Kefar Shikhin

GALILEE in the late second temple and mishnaic periods Volume 2 he Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages FM_Galilee II.indd 1 9/2/2015 6:54:14 PM FM_Galilee II.indd 2 9/2/2015 6:54:14 PM GALILEE in the late second temple and mishnaic periods Volume 2 he Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange Editors Fortress Press Minneapolis FM_Galilee II.indd 3 9/2/2015 6:54:14 PM GALILEE IN THE LATE SECOND TEMPLE AND MISHNAIC PERIODS Volume 2: he Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange, Editors Copyright © 2015 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles and reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Visit http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/contact.asp or write to Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440. Cover images, clockwise from upper left: Geometric mosaic at Tiberias, Sky View, used with permission of the New Tiberias Excavation Project. Aerial view of Kedesh, Sky View, used with permission of Tel Kedesh Excavations. Sarcophagus at Kedesh, photo courtesy James Riley Strange. Mikveh at H|uqoq, photo courtesy of Jim Haberman. heater at Sepphoris, photo courtesy Douglas Oakman. Cover design: Laurie Ingram Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data is available ISBN: 918-1-4514-6742-0 eISBN: 918-1-5064-0195-9 he paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329, 48-1984. Manufactured in the U.S.A. FM_Galilee II.indd 4 9/2/2015 6:54:14 PM IN MEMORIAM Douglas Edwards FM_Galilee II.indd 5 9/2/2015 6:54:14 PM FM_Galilee II.indd 6 9/2/2015 6:54:14 PM Contents Archaeological Chronology Events and Rulers in Galilee and Judea in the Late Second Temple through Mishnaic Periods Maps and Galilee Photo Gallery Preface to Volume 2 ix xi xvii Introduction to Galilee: Volumes 1 and 2 David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange 1 1. he Transformation from Galil Ha-Goyim to Jewish Galilee: he Archaeological Testimony of an Ethnic Change Mordechai Aviam 9 2. Sepphoris A. he Jewel of the Galilee James F. Strange B. Residential Area of the Western Summit Eric M. Meyers, Carol L. Meyers, and Benjamin D. Gordon C. From Galilean Town to Roman City, 100 bce–200 ce Zeev Weiss D. he Sepphoris Aqueducts James F. Strange 76 3. Kefar Shikhin James Riley Strange 88 22 39 53 4. Yodefat-Jotapata: A Jewish Galilean Town at the End of the Second Temple Period Mordechai Aviam 109 5. Khirbet Qana C. homas McCollough 127 6. Karm er-Ras near Kafr Kanna Yardenna Alexandre 146 7. Kafr Kanna (he Franciscan Church) F. Massimo Luca, OFM 158 vii FM_Galilee II.indd 7 9/2/2015 6:54:14 PM viii Contents 8. Nazareth James F. Strange 167 9. Kefar H|ananya David Adan-Bayewitz 181 10. Tiberias, from Its Foundation to the End of the Early Islamic Period Katia Cytryn-Silverman 186 11. Hamath Tiberias Carl E. Savage 211 12. Capernaum, Village of Nah\um, from Hellenistic to Byzantine Times Sharon Lea Mattila 217 13. Bethsaida Rami Arav and Carl E. Savage 258 14. Magdala/Taricheae Stefano De Luca and Anna Lena 280 15. Khirbet Wadi H|amam in the Early and Middle Roman Periods Uzi Leibner 343 16. H|uqoq in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods Matthew J. Grey and Chad S. Spigel 362 17. Meiron in Upper Galilee Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers 379 18. Gush H|alav James F. Strange 389 19. Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers 404 20. he Ancient Synagogue and Village at Khirbet Shema‘ Eric M. Meyers 414 21. Kedesh of the Upper Galilee Andrea M. Berlin and Sharon C. Herbert 424 Glossary Contributors Abbreviations Index of Ancient Sources Index of Subjects FM_Galilee II.indd 8 443 449 451 455 9/9/2015 5:33:13 AM 3 Kefar Shikhin* James Riley Strange Introduction: Shikhin in Ancient Sources he ancient site of Shikhin (‫שיחין‬/Šîh\în; Ἄσωχις/Asōchis in Josephus; ITM map ref. 200204656377) sits on a low ridge of three hilltops, almost completely surrounded by agricultural ields, at the southwestern end of the Beit Netofa Valley of Lower Galilee. he village occupied the northernmost hill, 188 m (617 ft) above sea level and about 0.5 km south of modern Highway 77. In antiquity, as today, one could reach Shikhin by walking 1.8 km (a little over a mile) north and slightly west of the acropolis of Sepphoris, which sits at 285 m (935 ft) above sea level.1 Excavations began in 2012 through the work of the Shikhin Excavation Project and continue to the present. Josephus’s writings contain the earliest mentions of Shikhin, and the sages of rabbinic literature also talk about it. Both sets of sources tend to mention Shikhin in connection with Sepphoris, and although Sepphoris usually served as the local seat of power throughout their shared history, the sources hint at the village’s importance. For example, Josephus tells us that Ptolemy (IX) Lathyros successfully took Asochis on a Sabbath day, after which he failed to take Sepphoris (Ant. 13.337; cf. J.W. 1.86). his information suggests that by the late second/ early irst century bce, Shikhin was settled by Jews (because presumably Ptolemy considered it to be to his advantage to attack on the Sabbath), and that Shikhin probably was not fortiied, * Reports of the excavations at Shikhin in this chapter draw directly from the ield books of the Shikhin Excavation Project, which this author directs, and directors’ discussions. Readers are encouraged to look for upcoming preliminary publications of the lamp and pottery industry. Some information is available at http://www. samford.edu/shikhin. I thank Motti Aviam for reading the chapter and giving his suggestions. 1. James F. Strange, homas R. W. Longstaf, and Dennis E. Groh, Excavations at Sepphoris, vol. 1, University of South Florida Probes in the Citadel and Villa (Brill Reference Library of Judaism 22; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 10. 88 GalileeII_A.indd 88 9/2/2015 6:56:08 PM Kefar Shikhin 89 while Sepphoris, which must have been nearby, probably was.2 Surely exaggerating, Josephus also tells us that Ptolemy took ten thousand prisoners and a great deal of plunder.3 Despite the hyperbole, the claim does imply something about the town’s standing, as does Ptolemy’s desire to capture it. If Josephus’s account is generally correct, Shikhin probably already had a substantial Jewish population and some wealth by the time Aristobulus I annexed the Galilee to the Hasmonean kingdom in 104 bce. Shikhin might have received more Judeans after 70 and 135 ce, including priestly families.4 In another direct mention of Shikhin, a passage in the third-century ce Tosefta says that when the house of Joseph ben Simai (a second-century resident?) caught ire on a Sabbath, soldiers from Sepphoris ran to put it out (t. Šabb. 13:9; cf. y. Šabb. 16:7; b. Šabb. 16:121a; Deut. Rab.5). Both the rabbinic mentions and Josephus’s accounts link Shikhin and Sepphoris geographically, and the Tosefta passage indicates that Sepphoris’s soldiers (probably Roman soldiers) were obligated to put out ires at Shikhin, or at least at this man’s home. Hence, the story might preserve a signiicant political link, which suggests further social and economic links, between Roman Sepphoris and the nearest town under its jurisdiction.6 he Tosefta goes on to say that even though Joseph ben Simai refused to allow the ire to be extinguished, a miraculous rain put it out (suggesting that the narrative places the event in the summer, when it rarely rains), after which he sent money to Sepphoris’s soldiers and their commander. 