Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:39:44.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Objects, affordances, and material histories in Roman Palestine: a case study on Northern Collar-Neck Lamps and their uses in early Jewish Sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2024

Gregg E. Gardner*
Affiliation:
The University of British Columbia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to contribute to the growing scholarship on object-focused Roman histories by expanding the conversation to previously overlooked archaeological finds from Roman Palestine. This case study focuses on “Northern Collar-Neck Lamps,” which have been found throughout Roman Galilee and date to the first two centuries CE. I argue that their distinctive high collar, perhaps designed to reduce spillage, also served as an affordance that invited additional modes of interaction, namely placing a supplemental reservoir for oil – such as a pierced eggshell – over the filling hole. Once set up, this would allow for a slow drip of oil to prolong illumination time without human intervention. This usage is suggested from chronologically and geographically proximate sources, namely early rabbinic literature: Hebrew and Aramaic writings from the first centuries that reference physical details and uses of hundreds of objects and could prove helpful for future material histories of the Roman era.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

A line of scholarship within Roman archaeology has increasingly demonstrated how close attention to the details of small finds can expand our understanding of the ancient Mediterranean world and enrich how we write histories of this period.Footnote 1 Dubbed by one scholar as the “object turn,” this scholarship is one of the products of the wider “material turn.”Footnote 2 These studies show the value of developing histories that begin with and focus on small finds, their materiality, their design, how they were used, and how their practical features intersect with human actions and behaviors.Footnote 3 These theoretically informed object histories focus on and tease out the importance of what things do and are, not simply what they were supposed to represent.Footnote 4 Of particular interest for the present article is how scholars have demonstrated the usefulness of design theory, including the concept of “affordances,” the relationship between an object's properties and the capabilities of an individual that determine how the object could be used.Footnote 5 Examining an object's affordances, interpreted within their contexts, helps us see how design impacted usage by the ancients – including what might be called an object's primary or practical functions (e.g., lighting a lamp for illumination) and secondary uses that derive from those primary functions (lighting a lamp to mark a religious activity).Footnote 6 To illuminate the range of possible uses that are enabled and prompted by affordances, we require additional sources to reconstruct the contexts and particular forms of knowledge in which an object is embedded.Footnote 7 Especially helpful are sources that engage with small objects and are geographically and chronologically proximate to the archaeological finds in question. One such corpus of sources that has been overlooked in the recent wave of object-focused scholarship is rabbinic literature from the Roman era – legal, ethical, and exegetical writings in Hebrew and Aramaic from the first centuries CE.Footnote 8 Roman-era rabbinic literature includes seemingly countless discussions of objects, including their physical details, design, production, and uses.Footnote 9

This article seeks to contribute to object-centered scholarship in Roman archaeology by applying these approaches to finds from Roman Palestine. Most object-centered scholarship has focused on Europe, especially Roman Britain and Italy, with little if any application to archaeological finds from Roman Palestine. In choosing an object, ceramic oil lamps are particularly well suited for case studies for several reasons. They are often readily identifiable – even tiny fragments are frequently diagnostic and can be used to determine a lamp's type. We also have access to a sample of lamps that, in its representativeness, rivals that of any household wares, since a high proportion of lamp finds are published compared to other ceramic vessels. Moreover, with regard to the potential for understanding usage and context, lamps are mentioned frequently in written sources from the era. In addition to metaphorical discussions of light and lamps, there are also many references to usage, often in nitty-gritty detail, especially in early rabbinic texts. This massive corpus of writings, which includes discussions of hundreds of what we may call small finds or artifacts, has been under-utilized by Roman archaeologists in general. Likewise, few specialists in rabbinics engage with archaeology in a significant way, and even fewer move beyond art historical approaches.Footnote 10

This article focuses on the Northern Collar-Neck Lamp from Roman Palestine, bringing in rabbinic sources from the same time and place. It is argued that its design enabled and invited the placement of an additional object on top of its filling hole, as its high collar served as an affordance that invited or inclined one to add a supplemental reservoir, such as a pierced eggshell. This not only created a place for more oil, but also regulated the flow – allowing for only a slow drip so that the fuel would be replenished gradually, extending illumination time. We know of such practices from references in early rabbinic texts, which I argue reflect and engage with material practices that were more widely current in Roman Galilee during the first centuries CE. In making this argument, this article seeks to contribute to scholarship on object-focused histories in Roman archaeology by bringing these approaches to finds and other sources from Roman Palestine and demonstrating the usefulness of early rabbinic sources for understanding materiality, objects, and how objects were used.

Northern Collar-Neck Lamp: physical features

The Northern Collar-Neck Lamp (hereafter, “NCN”; also known as the Ginosar Lamp, Kinneret Type, Lamp with a Collar, Teapot Lamp, and Boot [magaf] Lamp), is shaped like a boot (“biconical” in cross section), with a loop strap handle and a rounded nozzle (Figs. 1–3). It was manufactured on a pottery wheel, usually from clay that is orange-brown in color, and typically measures about 9.1 cm long, 6.6 cm wide, and 4.4 cm high.Footnote 11 Its high collar, which encircles the filling hole and tapers inwards, accounts for about a third of the lamp's overall height.Footnote 12 The collar forms a hemispheric bowl with a large hole in its bottom that opens directly into the lamp's body, which serves as its main reservoir for oil.Footnote 13 The collar was not a later add-on to the lamp or a makeshift appendage, but was rather made on a wheel together with the rest of the lamp and was an integral part of the object's overall design.Footnote 14 The collar itself is similar to those of lamps made in Ephesus that circulated throughout the Mediterranean, including ancient Palestine.Footnote 15 The NCN's body most closely resembles that of the well-known local “Herodian Lamp” type (Fig. 4), which was also wheel-made, with the nozzle fashioned separately.Footnote 16 Notably, Herodian Lamps are frequently found in the same assemblages as NCNs (see below). While the Herodian Lamp has been studied extensively as a source of the material culture of Jewish populations in Roman Palestine, the NCN has received relatively little attention.Footnote 17

Fig. 1. Northern Collar-Neck Lamp from the Sea of Galilee boat, Ginosar. (Sussman Reference Sussman and Wachsmann1990, 98; photo courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Fig. 2. Northern Collar-Neck Lamp from Kfar Kanna. (Abu-Uqsa Reference Abu-Uqsa and Gal2002, 159.)

Fig. 3. Northern Collar-Neck Lamp from Caesarea Maritima. (Sussman Reference Sussman and Patrich2008, 264; with permission by the author.)

Fig. 4. Herodian Lamp from Sepphoris. (Lapp Reference Lapp2016, 247 no. 19; photo: Mariana Saltzberger; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Distribution and dating

The table below lists all known finds of NCNs, providing the most exhaustive documentation of the lamp to date. It includes the quantities found and contexts when these are known. The find spots have been plotted on the distribution map in Figure 5.

Fig. 5. Distribution of Northern Collar-Neck Lamps. (Map by Roi Sabar.)

While the precise quantities are unclear, it is notable that NCNs were found at some 22 different sites, significantly more than indicated by previous scholarship.Footnote 19 The find spots are overwhelmingly located in the Galilee, an area that was predominantly Jewish and where the Mishnah was edited.Footnote 20 Even if the NCNs were not the most common lamps of their era, their concentrated distribution makes their visibility and familiarity to people who lived in the area more likely, especially compared to the so-called Sabbath Lamp, a wholly unique (and unprovenanced) object that to date has been the artifact most frequently associated with Mishnah Shabbat 2:4 (see below).Footnote 21

With regard to production, Gärtner's suggestion that the NCNs were likely produced in the area of Sepphoris, Nazareth, and Karm er-Ras seems reasonable due to the large concentration of them in this area. This coheres with Aviam's suggestion that NCNs were likely produced in the Galilee and is supported by the petrographic analysis of an NCN from Magdala that indicates that it was manufactured at Shikhin, the site of a lamp workshop, and petrographic analysis of an NCN from Yodefat that suggests that it was produced on site.Footnote 22

My study of the known NCNs also sheds new light on their dating. Sussman's Reference Sussman and Wachsmann1990 publication of the NCN from the Sea of Galilee boat, which dates the lamp to ca. 50 BCE to 50 CE based on its stylistic similarities to the Ephesus lamp, is a touchstone treatment that is frequently cited and followed in lamp studies.Footnote 23 In 2012, Sussman slightly revised the dating, from the end of the 1st c. BCE to 70 CE.Footnote 24 Based on finds at Nazareth, Feig suggested a later date range, from the 1st c. CE to the mid-2nd c. CE, though her dating has been largely overlooked.Footnote 25

