The broad goals of the survey were [1] to confirm or revise the picture of the founding, flourishing, and abandonment of Shihin that emerged from the 1988 survey; [2] to expand the survey area to include the southernmost of Shihin’s three hilltops, Mitzpe Reish Laqish to the west, the northern slope of Sepphoris to the south, and Jebel Qat to the east; and [3] to begin putting together a GIS database that eventually will tie in to a database constructed for the site of Sepphoris.
The team’s specific goals included the following:
(1) To locate ancient features within the survey area using handheld GPS devices
(2) To locate Israeli triangulation points indicated on various maps of the area, primarily on a 1:10,000 map (the Israel Department of Surveys, January 1970, sheet 175-240), and a 1:50,000 hiking and trail map of the Lower Galilee (2000)
(3) To survey in as many modern survey points and ancient features as we could using a total station instrument
(4) To make some inferences about what parts of the hill were occupied in different time periods (not done by the1988 survey team)
(5) To produce a topographical map of the survey area; it turned out that such maps already exist.
(6) To locate the pottery kiln(s) on Shihin; the kilns were not found but evidence of their existence was recorded.
One team used the total station, which has an advertised accuracy of 5 arc seconds, translating to 0.08 inches at 300 feet or 2.22 millimeters at 100 m, basing its surveying on Israeli trig point 1200-R on Jebel Qat, as it is the closest to the hills of Shihin. Two other teams mapped ancient features using Garmin Etrex Vista hand-held GPS units, whose advertised accuracy is 10 feet (3.05 m). Our best readings were within 12 feet (3.66 m) of accuracy, which should allow our waypoints to be relocated with little difficulty. The results of the survey were entered into Google Earth.
In order to systematize our survey and gain some control over the data, we used a convention in which each hilltop became a ‘sector’ designated by an upper-case English letter. Some sectors were further subdivided using Arabic numerals (see Fig. 1). Shihin was designated Sector A, subdivided into its three hilltops from north to south: A1, A2, and A3. Mitzpe Reish Laqish was Sector B, subdivided into two hilltops from north to south: B1 and B2. The northern slope of the Sepphoris hill became Sector C and Jebel Qat was Sector D. Each waypoint was numbered in a non-repeating sequence, beginning with the sector number, followed by a period and then the waypoint number; for example, the second waypoint on the northernmost hill of Shihin is A1.2; the fifth waypoint on Jebel Qat is D.5.
 
The survey teams recorded a total of 132 waypoints, 111 of which designated features of archaeological interest. The sectors most thoroughly surveyed were the hilltops of Shihin: A1 (58 ancient features surveyed; Figs. 2, 3), A2 (33 ancient features surveyed; Fig. 4), and A3 (9 ancient features surveyed; Fig. 5). Sector D was surveyed only on two days and only on its summit and western slope; the nine ancient features surveyed indicate the rich finds that this hill will reveal in future surveys (Fig. 6). Only three points were surveyed on the eastern slope of B2, including two ancient features. Sector C was not surveyed, other than to locate Israeli trig points, of which only one was found (12-Q).
 
Distribution of Pottery
Table 1. Pottery by Date; if a sherd can be dated either early or late (e.g., Hell 2 or ER), it is counted as late.
No. of Sherds
Period
Fig. No.
1
Iron II
7:1
2
Hell I
7:2, 3
10
Hell II
7:4–13
34
ER
8, 9
7
MR
10:1–5
6
LR
10:6–11
1
Byz. I
10:12
1
Byz. II
10:13
0
Islamic
 
1
Unknown
 
1
Waster (large)
 
 
Table 2. Pottery by Form; not all potsherds have been drawn, hence this count does not match the count by date or by sector.
No. of Sherds
Form
16
Bowls, including casseroles and kraters
30
Storage jars
1
Jug (ER)
11
Cooking pots
 
Table 3. Pottery by Sector
Sector
Direction
Potsherds/period
A1
North
No pottery collected near clay pit and evidence of kiln
West
1 Iron II; 2 Hell I; 2 Hell II; 17 ER; 1 MR; 3 LR
South
1 Hell II; 5 ER; Roman BS
East
2 ER; Byz. BS
Total
 
1 Iron II; 2 Hell I; 3 Hell II; 24 ER; 1 MR; 3 LR; Byz. BS
A2
Northeast
5 Hell II; 5 ER; 1 LR; 1 Byz. I
Southeast
2 Hell II; 2 ER; 1 Byz. I
Southwest
1 MR; 1 Byz. II
Total
 
7 Hell II; 7 ER; 1 LR; 2 Byz. I
A3
East
1 ER; 1 MR
 
West
1 ER
 
South
2 MR; 1 LR; Byz. BS
Total
 
2 ER; 3 MR; 1 LR; Byz. BS
D
West
1 ER; 2 MR
 
Because of the survey limitations, we offer our conclusions in the form of testable hypotheses. The picture of Shihin’s settlement and abandonment largely confirms the report in IEJ 45. Table 4 compares our finds with those of the 1988 survey (IEJ 45:173) and Table 5 combines the two into a composite count.
 
