the LB I period (1556-1406 BC). This conclusion is supported by the fact that certain LB IIA (1406–1295BC) pottery types are missing from the Shiloh assemblage [ABR needs to identify these types and hunt for them- keep a special eye out for them] while other types appear only modestly (e.g. shallow bowls with bevelled rim, upright-rim kraters, cooking-pots with triangular rim, biconical jugs, etc.). The local LB pottery from Debris 407 testifies therefore to the termination of cult activity at the site during the early part of LB IIA (1406–1295 BC) , i.e., in the first half of the 14th century B.C.E. (1399-1350 BC)” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p135, 1993 AD)
b. “When evaluating the Shiloh assemblages, the cultic nature of the site must not be forgotten. However only the Late Bronze Age (1556 BC-1177 BC) assemblage can be defined as cultic per se, while the Middle Bronze (1885-1556 BC) and Iron I (1177-1010 BC) assemblages are more domestic in nature with emphasis on storage.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p81, 1993 AD)
2. Finkelstein said that Shiloh was abandoned and unoccupied from 1350-1100 BC until the Hebrews arrived around 1100 BC. Finkelstein has Shiloh ceasing to be a center of worship at exactly the same time that the Bible says the tabernacle of Moses arrived with Joshua in 1300 BC. If true, this is a devastating blow to the historical accuracy of the Bible. However, recent excavations at Shiloh starting in 2017 AD, gathered archaeological evidence to prove Hebrew occupation to the end of Late Bronze Age IIB (1295-1177 BC). Findings will be published soon, so don’t go out and burn your Bible quite yet!
a. “Shiloh of the Late Bronze Age (1556 BC-1177 BC) was apparently no more than an uninhabited cult site.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p365, 1993 AD)
b. “THE IRON AGE I (STRATUM V) Chronology and Stratigraphy. When the Iron Age I (1177-1051 BC) settlers arrived at Shiloh the site had already been abandoned for two centuries.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p383, 1993 AD)
c. “However, the results of the Land of Ephraim Survey afford a reliable reconstruction of the pattern of settlement in the valley in both the Middle Bronze Age (1885-1556 BC) and the Iron Age I (1177-1051 BC), the two main periods of occupation at Shiloh.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p383, 1993 AD)
d. “The recent excavations provide evidence for the existence of earlier sacred traditions associated with this place. Although the site was deserted for two centuries before activity recommenced in the Iron Age I (1177-1051 BC), one cannot ignore the evidence for continuity of cult activity here from the MB II (1750-1656 BC) to the LB IIA. (1406–1350 BC)” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p388, 1993 AD)
3. Finkelstein says that Hebrew occupation at Shiloh started around 1100 BC and lasted less than 50 years and ended in a site wide destruction by fire before 1050 BC. Finkelstein says the Hebrews used Shiloh as a domestic and storage city not as a worship center. He says that Shiloh was already abandoned after a massive fire before the beginning of Iron Age IIA which starts in 1010 BC with the rise of David at Hebron. This means that Finkelstein views the Hebrew occupation of Shiloh only between 1100-1050 BC and the tabernacle tent didn’t exist yet.
a. “The results of the recent excavations lay this problem to rest. First and foremost, Iron Age I (1177-1051 BC) Shiloh was destroyed in a great conflagration whose traces were clearly visible everywhere in Area C as well as in Area E and possibly in the burnt silos of Area D. Furthermore, it is now clear that the site was not occupied in the early phases of the Iron Age II (1010-841 BC), that in the late-Iron Age II it was a tiny, insignificant settlement, and that this late-Iron II site was not destroyed by fire but was apparently gradually abandoned. The ceramic evidence that Shiloh was already abandoned at the end of the 11th century B.C.E. (1010 BC-death of Saul) also rules out the theory that the site emerged as a sanctuary of national importance only in the days of Saul.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p389, 1993 AD)
b. “The high level of planning and construction at Shiloh, the public nature of the pillared buildings unearthed in Area C and the fact that no living quarters were found at the site, all indicate that Iron I Shiloh was not an ordinary village with a cult place but rather a religious temenos. In other words, of all the hill country Iron I sites, Shiloh is the only one to exhibit definite evidence of public activity.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p386, 1993 AD)
c. “The concentration of sites around Shiloh, the public building activity and the content of the Area C pillared buildings are clear evidence for intensive economic and administrative activity at the site. It seems safe to suggest that in the early 11th century B.C.E. Shiloh served as a redistribution centre for an extensive hinterland. This makes Shiloh an important stage in the transition of the Iron Age I hill country population from a social system concentrated around small, isolated groups into the formation of an early monarchic state.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p386, 1993 AD)
D. Area D, Dump Locus 407 provides evidence of the Hebrew tabernacle:
- Area D is the location of a large dump identified in archaeological reports as Dump locus 407:
- Dump locus 407 is an oval shaped area 15x15 meters in size on the eastern Middle Bronze city wall at Shiloh.