2. See m. ‘Arak. 9:6 for a list of fortiied Galilean towns in the Hellenistic period. 3. In J.W. 3.43, Josephus informs his readers that the smallest Galilean villages have populations exceeding ifteen thousand. He was speaking of the Galilee of his own day, but surely this also is a grossly inlated number. 4. According to Samuel Klein, the fourteenth priestly course (‫ישבאב‬/Jeshebeab) was relocated to Shikhin. First Chronicles 24:1-19 attributes to David the organization of priestly families into twenty-four divisions or “courses” (‫משמרות‬/mišmārôt) according to ancestral families (cf. Neh. 12:1-19). Using piyyut iim and talmudic passages, Klein constructed hypothetical lists of these courses and Galilean villages, towns, and cities in which they allegedly resettled. Fragments of inscriptions bearing lists that match fairly well with Klein’s, so far as we can tell, were found at Caesarea in 1962. See Samuel Klein, Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galiläas (Leipzig: R. Haupt, 1909), 66–67. Michael Avi-Yonah, “A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea,” IEJ 12 (1962): 137–39; AviYonah, “he Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses,” in he Teacher’s Yoke: Essays in Memory of Henry Trantham (ed. E. Jerry Vardaman and James L. Garrett Jr.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1964), 46–57; Jerry Vardaman, “Introduction to the Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses,” in Vardaman and Garrett, Teacher’s Yoke, 42–44. See y. Ta‘an. 4:6, 68d; cf. t. Ta‘an. 1:3. For a fuller discussion of similar fragments found elsewhere with bibliography, see n. 43 in ch. 8 of this volume, p. 172. See also Uzi Leibner’s discussion in Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee (TSAJ 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 404–19. A passage in the Tosefta (Ta‘an. 1:13) states that it was the practice at Sepphoris (according to the testimony of R. H|alafta) and at Sikhnin/‫( סכנין‬according to R. H|anania) for the minister of the synagogue (‫)חזן הכנסת‬ to call on priests to sound the shofar during a fast. See n. 9 below for another reference to Sepphoris and Sikhnin. In conversation, šîh\în and śknîn could be confused for one another. Such confusion is less likely if an author is relying on a written text. 5. Lieberman edition p. 70. he English translation by J. Rabbinowitz does not contain this passage: Midrash Rabbah, vol. 7 (London and New York: Soncino, 1983). 6. he passage in the Babylonian Talmud explains that the soldiers wished to put out the ire because Joseph was an administrator for the king. GalileeII_A.indd 89 9/2/2015 6:56:08 PM 90 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Josephus mentions that he lived at Asochis for a while (Life 384; cf. 233), and he called the Beit Netofa Valley, so-called after a village on its eastern edge, the “Plain of Asochis” (Life 207). Sages remembered that both Kefar H|ananya and Kefar Shikhin sold black (i.e., high quality) clay (t. B. Mes ii‘a 6:3; cf. b. B. Mes ii‘a 74a), and they compared ceramic vessels in both towns to iron vessels because they were not likely to burst in ires (b. Šabb. 120b). According to the Tosefta, Rabbi Neh\emiah used storage jars from Shikhin as a standard of measure (t. Ter. 7:14; cf. y. Ter. 8:6, 45d), and another reference suggests that Shikhin’s potters made ceramic oil lamps as well (t. Me‘il. 2:9; see the discussion below). he fact that sages from other Galilean towns knew about Shikhin’s jars implies that Shikhin exported jars, that it sold something in them—wine, oil, and mustard are possibilities7—or both. he plausibility that Shikhin exported goods and produce might explain the comparatively late rabbinic (hyperbolic?) claim that taxes from the villages of Cabul, Shikhin, and Magdala were of such a sum that they had to be carried to Jerusalem, with a gloss adding “in a wagon” (y. Ta‘an. 4:69a; cf. Lam. Rab. 2:2). he text also says that these villages were destroyed; perhaps the First Revolt is meant, but the evidence is slim.8 he Yerushalmi passage blames Shikhin’s destruction on sorceries, which could refer to the practice of Christianity there.9 At the same time, we have evidence that its residents practiced purity, which, at the end of the irst century ce, is not incompatible with following Jesus’ halakhah.10 All of these references allow the excavators to develop hypotheses to test in the ield. he excavation of Shikhin, therefore, has implications for the Jewish settlement of Galilee and Jewish social identity, as well as for the Galilean road system and economy in the period that concerns us in these volumes.11 It also stands to tell us about the relationship between a prominent Galilean city and a village under its jurisdiction. 7. For the presence of olive and wine presses at the site, see below. he fertility of Shikhin’s mustard plants made an impression in one text. See y. Peah 7:4 (in this anecdote, a single cutting from a mustard branch grows to suicient size to cover a potter’s booth); cf. b. Ketub. 111b. 8. No other text that we currently have tells us Cabul, Shikhin, or Magdala was destroyed in the Bar Kokhba (133–135 ce) or Gallus (350–352 ce) revolts. Of these three towns, Josephus tells us only about the destruction of Magdala during the First Revolt, but only if the identiication of ancient Magdala with Josephus’s Taricheae is correct (the evidence is strong; see “Magdala” article by Stefano De Luca in this volume, pp. 280–342. 9. Admittedly the connection is conjectural. A much later passage in b. Sanh. 43a–b mentions the execution of a sorcerer, Yeshu, along with ive disciples, during Passover, by stoning and hanging. A reference to a Christian from Sikhnin (‫)סכנין‬, whom R. Eleazar met in Sepphoris, occurs in t. H|ul. 2:24 and y. ‘Abod. Zar. 16b–17a. his town, Sigoph, which Josephus fortiied (J.W. 2.573; Life 188; not to be confused with a town of the same name in the Golan, which he also fortiied), lies several kilometers to the north of Shikhin. Again, the mention of Sepphoris and Sikhnin in such close proximity might indicate that śknîn was confused with šîh\în in conversation. 10. he Tosefta (Nid. 8:6) credits R. Yose with the anecdote that people at Shikhin took for granted the uncleanliness of a cave (‫)מערה‬. After a thorough examination assured them the cave was clean, while digging in it, they discovered a mortar illed with human bones. 