Well over half a century ago, the Classical archaeolo- gist and idealist philosopher Robin Collingwood stated that “no historical problem should be studied without studying . . . the history of historical thought about it” (1939: 132). Indeed, in recent years, a growing number of archaeologists have come to agree with Collingwood’s dictum. Behind this current consensus stands a central postmodernist realization—which by now encompasses the entire scientific world—that all knowledge is socially constructed. Postmodernism, with its subjectivist agenda, encouraged the belief that archaeology is not independent of the social and cultural context in which it is practiced. The questions that archaeologists investigate, the evidence they are predisposed to accept as conclusive, and even what they recognize as evidence are all influenced, whether consciously or unconsciously, by their intellectual persuasions, disciplinary paradigms, class interests, ethnic loyalties, and gender prejudices (see, e.g., Knapp 1996; Johnson 1999; Hodder 2002). These ideas have had a great impact on the way the history of archaeological thought is currently conceived. In a classic essay concerning the image of the American Indian in archaeology, Trigger convincingly demonstrated how the interpretation of ar- chaeological data is shaped by contemporary archaeologi- cal paradigms and changes with them (1980a). This lesson is repeated in recent histories of archaeological thought, whether general (e.g., Trigger 1989; Patterson 1995), or specifically treating the archaeology of Israel/Palestine (e.g., Moorey 1991; Silberman 1995; Bunimovitz 1995). Coauthoring an essay about the social and symbolic meaning of the ubiquitous drinking vessels of the Interme- diate Bronze Age (IBA, ca. 2300–2000 bce; also termed Early Bronze Age IV, Intermediate Early Bronze–Middle Bronze, or Middle Bronze I), we have noticed three major conceptual shifts in the interpretation of this phenomenon (Bunimovitz and Greenberg 2004). Put within the his- torical perspective of archaeological thought, these shifts seem to be the product of changes in the discipline’s para- digmatic framework, rather than of new data. Indeed, some of the details concerning the introduction of foreign drinking habits into Canaan were established already in the 1920s and are still viable today (see below). Taking the long-term study of the IBA as a case in point, we wish to illustrate what has become, in some archaeological circles, almost a truism: “facts” (or rather, pots) do not speak for themselves; it is only through theory that their mute voice can be heard. Moreover, in light of the postpositivist stance detailed above, we further show that the very facts concerning the cups and teapots of the IBA are perception- dependent—the same data are perceived differently when investigated under different conceptual paradigms (cf. Kuhn 1970; Hodder 1991: 15–18; 165–81). We present this critical essay in honor of Bill Dever, a friend and colleague who has for many years championed the study of both the IBA/EB IV period and the method- ological development of the archaeology of Israel/Pales- tine, and whose periodic state-of-research essays serve as a constant challenge to our professional perceptions. Diffusion and Migration: Culture-History and the “Caliciform Culture” in Canaan The founding figures of Palestinian archaeology identi- fied intrusive cultural elements in the material culture of the IBA with affinities to the distant north. Albright (1932: 8–14; 1935: 220; 1960: 80) and Wright (1938) were the first to comment on similarities between the period’s pot- tery—in particular the decorated cups common in southern Canaan—and the so-called “caliciform” ceramics of late- third-/early-second-millennium bce Syria and northern Mesopotamia. Each of them, however, suggested a differ- ent mechanism for cultural transmission, namely, diffusion versus invasion. As we shall see, both concepts haunted IBA research for the next half century, until the 1980s, and faithfully reflected the culture-historical paradigm that ruled the archaeology of Palestine at the time. Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine Shlomo Bunimovitz and Raphael Greenberg Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures Tel Aviv University Copyright © 2006. Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/3/2016 12:49 AM via TEL AVIV UNIV AN: 446005 ; Wright, J. Edward, Dessel, J. P., Dever, William G., Gitin, Seymour.; Confronting the Past : Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever Account: s7347354