- A large cache of Kosher animal bones were excavated, indicating Hebrew cultic activity.
- The pottery assemblage dates to 1400 – 1100 BC which corresponds to the Late Bronze Age IIA (LB IIA: 1406 – 1295), Late Bronze Age IIB (LB IIB: 1295 – 1177 BC), and Iron Age IA (1177 – 1051 BC).
2. Square N35 proves the Area D Dump locus 407 extends much further south than what Finkelstein indicated:
a. Finkelstein reported that N35 also contained LB dump material, yet this is far outside the area he indicated in his red line boundary as indicted in the photo above.
b. New excavations need to open squares K30-39; L34-39; M35-39; N34; N36-39; O33-39 because the Late Bronze Age dump with kosher animal bones from ritual sacrifice were likely dumped here too.
c. “In Square N35 an earthen fill of light-coloured chalky material similar to that found in Areas F, K and M was discovered under a thick layer of Late Bronze Age dumped debris.” (Shiloh, Finkelstein p 39)
3. Special finds in Area D, Dump locus 407:
a. In the dump there were also several dozen Cypriot sherds. Among the small objects found in this deposit are a fragment of a female figurine, a fly-shaped gold pendant, a handle with a cylinder seal impression and a rough stone bowl with traces of pigment inside.
b. Cylinder-seal impression of a ritual scene depicting a standing worshipper or possible Hebrew priest with a long robe: “Cylinder-seal impression on the upper part of a handle of krater. The seal, possibly made of faience, was rolled from left to right. There is duplication of a short section due to aborted start. Lower part of the scene missing. Mediocre workmanship. Description. Between two horizontal lines a ritual scene depicts a standing worshipper with a long robe, a sacred tree, recumbent antelope and a floral panel.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p213, 1993 AD)
c. “About 90 sherds of Late Cypriot pottery and 4 Mycenaean sherds were found during the excavations at Shiloh. The majority of these sherds, which represent at the most 55-60 imported Cypriot vessels and 3 Mycenaean ones, come from Debris 407 in Area D. The remaining sherds were occasionally found within Iron I and unstratified loci in Areas C and J. The Cypriot sherds from Debris 407 include two Monochrome bowls, at least 8-10 White Slip II bowls, a variety of up to 21 Base Ring I vessels and one Red Lustrous wheel-made ware spindle bottle ('Syrian Bottle').” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p133, 1993 AD)
4. Finkelstein labelled the massive dump of pottery and Kosher bones in Area D as “Debris locus 407. The oval shaped, 15x15 meter dump contains pottery from late LB I (1500-1406 BC) up to the early LB IIA (1406–1350 BC). There is no Iron Age pottery. The Christian would point to this huge dump of Kosher bones as evidence of an ongoing active Hebrew tabernacle, perhaps located at the summit. The dump was where the bones were put after being sacrificed on the alter of burnt offering in the tabernacle of Moses. Finkelstein says that dump contains materials from the pre-Israelite pagan Israelite cult site located 100 meters away at the summit. Finkelstein’s fictional storyline suggested that around 1100 BC (Iron Age IA), the newly arrived Hebrews scrapped away the summit sanctuary that hadn’t been in operation for over 200 years, and dumped the materials into locus 407, in preparation for new storage buildings on the summit. In this way, Finkelstein can explain away evidence for the Hebrew tabernacle and still include the Hebrews in the storyline. While the Iron Age IA silos dug into Debris locus 407 do prove the dump preexisted the silos, this may be explained if the tabernacle tent was relocated to the northern platform before 1200 BC and bones were dumped in a new, presently unknown location until the Philistines burned the city in 1094 BC.