My analysis of the known NCNs and their excavated contexts lends support to Sussman's original start date of the mid-1st c. BCE.Footnote 26 That said, based on excavated finds, NCNs continued well beyond Sussman's proposed end dates of ca. 50/70 CE, and align better with Feig's suggestion, as NCNs were found with assemblages and in contexts that extend into the mid-2nd c. CE, or in some cases even later (e.g., Abila, ‘Araba, Caesarea Maritima, Kfar Kana, Magdala, Nazareth, Sea of Galilee, Sepphoris). Sussman herself was aware of the presence of NCNs in 2nd-c. CE contexts, but dismissed this without explanation.Footnote 27 In short, based on excavated finds, I suggest that the NCN dates from the mid-1st c. BCE and remained in use into the mid-2nd c. CE, if not later. As such, these lamps would have been around in the time and place in which the early rabbis, whose traditions are collected in the Mishnah, lived.Footnote 28

Usage and contexts

People frequently find new ways to use objects or modify how they work, often conditioned or prompted by cultural or other considerations that are specific to each user's contexts.Footnote 29 Because the Hebrew Bible prohibits creating a new flame during the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3), a custom developed among some Jews by the 1st c. CE to light lamps on Friday at sunset – just before the start of the Sabbath. This would provide light for the customary Sabbath dinner after dark as well as normal movement and activity around a house on Friday night.Footnote 30 No pre-rabbinic sources provide much detail about how the lighting was performed – how many lamps, which kinds of lamps, the types of oils and wicks used, and so on. Perhaps as early as the 1st c. CE, rabbis – literally “masters” or “teachers” of the laws in the Hebrew Bible and their interpretation – examined this and other customs circulating in Jewish society, elevated them to legal categories, and went about defining and prescribing their fulfilment in great detail.Footnote 31 As they did with many topics, the early rabbis (i.e., “Tannaim”; ca. 1–220 CE) took brief biblical laws and fleshed them out by relating them to objects and their uses – showing their intended audience how these laws ought to be understood and fulfilled in concrete, tangible ways. In doing so, the rabbis projected their expertise and have left us with numerous detailed discussions of objects and materials that circulated in their day and age. The rabbis’ preferences, moreover, often reflect the material contexts of northern Palestine; for example, they prescribed the use of olive oil for fuel and flax for wicks, reflecting the materials that were cultivated, produced, and used locally in Roman Galilee, even if these were less accessible to Jews living elsewhere.Footnote 32

Thus, early rabbinic texts include discussions not only of local objects of the Roman era, but also of how they were used; for example, how people sought to extend the illumination time of lamps. The question of how to extend illumination time automatically, without the need for human intervention, was a curiosity reflected in several ancient sources and aligns with legends of ever-burning lamps.Footnote 33 In any case, extending burn time would be a matter of convenience for many people, regardless of religious observance. It would also be of interest to those who sought to refrain from kindling a new flame during the Sabbath.Footnote 34 Because the most common materials (olive oil and flax wicks) tended to burn for an hour or so, it would be advantageous to find ways to extend burn time, especially to illuminate the customary meal held after dark on Friday night.

What kind of contraptions, devices, setups, and other material practices did people employ to extend illumination time? And which options were too likely to have invited or necessitated human intervention during the Sabbath, which would have been prohibited? The rabbis take up these issues in Mishnah Shabbat 2:4:

לא יקוב אדם שפופרת שלביצה וימלאנה שמן ויתנינה ()[על פי] הנר בשביל שתהא מנטפת [ו]אפילו היא שלחרס. ור' יהודה מתיר. אם חיברה היוצר מתחילה מותר מפני שהוא כלי אחד. לא ימלא אדם [את] הקערה שמן ויתננה בצד הנר ויתן ראש הפתילה בתוכה בשביל שתהא שואבת. ר' יהודה מתיר.Footnote 35

  1. A. One may not pierce the shell of an egg and fill it with oil and place it on the opening (lit. “mouth”) of a lamp so that it may drip, even if [the additional reservoir] is made of clay. But Rabbi Judah permits it.

  2. B. If the potter had connected [an additional clay reservoir] from the outset, it is permitted, because it is [considered] a single vessel.

  3. C. One may not fill a bowl with oil and place it next to the lamp and place the head of the wick into it [i.e., into the bowl], so that it will draw oil. But Rabbi Judah permits.Footnote 36

The passage lays out three material, physical ways in which people endeavored to extend burn time without human intervention during the Sabbath (i.e., after initial set up before the Sabbath). In Lemma A, the end user adds a makeshift, additional reservoir for extra oil, made of an eggshell (prohibited by most rabbis, though Rabbi Judah permits). Lemma B discusses a supplementary reservoir crafted during the original manufacture of the lamp by the professional potter who created the entire object (permitted by all). Lemma C discusses a dish with additional oil, placed next to the lamp, from which the wick draws (prohibited by most rabbis, though Rabbi Judah permits).

It seems that the central issue here is whether the object was created with an additional reservoir at the outset by the manufacturer, or if the additional reservoir was a later add-on or ad-hoc appendage set up by the end user. If the work was done professionally, it probably enhanced the physical integrity and stability of the arrangement, which in turn lowered the likelihood that one would need to adjust the additional reservoir during the Sabbath (which was prohibited) to ensure its continued proper function.Footnote 37 Also relevant for the rabbis would be the original purpose or intent for which the vessel was created, which often provided a template in rabbinic thought for how objects could be used.Footnote 38 The consensus, represented by the anonymous sages, is that one may use the professionally made setup, but not an arrangement constructed by the end user with an eggshell. The text preserves Rabbi Judah's lone dissenting opinion without rationale or explanation, which is common in the Mishnah.

All three setups – the eggshell placed on top, the supplemental reservoir present from the outset, and the dish placed alongside the lamp – are highly material and object-oriented, and deserve attention. Notably, archaeological artifacts have been associated with objects described in (B) and (C), though these identifications are somewhat problematic.Footnote 39 For the present article, I will focus only on the first, (A) – the use of a pierced eggshell. I argue that one could place an eggshell over the filling hole of several different kinds of lamps that circulated during the era, and that this could work well, though the practice was particularly inclined or invited by the affordances of the NCN.Footnote 40

Affordances of collar lamps

“Affordance,” refers to a relationship between a physical object and a person (or other interacting agent).Footnote 41 The concept helps us focus not only on an object's physical properties, but also on the behaviors that those properties enable.Footnote 42 Design theory uses “affordance” to describe perceived functional properties that are made possible and incline people towards specific uses.Footnote 43 Affordances tell us whether a particular action can be undertaken, as well as how efficiently and accurately.Footnote 44 A particular design can afford actions and uses that were unintended by the manufacturer, as humans find ways to give objects new functions.Footnote 45 Indeed, Gärtner and Lapp make the point that the high collar would prevent some spillage of oil from the reservoir – a helpful feature that complements the lamp's portability.Footnote 46

Instructive in this regard is to compare the NCN with other lamps from Roman Galilee. The Palestinian Discus Lamp (“PDL”) was the most widely used lamp in Roman Galilee.Footnote 47 While this lamp exhibited other advantages (e.g., a small filling hole allowed one to fill the lamp to the top and minimize spillage), its wide and shallow discus and small filling hole do not seem to prompt, or even allow for, an eggshell to be balanced on top (Fig. 6). Moreover, that the discus was often decorated may have served as a deterrent against covering it with an egg or other object (Fig. 7). Notably, many of the PDLs had their discus punched out, creating a larger, albeit jagged, filling hole. An eggshell could have been placed over a new, larger filling hole – if one could remove the discus without ruining the lamp, which was difficult to do (Fig. 8).Footnote 48 Other prominent types in the region include the Herodian Lamp (Fig. 4) and Darom Lamp (Fig. 9), whose large filling holes would have supported the circumference of an eggshell. The eggshell, however, would be much more stable if it was supported by a collar surrounding the filling hole; that is, other lamps allowed for placing and stabilizing an eggshell on top, but not nearly as effectively or efficiently as the NCN.Footnote 49 With their high collars, NCNs not only accommodate an eggshell, but also suggest efficiency and even invite one to place an eggshell or something similar in size and shape on top.

Fig. 6. Palestinian Discus Lamp with discus intact, from Sepphoris. (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology; object identifier: 0000.08.9811; see Gazda and Friedland Reference Gazda and Friedland1997, 16 fig. 13, upper left corner.)

Fig. 7. Palestinian Discus Lamp with decorated discus, from Nahal Aviv, Galilee. (Photo: Tal Rogovski, used with permission by Roi Sabar [Reference Sabar2019, 82. Fig. 7:9].)

Fig. 8. Palestinian Discus Lamp with discus removed, from Tiv'on, Galilee. Length: 8.8 cm; width 7.4 cm; height 2.2 cm. (Vitto Reference Vitto2011, 47, fig. 24: 2. Photo: Yael Yolovitch, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Fig. 9. Darom Lamp from Ma'yan Barukh, Galilee. (Photo: Yael Yolovitch, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Given that NCNs were predominantly found in the time and place in which the early rabbis lived, it seems likely that those rabbis would have been familiar with the NCNs and the various ways that people used them. In this way, we show how NCNs are not just things that tell us about the past; they can also help us to see how things actively shaped the past.Footnote 50 It can be said that the material culture of Roman Palestine shaped and influenced rabbinic traditions and played an often overlooked and undervalued role in the history of Judaism during the Roman era. For Roman archaeologists, these rabbinic sources alert us to usages and material practices that might have otherwise been unknown.