11. See chapters by Oakman, Overman, Safrai, Mattila, and James F. Strange in David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange, eds., Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, vol. 1, Life, Culture, and Society (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014). GalileeII_A.indd 90 9/2/2015 6:56:08 PM Kefar Shikhin 91 Figure A. Broken and weathered sarcophagus on Jebel Qat, east of Shikhin. Note the four-petaled lowers with garlands lanking a tabula ansata. Similar sarcophagi can be found built into the corners of the socalled citadel on the acropolis of Sepphoris. Drawing by Dina Shalem. Surveys and excavations conirm the predominantly Jewish identity of Shikhin’s residents.12 his history of the site rests on preliminary pottery readings. Shikhin’s growth between the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods follows a well-established pattern at many eastern Galilean Jewish sites.13 Archaeological investigations have also turned up thirteen sarcophagi, both complete and fragmentary, both in tombs and on the surface, most of them apparently plain; two have one long side decorated in what Mordechai Aviam calls the Sepphorean nonrepresentational style (see ig. A).14 he excavators have found fragments of stone vessels and incense shovels, a fragment of a irst- or second-century oil lamp decorated with a menorah lanked by palm fronds (ig. B), three mikva’ot (probably used by people leaving the cemetery south of the village), butchered bones only from kosher animals and following kosher practices,15 and remains of a Roman-period synagogue. Other lamp fragments have no decora12. We do not yet have evidence to suggest that non-Jewish people, or non-observant Jewish people, lived at Shikhin. Admittedly, one cannot mount a strong argument from the absence of evidence. 13. See the discussion below and the summary of survey results and following discussion in Leibner, Settlement and History, 309–76. Unlike many other Galilean sites, Shikhin does not show a loruit in the third century. Currently, the Shikhin Excavation Project is following the dating of archaeological periods in use by the USF Excavations at Sepphoris, modiied for that city from those developed in the Meiron Excavation Project. 14. Mordechai Aviam, “he Necropolis of Sepphoris: he Results of Field Survey,” in A City Set on A Hill: Festschrift in Honor of James F. Strange (ed. Daniel Warner and Donald Binder; Mountain Home, Ariz.: Borderstone, 2014), 4–16. 15. he number of recovered bones admittedly has been quite small. GalileeII_A.indd 91 9/2/2015 6:56:08 PM 92 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Figure B. Lamp fragment showing a seven-branched menorah lanked by palm fronds. Drawing by the author. tion, or they show such things as geometric patterns, dots, amphorae, leaves, vines, tendrils, grapes, and pomegranates. History of Investigation16 Heinrich Graetz irst suggested the linguistic connection between the sages’ Šîh\în (“caves” or “pits”)17 and Josephus’s Asōchis, allowing scholars to read both names as references to the same town.18 Following W. Oehler,19 many scholars located Shikhin at Tell el-Badawiya, now commonly called Tel H|annaton.20 In 1988, a survey by a team from the University of South Florida (USF) Excavations at Sepphoris ruled out this location and made a strong case for the nameless hill near Sepphoris currently under excavation by the Shikhin Excavation Project. he survey team conined its work to the two northern hilltops. Among many features of archaeological interest on the northernmost hill, they found pottery wasters near the southern portion of the village’s clay pit (farmers at a local kibbutz reported that they had illed in the northern part, which extended into their agricultural ields). Part 2 of the survey’s publication included a discussion by David Adan-Bayewitz, Isadore Perlman, and their team, who, as part of an ongoing project, examined samples of pottery and pottery wasters collected on the hill. Neutron 16. For a fuller account, see James F. Strange, Dennis E. Groh, and homas R. W. Longstaf, “Excavations at Sepphoris: he Location and Identiication of Shikhin (Part 1),” IEJ 44 (1994): 217–21. 17. Klein, Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galiläas, 69. 18. Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden vom Untergang des jüdischen Staates bis zum Abschluss des Talmuds (Berlin: Oskar Leiner, 1853), 3:123 n. 2; cited in J. F. Strange et al., “Excavations at Sepphoris (Part 1),” 217. 19. W. Oehler, “Die Ortschaften und Brenzen Galilaäs nach Joesphus,” ZDPV 27 (1905): 1–26; 49–74; cited in Strange et al., “Excavations at Sepphoris (Part 1),” 217. 20. Map ref. 174-243 (OIG). See Yoram Tsafrir, Leah Di Segni, and Judith Green, eds., Tabula Imperii Romani Judaea-Palaestina: Maps and Gazetteer (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 70 (the TIR came out in 1994, the year that the USF survey published its irst article). GalileeII_A.indd 92 9/2/2015 6:56:08 PM Kefar Shikhin 93 activation analysis21 led Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman to conclude that storage jars made at Shikhin constituted a signiicant portion of jars of that type found in surveys and excavations of Roman-period Galilean sites. Storage jars, serving bowls, and bell (a.k.a. “Sepphorean”) bowls made at Shikhin accounted for 45 percent of the pottery excavated on the acropolis of Sepphoris by the University of South Florida Excavations.22 Coupled with Adan-Bayewitz’s and Perlman’s indings about Kefar H|ananya, a town at the transition between the Upper and Lower Galilees, this information had a notable impact on discussions of the Galilean economy, particularly in scholarship on the so-called historical Jesus, and to a lesser extent on the Judaism of the Talmuds. References to Shikhin, most of them repeating Adan-Bayewitz’s and Perlman’s indings, litter recent books and articles about Jesus’ Galilee.23 Following the 2010 season of the USF Excavations at Sepphoris,24 in the summer of 2011, a team headed by the author (Samford University, director) and Prof. David Fiensy (Kentucky Christian University, associate director) conducted a second survey of Shikhin with the goal of sinking the irst archaeological probes in 2012.25 his survey included all three of Shikhin’s hilltops and, because of time constraints, only part of Jebel Qat to the east. Mordechai Aviam (Kinneret Institute for Galilean Archaeology at Kinneret Academic College) assisted in the survey, and in 2012 he joined the Shikhin Excavation Project as associate director. Four excavation seasons occurred between 2012 and 2015, and more are planned for a number of future seasons. Population he 2011 survey located a rock-cut tomb on the middle hilltop, as well as a few more cave openings that may also indicate tombs. On Shikhin’s northern hill, about 200 meters south of archaeological Field I, a broken sarcophagus and its lid were reused in a ield wall. Near the foot of the eastern slope of Shikhin’s middle hill, the 2011 survey also located the foundations of a small building, perhaps a mausoleum similar to the tomb of Rabbi Judah Nasiya southeast of Shikhin (between Shikhin and Sepphoris). On the western slope of Jebel Qat to the east of Shikhin, the survey team found a rock-cut tomb with arcosolia and four nearby sarcophagi 21. David Adan-Bayewitz, F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, and I. Perlman, “he Evidence from Neutron Activation Analysis,” in James F. Strange, Dennis E. Groh, and homas R. W. Longstaf, “Excavations at Sepphoris: he Location and Identiication of Shikhin (Part 2),” IEJ 45 (1995): 180–87. 22. David Adan-Bayewitz and I. Perlman, “he Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period,” IEJ 40 (1990): 160, table 2. See also Strange et al., “Excavations at Sepphoris (Part 1),” 227; Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Evidence from Neutron Activation Analysis,” 182. 23. See, for example, many of the chapters in this volume’s companion, Galilee I: Life, Culture, and Society. 24. he irst dig season happened in the summer of 1983, with the opening of probes around the so-called citadel and in the theater. See “Sepphoris: Jewel of the Galilee” by James F. Strange in this volume, pp. 22–38. 