5. Area D, Dump Locus 407: Important excerpts from Israel Finkelstein’s Shiloh final excavation report about: 1993 AD
a. “The pottery found in Debris 407 indicates that activity at the site had ceased in the LB IIA. (1295 BC)” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p383, 1993 AD)
b. “The obvious conclusion is that the material was dumped here after the LB I. This occurred no later than early in the Iron Age I, since the silos of this period were cut into the Late Bronze Age deposits. The course of events may therefore be reconstructed as follows: Sometime in Late Bronze Age II (1406–1295 BC), but more likely in the early phase of Iron Age I (1177-1094 BC – Eli died in 1094 BC), while preparing the ground for new buildings, a favissa of the Late Bronze Age cult place (or perhaps the cult place itself) was cleared out and thrown into a large robber pit of the stones of the MB III (1656-1556 BC) peripheral wall on the slope. Shortly afterward the Iron Age silos were cut into these dumps. The ceramic assemblage discovered in the deposit of Area D shows that activity at the site was renewed in the LB I, a short time after the destruction of the MB III stronghold. This activity continued until the first part of LB II, although it gradually decreased and ceased completely before the end of the Late Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age Shiloh was therefore occupied solely by a cult place.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p382, 1993 AD)
c. “The circumstantial evidence that cult places of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages apparently stood on or near the summit, from which we may assume that the Israelite sanctuary conformed with this tradition. The dump found in the northern part of Area C (L. 623) above the brick debris of Structure 335 bears similar implications. Among the items retrieved were fragments of a cult stand, sherds of two (votive?) vessels decorated with animal heads and many animal bones. This material was probably dumped down the slope at the end of or after Iron Age I when the higher area to the east was being cleared in preparation for new construction. In conclusion, there is a high degree of probability that the Iron Age I (1177-1051 BC) sanctuary was located on or near the summit of the mound and that the pillared buildings of Area C were some of its auxiliary structures. Accordingly, most of the area of lron Age I (1177-1051 BC) Shiloh was covered by buildings which did not serve as dwellings. In conclusion, there is a high degree of probability that the Iron Age I sanctuary was located on or near the summit of the mound and that the pillared buildings of Area C were some of its auxiliary structures. Accordingly, most of the area of lron Age I Shiloh was covered by buildings which did not serve as dwellings.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p385, 1993 AD)
d. “STRATUM VI: LATE BRONZE AGE: A stratum of dumped debris containing an enormous amount of Late Bronze Age pottery and animal bones overlies the MB III city wall, Wall M332 and Stone Fill Locus 417. It is the only deposit of this period found at Shiloh and was not associated with any architectural remains. The debris (Locus 407) is composed of a light-coloured grey material, mostly ash, with piles of stones of various sizes in several places. It was exposed in an oval area of about 150 sq. m. (ca. 18 m. on the northwest-southeast axis and 10 m. on the northeast-southwest axis) in Squares L/M31, L/N32 and M/N33. We succeeded in defining its northern, eastern and western boundaries, while on the south it continues at least up to Square N35 (where there were fewer bones in the deposit). Its depth varies from about 0.5 m. on its perimeter to about 1.5 m. in Square N32, next to the MB III city wall. No layers whatsoever were distinguished within it. Fragments of hundreds of vessels were found in Debris Locus 407. Many were broken into a few large pieces but in most cases they were not found in concentrations permitting restoration. Only in two places were there sherds of bowls lying one inside the other, but even here complete bowls could not be easily reconstructed. Some vessels were found filled with bones and solidified ash [goblet]. There were also several dozen Cypriot sherds. Most of the pottery is of the LB I horizon. There is also a small quantity of LBII pottery, although not from the end of the period. The bones recovered from Debris Locus 407 shed considerable light on the economy and social organization of the hill country people in the Late Bronze Age. Among the small objects found in this deposit are a fragment of a female figurine, a fly-shaped gold pendant, a handle with a cylinder seal impression and a rough stone bowl with traces of pigment inside. In view of these finds, the Late Bronze Age debris is interpreted as a favissa [i.e. dump of materials from sacred/cult worship] of offerings which were brought to a shrine. Before the debris was dumped the stones of a section of the MB III city wan M321 and Wall M332 were robbed. This evidence indicates that the favissa is not in situ, but was moved here at a later date. The fact that Debris Locus 407 is cut by Iron I silos leaves two possible periods for its deposition here - a later phase of the Late Bronze Age or an early phase of Iron I. In the Late Bronze Age there was no large scale building activity at the site, while the Iron I construction projects must have required stones which were apparently robbed from the MB III fortification. Hence the following course of events may be suggested: The MB III fortification system was partly damaged during the Late Bronze Age when the site was not occupied by a settlement. In the early Iron Age I some of its stones were robbed. In a later phase of the Iron Age I, during construction work on the mound, a Late Bronze Age favissa was found and removed to the robber trench in Area D. In a yet later phase of this period silos were dug into this debris.” (Shiloh, Israel Finkelstein, p43, 1993 AD)
6. Kosher bones found in the Area D, Dump Locus 407:
a. The author has worked as staff archaeologist at both Khirbet el-Maqatir (AD 2011-2016) and Tel Shiloh (AD 2017 to present) and at Joshua’s altar on Mt. Ebal (AD 2005 and 2020).