Eggshells

In addition to the lamp, the second object of interest in these material practices is an eggshell. Due to their fragility, however, only a handful of eggshells have survived and been recovered from excavations in the Levant, including very few from Roman Palestine specifically.Footnote 51 They are mentioned with some frequency in early rabbinic texts, and scholars have found that these references are likely to chicken eggs, unless otherwise qualified as eggs of other animals.Footnote 52 In a recent study, Zohar Amar collects and surveys all of the archaeological finds of chicken eggshells from the region. Some 19 different eggshells (whole or fragments) have been found in excavations with dates spanning from the 6th c. BCE (Jerusalem) to the 10th–11th c. CE (Yavneh).Footnote 53 As such, the following should be viewed with the significant caveat that we do not have for eggshells what we have for lamps – namely, we lack a significant number of examples from a particular time and place (e.g., Roman-era Palestine).

Based on the available sources, Amar reasonably concludes that chicken eggs in pre-modern Palestine measured approximately 40–44 cubic centimeters in volume. Thus they were smaller than the eggs that have been produced since the mid-20th c. (46–65 cc, from “small” to “extra-large” eggs), and also smaller than the estimates proposed by traditional rabbinic commentators (50–100 cc; 57 cc is the prevailing opinion), who discussed egg size because of its implications for rabbinic law.Footnote 54 How much additional oil or illumination time would the eggshell provide? The capacity for oil would depend, in part, on how much of the eggshell remained intact after its top was punctured to allow oil to be poured in. Our information on how eggshells were punctured, and/or pierced for that matter, is very sparse. At Sardis (Turkey), broken or pierced eggshells have been found and dated by the excavators to the 1st c. CE. Some have been discovered together with tools that could have been used for creating holes in eggshells: a bronze needle, a bronze pin, and an iron stylus point or pin.Footnote 55 Pliny the Elder mentions using the pointed end of a spoon for puncturing eggshells (HN 28.19).Footnote 56 In Jerusalem, though post-dating both m. Shabbat 2:4 and the NCN lamp, a whole egg was found with a small puncture in its side used to drain its inner liquids and preserve the shell.Footnote 57 In short, we can say that the know-how likely existed to puncture and pierce eggshells – either for pouring oil in or allowing it to drip out – though due to the low survival rates of eggshells in the archaeological record, there is not enough data to know how common these practices were, precisely how they were performed, or how much of the eggshell remained for holding oil.

All that said, even if only half of the eggshell remained intact, it likely would have provided enough extra oil to extend illumination for a meaningful amount of time. Half an eggshell would hold roughly 20–22 cc of oil. For an approximation, we can draw on Dorina Moullou's experimentation with Greek lamps. She writes that flax wicks measuring roughly 5 mm in width – which aligns with the little we know of wicks from Roman Palestine – consume 5–6 ml of oil per hour.Footnote 58 Based on these estimates, it is reasonable to surmise that an eggshell, even if only half full, could potentially provide a useful amount of extra illumination time. For the scenario that the rabbis are addressing, if a lamp was lit at sunset, an extra hour or two would have sufficed to facilitate conducting a meal after dark on Friday night, which had become an aspect of Sabbath observance.Footnote 59 To be sure, further sources on where and how the eggshell was punctured would be needed to provide more specific estimates of the extended illumination time.Footnote 60

Discussion

The rabbis worked out their ideas by relating them to things that they were familiar with, objects and material practices that were part of their immediate surroundings. They seem to presume a shared visual and material culture with their intended audience: they do not introduce objects in detail for readers who may not be familiar with them, but rather presume that their audience already has some knowledge of the items to which they refer. Objects structure human life, as the physical and stylistic characteristics of the material culture within which one is embedded can influence one's thinking in both conscious and subconscious ways.Footnote 61 Here, we may think of Gosden's sensorium or of objectscapes – repertoires of material culture available at a certain site in a certain period.Footnote 62 Mishnah Shabbat 2:4 is one of hundreds (if not thousands) of rabbinic discussions of objects and how they were used (and there are some 80 other discussions of lamps in the Mishnah alone that do not incorporate using an eggshell).Footnote 63 Perhaps the rabbis’ expansive engagement with material culture was prompted or at least enabled by Mediterranean-wide increases in production of goods during the Roman age.Footnote 64 The abundance of objects gave the rabbis physical and mental fodder for interpreting and fleshing out pre-existing Jewish customs and biblical laws that in practice were otherwise vague. In short, we have textual sources on the ideas of individuals (rabbis) who were interested in the details of daily life, as well as archaeological sources on their material milieu – a fortunate pairing that could be useful for Roman archaeologists in writing material histories.Footnote 65

Conclusion

This article has sought to contribute to the growing conversations on object-focused histories among Roman archaeologists by applying these approaches to sources from Roman Palestine. I have argued that the Northern Collar-Neck Lamp's high collar, perhaps designed to reduce spillage, also served as an affordance that enabled and invited an efficient material practice by the user; that is, placing an additional oil reservoir on top, such as a pierced eggshell. Filling an eggshell with oil and letting it drip through the piercing would have prolonged burn time without human intervention. This usage of the lamp, likely not self-evident from examining the finds alone, is brought to light through critical engagement with early rabbinic sources, which have been heretofore under-utilized in recent scholarship on objects in Roman archaeology.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the helpful feedback from the anonymous reviewers and Greg Woolf of this journal. This article also benefitted from input and communications from Mordechai Aviam, Carey A. Brown, Adi Erlich, Toby Klein, James R. Strange, and Shulamit Terem. I also benefitted from the Lydie T. Shufro Summer Research Fellowship at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem in 2023 and from feedback following presentations of earlier versions of this paper at the Albright Institute (2023), the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (2023), and the Talmudic Literature Conference at Yale University (2023). I thank Tal Rogovski for preparing Figs. 2 and 3, and Roi Sabar for Fig. 7 and for creating the map (Fig. 5). I alone am responsible for all remaining errors.

Competing interests

The author declares none.

Footnotes

1 Fernández-Götz et. al. Reference Fernández-Götz, Maschek and Roymans2020; Jiménez Reference Jiménez2020, 1644; Pitts and Versluys Reference Pitts and Versluys2021, 368; Van Eck Reference Van Eck2018, 1115; Van Oyen Reference Van Oyen2016; Versluys Reference Versluys, Van Oyen and Pitts2017; Woolf Reference Woolf2014, 48–49. For object-centered histories of later periods, see, e.g., Findlen Reference Findlen2021a.

2 Jiménez Reference Jiménez2020, 1644; Woolf Reference Woolf, Van Oyen and Pitts2017, 211–12; Van Eck Reference Van Eck2018, 1115; Van Oyen Reference Van Oyen2016, 7–10; Van Oyen Reference Van Oyen2020; Versluys Reference Versluys2014, 18–19. On the material turn, see Hicks Reference Hicks, Hicks and Beaudry2010.

7 Findlen Reference Findlen and Findlen2021b, 4; Hodder Reference Hodder2012, 50; Swift Reference Swift2017b, 8–9; Jiménez Reference Jiménez2020, 1644; Hielscher Reference Hielscher, Haug, Hielscher and Taylor Lauritsen2021, 183–84; Knappett Reference Knappett, DeMarrais, Gosden and Renfrew2004, 46; Miller Reference Miller and Ingold1994; Mol Reference Mol, Van Oyen and Pitts2017. As Millett (Reference Millett, Van Oyen and Pitts2017, 70–71) and Swift (Reference Swift2017b) write, we also ought to be mindful of mistakenly viewing objects in terms of their modern analogues. Moreover, the meanings and uses of an object can change over time, see, e.g., Lapp Reference Lapp2022; Miller Reference Miller and Ingold1994, 396–98, 406.

8 Scholars debate whether rabbinic texts can be used for social history. Particularly problematic are passages and details that serve broader programmatic or political purposes, such as promoting rabbinic authority; see Hezser Reference Hezser and Hezser2010a. There is less skepticism about details that serve little, if any, programmatic purpose; see Goodman Reference Goodman2000. References to common household objects are likely more reliable and, therefore, potentially valuable for Roman archaeologists. The foregoing applies to the early rabbinic or Tannaitic corpus (Mishnah, Tosefta, Tannaitic Midrashim), which consists of teaching from the first centuries CE and was compiled into its final form in the early 3rd c. CE. Details that are purportedly from the Early Roman era, but only found in later compilations (such as the Talmuds, 4th–7th c. CE), should be viewed with significantly more skepticism. See among others Goodman and Alexander Reference Goodman and Alexander2010; Hezser Reference Hezser2010b; Lapin Reference Lapin2012, 43–45; Strack and Stemberger Reference Strack and Stemberger1996. I would add that my pursuit of a material history in this article presents an alternative to the person- and event-based narratives that have been the central pursuits of historians who engage with rabbinics; cf. Lapin Reference Lapin and Hayes2022, 34–35.