Table 4. Pottery from 1988 and 2011 Surveys, Compared
Survey Year
Iron II (C?)
Persian
Hell I
Hell II
Rom I
Rom II
1988
2
3
2
5
53
35
2011
1
0
2
10
34
7
 
Rom III
Byz I
Byz II
Islamic
Unknown
Wasters
1988
21
6
0
0
8
6
2011
6
1
1
0
1
1
 
Table 5. Pottery from 1988 and 2011, Combined
Iron II (C?)
Persian
Hell I
Hell II
Rom I
Rom II
3
3
4
15
87
42
Rom III
Byz I
Byz II
Islamic
Unknown
Wasters
27
7
1
0
9
7
 
The data from different hilltops and combined pottery tallies suggest the following picture. Some activity is evident from Iron II (perhaps Iron IIC) through the Early Hellenistic periods, but evidence is limited. Shihin was first settled as a village in the Late Hellenistic period, perhaps some time after Aristobolus conquered the region in 104/103 BCE. The population swelled substantially in the Early Roman period, as indicated by the 83% increase in our combined pottery counts from the Late Hellenistic to the Early Roman periods. Some combination of three events, related to nearby Sepphoris, could account for this increase: Gabinius located one of the Sanhedrins at Sepphoris in 55 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 15.5.4; War 1.8.5); Herod made it his northern headquarters in 39/38 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 14.15.4; War 1.16.2); Antipas rebuilt the city beginning in 4 BCE. Excavating the site might clarify the issue and further indicate whether or not Shihin was destroyed along with Sepphoris when the city revolted in 4 BCE. It seems likely that some residents of Shihin commuted daily to Sepphoris and back, since the walk would have taken around 20 minutes. Indeed, soldiers from Sepphoris could expect to be able to put out a fire at Shihin (Tosefta.Shabbat 13:9; JerusalemTalmud, Shabbat 16.7; Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 121a). Once at Sepphoris, Shihin’s residents could ply their trades or sell their goods in the markets.
Pottery counts suggest a continual, sharp decline in population through the Middle and Late Roman periods. The 52% drop (combined count) from the Early to the Middle Roman periods may indicate that, unlike Sepphoris, which supported Rome, Shihin was destroyed in the First Jewish Revolt because of its anti-Rome stance (Josephus Life 232–233, 384). A rabbinic reference to Eleazar Ben Harsom, who owned Shihin along with other villages, says that shihin was destroyed, but does not specify when (Lamentations, Rabbah 2.2; Jerusalem Talmud, Ta‘anit 4.5; 6.9a).
The amount of recovered pottery drops by 36% (combined count) between the Middle and Late Roman periods. The sharp drop indicated between the Late Roman and the Early Byzantine periods—our combined pottery count falls by 74%—suggests that some factor induced many people to abandon the site, or that many people were killed, or both.
The Gallus Revolt in 351 CE (Jerome, Chronicon, Olymp. 282; Sozomen, Hist. eccl. IV.7; Socrates, Hist. eccl. II.33) and the earthquake of 363 CE (Sozomen, Hist. eccl. V.21; Socrates, Hist. eccl. III.20; Theodoret, Hist. eccl. III.15; Gregory Nazianzen, Second Invective Against Julian 4; cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. IV.2; Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gest. XXIII), both of which devastated Sepphoris, probably caused this steep decline. Indications are that the population was sparse in the Early Byzantine period and by the Late Byzantine period there may have been no permanent occupation on the hill. The settlement is completely abandoned in the latter Late Byzantine or Early Islamic periods.
Because the 2011 survey kept track of the sectors and sub-sectors in which pottery was collected, and of where within sectors we collected it, we are able to refine the hypothesis somewhat. Nevertheless, our teams only collected pottery that was associated with features, and not near every surveyed feature. Hence, although literally thousands of sherds are visible on the ground as one hikes up the northeastern slope of A1 from the agricultural fields, our teams collected no pottery there. Consequently, the sample is not random, which explains the cautious language that follows.
Evidence suggests that the earliest (Late Hellenistic) settlement was limited to the two northern hills. Because some ancient features and similar pottery types are located on both hills, it is too early to designate one hill as the primary site of the settlement and the other as the site of industrial activity, if such a distinction can even be made. Ruins of walls can be found on both hills and architectural fragments were discovered on both hills in 1988. The ruins of a single building were mapped on the eastern slope of the northern hill in 2011 (see below).
All three hills show activity in the Early Roman period, but only A1 shows a significant increase in pottery, which suggests that the main settlement is to be located here in this period. We found most of our evidence on the southwestern part of the hill, but some on the eastern slope as well, and as indicated above, there is much pottery to be found on the northeastern slope. Activity can be detected through the Byzantine period on all three hills, so as the population decreased, it may also have become more rarified.
The ruins of a building (A1.48; see Fig. 3) on the southeastern slope of A1 pose a puzzle. Based on the four corners we located, the building was rectilinear (length of walls—13.5 m on west, 11.8 m on north, 14.29 m on east, c. 8.5 m on south). The ashlar construction at first suggested that a public building of some sort sat here. Upon further consideration, it is more likely that these are the ruins of an enclosed olive press, as was found at Gamla, or more likely still, of a mausoleum similar to the nearby tomb of Jehudah Nasiy’a.
How the residents used the many underground chambers located on the three hills of Shihin likewise is not clear. All the pottery found in the chambers was crude ware, and it indicates domestic use. Naturally, we also must not infer too much from cooking pot fragments lying on the dirt surface that has eroded into caves. We have formed a preliminary hypothesis that many caves were used for storage. Perhaps others served as hideaways, similar to the one identified on Jebel Qat (A. Kloner and Y. Tepper 1987. The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah. Tel Aviv. P. 303, Pl. 147 [Hebrew]).
As in the 1988 survey, we found indications of at least two industries on Shihin. By ‘industry’ it is meant production of a good, whether for domestic use or export. A large waster found near the clay pit (see Fig. 2) is further evidence of pottery production at the site. On the two northern hills we also found what could be indications of pressing, probably for olives. The presence of presses indicates that the residents produced olive oil on-site.
An enclosure wall on the southwestern slope of A1 (see Fig. 3) presents another curiosity. The wall is built of two rows of stones with a rubble core. Constructed openings in the wall mark clear entrances into the enclosure in the northwest (width 3.5 m) and southwest (width 3 m), but curiously the enclosure is entirely open to the east. The wall stands uniformly around, 1 m high and runs 47 m east to west, 96 m north to south, but curving toward the east, and finally 15 m southwest to northeast. The distance between the northeastern and southeastern ends of the wall is c. 60 m. The space delineated by the wall (roughly 3 sq km) shows little of the other signs of human activity visible elsewhere on the hill. We found the northeastern limit of the wall marked by an angle iron driven into the ground (this feature may also have been found in 1988: 88016). Because the wall does not enclose the eastern side of the area, unless a wooden fence stood here, it is reasonable to assume that it marked a boundary rather than serving to keep anything in or out of the enclosed space. The constructed openings suggest that loaded carts exited to the northwest and southwest.
 