b. One of the factors in determining if an archaeological site is Hebrew or Philistine is the presence of pig (sus) bones that are excavated and reported in faunal reports. In the land of Israel, excavation of Hebrew sites document under 3% pig bones whereas Philistine sites document 12-19%. This statistically significant percentage differential in pig bone percentages is widely understood by professional archaeologists to correctly predict the presence of a Hebrew population.
c. We are reasonably certain that the Late Hellenistic, Early Roman stratum at Kh. el-Maqatir was occupied by Jews from 100 BC to AD 69 when the site was destroyed by the Vespasian as he was on his way to attack Jerusalem. There were zero pig bones excavated which.
d. The author worked with Adam Zertal at Mt. Ebal also reported zero pig bones associated with the Hebrew altar and sacred foot-shaped temenos.
e. At Shiloh it is significant that Finkelstein excavated zero pig bones from Dump Locus 407 in Area D. This strongly indicates the presence of a Hebrew population not Canaanite or Philistine.
|
|
Kh. El-Maqatir LH/ER Assemblage = 383 |
Shiloh Area D LB Dump Stratum VI Assemblage = 2973 |
Mt. Ebal Altar Iron I Assemblage = 741 |
Basta PPN (LBII?) Assemblage = 100,000 |
||||
|
Species |
NISP/NISP% |
MNI |
NISP/NISP% |
MNI |
NISP/NISP% |
MNI |
NISP/NISP% |
MNI |
|
Sheep/Goat Capra/Ovis |
297/47% |
13 |
2623/88.2% |
83 |
499/68% |
- |
29,785/80% |
- |
|
Cow Bos |
83/13% |
4 |
253/8.5% |
6 |
164/22% |
- |
1417/3.8% |
- |
|
Pig Sus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
112/0.3% |
- |
|
Horse Equus |
3/0.1% |
1 |
6/0.2% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1303/3.5% |
- |
|
1. NISP = Number identifiable specimens present: total number of bone/fragments collected. 2. NISP% = Percentage of number identifiable specimens present: I.e. of all bones, what percentage were pig, etc. 3. MNI = Minimum number of Individuals. Whole animal count: Body count of whole animal represented before death. 4. PPN = Pre-pottery Neolithic Sources: Kh. El-Maqatir: Faunal Bone Report, Abra Spiciarich and Lidar Sapir-Hen, December 2017 AD Shiloh Excavations, Israel Finkelstein, p309, 1993 AD Mt. Ebal, Faunal Remains from Mount Ebal, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Tel Aviv 13-14, 1986-1987 AD Analysis of mammalian bones from Basta, a Pre-pottery Neolithic Site, Cornelia Becker, Paléorient, Vol 17, No 1, p66, 1991 AD |
||||||||
F. New Shiloh archaeological excavations: AD 2017 to present:
1. The author is a staff member of the Shiloh archaeological team under director Dr. Scott Stripling since excavations began in 2017 AD.
- The new and current archaeological excavations at Shiloh have produced clear evidence of Hebrew occupation and a sacrificial system in operation between 1400-1100 BC (Late Bronze Age IIA, Late Bronze Age IIB, Iron IA). This archaeological evidence came from professional three-dimensional excavations by opening new squares.