25. See James Riley Strange, “Preliminary Report of the Samford University Survey of Shikhin,” HA-ESI 124 (2012): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=2195&mag_id=119. GalileeII_A.indd 93 9/2/2015 6:56:08 PM 94 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Figure C. Map of the three hilltops of Shikhin. By the author. GalileeII_A.indd 94 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM Kefar Shikhin 95 Figure D. Map of the northern hilltop of Shikhin and with Jebel Qat to the east. By the author. sitting on the hillside within a few meters of the tomb.26 he excavations, burials, and other elements visible on the surface allow us to estimate the town’s greatest extent conservatively at 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres) on the northern hilltop, which in turn permits a cautious population estimation of between 57527 and 90028 at the height of Shikhin’s life, a number that falls within Fiensy’s category of a “village” (Greek kōmē, κώμη; Hebrew kāpār, ‫)כפר‬.29 26. he sarcophagi are probably in situ: all are arranged east to west with the head in the east. 27. I use the coeicient of 25 people per dunam derived from Magen Broshi, “Methodology of Population Estimates: he Roman-Byzantine Period as a Case Study,” in Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (JSPSup 36; Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 2001), 86–92; reprinted from Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology (ed. A. Biram and J. Aviram; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 420–25. 28. I base this estimate on the coeicient of 400 people per hectare (40 per dunam), accepted by Magen Broshi in an earlier work. his should be taken as an absolute maximum, since Broshi considers only urban populations, which typically are denser than village populations. See Magen Broshi, “he Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” in Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls, 93–109; reprinted from BASOR 236 (1979): 1–10; cf. Yigal Shiloh, “he Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas, and Population Density,” BASOR 239 (1980): 25–35. 29. See David Fiensy’s chapter, “he Village,” in Galilee I: Life, Culture, and Society. GalileeII_A.indd 95 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM 96 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Roman Roads Shikhin sat at the same major intersection of highways that Sepphoris oversaw. he Via Maris turned inland south of Dora and headed for the Sea of Galilee, passing Meggido, and just north of Shikhin it met up with this east–west highway.30 he 2011 survey found two uninscribed Roman milestones at the foot of the eastern slope of the hill. he stones, which probably date no earlier than the second century ce, lie too close together (around 80 m) to be in situ. Rather, both were probably pushed to their current locations when local farmers bulldozed the wadi east of the hill to make agricultural ields. he road descended north and slightly west from Sepphoris, running through the wadi and skirting the foot of Shikhin on the northeast (where curbstones are still visible), after which it headed northwest to meet up with the Acre/Ptolemais–Tiberias highway.31 A length of a similar road, located farther east, which descended from Sepphoris toward the north, probably to meet the same highway, has been excavated at the modern village of Hosha‘ayah.32 In the second century ce, Romans probably paved an earlier road. Cutting a section across the road will test this hypothesis. In antiquity, anyone traveling to Sepphoris from Acco/Ptolemais to the west would have passed by the foot of Shikhin before climbing the hill to Sepphoris, and Shikhin would have been the last suburb of Sepphoris that travelers passed on their way to Acco. Given its situation, and taking into account when the various cities were built, we can say that in the Late Second Temple through mishnaic periods, hypothetically at least, good roads gave Shikhin’s residents unimpeded access to Sepphoris, Acco, Tiberias, Legio, Caesarea, and Scythopolis, not to mention the many other villages that peppered the Lower Galilee. Water No natural spring waters Shikhin. Accordingly, the villagers relied entirely on cisterns cut into the hill’s soft chalk to catch runof from the abundant winter rains.33 he 1988 survey team reported inding thirty-three cisterns and possible cisterns, along with two channels they iden30. See Composite Map 4C in the front matter of this volume. See also the chapter on Galilean Roads by James F. Strange in Galilee I: Life, Culture, and Society. Chapters on Sepphoris, Karm er-Ras, Nazareth, and Kh. Qana mention this highway as well. 31. his road is visible on 1945 aerial photos obtained from the Survey of Israel. 32. Karen Covello-Paran and Yotam Tepper, “Zippori north: Final Report,” HA-ESI 123 (2011): A-5752; http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1674&mag_id=118. 33. For a discussion of Galilee’s rains, see Agnes Choi, “Never the Two Shall Meet? Urban–Rural Interaction in Lower Galilee,” in Galilee I: Life, Culture, and Society , 301. Relying on the work of Efraim Orni and Elisha Efrat, Choi reports that Galilee currently receives between 400 and 700 mm (16 and 28 in.) of rain annually. See also J. F. Strange et al., Excavations at Sepphoris, 12. In “Nazareth” article in this volume (pp. 167–80), J. F. Strange GalileeII_A.indd 96 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM Kefar Shikhin 97 tiied as sections of aqueduct.34 In several cases, villagers cut cisterns and underground caves into bedrock within a few meters of one another, probably because they were making full use of the exposed soft limestone. he caves may have served both as work and as storage spaces for some of Shikhin’s industries. Natural terraces formed by vertical and horizontal issures in the limestone bedrock step down the sides of Shikhin. At some point, people took advantage of the northern hill’s terraces by building walls along their edges to retain both soil and moisture. Many upper courses of these walls contain architectural fragments and even sarcophagi and so were probably built after the village was abandoned, but lower courses might have existed while it was populated. Shikhin’s hillsides, therefore, might have supported ields for cultivating grains, legumes, vegetables, grapes, and olives (olive trees are cultivated on the northern hill and part of Jebel Qat today), and other foods. Today, volunteer capers, za‘atar (hyssop), and wild asparagus sprout on the hill, so we can imagine that Shikhin’s residents had access to many naturally growing herbs, spices, and seeds. Activities and Industries 1. Olive and Grape Pressing he surveys of the northern hill located a fragment of the lower part of an olive crusher and remnants of a screw press for olives.35 Evidence of grape pressing can be found on all three of Shikhin’s hills and on Jebel Qat. Grain cracking also occurred on Jebel Qat, as indicated by the presence of an open cut into the bedrock there. 