9 See, for example, the massive collection of rabbinic sources on 126 different ceramic vessels in Brand Reference Brand1953.

10 A touchstone is Goodenough Reference Goodenough1953–1968. For recent, more critical scholarship in ancient Jewish art, see Fine Reference Fine2010; Fine Reference Fine2014; Hezser and Leibner Reference Hezser, Leibner, Leibner and Hezser2016; Levine and Weiss Reference Levine and Weiss2000; Levine Reference Levine2012; Peleg-Barkat Reference Peleg-Barkat, Gafni, Reich and Schwartz2020; Weiss Reference Weiss, Bonnie, Hakola and Tervahauta2020. On visual culture, see Neis Reference Neis2013. On how object-focused histories differ from art history, see Findlen Reference Findlen and Findlen2021b, 11. Another line of scholarship that has sought to read rabbinic texts together with archaeological finds is often referred to as the “Talmudic archaeology” approach, following the titles of the prominent works by Krauss Reference Krauss1910–1912; Krauss Reference Krauss1914–1929. This approach prioritizes textual sources and zeros in on objects that seem to illuminate rabbinic texts. Notably, the corpus of archaeological sources that have been used is relatively limited, with special emphasis on exceptional finds that probably tell us little about widespread usage. Although not discussed in Trigger Reference Trigger2006, Talmudic archaeology should be considered a text-based archaeology.

11 Gärtner Reference Gärtner1999, 27–28, plate 3; Gärtner and Leibner Reference Gärtner, Leibner and Leibner2018, 417–18; Lapp Reference Lapp2016, 24–26; Lapp Reference Lapp1997, 23–25; Sussman Reference Sussman and Wachsmann1990; Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 75–77, Type X.2, RW.2; 286 no. 697.87–458; 399 no. 697.

12 Gärtner and Leibner Reference Gärtner, Leibner and Leibner2018, 417.

13 Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 75.

14 Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 75–76.

15 Howland Reference Howland1958; Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 75–76. Notably, the Ephesus lamp reached as far inland as Jerusalem and Masada. Rosenthal-Heginbottom Reference Rosenthal-Heginbottom and Geva2014, 380.

16 Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 77. Adan-Bayewitz et al. (Reference Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, Wieder and Giauque2008, 74–75) suggest that NCNs were intentionally designed to be similar yet different from the Herodian Lamp.

17 See, e.g., studies by Adan-Bayewitz et al. Reference Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, Wieder and Giauque2008; Barag and Hershkovitz Reference Barag, Hershkovitz and Yadin1994.

18 See also Sussman Reference Sussman and Patrich2008, 219, who references an NCN at Nebo, Jordan, though the object in question is rightly identified by Saller as a juglet; see Saller Reference Saller1967, 9, 18, fig. 1:7.

19 Cf. Díez Fernández Reference Díez Fernández1983, 63; Adan-Bayewitz et al. (Reference Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, Wieder and Giauque2008, 74) refer to finds from only one site, Sepphoris. As indicated by the site-by-site summary in the table, the lack of data about precise quantities of NCNs is due to lack of scientific publication of the finds (e.g., Afula); a penchant to publish only representative samples without indicating the total quantity of each type found (e.g., Caesarea Maritima); incomplete or non-existent excavation, collection, and recording methods (e.g., Karm er-Ras); lost records from excavations conducted decades before publication (e.g., Gamla); and several other reasons, none of which are uncommon in the field. With regard to context, as detailed in the table above, few NCN lamps have been found in situ, as most were from secondary deposits (e.g., fill), at sites that were looted or disturbed prior to excavation, or both, thereby providing few further clues about usage.

20 On the Galilee as predominantly Jewish in the Early Roman era, see Chancey Reference Chancey, Fiensy and Strange2014; Leibner Reference Leibner2009; Reed Reference Reed2000, 23–61.

21 See Sussman Reference Sussman1970, and its usage in scholarship by, amongst others, Amar and Shwiky Reference Amar and Shwiky2003, 23–24; Doering Reference Doering and Hezser2010, 571–72; Doering Reference Doering2019, 31 n. 90; Safrai and Safrai Reference Safrai and Safrai2020, 137–39. See also Rosenthal and Sivan Reference Rosenthal and Sivan1978, 142–43, 264–65. Sussman (Reference Sussman2017, 48–50) now dates the Sabbath lamp to the late 3rd–5th c. CE, which significantly post-dates the Mishnah (ca. 220 CE). It should be noted that there are over 230 references to lamps in early rabbinic literature (Responsa Project 1972–2016) that do not mention eggshells. That is, I am not suggesting that this was the most common lamp type known to the rabbis, but rather one of many that were circulating in the Galilee at the time.

22 Sussman Reference Sussman and Wachsmann1990, 98; Aviam Reference Aviam2005, 237; Aviam Reference Aviam, Fiensy and Strange2015, 123; and Aviam pers. comm; Gärtner Reference Gärtner1999, 29; Zapata-Meza et al. Reference Zapata-Meza, Diaz Barriga, Sanz-Rincón, Avshalom-Gorni, Jackson-Tal, Gorin-Rosen and Syon2018, 107. The lamp workshop at Shikhin is attested in literary sources from the era and also by the ongoing excavations at the site (Strange and Aviam Reference Strange and Aviam2017), though as noted in the table above, significant quantities of NCNs have yet to be uncovered there.

24 Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 77.

25 Feig Reference Feig1990b, 73–74.

26 See especially Wadi Hamam, Gärtner and Leibner Reference Gärtner, Leibner and Leibner2018, 418.

28 While rabbinic compilations certainly include some traditions from the south (i.e., Judea), they predominantly reflect rabbis who lived in the Galilee and other areas of northern Palestine during the Roman era. On the early rabbis, see Goodman Reference Goodman2000; Goodman and Alexander Reference Goodman and Alexander2010; Hezser Reference Hezser1997; Lapin Reference Lapin and Katz2006; Lapin Reference Lapin2012.

30 Persius, Saturae 5.179–184; Sen. Ep. 95.47; Joseph. Ap. 2.282. On these texts, see Stern Reference Stern1974–1984. On the complex issue of Jewish adherence to biblical laws during the Early Roman era, see, generally, Miller Reference Miller2010; Satlow Reference Satlow2014; Schwartz Reference Schwartz2001.

31 Cohen Reference Cohen, Fonrobert and Jaffee2007. Notably, these early rabbinic texts would eventually form the core of the Babylonian Talmud (6th–7th c. CE) and in turn, normative Jewish law to this day.

32 Mishnah Shabbat 2:1–3. For the Hebrew text, see Mishnah 2017, 108–9; for an English translation, see Cohen et al. Reference Cohen, Goldenberg and Lapin2022, 375–76. That these materials may not have been as readily available to Jews living outside of Palestine is reflected in Tosefta Shabbat 2:3; see Lieberman Reference Lieberman1955–1988, 2:6 and Neusner Reference Neusner2002, 1:362 for an English translation. Notably, the materials themselves have not been sacralized, but rather remain mundane commodities; see Kopytoff Reference Kopytoff and Appadurai1986, 74.

33 Lamps that burn longer than anticipated are often associated with divine intervention; see, e.g., Plut. Mor. The Obsolescence of Oracles, 410B; Paus. 1.26.6–7; Palagia Reference Palagia1984. See also the later legend connected to the Maccabees’ re-dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, where a small amount of oil lasts for eight days – a legend mentioned only in the much later Babylonian Talmud (tractate Shabbat 21b; 6th–7th c. CE), but conspicuously absent from contemporaneous sources, such as 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees from the 2nd c. BCE. See also the sources and discussion in Ambar-Armon Reference Ambar-Armon2007, 263–66.

34 Elsewhere too, the rabbis address other kinds of hacks that people seem to be using to extend burn time, such as using mud and wood chips to keep the flame cool and slow down the burn, or adding salt and beans to increase the flame's brightness (Tosefta Shabbat 2:7).

35 Hebrew text is according to MS Kaufmann, Dévényi and Sajó Reference Dévényi and Sajó2008, as transcribed in Ma'agarim 1998– and Mishnah 2017, 109.

36 Translation is my own and based on the Hebrew of M. S. Kaufman in Mishnah 2017, 109. I have consulted the annotations and commentaries in Albeck Reference Albeck1952–1958, 2:22–23; Danby Reference Danby1933, 102; Cohen et al. Reference Cohen, Goldenberg and Lapin2022, 1:377; Safrai and Safrai Reference Safrai and Safrai2020, 137–39, and manuscript variants in Krupp Reference Krupp2008, 11.

37 Following Safrai and Safrai Reference Safrai and Safrai2020, 138.

38 It may be fruitful to bring rabbinic sources on a manufacturer's intent into conversation with scholarship on Roman archaeology that critically assesses what we can know about a producer's intent; e.g., Hochscheid and Russell Reference Hochscheid, Russell, Hochscheid and Russell2021b; Russell Reference Russell, Hochscheid and Russell2021.

