60 MORTEN HØRNING JENSEN Secondly, as already mentioned, the excavator of Cana, Douglas Edwards, argues for a profitable interplay between city and village in his most recent study tackling the ‘political-economy-model’ of M.I. Finley, which he finds all too one-sided in stressing that resources only went from village to city (the consumer city). Instead, Edwards argues for a more nuanced and reciprocal relationship, in which local entrepreneurs in the small villages also benefited from the “vibrant economic environment under Herod Antipas” 54. Thirdly, the foremost Galilean pottery expert, David Adan- Bayewitz, claims to have found material evidence supporting regional and inter-regional trade of pottery produced at local rural pottery centers in Galilee such as Kefar Hananya 55. Adan-Bayewitz deduces two things from this fact. First, the economic interaction between city and village may have been reciprocal rather than ‘parasitic’ 56. Second, the small-scale industrial activity was used to aid and support the self- sufficiency prevalent in rural areas. All in all it is his judgment that Galilee was a place where “important local industries flourished” 57. It should be noted, though, that while Adan-Bayewitz’s results are accepted by some, they are challenged by others 58. In addition to Adan-Bayewitz’s studies of locally produced Galilean pottery, I wish to highlight his most recent study of the Herodian oil lamp. On the basis of a large sample (176 fragments) and through the use of instrumental neutron activation and high-precision X-ray fluorescence analyses, Adan-Bayewitz and his team were able to determine the provenance of the fragments found at various Northern sites. The data 54 EDWARDS, “Identity”, 373. 55 Through the use of neutron activation analysis, Adan-Bayewitz claims to have established a “site-specific manufacturing provenience to the major- ity of the common pottery” — D. ADAN-BAYEWITZ – M. WIEDER, “Ceramics From Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Cha- racterization”, Journal of Field Archaeology 19 (1992) 189. See further ADAN-BAYEWITZ, Common Pottery, passim. 56 Cf. D. ADAN-BAYEWITZ – I. PERLMAN, “The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period”, IEJ 40 (1990) 171. 57 ADAN-BAYEWITZ & PERLMAN, “Trade”, 172. 58 Cf. Sean Freyne: “These findings suggest a pattern of co-operation be- tween the city and the villages in the hinterland that would appear to rule out any idea of tension between them” (FREYNE, “Culture”, 602). For a differ- ent view, see, for example, R.A. HORSLEY, Archaeology, History, and So- ciety in Galilee. The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA 1996) 72.