2. Grinding and Weaving Fragments of both mortars and querns (types of grain grinding stones) made of basalt found on the hill indicate that villagers produced lour in or near the village, which is evidence that they grew their own grain (evidence of plowing shows that grain was certainly cultivated on the hill after the village was abandoned). hese grinders, which are ubiquitous at Galilean sites of the period, also suggest that Shikhin traded with settlements near the Sea of Galilee, where basalt is the native stone. About ten loom weights and several spindle whorls recovered in the course of the excavations supply evidence of wool production and weaving. says that Nazareth, a little over ive miles distant from Shikhin, receives an annual rainfall of between 500 and 800 mm (20 to 32 in.). 34. Strange et al., “Excavations at Sepphoris (Part 2),” 173–77. he 2011 survey located thirty-two cisterns and possible cisterns. 35. Ibid. GalileeII_A.indd 97 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM 98 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages 3. Stone Quarrying As is typical in villages all over Israel, Shikhin and Jebel Qat contain many stone quarries. Because the stones were square-cut, they most likely were intended for the ongoing construction at Sepphoris. 4. Pottery Manufacture Currently, evidence of Shikhin’s famous pottery workshops comes from Field I, although wasters, burnt stones, and what are probably pieces of kilns have been found on the surface to the north of and downhill from Field I, where centuries of winter rains have washed them. Field I contains remnants of at least three buildings, all of which have been badly disturbed by robbing and plowing. Floors and founding courses of many surviving walls lie within centimeters of the surface, and the plowing of the top of the hill, which probably stopped in 1948, scarred the surviving upper courses of many walls and the surface of bedrock as well. Nearly all soil loci excavated so far result from human disturbance (plowing the ield and robbing stones) or human ill operations. At present, the excavators can date only the inal abandonment with conidence. All activities associated with the buildings ceased before the earthquake of 363. he pottery assemblage recovered in both surveys and all three excavation seasons allows the following preliminary conclusions about the settlement: (1) small amounts of pottery from the Iron II through Early Hellenistic periods indicate some human activity on the hill in that time, and (2) there was a signiicant population increase in the Late Hellenistic period, before pottery production began at the site, according to our current evidence. (3) he pottery counts surge in the Early Roman period and decline through the Late Roman period. Pottery manufacturing, rather than population growth alone, probably explains part of this increase. (4) he pottery counts decline following the Early Roman period, and very little dates later than the fourth century: we have found very few Byzantine and Islamic sherds, although we have lamps and lamp fragments from the Early Islamic period.36 he volume of pottery found at Shikhin suggests that its potters produced more vessels than its residents could use. he numismatic evidence supports this range of dates but shows a preponderance of coins (over 40 percent) from the second century bce (these are Tyrian, Seleucid, and Hasmonean), with the number of coins dropping of sharply in the Roman periods. he absence of thirdcentury ce coins among the coins found to date is arresting and requires further investigation. 36. hree factors pose a challenge as we attempt to link the numbers of sherds recovered to Shikhin’s population in the three Roman periods. First, we have concentrated our excavations on the crown of the northern hill of Shikhin. (Our pottery proile, however, does correlate well with pottery recovered in both surveys.) Second, pottery manufacture for export—rather than for use by the population alone—probably accounts for a signiicant part of the surge in Early Roman pottery found. Finally, there is some question about when to date the horizons between the Roman periods. For example, does the Early Roman period end in 70, as the USF Excavations at Sepphoris date it, or in 135, as the Joint Expedition to Sepphoris and Duke University Excavations do (Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers, eds., he Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris [Sepphoris Excavation Reports 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013], 4–5)? GalileeII_A.indd 98 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM Kefar Shikhin 99 he northernmost squares of Field I (ig. E) reveal walls of two or more structures, some of which are associated with pottery and lamp production, although the excavations have not yet uncovered kilns, which probably lie north and east of our area, making use of the prevailing westerly winds to carry smoke and ash away from the village. We will be able to date the construction of the buildings when we dig wall foundations. Everywhere in the northern buildings of Field I, the excavators ind the same basic sequence. (1) Villagers irst cut the soft bedrock, probably quarrying for building stones (providing stones for nearby Sepphoris?) but also creating vats or pools (A and E). At least that is the consequence of their operations. (2) he reuse of these voids in the bedrock marks the second phase in the sequence. In more than one place, people built walls (C) above and more or less lush with the vertical faces of cut bedrock (see I.5 and I.8 in ig. E). A stub of a wall (B) in I.5, made up to the cut face of bedrock, may be contemporary with this building phase or may predate it. Some circular and square holes that survive in bedrock (most notably in I.3 and I.5) apparently supported superstructures for industries associated with the buildings. (3) Probably after the house whose southwest corner survives in I.5 was abandoned, people built a wall for a building to the south (D) parallel to the house’s southern wall, extending some meters to the west. In I.3, people made up a low, plastered bench (F) to the northern face of the southern wall of this building. hey cut a threshold for a narrow door directly into the bedrock foundation of the southern wall. (4) hey illed the void in I.5 and I.8 with over 1.5 m of pottery manufacturing waste in order to support a plaster loor (E), which they laid level with the uppermost surviving courses of the house walls. Seasonal plowing badly damaged this and some other plaster loors near the modern surface. In I.6, people transformed a void cut into the bedrock into a pool (A) for holding water by plastering the sides, and they increased its volume by building a plastered wall (A) on top of the vertical face of the rock, thus raising the sides of the pool. Currently, the hypothesis is that the pool served the levigation of clay, but other uses are certainly plausible. People made the pool at around the same time that they made the loor in I.5, because they built the pool’s wall against a supporting ill of pottery waste similar to what lay under the loor. Also in the fourth century, someone illed in the pool (but without the same concentration of pottery waste) and laid a plaster loor over it. his loor extends into I.4 to the south. In both places that contain ill made from pottery waste, the vast majority of the pottery dates to the three Roman periods. Because most are near the surface and damaged, as of yet we have recovered very little occupational evidence from loors in Field I. According to preliminary readings of Shikhin’s material culture, the third and fourth centuries saw several