39 For B, the so-called “Sabbath lamp,” published by Sussman Reference Sussman1970, is a unique object without provenance and requires a new, critical study (as noted above). For C, aside from regular dishes, see also the handful of lampstands uncovered at the Horvat ‘Uza workshop (Getzov et al. Reference Getzov, Avshalom-Gorni, Gorin-Rosen, Stern, Syon and Tatcher2009), one of which is inscribed with the word “Sabbath.” These objects, however, post-date the Mishnah by at least a century and have not been found at any other sites, suggesting limited usage.

40 A handful of scholars have likewise associated m. Shabbat 2:4 with the NCN, though only devoting a sentence or two to it in passing; see Amar and Shwiky Reference Amar and Shwiky2003, 97; Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 75–76; Westenholz and Levin Reference Westenholz and Levin2004, 73. Brand (Reference Brand1953, 341–42) suggested a lamp with raised lines that would funnel oil (including oil dripping from an eggshell) into the wick hole. The lamp to which he referred, however, is now known to post-date the Mishnah by at least a century. On inclining or inviting certain uses, see Gosden Reference Gosden2005.

41 Gibson Reference Gibson, Shaw and Bransford1977; Gibson Reference Gibson1979, 127–37; Knappett Reference Knappett, DeMarrais, Gosden and Renfrew2004; Knappett Reference Knappett2005, 35–63; Norman Reference Norman2013, 10–11. Swift Reference Swift2017b connects design theory and “affordances” with objects from Roman Britain in order to illuminate the relationships between physical features and social behavior.

42 Norman Reference Norman2013, 10–11.

43 For enabling activity, see Gibson Reference Gibson, Shaw and Bransford1977; Gibson Reference Gibson1979; for enabling and inclining, see Norman Reference Norman2013, and applications by Swift Reference Swift, Van Oyen and Pitts2017a, 226; Swift Reference Swift2017b, 5; Woolf Reference Woolf, Van Oyen and Pitts2017, 213–14. For cognitive impact, see Knappett Reference Knappett, DeMarrais, Gosden and Renfrew2004.

44 Norman Reference Norman2013, 11; Swift Reference Swift2017b, 1, 101; Van Oyen Reference Van Oyen2016, 2.

46 Gärtner Reference Gärtner1999, 27; Lapp Reference Lapp1997, 25. Resistance to spillage might help explain the presence of an NCN on the boat uncovered at Ginnosar; see Wachsmann Reference Wachsmann1990b. That an NCN was found on what has been called the “Galilee Boat,” which has popularly been tied to the early followers of Jesus, has perhaps fueled interpretations that NCNs were manufactured for and used by Jewish-Christians. Such theories are further “supported” by the finds of NCNs at Nazareth. The argument, as Sussman (Reference Sussman2012, 77) briefly notes, is without merit: NCNs have been found all over the Galilee, in significant quantities; many other lamp types were also found at Nazareth; and the very existence of “Jewish-Christians” who self-identified as such and differentiated themselves from the rest of Jewish society by this early period is unlikely. I would add that such interpretations also seem unaware of the complexities of the (representational approach of) identifying ethnic and religious identity in the archaeological record. For a critical study of Jewish Christianity, see Reed Reference Reed2018.

47 For the distribution of Palestinian Discus Lamp (also known as Roman Discus Lamps, Round Lamps with Decorated Discus, etc.), see the numerous sites referenced in Rosenthal and Sivan Reference Rosenthal and Sivan1978, 85–90; Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 65–67 n. 227. Add to these the recent publications by Gärtner and Leibner Reference Gärtner, Leibner and Leibner2018, 420–21; Lapp Reference Lapp2016, 49–72, where these are by far the most common lamp type at Sepphoris and Wadi Hammam.

48 While testing replicas of other types of lamps Lapp (Reference Lapp2023) demonstrates the difficulty of removing a discus without ruining the lamp. On the phenomenon of Palestinian Discus Lamps with their discuses removed, see Tal and Teixeira Bastos Reference Tal and Bastos2012; Tal and Teixeira Bastos Reference Tal, Bastos, Blömer, Lichtenberger and Raja2015.

49 As Swift (Reference Swift2017b, 103) notes, an artifact's form determines task efficiency – not merely whether or not a task can be performed. Non-clay lamps (e.g., glass lamps) are more frequently found in public spaces, such as synagogues, and could warrant further research for use in the home, where Sabbath lamps were lit; see Stern Reference Stern2023.

50 Applying the language of Van Oyen Reference Van Oyen2016, 2–3.

51 Amar Reference Amar2022, 7.

52 Amar Reference Amar2022, 1.

53 Amar Reference Amar2022, 7–14. Notably, many of the eggshells collected by Amar have not yet been published in detail, and some have been lost, precluding further study.

54 Amar Reference Amar2022, 2, 21–24. Eggs are mentioned frequently in early rabbinic literature and ke-betzah, (“like [the size of] an egg” or an “egg's bulk”) is a standard of measure that is invoked in several legal discussions (e.g., in m. Berakhot 7:2, eating ke-betzah amount of bread obligates one to recite the grace after meals). Notable also are Mishnah Kelim 17:6 and Tosefta Kelim Bava Metsia 6:1, which discuss the size of eggs, including the fact that they are not uniform. That early rabbinic texts use eggs as a standard of measure may reflect increases in the raising of chickens during the Roman age; see further Amar Reference Amar2022.

55 Bruce and Raubolt Reference Bruce, Raubolt, Metheny and Beaudry2015; Butler Reference Butler1922, 127–28; Powell Reference Powell2014. These were interpreted by the excavators as having been used in ritual purification offerings, which were likely practiced elsewhere in the Roman east.

56 See Roach-Smith Reference Roach-Smith1850, 206; Swift Reference Swift, Millett, Revell and Moore2016, 65. Immediately following his description of lighting lamps on Friday, Persius mentions a “broken egg” (Saturae 5.185), though he does not seem to connect the broken egg to the physical practice of lamp lighting for the Sabbath.

57 Amar Reference Amar2022, 9; Kogan-Zehavi Reference Kogan-Zehavi2006, 66, 74. It was found among other valuable grave goods, such as jewelry, and seems to have been part of Christian burial rites.

58 Moullou and Topalis Reference Moullou, Topalis, Papadopoulos and Moyes2017, 607. Of the handful of wicks that survived from pre-modern Palestine, the temporally closest is the wick from Shivta (Negev; 6th–7th c. CE), which was made of flax and measures 4 mm in diameter; Sukenik and Tepper Reference Sukenik, Tepper, Garnett and Motsianos2019, 204. See also Roitman Reference Roitman1997, 26, though aside from a photo and caption, no details have been published on the possible wick from the Qumran area. Flax for wicks is also mentioned in literary sources, such as m. Shabbat 2:1–3. On flax as the most widely cultivated and used fabric in Roman Palestine, see Safrai Reference Safrai1994, 155–61.

59 The custom, formalized by the early rabbis, was to delay the second meal of Friday until after dark – that is, after the start of the Sabbath – which would thereby ensure the fulfillment of eating three meals over the course of the Sabbath (one on Friday night and two formal meals on Saturday before sunset). See the discussions in Gardner Reference Gardner2014; Gardner Reference Gardner2015, 92.

60 There was certainly the technical know-how to make lamps with larger reservoirs. However, the mass of lamp finds from Roman Palestine suggests that most lamps were made to be roughly the size that can be held in one hand, as larger lamps are relatively rare by comparison. This may be because of a kind of “conservatism” in form expressed by the manufacturer or consumer choice, and/or because a larger reservoir – and therefore larger lamp – would have reduced portability, which was an attractive feature of lamps. The ability to easily hold, walk around with, and reposition a lamp seems to have been appreciated by the ancients, as reflected in written sources; see, e.g., Joseph. Ap. 2.117–118; Matthew 25; m. Shabbat 3:6; t. Shabbat 3:13–15; Tosefta Sukkah 4:12.

63 See, e.g., the massive collection of rabbinic sources on ceramic objects in Brand Reference Brand1953.

64 On the expansion of production, see Bowman and Wilson Reference Bowman and Wilson2009; Greene Reference Greene2008; Versluys Reference Versluys, Van Oyen and Pitts2017; Van Oyen and Pitts Reference Van Oyen, Pitts, Van Oyen and Pitts2017, 3–4; Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill2008.

