John R. Spencer and Jeffrey Blakely, two of the editors of Hesi after 50 Years and 130 Years, joined us for a Q&A to discuss the current field of archaeology and how technology has helped their research.

Can you tell us about your current research, and how you became interested in the topic?

Spencer: I came to archaeology from biblical studies. I was trained with, and adhere to, the idea that the cultural, historical, and physical context helps to illuminate the writers and writings of the biblical text. Thus, courses in ancient near eastern history, religion, and archaeology were essential for pursuing my Ph.D. in biblical studies. Indeed my first contact with archaeological finds was handling material that was then called “Samaria Ware.” Unfortunately, I was not immediately able to follow the study with field work. Once I started working on sites in Israel / Palestine I clearly understood, first hand, the importance of the principles I had learned in graduate studies.

Blakely: The Joint Expedition began in 1970 and I first came the following year, after my first year in college. I was taken by the discipline, eventually committing to it. My research interests focus on the Greater Hesi Region through time, unlike most in the field who specialize in single periods over an expansive region. I believe this alternate approach is beneficial in understanding many aspects of a multiperiod site like Tell el-Hesi. The two approaches can sync quite well in collaborative research.

How has technology affected your research over time?

Spencer: My introduction to field work was at Hesi, which employed the best holistic methodology available at that time. Hesi saw the importance of using experts from balk carvers, to osteologists, to botanists to geologists. And the staff stresses the importance of thorough recording of data and “clean” digging methodology. The field of archaeology has certainly continued to expand and improve, but the techniques of preserving materials from Hesi has made volumes like this one possible.

Blakely: Technological advances have opened up so many new avenues to research, and this is wonderful. The discipline and science are developing in new ways. Honestly, however, it is also a curse for folks trying to publish what are now termed “old excavations” like Hesi. You keep trying to retrofit the old data and ask new questions, but by the time you get a new understanding of the old data, technology has moved on and you again find yourself behind the times. Then, of course, much of the new technology is rather expensive and funding new analytical approaches to “old excavations” is challenging.

How do you anticipate your research will help inspire other research in the field?

Spencer: The study of the large collection of Early Bronze Age terracotta animal figurines has provided an opportunity to explore their presence at Hesi, and to catalog their presence elsewhere in the ANE. More important, it has allowed entry into the ongoing discussion of the function of these figurines. Are they toys? Are they cultic or “magical” objects? Or have they been used in both manners? While the answer is not clear, the Hesi materials makes it difficult to see them simply as cultic artifacts. It is now the turn of others to add to the catalog of animal figurines and to participate in the discussion of their function.

Blakely: I am not sure I would use the word “inspire.” I might use the word “challenge.” My mentor, Larry Toombs, always taught to go from the known to the unknown and to follow where your research dictates, even if it gets uncomfortable. Some of our results do not fit the generally accepted historical narrative for the discipline. I hope others investigate how our results might challenge their assumptions. Interestingly, Toombs was more worried when one’s results perfectly matched expectations. In such cases he demanded you then question your basic assumptions and methods. In my entire career I cannot think of a single time when the final results of our research were what we expected when we started. Depending on your point of view, that statement can yield rather different implications.