diferent construction operations in the northern part of Field I, followed by their dismantling or destruction and abandonment before the end of the Late Roman period. he inal two construction phases made use of waste from pottery manufacturing. At this point, it is diicult to say what we may infer from so much activity and reuse of earlier structures in the Late Roman period. he waste is primarily in the form of thousands of pottery sherds, many of them “wasters” of various types: vessels that vitriied, turning green and in some cases slumping and GalileeII_A.indd 99 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM 100 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Figure E. Northern squares of Field I: Pottery and lamp manufacture. Plan by J. F. Strange. bubbling in overheated kilns; jug bases that cracked before iring; gas bubbles and blowouts in vessel walls; and malformed rims. hey also come from most of the common Galilean pottery forms: jars, jugs, bowls (including the “Sepphorean bowl” or “bell bowl”) kraters, and cooking pots. he waste also contains pieces of kiln walls and loors, as well as one fragment of the upper part of a potter’s wheel. Following the extensive work of Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, many publications of ceramics from Galilean sites have mentioned the so-called Shikhin storage jar.37 Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman discussed the manufacture of bell jars and serving bowls (also known as “kraters”), as well as storage jars, at Shikhin and their presence at nearby Sepphoris, but emphasized the distribution of storage jars, which are the most commonly found storage jar type in the Galilee. he idea that some villages were pottery-production centers for the Galilee, and that two of these specialized in particular kinds of pots, bears further testing, now that the excavators are gaining a picture of the variety of vessel types that Shikhin produced.38 37. Adan-Bayewitz describes it as “charaterised by an inset neck and everted rim” (“Evidence from Neutron Activation Analysis,” 182) and “the inset neck-everted rim storage jar” (“Local Trade of Sepphoris,” 168); this corresponds to Florentino Díez Fernández’s forms T 1.5 through T 1.10 (Cerámica común romana de la Galilea: Aproximaciones y diferencias con la cerámica del resto de Palestina y regiones circundantes (Madrid: Biblia y Fé, 1983), 137–43, 186–88. 38. See Mordechai Aviam, “Kefar Hananya Ware Made in Yodefat,” in Roman Pottery in the Levant: Local Production and Regional Trade (ed. B. Genz, Y. Gerber, H. Hamel; Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 2; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013), 139–46. GalileeII_A.indd 100 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM Kefar Shikhin 101 It is also worth noting that excavations at Shikhin are turning up an unusual number of uncommon pottery forms. Because some of these are wasters, we infer that Shikhin’s potters experimented with new forms.39 5. Lamp Production Evidence of ceramic oil lamp manufacturing at Shikhin has provided our most provocative discovery. We irst entertained the possibility that Shikhin’s kilns produced lamps when we began to recover a surprising number of lamp fragments, some of them from unused lamps, in our irst excavation season. For example, in 2012, out of eight archaeological squares and half-squares, most of which we did not complete, and most of which are relatively shallow, we registered 114 lamp fragments. We registered 406 lamp fragments after three seasons and twenty excavated squares. When we found our irst three fragments of lamp molds in 2012, we knew we had strong evidence of lamp manufacturing at the site. We are now sure of it, having registered twenty fragments of lamp molds. By the end of the 2014 season, square I.8 alone had yielded 156 lamp fragments and fragments of six lamp molds. As with pottery, the number of lamp fragments and mold fragments suggests to us that Shikhin produced a surplus of lamps for export. All molds found so far are fragmentary, which suggests that they were broken during use or afterward as farmers plowed the abandoned hill. he location of mold fragments over parts of the synagogue indicates that plowing scattered them. We have found molds for Varda Sussman’s type RH4, what she calls “the northern undecorated mould-made lamps, whose top is circular with a sharp edge, with arched nozzles and no handles,”40 and which she dates to the irst through second centuries ce (ig. F). hese are relatively plain lamps, decorated only with concentric rings at the outer edge of the shoulder, produced with a compass, and sometimes with parallel curved lines on the nozzle, just below the ill hole. Corresponding to the mold shown in ig. F., we have one lamp fragment that matches, and we have the cutout for a ill hole that was ired, and hence survived (ig. G). On one side of the cutout, a knob corresponds to the hole made by the compass, and the potter left a thumbprint on the other. Another mold fragment found in I.13 shows pomegranates with a meandering tendril inside a circle between the ill hole and the edge, similar to an example 39. Some apparently found a limited market in nearby Sepphoris, where the wide-mouthed jug JG3b was found: Marva Balouka, “Roman Pottery,” in he Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris (ed. Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers; Sepphoris Excavation Reports 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 44; pl. 21:10–13. Examples have also been found at Shikhin, and Bellarmino Bagatti turned up similar forms in Nazareth (Gli scavi di Nazaret, vol. 1, Dalle origini al secolo XII [Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1967], 270, ig. 220, 10). Adan-Bayewitz has already suggested that this form was made at Shikhin; see Balouka, “Roman Pottery,” 44. 40. Varda Sussman, Roman Period Oil Lamps in the Holy Land: Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority (BAR International Series 2447; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2012), 92. GalileeII_A.indd 101 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM 102 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Figure F Figur
e I Figure G











Figure
J Figure H


'JHVSF
, Figures F–K Mold and lamp fragments from Shikhin. Photos by Dror Maayan. from Mishmar ha-’Emeq at the southwestern edge of the Jezreel Plain (ig. H).41 In 2013, in I.8, we discovered a fragment of a mold for the bottom of a “Darom” (“southern”)-style lamp. his fragment includes the nozzle and the section joining with the body (ig I). A lamp nozzle found nearby in I.5 is a good match (ig. J). In 2014, we found very near the surface a fragment of a mold for the top of a lamp that is clearly of the Darom style (ig. K). One can see part of the nozzle and part of one “wing” or “volute” left of the nozzle, with curved luting on the nozzle neck, and with a radiating pattern inside a raised double circle on the shoulder. hese lamps are Sussman’s type RH6, the northern variety of the Darom lamp. Sussman discusses the production of the Darom lamp in “the Judean Shephelah and the western slopes of the Hebron Hills,”42 in the late irst century (after 70) and at least up to the Bar Kokhba revolt. She speculates that a northern workshop produced the wheel-made “tea-pot” lamp (RW2; manufactured from the middle or end of the irst century bce through the irst half of the irst century ce), the well-known wheel-made Herodian lamp with the knife-pared nozzle (RH3; from the end of the irst century bce through 135), the undecorated 41. Ibid., 313. 