65 I thank anonymous reader 2 for bringing out this point.

References

Abu Raya, Rafeh. 2012. “‘Ibillin: Preliminary report.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26601521.Google Scholar
Abu Raya, Rafeh. 2016. “Remains from Iron Age IIB until the Ottoman period at I‘billin.” ‘Atiqot 85: 91*126*. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Abu-Uqsa, Hanau. 2002. “Three burial caves at Kafr Kanna.” In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, ed. Gal, Zvi, 153–61. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Abu-Zidan, Fadi, Alexandre, Yardenna, and Syon, Danny. 2022. “An early Roman-period residence at Nein and episodes of the First Jewish Revolt in the Jezreel Valley.” ‘Atiqot 107: 1*25*. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Adan-Bayewitz, David. 1990. “The pottery.” In The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret), ed. Wachsmann, Shelley, 8996. ʻAtiqot 19. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Adan-Bayewitz, David, Asaro, Frank, Wieder, Moshe, and Giauque, Robert D.. 2008. “Preferential distribution of lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the late Second Temple period (late first century B.C.E.–70 C.E.).” BASOR 350 (May): 3785. https://doi.org/10.1086/BASOR25609265.Google Scholar
Albeck, Hanoch. 1952–1958. Shishah Sidre Mishnah (The Mishnah). Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute and Dvir Publishing House; repr., 1988.Google Scholar
Alexandre, Yardenna. 2015. “Karm er-Ras near Kafr Kanna.” In Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Vol. 2. The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages, ed. Fiensy, David A. and Strange, James Riley, 146–57. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Alexandre, Yardenna. 2017. “Karm er-Ras (Areas AB, AC): Final report.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26693775.Google Scholar
Alexandre, Yardenna, and Shapiro, Anastasia. 2016. “Karm er-Ras (Area AA): Extended report.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 128. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26679178.Google Scholar
Al-Shorman, Abdulla. 2022. The Necropolis of Abila of the Decapolis 2019–2021. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Amar, Zohar. 2022. “The Halakhic ‘Egg's Bulk’ (Ke-Beitzah) in light of ancient realia.” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 22: 125. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Amar, Zohar, and Shwiky, Avivit. 2003. Bamme Madlikin. Elkana: Machon Eretz Hefetz. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Ambar-Armon, Einat. 2007. “Oil Lamps in the Land of Israel during the Hellenistic Period in Light of the Finds from the Maresha Excavations: Conservatism and Tradition Alongside Creativity and Innovation.” Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan Univ. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Aviam, Mordechai. 2005. “Yodefat: A Case Study in the Development of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee During the Second Temple Period.” Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan Univ. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Aviam, Mordechai. 2015. “Yodefat - Jotapata: A Jewish Galilean town at the end of the Second Temple period: The results of an archaeological project.” In Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Vol. 2. The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages, ed. Fiensy, David A. and Strange, James Riley, 109–26. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Bagatti, Bellarmino. 1969. Excavations in Nazareth. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.Google Scholar
Barag, Dan, and Hershkovitz, Malka. 1994. “Lamps from Masada.” In Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports, ed. Yadin, Yigael, 1152. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Berlin, Andrea. 2006. Gamla I: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Bijovsky, Gabriela. 2018. “Coins from Khirbet Wadi Hamam.” In Khirbet Wadi Ḥamam: A Roman-Period Village and Synagogue in the Lower Galilee, ed. Leibner, Uzi, 518–81. Qedem Reports 13. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Bohannan, Paul. 1959. “The impact of money on an African subsistence economy.” Journal of Economic History 19, no. 4: 491503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Transl. by Nice, Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, Alan, and Wilson, Andrew, eds. 2009. Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, Yehoshua. 1953. Ceramics in Talmudic Literature. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Bruce, William, and Raubolt, Elizabeth. 2015. “Sardis, ritual egg deposit (Turkey).” In Archaeology of Food: An Encyclopedia, ed. Metheny, Karen Bescherer and Beaudry, Mary C., 449–50. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Butler, Howard Crosby. 1922. Sardis I: The Excavations, Part 1: 1910–1914. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Chancey, Mark A. 2014. “The ethnicities of Galileans.” In Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Vol. 1. Life, Culture, and Society, ed. Fiensy, David A. and Strange, James Riley, 112–28. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Shaye J. D. 2007. “The Judaean legal tradition and the Halakhah of the Mishnah.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva and Jaffee, Martin S., 121–43. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Shaye J. D., Goldenberg, Robert, and Lapin, Hayim, eds. 2022. The Oxford Annotated Mishnah: A New Translation of the Mishnah with Introductions and Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danby, Herbert. 1933. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, John. 1983. “Abila tomb excavations.” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 21: 3058.Google Scholar
De Luca, Stefano, and Lena, Anna. 2015. “Magdala/Tarichaea.” In Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Vol. 2. The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages, ed. Fiensy, David A. and Strange, James Riley, 280342. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
Dévényi, Kinga, and Sajó, Tamás. 2008. “David Kaufmann and his collection of medieval Hebrew manuscripts in the oriental collection of the library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: With an introductory study and with the complete facsimile of five manuscripts.” http://kaufmann.mtak.hu/, accessed April 2023.Google Scholar
Díez Fernández, Florentino. 1983. Ceramica comun romana de la Galilea: aproximaciones y diferencias con la ceramica del resto de Palestina y regiones circundantes. Madrid: Ed. Biblia y Fe, Escuela Biblica.Google Scholar
Doering, Lutz. 2010. “Sabbath and festivals.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, ed. Hezser, Catherine, 566–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doering, Lutz. 2019. Die Tosefta: Seder II: Moëd 1: Schabbat. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Dothan, M. 1955. “Hafirot Afula.” 'Atiqot: Hebrew Series 11: 1863. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Feig, Nurit. 1985. “Iblin.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 86: 12. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Feig, Nurit. 1990a. “A burial cave near Moshav Ya'ad.” Niqrot Zurim 17: 4952. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Feig, Nurit. 1990b. “Burial caves at Nazareth.” 'Atiqot: Hebrew Series 10: 6779. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Feig, Nurit. 1999. “A Roman burial cave at I'billin.” 'Atiqot 38: 4953. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, Manuel, Maschek, Dominik, and Roymans, Nico. 2020. “The dark side of the empire: Roman expansionism between object agency and predatory regime.” Antiquity 94, no. 378: 1630–39. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlen, Paula, ed. 2021a. Early Modern Things: Objects and their Histories, 1500–1800. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlen, Paula. 2021b. “Introduction: Early modern things: Objects in motion, 1500–1800.” In Early Modern Things: Objects and their Histories, 1500–1800, ed. Findlen, P., 125. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Steven. 2010. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Revised Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Steven. 2014. Art, History, and the Historiography of Judaism in Roman Antiquity. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, Rafael, Getzov, Nimrod, Aviam, Mordechai, and Degani, Avi. 2001. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Michael. 1987. “Abila of the Decapolis: A Roman-Byzantine City in Transjordan.” Ph.D. diss., Washington University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Gardner, Gregg E. 2014. “Let them eat fish: Food for the poor in early Rabbinic Judaism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 45, no. 2: 250–70. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700631-12340057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Gregg E. 2015. The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Judit. 1999. “Oil lamps from the Hellenistic through Mamluk Periods at Sepphoris.” MA diss. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Gärtner, Judit, and Leibner, Uzi. 2018. “Oil lamps.” In Khirbet Wadi Ḥamam: A Roman-Period Village and Synagogue in the Lower Galilee, ed. Leibner, Uzi, 416–39. Qedem Reports 13. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Gazda, Elaine K., and Friedland, Elise A.. 1997. Leroy Waterman and the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, 1931: “The Scientific Test of the Spade.” Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Gell, Alfred. 1992. “The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology.” In Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics, ed. Coote, Jeremy and Shelton, Anthony, 4063. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell, Alfred. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getzov, Nimrod, Avshalom-Gorni, Dina, Gorin-Rosen, Yael, Stern, Edna J., Syon, Danny, and Tatcher, Ayelet, eds. 2009. Horbat 'Uza: The 1991 Excavations. Vol. II. The Late Periods. IAA Reports 42. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Geva, Hillel. 2003. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Geva, Hillel. 2006. “Stratigraphy and architecture.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. III. Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. Geva, Hillel, 178. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1977. “The theory of affordances.” In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, ed. Shaw, Robert and Bransford, John, 6782. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell. 1953–1968. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goodman, Martin. 2000. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212. London: Vallentine Mitchell.Google Scholar
Goodman, Martin, and Alexander, Philip, eds. 2010. Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late-Roman Palestine. Proceedings of the British Academy 165. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.Google Scholar
Gosden, Chris. 2001. “Making sense: Archaeology and aesthetics.” WorldArch 33, no. 2: 163–67.Google Scholar
