Building 101 at Tel ‘Eton, the Low Chronology, and the Perils of a Bias-Perpetuating Methodology

A Response and a Proposal for the Study of All the Phases in the History of Buildings

Bibliographic Data

ID10329487
AuthorsAvraham Faust (0000-0001-7301-7135, Bar-Ilan University, corresponding author), Yair Sapir (Bar-Ilan University)
Year2021
Volume153
Issue4
Pages304-334
Publication date2021-09-14
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePalestine Exploration Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-0328 • E-ISSN: 1743-1301
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00310328.2021.1975071
OpenAlexW3199734477
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited48

Building 101 at Tel ‘Eton was a large longitudinal four-spaces (‘four-room’) house, that was destroyed by fire in the late 8th century bce, during an Assyrian military campaign. Its size, location, quality of construction and the finds unearthed in it suggest that it was an elite dwelling, that perhaps served as a governor’s residency. In 2018 we published several radiocarbon dates, taken from the floor make-up in two separate rooms, as well as from a foundation deposit, and from the earlier material into which the foundation deposit was embedded. These, along with other considerations, suggested that the building was built in the 10th century bce, and existed for some 250 years, prompting us to draw attention to the potential longevity of houses, and to what we called the ‘old house effect’. We also noted the significance of the finds for understanding social or political complexity in the region of Judah already during the 10th century bce. In a recent issue of this journal, Israel Finkelstein criticized our dating of the house, raising arguments from ‘traditional archaeology’ perspective and concerning ‘radiocarbon dating’. It is the aim of the present article to (1) properly present the relevant finds, to (2) refute Finkelstein’s argument, expose the weaknesses of his claims and the issues he failed to address, and, more importantly, to (3) elaborate on his methodological argument, which exposes a biased methodology that instead of improving our ability to study the past, only perpetuates an already existing shortcoming in addressing site histories. Finally, we (4) briefly suggest a method of dating the construction of buildings

Archaeology · Argument (complex analysis · Chronology · Elite · Finkelstein's test · Foundation (evidence · Political science · Politics · Radiocarbon dating · Sociology · Ancient Near East History · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · History · Law

Tools

Open DOI