Playing Epistemological Darts at Gezer (and Elsewhere)

The contribution by L. C. Webster, S. R. Wolff, and S. M. Ortiz, which is the focus of this discussion forum, is an overview of the main points of a previous paper (Webster et al. 2023), summarizing the results of an impressive 14C dating project conducted as part of the Tandy excavations at Gezer. This project aimed to provide a solid absolute chronology for strata spanning the terminal Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age II A, roughly from the late thirteenth to the ninth centuries BCE. Indeed, these strata have been the focus of much debate, and the tight sequence of dates provided by Webster et al. are of much importance in accepting or denying some of the previously suggested datings (and continuing in this Forum as well)—and connections to historical and/or biblical events.Webster et al. in their 2023 paper presented the following results:Without a doubt, the results of Webster et al.’s research are impressive, as they seemingly provide firm absolute dates—and historical correlations—to a long sequence of strata and cultural phases at Gezer. Seemingly, this enables to securely connect these highly debated strata to specific periods and events.But alas, I believe the picture is more complex, and while one should applaud their research program and their results, I believe several points of caution, as well as methodological and conceptual qualms, can be noted.The thorny issues of the methodological robustness of archaeological interpretation, and in particular whether archaeological practice—in both method and theory—is based on a sufficiently vigorous epistemology, is hardly a new topic. While clearly this cannot be dealt with in an extensive manner in this short note, the need to be aware of these issues—and limitations—is a conditio sine qua non for reliable archaeological practice. Michael E. Smith (2017, 2023) and others have argued that archaeologists must adopt a much more rigorous methodological and epistemological framework if they wish their research to be of validity. Unfortunately, it appears that this is not the case for much of the archaeological practice in the southern Levant and in particular relating to the Iron Age and the interpretation of the relevant archaeological remains. In light of this, I would like to make a few comments, relevant both for the article discussed in this Forum, as well as in a more general manner.I believe the discussion of the dating of the Gezer strata, both in the past and in the present, and for that matter, many other conclusions, interpretations, discussions, and debates in archaeology in general, and in particular in the archaeology of the southern Levantine Iron Age, suffer from a lack of sufficient epistemological rigor. All too often, interpretations of archaeological finds, and in particular destruction levels, impressive architectural features (temples, fortifications, etc.), and at times even the lack of impressive remains (e.g., Ben-Yosef 2019), connect these finds with events, peoples, or processes known from textual sources. Thus, in the past, many Iron IIA destruction levels were connected to the supposed Shishak campaign (e.g., Mazar 1957; Na’aman 1998; Kitchen 2001; Finkelstein 2002; Dever 2018), while in more recent years, identifying these and other destruction layers with Hazael of Aram’s activities in the Levant have been popular (Na’aman 2002; Maeir 2004; Lehmann 2019; Kleiman 2016; Mazar 2022). Similarly, early Iron II destructions at various sites (such as Tell Qasile, Stratum X) have been connected to supposed conquests by David (Maisler 1951: 23), or alternatively, the construction of various sites has been associated with David as well (e.g., Garfinkel and Ganor 2018). And of course, well-known are the debates on who built the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, whether Solomon, Ahab, or others (see, e.g., literature cited in Webster et al. 2023; Webster, Wolff, and Ortiz, this issue).Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that all of these suggested interpretations are correct or incorrect, or that it was wrong to put forward these various suggestions. Rather, I would like to stress that all too often interpretations that are perhaps possible in light of the available evidence, once published, become enshrined in subsequent archaeological studies without sufficient doubt raised regarding the validity and epistemological robustness of the various suggestions. A good example of this is E. Arie’s (2008) suggested redating of the Iron Age strata at Dan. While a completely legitimate (and theoretically valid) suggestion, it was based solely on a reanalysis of the partially published materials from the site, without having access to the full assemblage of unpublished finds. Thus, from the very outset, this redating should have been regarded as tentative. Nevertheless, various later publications related to Arie’s suggestions as ironclad (e.g., Finkelstein 2011; Sergi 2017; Kleiman 2016) and used them as a jumping board for further extrapolations.To a certain extent, the ease in which certain events are identified in the archaeological record—that we happen to know of due to written sources—and how they become the convenient option of interpretation, is somewhat like looking for a lost coin under the lamppost. Not enough attention is paid to the fact that while we do know of some of the events that occurred in the southern Levant in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, many other events are simply unknown and might have likely produced similar results (such as destructions). Just as Webster et al. (2023; Webster, Wolff, and Ortiz, this issue) note that the destruction of Level 7, previously related to Hazael, dates too early for this campaign and suggest that it relates to some unknown event, similarly, even destructions that fall more or less in the right time frame, so as to be related to this or that historical event, might also be connected to an unknown event.What I believe this calls for is for us, archaeologists and historians, not to stop suggesting interpretations that are based on the (often meager) written sources that we have (and their complex and at times problematic nature). Rather, as archaeologists and historians suggesting interpretations, we should be more aware of the tenuous character of many of our interpretations. We should be highly informed and methodologically sensitive to the epistemological limitations of our data (archaeological and textual) and how they can affect our interpretations. I would call this “epistemic responsibility.”I am sure that the interpretations suggested by Webster et al. (2023; Webster, Wolff, and Ortiz, this issue) will not be accepted by all, including among those debating in this Forum. Clearly, the debate garnered in this Forum (and other places) will most probably sharpen and improve our understanding of the sequence at Gezer, as well as larger archaeological and historical questions.But how should we be “epistemologically responsible?” I suggest in this and other cases to always keep two things in mind:Thus, let’s all try to be a bit more robust in our interpretations, practice “epistemic responsibility,” and not play epistemological darts—that is, throwing our darts (the archaeological data) and then moving the dart board (the convenient or currently popular historical event) to fit with the darts’ locations. A bit more skepticism of our interpretative frameworks, the limitations of our data and their explanations, and in general some healthy professional humility would go a long way

Epistemology · African history and culture analysis · Economic, financial, and policy analysis · Language and cultural evolution · Philosophy · Psychology

• Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan

  Eran Arie•Tel Aviv•2008

  Add to list

• The Stratification of Tell Abū Huwâm on the Bay of Acre

  B Maisler•Bulletin of the American Schools…•1951

  Add to list

• Tel Reḥov in the Tenth and Ninth Centuries BCE

  Amihai Mazar•Near Eastern Archaeology•2022

  Add to list

• Social science and archaeological enquiry

  Open Access•Michael E Smith•Antiquity•2017

  Add to list