42. Ibid., 113. GalileeII_A.indd 102 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM Kefar Shikhin 103 mold-made lamp already mentioned (RH4; from the irst through second centuries ce), and two types of decorated mold-made lamps, one without volutes/wings (RH5; from the mid- or late irst century ce through the mid-second century ce) and one with (RH6; from the mid irst century bce through the mid second century ce).43 We can now make a persuasive argument that Shikhin produced Darom-style lamps, or the ‫“( צפוני דרום נר‬northern-southern lamp”: Sussman’s type RH6). Because its workshops produced Darom-style lamps, Shikhin may also be the site of the northern workshop near Nazareth that Sussman suspected of making other wheel-made and mold-made lamps, or one such workshop. Because all molds are fragments, making it diicult to identify clearly the types of lamps made in them, aside from some unused knife-pared nozzles, we do not yet have strong evidence at Shikhin for the manufacture of lamps other than Sussman’s forms RH4 and RH6. We have been speculating that manufacture of the Darom-style lamps began at Shikhin in 135 ce or later, when Judeans whom the Romans expelled migrated into Galilee. his hypothesis links production of these lamps with Shikhin’s appearance on lists of the priestly divisions (see above). Shikhin’s pottery kilns and clays could have attracted southern lamp makers. Excavations at Khirbet Wadi H|amam, however, have turned up both undecorated mold-made lamps (RH4) and Darom-style mold-made lamps (RH6) “that are accurately dated to the irst third of the 2nd c. ce and were found in a destruction layer rich with coins and pottery.”44 he secured dating of the loci suggests that the lamps arrived in H|amam before or around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, not after. If these lamps are from Shikhin—which we do not yet know—production of RH4 and RH6 began at Shikhin before 135. Synagogue Despite the fact that the excavators have not yet secured the date of the synagogue’s construction, the building is signiicant because it was unknown before our team found its remains in a terrace wall in 2011. Based on preliminary pottery readings, currently we infer that it was abandoned or destroyed before 363 ce along with the rest of the village. he founding course of a short stretch of what is probably an exterior wall of the synagogue reveals stones with bossing on their eastern faces. All have been cut from larger bossed stones, and all are clearly in secondary use and laid on bedrock, which in places has been cut and leveled to match the line and height of this founding course. hese stones probably come from a ine home or public building of the Early Roman period. 43. Ibid., 75, 84, 92–94, 96. Sussman mentions the area near Nazareth speciically for the workshop that produced RW2, RH3, and RH6. 44. E-mail exchange among the author, Uzi Leibner, and Mordechai Aviam, November 6, 2014. See the chapter by Uzi Leibner in this volume, pp. 343–61. GalileeII_A.indd 103 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM 104 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Figure L. Southern squares of Field I: Synagogue remains. Plan by J. F. Strange. Judging from architectural fragments found in 2011 in the terrace wall that currently marks the western limit of Field I (ig. L), as well as fragments turned up in the excavation, we can say that most of the synagogue was built from locally quarried nari, the upper layer of the local chalk limestone. We have found two badly battered and weathered fragments of Ionic capitals. One modiied Attic column base has a diameter of 1.03 m at the lowest torus. he lowest part of the column shaft (the section integrated into the base) measures .76 m in diameter. Such a massive column (estimated to reach around 7 m in height) does not appear to it the interior of the building and perhaps should be located in a porch. Alternatively, it may have originally supported another building. One of the two sections of heart-shaped columns we have found has lobes measuring around .60 m in diameter, similar to other battered and reused column drums found elsewhere in Field I. his might give us the dimensions of the synagogue’s interior columns: based on standard dimensions, a diameter of 60 cm allows us to project columns between 5.5 and 6 m in height, including all of their elements. Two pieces of threshold (ig. M) lying near each other were carved from hard limestone. Unequal in length (1.47 m and 1.28 m), they create a single threshold 2.75 m long (a little more than 9 Roman ft) and .91 m wide (a little more than 3 Roman ft), accommodating a double-leafed door 1.58 meters in width (a little over 5 Roman ft). he front edges and the door slots of the stones do not line up well. Accordingly, the halves may be spoils from two diferent thresholds. In the synagogue building, the entire threshold sat on a large foundation stone that, in combination with a parallel slot cut in bedrock, accommodated the width of the threshold. GalileeII_A.indd 104 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM Kefar Shikhin 105 Figure M. Two pieces of synagogue threshold combined to create a single entry. Drawing by J. F. Strange Remnants of plaster between 8 and 10 cm thick, some with two layers, found in a ield wall bordering Field I to the east, suggest that the building had a plaster loor. Part of the loor might have been made of white mosaic, but to date only four tesserae have been found in the area of the synagogue, and none has turned up elsewhere. Fragments of roof tile in the area suggest that the synagogue had a peaked roof. Some fragments of red and yellow painted plaster found in Field I probably came from the synagogue’s walls. Excavations have yielded relatively few glass shards at the site, and many of them come from glass oil lamps that hung from chains. (We have recovered one piece of such a chain.) People did not typically use this type of lamp in homes, so the lamps probably illuminated the synagogue’s interior. To date, we have found no inscriptions or artwork associated with the synagogue. Judging from architectural fragments, Shikhin’s residents built a synagogue largely of local, soft limestone, in basilical or broadhouse style, probably not earlier than the second century, reusing pieces of an earlier private villa or public building. Further work will date the building’s founding securely and determine its basic layout and orientation. Conclusion he picture emerging from texts, surveys, and the excavation of Shikhin is that soon after an inlux of Jewish settlers moved there near the transition from the Early to the Late Hellenistic periods, Shikhin became a village of some importance, perhaps in part because of its associations with its nearest neighbor, Sepphoris. It was feasible for someone to live in one and work in the other. Moreover, Sepphoris and Shikhin oversaw the same intersection of major high- GalileeII_A.indd 105 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM 106 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages ways, and Shikhin’s residents had access to these routes, as well as to the