Waypoint A1.69 (see Fig. 2) marks the discovery of large architectural fragments in a field wall that marks the western extent of an olive grove planted on the crown of the northern hill. Five column drums (estimated diam. 0.7 m) were found; two of them are probably column bases and at least one is upside down (estimated diam. 0.9 m). Two pieces of carved molding were discerned, along with two fragments of Ionic capital. Several fragments of a thick floor were found in a second field wall marking the easternextent of this grove; some are 8 cm thick and others clearly show two layers. The architectural remains most likely come from a public building that occupied the crown of the hill to the east of A1.69.
 
Our teams found strong evidence that a Roman road connecting Sepphoris to the Acco/Ptolemais–Tiberias highway passed along the eastern base of the hill of Shihin. A line of what are probably curb stones (A1.49; Fig. 2) indicates that the road curved around the hill’s northern flank before heading northwest. A portion of a road mirroring this one and passing northeast from Sepphoris to the highway has been located at Hosha‘aya to the east of Jebel Qat. The excavators of that road dated its earlier phase no later than, and the later phase no earlier than, the mid-third century CE (HA-ESI 123).
Jebel Qat (Sector D; see Fig. 6) shows many signs of quarrying and olive and/or wine industry. Since our survey of this hill was incomplete, we can say with certainty only that people were there in the Early and Middle Roman periods, and that activity probably continued into the Early Byzantine period. However, more work is necessary to integrate the activities and chronology of this hill into the emerging picture of Shihin and the growing understanding of Sepphoris.
The site of Shihin is beginning to prove its importance for understanding Galilee in the Late Hellenistic through the Roman periods. Continued archaeological work at the site will illuminate technologies, economics, politics, religion, and many other aspects of Galilean village life. Because of its close association with Sepphoris, Shihin stands to teach us much about Galilean urban life as well. The team continues to put together its GIS database and intends to return in the summer of 2012 to open probes on the hills A1 and A2.