Roman contexts of nearby loci in Southern Galilee, such as Tiriah (only 200 m south of the Feig tombs), Afula, and Mishamar Haemek. [252] All the aforementioned examples are of variant L1–A, in which the nozzle has inwardly slanting sides and a small, rounded tip, [253] similar to Bagatti’s Hellenistic parallels found in Jerusalem and Shechem (above, Illus. 3.4:2 and 3.4:3c ). Feig perceptively notes the potential to confuse this variant with Hellenistic examples. Like Fernandez, she points out that this lamp is the product of a local tradition:
The lamps in illustration 9:10–11 and 11:2 [all of Type L1–A] have a long nozzle similar to typical Hellenistic nozzles. The raised rim, however, resembles Roman lamps like those found at Ephesus. The base of the lamp is flat and thick, and around its opening a small bowl is moulded. The lamps were carefully made on a potter’s wheel, and their firing is intermediate. This type, of which 4 examples were found in Tomb M, was probably the product of a local pottery tradition. According to all the finds from this tomb, it is possible to assume that it dates from the middle of the first century [CE] to the middle of the second century CE. [254]
Because they lie outside the immediate Nazareth settlement area, the Feig tombs have not been used in this work as evidence of settlement in the basin. [255] Nevertheless, those tombs cast welcome light on aspects of the archaeology of Nazareth. Lamp-type L1 is a case in point.
Illus. 3.5 . Oil lamps of a local pottery tradition in Roman times.
(Fernandez Type L1.) A. From Nazareth, Tomb 70; B. From the Galilee boat.
(Redrawn from Exc . Fig 192:15; Wachsmann:98.)
Ms. Feig found a fifth lamp of related type, wheel-made like the others, in tomb B. The archaeologist compares it to a lamp found in Shimron “dated by [Paul] Lapp to the first century CE.” [256]
Context is certainly an important factor in cases like this, where we are dealing with an unusual lamp of limited geographic dispersion. We shall see that, in all cases, the context secures a Roman dating for the L1-type lamps found in the Nazareth basin and in the surrounding area, including those examined by Feig, Fernandez, and Bagatti.
With the above in mind, we note that Feig dates the tombs she excavated, and their associated artefacts, to Middle-Late Roman times:
From these facts and from the findings it is possible to relate the use of these tombs to a period of time between the middle of the first century (M) to the third century CE (D). [257]
Fernandez also affirms a Roman dating for the assemblage in which the three Nazareth examples of lamp type L1-A were found (Tomb 70, not far from the Church of the Annunciation):
The type [ ejemplar ] from Nazareth, n.1, does not betray any date, and the rest of the published material from the same [tomb] is certainly no earlier than the second third of the first century after Christ. [258]
Thus, Fernandez assigns Tomb 70 a terminus post quem of 33–67 CE. This is approximately the terminus Feig assigned to the nearby tombs she excavated, namely, post-50 CE. These two loci represent all the lamps of type L1 in the immediate Nazareth area, and it is evident that this “local pottery tradition” is not Hellenistic but Roman. This is clear from both context and typological parallels.
Nevertheless, Bagatti’s “Hellenistic” lamp nozzle is not similar to variant L1-A at all. It is, rather, much like Fernandez’ type L1-B. The latter lamp is slightly larger, and its nozzle has almost parallel sides, a wide and flat tip, and a large wick hole—quite like the “Hellenistic” nozzle. [259] Type L1-B is less well represented than the other. What can we discover regarding its dating?
The Galilee boat
In the winter of 1986, two young men from the nearby kibbutz of Ginnosar were walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The water level was particularly low for the area had