Gosden, Chris. 2005. “What do objects want?” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 193211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-6928-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Kevin. 2008. “Learning to consume: Consumption and consumerism in the Roman empire.” JRA 21: 6482. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400004384.Google Scholar
Hezser, Catherine. 1997. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Hezser, Catherine. 2010a. “Correlating literary, epigraphical, and archaeological sources.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, ed. Hezser, Catherine, 927. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hezser, Catherine, ed. 2010b. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hezser, Catherine, and Leibner, Uzi. 2016. “Jewish art in its Late Antique context: An introductory essay.” In Jewish Art in Its Late Antique Context, ed. Leibner, Uzi and Hezser, Catherine, 122. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Hicks, Dan. 2010. “The material-cultural turn: Event and effect.” In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, ed. Hicks, Dan and Beaudry, Mary Carolyn, 2598: Oxford: University Press .Google Scholar
Hielscher, Adrian. 2021. “Four-legged marble tables (mensae) in Pompeian houses: The intersection of function, aesthetics and semantics.” In Materiality in Roman Art and Architecture: Aesthetics, Semantics and Function, ed. Haug, Annette, Hielscher, Adrian, and Taylor Lauritsen, M., 183201. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hochscheid, Helle, and Russell, Ben, eds. 2021a. The Value of Making: Theory and Practice in Ancient Craft Production. Studies in Classical Archaeology 13. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.Google Scholar
Hochscheid, Helle, and Russell, Ben. 2021b. “Introduction: New approaches to old crafts.” In The Value of Making: Theory and Practice in Ancient Craft Production, ed. Hochscheid, Helle and Russell, Ben, 110. Studies in Classical Archaeology 13. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships Between Humans and Things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howland, Richard Hubbard. 1958. “Greek lamps and their survivals.” The Athenian Agora 4. https://doi.org/10.2307/3601959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, Tim. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez, Alicia. 2020. “Seeing in the dark: Roman imperialism and material culture.” Antiquity 94, no. 378: 1643–45. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, Carl. 2004. “The affordances of things: A post-Gibsonian perspective on the relationality of mind and matter.” In Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, ed. DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Gosden, Chris, and Renfrew, Colin, 4351. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Knappett, Carl. 2005. Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogan-Zehavi, Elena. 2006. “A burial cave of the Byzantine period in the Naḥalat Aḥim Quarter, Jerusalem.” 'Atiqot 54: 6186. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. “The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process.” In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. Appadurai, Arjun, 6492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, Samuel. 1910–1912. Talmudische Archäologie. Leipzig: G. Fock.Google Scholar
Krauss, Samuel. 1914–1929. Kadmoniyot ha-Talmud ʻal pi ha-hakirot veha-tagliyot ha-hadashot. Odessa: Moriyah; repr., 1945. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Krupp, Michael. 2008. Die Mischna: Textkritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentar, Schabbat. Jerusalem: Lee Achim Sefarim.Google Scholar
Lapin, Hayim. 2006. “The origins and development of the Rabbinic movement in the land of Israel.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 4. The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. Katz, Steven T., 206–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lapin, Hayim. 2012. Rabbis as Romans: The Rabbinic Movement in Palestine, 100–400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapin, Hayim. 2022. “The Rabbis of history and historiography.” In The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, ed. Hayes, Christine, 1163. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapp, Eric C. 1997. “The Archaeology of Light: The Cultural Significance of the Oil Lamp from Palestine.” Ph.D. diss., Duke Univ.Google Scholar
Lapp, Eric C. 2016. Sepphoris II: The Clay Lamps from Ancient Sepphoris: Light Use and Regional Interactions. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Lapp, Eric C. 2022. “A curious artifact: The changing meaning of the Roman oil lamp from 17th-century Jamestown, Virginia.” AJA 126, no. 3: 411–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/719422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapp, E. C. 2023. “Exploring Roman picture lamp breakage rituals in light of mechanical experimentation.” JRA 35, no. 2: 779817. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759422000472.Google Scholar
Leibner, Uzi. 2009. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lena, Anna. 2013. “Magdala 2007: Preliminary report.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125.Google Scholar
Levine, Lee I. 2012. Visual Judaism in Late Antiquity: Historical Contexts of Jewish Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Lee I., and Weiss, Zeev, eds. 2000. From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. JRA Suppl. 40. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology.Google Scholar
Lichtenberger, Achim, and Raja, Rubina, eds. 2017. The Diversity of Classical Archaeology. Studies in Classical Archaeology 1. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Saul. 1955–1988. The Tosefta According to Codex Vienna, with Variants from Codex Erfurt, Genizah Mss. and Editio Princeps (Venice 1521). New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Loffreda, Stanislao. 1975. “Un lotto di ceramica da Karm er-Ras presso Kafr Kanna.” Liber Annuus 25: 193–98.Google Scholar
Loffreda, Stanislao. 2007. Cafarnao VII: documentazione grafica della ceramica (1968–2003). Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa.Google Scholar
Loffreda, Stanislao. 2008a. Cafarnao VI: tipologie e contesti stratigrafici della ceramica (1968–2003). Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa.Google Scholar
Loffreda, Stanislao. 2008b. Cafarnao VIII: documentazione fotografica degli oggetti (1968–2003). Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa.Google Scholar
Ma'agarim: Historical Dictionary of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. 1998–. Jerusalem, Academy of the Hebrew Language. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Malafouris, Lambros. 2013. How Things Shape the Mind: A Theory of Material Engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazar, Benjamin, ed. 1988. Geva: Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-'Emeq. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Meyers, Eric M., Meyers, Carol L., and Gordon, Benjamin D., eds. 2018. The Architecture, Stratigraphy, and Artifacts of the Western Summit of Sepphoris. Duke Sepphoris Excavations 3. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Miller, Daniel. 1994. “Artefacts and the meaning of things.” In Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology, ed. Ingold, Tim, 396419. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, Stuart S. 2010. “Stepped pools, stone vessels, and other identity markers of 'complex common Judaism'.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41, no. 2: 214–43. https://doi.org/10.1163/004722110X12580045809821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millett, Martin. 2017. “Discussion: Reflections on the representational use of artefact evidence.” In Materialising Roman Histories, ed. Van Oyen, Astrid and Pitts, Martin, 6572. Oxford: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Mishnah: Kaufmann Manuscript A50: Zera'im-Mo'ed. 2017. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
Mol, Eva. 2017. “Object ontology and cultural taxonomies: Examining the agency of style, material and objects in classification through Egyptian material culture in Pompeii and Rome.” In Materialising Roman Histories, ed. Van Oyen, Astrid and Pitts, Martin, 169–90. Oxford: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moullou, Dorina, and Topalis, Frangiskos V.. 2017. “Reconstructing artificial light in ancient Greece.” In The Oxford Handbook of Light in Archaeology, ed. Papadopoulos, Costas and Moyes, Holley, 604–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muqari, Abdallah. 1999. “I'billin.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109: 2426.Google Scholar
Neis, Rafael Rachel. 2013. The Sense of Sight in Rabbinic Culture: Jewish Ways of Seeing in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neusner, Jacob. 2002. The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Norman, Donald A. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Palagia, Olga. 1984. “A niche for Kallimachos' lamp?” AJA 88, no. 4: 515–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/504739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrich, Joseph. 2011. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peleg-Barkat, Orit. 2020. “Art in Second Temple period Jerusalem.” In The History of Jerusalem: Second Temple Period 332 BCE–70 CE. Vol. 2. Material Culture, ed. Gafni, Isaiah, Reich, Ronny, and Schwartz, Joshua, 527–68. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Pitts, Martin, and Versluys, Miguel John. 2021. “Objectscapes: A manifesto for investigating the impacts of object flows on past societies.” Antiquity 95, no. 380: 367–81. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant, Jessica. 2021. “Hard as rock and light as air: Stucco ceilings in Roman domestic space.” In Materiality in Roman Art and Architecture: Aesthetics, Semantics and Function, ed. Haug, Annette, Hielscher, Adrian, and Taylor Lauritsen, M., 113–30. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Porath, Pinhas. 1996. “Tombs at Tell el-Ḥammam (Ḥ. Ḥaman).” 'Atiqot 29: 2933. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Powell, Eric A. 2014. “Intact eggshell found in ritual deposit in Turkey.” Archaeology Magazine, January 13, 2014.Google Scholar
Reed, Annette Yoshiko. 2018. Jewish-Christianity and the History of Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Jonathan L. 2000. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Reich, Ronny. 2000. “Area A – Stratigraphy and architecture: IIc. Hellenistic to Medieval strata 6–1.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. I, ed. Geva, Hillel, 83110. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
The Responsa Project: Version 24. 1972–2016. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
Roach-Smith, Charles. 1850. The Antiquities of Richborough, Reculver, and Lymne, in Kent. London: John Russell Smith.Google Scholar
Roitman, Adolfo, ed. 1997. A Day at Qumran: The Dead Sea Sect and Its Scrolls. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.Google Scholar