- In AD 2020, the excavation team identified one of Israel Finkelstein’s discarded dump piles from his excavations in the 1980’s. A volume of about 15 cubic meters was first dry sifted, then wet sifted to recover important archaeological data Finkelstein missed. The salvage operation produced much valuable ceramic and glyptic evidence, which will be published in a peer-reviewed environment in due time.
2. Area D is of special interest because it was a large, deliberate depository of dateable pottery and kosher animal bones which may confirm the presence the Hebrew tabernacle tent as described in scripture. The Area D Dump Locus 407 likely contains pottery that dates to the very end of LB IIB. A reexamination of the pottery excavated by Finkelstein, like was done with Kathleen Kenyon’s work, might produce some very surprising results. The excavation dump from all of Area D has also been identified and after dry and wet sifting, might also recover stunning and important archaeological data that Finkelstein threw away.
3. After several seasons of excavation and having analyzed the Finkelstein Shiloh report from his excavations, it seems probable that the tabernacle was located at the summit between 1399-1177 BC. The Area D, Dump Locus 407 is where sacrificed bones on the altar of burnt offering in the tabernacle tent on the summit were discarded by Hebrew priests. The Kosher bone dump is about 100 meters downhill from the summit. If Finkelstein’s ceramic report is verified to be correct that no Iron Age IA pottery is found in Dump Locus 407, this provides evidence that the tabernacle tent was moved to a new location, perhaps the north platform before AD 1177 BC. The Iron Age IA silos that were dug into Dump Locus 407 after the Kosher bones were discarded, provides compelling evidence that the Hebrew tabernacle was moved to a new location. If the tabernacle tent was moved to the north platform at the beginning of the Iron Age IA, efforts should be made to identify a new nearby Kosher bone dump, perhaps the northern or western valley adjacent to the tabernacle tent.
4. If you would like to participate as a volunteer at Shiloh, contact the author for details.
Conclusion:
1. Shiloh was Israel’s first “Jerusalem” (i.e. capital city) for 305 years.
2. The story of the Tabernacle tent of Moses at Shiloh is widely hated and mocked by Bible scoffers like many other similar stories:
a. Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden
b. The exodus, 10 plagues of Egypt, crossing the Red and Mt. Sinai.
c. The walls of Jericho falling down by marching 13 times around it over 7 days.
d. Jonah swallowed by a sea monster.
e. Jesus rising from the dead.
3. Israel Finkelstein was a Bible hater who delighted in concluding there were no Hebrews or tabernacle tent prior to 1100 BC.
a. To this day most reference books quote Finkelstein as proving the Bible wrong because “the site was unoccupied and deserted for the same 300 years the Bible says Hebrew priests sacrificed at the tabernacle tent”.
b. Professional archeologists, most of whom are also atheist bible scoffers, immediately jumped on board and pointed out the science of Archaeology has proved the Bible to not be a reliable book of history.
c. This led preachers in the 1950’s and 1960’s to view archaeology like evolution and avoid both in the pulpit.
4. Associates for Biblical Research began in AD 2017 conducting new archaeological excavations under the directorship of Dr. Scott Stripling. The professional ABR Shiloh archaeologic team uses the latest and most advanced technology.
a. Dry sifting with locus tracking to the wet sifter for object recovery.
b. Organic and biological floatation to recover seeds, charcoal, and wood fragments
c. An on-site Portable Ostraca Multi-Spectral Imager to instantly detect ancient writing in carbon base inks on ceramics. See: SHILOH VIDEO BY STEVEN RUDD: Field Multi-Spectral Ostraca Imager and Arad/Zedekiah correspondence
d. Drone photography for daily site-wide square data that is rendered into full 3D imagery.
e. Paperless recording by square supervisors.
f. On site cappuccino machine.
5. Currently Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries and reference works rely on Finkelstein as the authority that the archaeological conclusions contradict the Bible, but this will all change when ABR finishes and publishes their work.
6. You can volunteer at Shiloh by emailing Steven Rudd at the email link below.
See: SHILOH VIDEO BY STEVEN RUDD: Field Multi-Spectral Ostraca Imager and Arad/Zedekiah correspondence
By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.