network of smaller roads and tracks that knit Galilee’s villages into cultural, trade, political, and kinship systems. Sages knew about is high-quality clays and pottery, its storage jars, and its lamps because people all over the Galilee, including its cities, owned these products of Shikhin’s industry. hroughout its relatively brief history, Shikhin maintained an observant Jewish population, although we cannot rule out the presence of non-Jews in the village. Its residents adopted features of Roman architecture for their synagogue (as was the Galilean custom), while keeping purity and otherwise maintaining a Jewish—that is, Judean—identity. hese ideas will take clearer shape in the coming seasons. Bibliography Adan-Bayewitz, David, F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, and I. Perlman. “he Evidence from Neutron Activation Analysis.” In James F. Strange, Dennis E. Groh, and homas R. W. Longstaf. “Excavations at Sepphoris: he Location and Identiication of Shikhin (Part 2).” IEJ 45 (1995): 180–87. Adan-Bayewitz, David, and I. Perlman. “he Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period.” IEJ 40 (1990): 153–72. Aviam, Mordechai. “Finds from a Burial Cave at Dabburiya.” In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, edited by Zvika Gal, 135–39 (Hebrew section). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002. ———. “Kefar Hananya Ware Made in Yodefat.” In Roman Pottery in the Levant: Local Production and Regional Trade, edited by B. Genz, Y. Gerber, and H. Hamel, 139–46. Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 2. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013. ———. “he Necropolis of Sepphoris: he Results of Field Survey.” In A City Set on A Hill: Essays in Honor of James F. Strange, edited by Daniel Warner and Donald Binder, 4–16. Mountain Home, Ariz.: Borderstone, 2014. Avi-Yonah, Michael. “A List of Priestly Courses from Nazareth.” IEJ 12 (1962): 137–39. ———. “he Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses.” In he Teacher’s Yoke: Essays in Memory of Henry Trantham, edited by E. Jerry Vardaman and James L. Garrett Jr., 46–57. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1964. Bagatti, Bellarmino. Gli scavi di Nazaret. Vol. 1, Dalle origini al secolo XII. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969. Balouka, Marva. “Roman Pottery.” In he Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris, edited by Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers, 13–129. Sepphoris Excavation Reports 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Broshi, Magen. “Methodology of Population Estimates: he Roman-Byzantine Period as a Case Study.” In Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls, 86–92. JSPSup 36. Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 2001. Reprinted from Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings GalileeII_A.indd 106 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM Kefar Shikhin 107 of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, edited by A. Biram and J. Aviram, 420–25. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. ———. “he Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period.” In Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls, 93–109. JSPSup 36. Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 2001. Reprinted from BASOR 236 (1979): 1–10. Covello-Paran, Karen, and Yotam Tepper. “Zippori North: Final Report.” HA-ESI 123 (2011): A-5752: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1674&mag_id=118. Fernández, Díez Florentino. Cerámica comun romana de la Galilea: Aproximaciones y diferencias con la cerámica del resto de Palestina y regiones circundantes. Madrid: Biblia y Fé, 1983. Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte der Juden vom Untergang des jüdischen Staates bis zum Abschluss des Talmuds. Vol. 3. Berlin: Oskar Leiner, 1853. Klein, Samuel. Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galiläas. Leipzig: R. Haupt, 1909. Leibner, Uzi. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. TSAJ 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Meyers, Eric M., and Carol L. Meyers, eds. he Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris. Sepphoris Excavation Reports 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Meyers, Eric M., A. homas Kraabel, and James F Strange. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema‘, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1970–1972. Meiron Excavation Project 1. AASOR 42. Durham, N.C.: Published for the American Schools of Oriental Research by Duke University Press, 1976. Meyers, Eric M., and Carol L Meyers. Excavations at Ancient Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs. Meiron Excavation Project 6. Winona Lake, Ind.: Published for the American Schools of Oriental Research by Eisenbrauns, 2009. Meyers, Eric M., Carol L. Meyers, and James F. Strange. Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush H|alav. Meiron Excavation Project 5. Winona Lake, Ind.: Published for the American Schools of Oriental Research by Eisenbrauns, 1990. Meyers, Eric M., James F. Strange, and Carol L. Meyers. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1971–72, 1974–75. Meiron Excavation Project 3. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1981. Oehler, W. “Die Ortschaften und Brenzen Galilaäs nach Joesphus.” ZDPV 27 (1905): 1–26, 49–74. Rabbinowitz, J. Midrash Rabbah. Vol. 7. London: Soncino, 1983. Shiloh, Yigal. “he Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas, and Population Density.” BASOR 239 (1980): 25–35. Strange, James F., Dennis E. Groh, and homas R. W. Longstaf. “Excavations at Sepphoris: he Location and Identiication of Shikhin (Part 1).” IEJ 44 (1994): 216–27. ———.“Excavations at Sepphoris: he Location and Identiication of Shikhin (Part 2).” IEJ 45 (1995): 171–87. GalileeII_A.indd 107 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM 108 The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages Strange, James F., homas R. W. Longstaf, and Dennis E. Groh. Excavations at Sepphoris. Vol. 1, University of South Florida Probes in the Citadel and Villa. Brill Reference Library of Judaism 22. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Strange, James Riley. “Preliminary Report of the Samford University Survey of Shikhin.” HA-ESI 124 (2012): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=2195&mag_id=119. Sussman, Varda. Ornamented Jewish Oil-Lamps from the Destruction of the Second Temple through the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Jerusalem: Aris & Phillips, Israel Exploration Society, 1982 (Hebrew edition, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and the Israel Exploration Society, 1972). ———. Roman Period Oil Lamps in the Holy Land: Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority. BAR International Series 2447. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2012. Tsafrir, Yoram, Leah Di Segni, and Judith Green, eds. Tabula Imperii Romani Judaea-Palaestina: Maps and Gazetteer. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. Vardaman, Jerry. “Introduction to the Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses.” In he Teacher’s Yoke: Essays in Memory of Henry Trantham, edited by E. Jerry Vardaman and James L. Garrett Jr., 42–44. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1964. GalileeII_A.indd 108 9/2/2015 6:56:09 PM