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate. 2003. “Hellenistic and Early Roman fine ware and lamps from Area A.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II, ed. Geva, Hillel, 192223. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate. 2006. “Late Hellenistic and Early Roman lamps and fine ware.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. III. Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. Geva, Hillel, 144–67. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate. 2014. “Imported Hellenistic and Early Roman pottery – An overview of the finds from the Jewish Quarter excavations.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. VI. Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Final Report, ed. Geva, Hillel, 377413. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate. 2016. “Innovation and stagnation in the Judean lamp production in the late Second Temple period (150 BCE–70 CE).” In Traditions and Innovations: Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial Periods, ed. Japp, Sarah and Kögler, Patricia, 429–42. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Renate, and Sivan, Renee. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Russell, Ben. 2021. “Roman stone carvers and their chaîne opératoire.” In The Value of Making: Theory and Practice in Ancient Craft Production, ed. Hochscheid, Helle and Russell, Ben, 7188. Studies in Classical Archaeology 13. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.Google Scholar
Sabar, Roi. 2019. “A rock-cut tomb from the Early Roman and Byzantine Periods in Naḥal Aviv.” Israel Exploration Journal 69: 7397.Google Scholar
Safrai, Shmuel, and Safrai, Zeev. 2020. Mishnat Eretz Israel: Tractate Shabbat (Moed A); Part 1: With Historical and Sociological Commentary. Yavne, Israel: Kvutzat Yavne. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Safrai, Zeev. 1994. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saller, Sylvester J. 1967. “Hellenistic to Arabic remains at Nebo, Jordan.” Liber Annuus 17: 564.Google Scholar
Sapir, B. 1953. “A door fragment with a menorah from Ibbelin.” Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 17, no. 3/4: 153–54. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Satlow, Michael L. 2014. How the Bible Became Holy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Seth. 2001. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Irina, Feig, Nurit, and Hadad, Shulamit. 2015. “Roman burial caves at I'billin.” 'Atiqot 83: 93123. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Stahl, Ann Brower. 2010. “Material histories.” In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, ed. Hicks, Dan and Beaudry, Mary Carolyn, 150–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press .Google Scholar
Stern, Edna J. 1996. “'Araba.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 106: 2224. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Stern, Karen B. 2023. “Does smoke mean fire? Illumination, incense, and the senses in Late Antique synagogues.” Journal of Late Antiquity 16, no. 1: 189237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Menahem. 1974–1984. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strack, Hermann Leberecht, and Stemberger, Günter. 1996. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
Strange, James Riley. 2015. “Kefar Shikhin.” In Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods: The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages, ed. Fiensy, David A. and Strange, James Riley, 88108. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Strange, James Riley, and Aviam, Mordechai. 2017. “Shiḥin excavation project: Oil lamp production at ancient Shiḥin.” Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 35: 6399.Google Scholar
Sukenik, Naama, and Tepper, Yotam. 2019. “A linen wick from the northern church at Shivta, Israel.” In Glass, Wax and Metal: Lighting Technologies in Late Antique, Byzantine and Medieval Times, ed. Garnett, Karen S. and Motsianos, Ioannis, 203–9. Oxford: Archeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sussman, Varda. 1970. “A Shabbat lamp.” 'Atiqot: Hebrew Series 6: 8081. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Sussman, Varda. 1988. “Lamps from Geva (Abu-Shusha).” In Geva: Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-'Emeq, ed. Mazar, Benjamin, 89119. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Sussman, Varda. 1990. “The lamp.” In The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret), ed. Wachsmann, Shelley, 9798. ʻAtiqot 19. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Sussman, Varda. 2008. “The oil lamps.” In Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima: Areas CC, KK and NN, Final Report. Vol. I. The Objects, ed. Patrich, Joseph, 207300. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Sussman, Varda. 2012. Roman Period Oil Lamps in the Holy Land: Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Sussman, Varda. 2017. Late Roman to Late Byzantine/Early Islamic Period Lamps in the Holy Land: The Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, Ellen. 2016. “The development of artefact studies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain, ed. Millett, Martin, Revell, Louise, and Moore, Alison. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 6394.Google Scholar
Swift, Ellen. 2017a. “Design, function and everyday social practice: Artefacts and Roman social history.” In Materialising Roman Histories, ed. Van Oyen, Astrid and Pitts, Martin, 153–68. Oxford: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, Ellen. 2017b. Roman Artefacts and Society: Design, Behaviour, and Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syon, Danny. 1990. “The arrowhead.” In The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret), ed. Wachsmann, Shelley. ʻAtiqot 19. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority: 99100.Google Scholar
Tal, Oren, and Bastos, Marcio Teixeira. 2012. “Intentionally broken discus lamps from Roman Apollonia: A new interpretation.” Tel Aviv 39: 104–14. https://doi.org/10.1179/033443512X13226621280624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tal, Oren and Bastos, Marcio Teixeira. 2015. “More on the intentionally broken discus lamps from Roman Palestine: Mutilation and its symbolic meaning.” In Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed, ed. Blömer, Michael, Lichtenberger, Achim, and Raja, Rubina, 345–68. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.Google Scholar
Terem, Shulamit. 2008. “Oil Lamps from the Excavations at Gamla.” MA diss. Bar-Ilan Univ. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzaferis, Vassilios. 1969. “Tombs in Western Galilee.” 'Atiqot: Hebrew Series 5: 7279. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Tzin, Barak. 2022. “Karm er-Ras: Final Report.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 134 (24/11/2022).Google Scholar
Van Eck, Caroline. 2018. “Objects, romans, materialities.” Antiquity 92, no. 364: 1115–17. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oyen, Astrid. 2016. How Things Make History: The Roman Empire and its Terra Sigillata Pottery. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oyen, Astrid. 2020. The Socio-Economics of Roman Storage: Agriculture, Trade, and Family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oyen, Astrid, and Pitts, Martin. 2017. “What did objects do in the Roman world? Beyond representation.” In Materialising Roman Histories, ed. Van Oyen, A. and Pitts, M., 319. Oxford: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, Miguel John. 2014. “Understanding objects in motion: An archaeological dialogue on Romanization.” Archaeological Dialogues 21: 120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, Miguel John. 2017. “Discussion. Object-scapes. Towards a material constitution of Romanness?” In Materialising Roman Histories, ed. Van Oyen, Astrid and Pitts, Martin, 191200. Oxford: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitto, Fanny. 2011. “A Roman-period burial cave on Ha-Horesh Street, Qiryat Tiv‘on.” ‘Atiqot 65: 2761*.Google Scholar
Wachsmann, Shelley. 1990a. “The date of the boat.” In The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret), ed. Wachsmann, Shelley, 129–30. ʻAtiqot 19. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Wachsmann, Shelley, ed. 1990b. The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret). ʻAtiqot 19. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Wachsmann, Shelley, and Raveh, Kurt. 1990. “The discovery.” In The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret), ed. Wachsmann, Shelley, 17. ʻAtiqot 19. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. 2008. Rome's Cultural Revolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, Zeev. 2020. “Visual vs. virtual reality: Interpreting synagogue mosaic art.” In The Synagogue in Ancient Palestine: Current Issues and Emerging Trends, ed. Bonnie, Rick, Hakola, Raimo, and Tervahauta, Ulla, 339–54. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick, and Levin, Edward. 2004. Let There Be Light: Oil Lamps from the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum.Google Scholar
Woolf, Greg. 2014. “Romanization 2.0 and its alternatives.” Archaeological Dialogues 21, no. 1: 4550. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1380203814000087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, Greg. 2017. “Roman things and Roman people: A cultural ecology of the Roman world.” In Materialising Roman Histories, ed. Van Oyen, Astrid and Pitts, Martin, 211–16. Oxford: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yavor, Zvi. 2010. “The architecture and stratigraphy of the eastern and western quarters.” In Gamla II: The Architecture: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, ed. Syon, Danny and Yavor, Zvi, 13112. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zapata-Meza, Marcela, Diaz Barriga, Andrea Garza, Sanz-Rincón, Rosaura, Avshalom-Gorni, Dina, Jackson-Tal, Ruth E., Gorin-Rosen, Yael, and Syon, Danny. 2018. “The Magdala Archaeological Project (2010–2012): A preliminary report of the excavations at Migdal.” 'Atiqot 90: 83126.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Northern Collar-Neck Lamp from the Sea of Galilee boat, Ginosar. (Sussman 1990, 98; photo courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Northern Collar-Neck Lamp from Kfar Kanna. (Abu-Uqsa 2002, 159.)

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Northern Collar-Neck Lamp from Caesarea Maritima. (Sussman 2008, 264; with permission by the author.)

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Herodian Lamp from Sepphoris. (Lapp 2016, 247 no. 19; photo: Mariana Saltzberger; courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Distribution of Northern Collar-Neck Lamps. (Map by Roi Sabar.)

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Palestinian Discus Lamp with discus intact, from Sepphoris. (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology; object identifier: 0000.08.9811; see Gazda and Friedland 1997, 16 fig. 13, upper left corner.)

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Palestinian Discus Lamp with decorated discus, from Nahal Aviv, Galilee. (Photo: Tal Rogovski, used with permission by Roi Sabar [2019, 82. Fig. 7:9].)

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Palestinian Discus Lamp with discus removed, from Tiv'on, Galilee. Length: 8.8 cm; width 7.4 cm; height 2.2 cm. (Vitto 2011, 47, fig. 24: 2. Photo: Yael Yolovitch, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Darom Lamp from Ma'yan Barukh, Galilee. (Photo: Yael Yolovitch, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)