Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Other Sites in the Levant: Cultural Aspects and Chronological Implications

Tel Aviv Vol. 39, 2012 5–21

Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other Sites in the Levant: Cultural Aspects and Chronological Implications

Ayelet Gilboa University of Haifa

The destruction level of the much contested Stratum IV at Khirbet Qeiyafa yielded two Cypriot vessels, both of them miniature barrel juglets. Their stratigraphic context and the shape of the one complete specimen indicate that they are among the earliest such vessels ever shipped out of Cyprus. This paper considers these vessels from two major perspectives. First, it draws on them as the starting point for highlighting a commercial phenomenon that has hitherto received insufficient attention—the rather extensive export of such vessels to the Levant in the early Iron Age. Second, it considers the chronological implications of the two exemplars for the chronology of Stratum IV at Khirbet Qeiyafa. This issue is relevant as well to the general debate regarding absolute dates of the Iron Age in the Levant.

Keywords Khirbet Qeiyafa, Barrel juglets, Cypro-Geometric pottery, Iron Age chronology, Mediterranean trade

Among the hundreds of ceramic vessels uncovered in Stratum IV at Khirbet Qeiyafa, only two were Cypriot (Cypro-Geometric; CG)a miniature Bichrome barrel juglet and the neck of another similar vessel: (1) The complete Bichrome Ware juglet (# B.9153, L6233; Fig. 1: 1) was uncovered among the destruction debris of Building C3, Room C (the third building northeast of the southern gate; see Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel 2012, Fig. 4). It is 8.8 cm tall, 6 cm long and 5.2 cm wide. It is roughly ‘(American) football-shaped’, with rounded shoulders and a knob at each end. The narrow neck is only slightly splayed. The juglet is decorated with a simple linear design in black in addition to one red band under the rim. The circles around the knobs are rendered in the ‘enclosed bands’ configuration, which is typical of the Cypriot decorative syntax (Gilboa 1999a).

(2) The neck fragment (# B.7331, L5106C; Fig.1: 2) was uncovered in Building C1, Room A (the building that abuts the southern gate from the northeast). The preserved fragment of the slightly splayed neck is 4 cm tall. It most probably belongs to a White Painted (WP) juglet, since most Bichrome barrel juglets are decorated with a red band under the rim, similar to Juglet 1. This paper has a double focus. First, to place these vessels in their appropriate cultural context: the early export of Cypriot barrel juglets to the southern Levant. This phenomenon has been noted in the past (Birmingham 1963: 38, 40;1 Gilboa 1999b: 124; Schreiber 2003: 39), and here I consider it in greater detail. Second, to attempt to assess the significance of these vessels for the debate on the date of Stratum IV at Khirbet Qeiyafa, and more generally for the chronology of the Levantine Iron Age. At first glance these issues may seem somewhat disparate, but here they are intertwined and, indeed, to a certain extent interdependent.

Cypro-Geometric barrel juglets in Cyprus and their distribution in the southern Levant

Barrel juglets in Cyprus In Cyprus, miniature barrel juglets2 are attested since CG I. They are unknown, however, from contexts that can be dated early in this period (CG IA–mid-CG I), such as Tombs 44, 58, 67, and 85 at Palaeopaphos-Skales (Karageorghis 1983). They begin to appear (but are still not very prolific) in the CG IB/II range, particularly toward the end of this time span.3 Examples are: In the west: at Marion-Evrethades T. 63: 19 (Bichrome; from the lower burial; Gjestrad et al. 1935: 374, 375, Pl. LXX: 3) and T. 69: 34 (Bichrome; from the lower burial; Gjestrad et al. 1935: 389, Pl. LXXIV). In the south and southwest: in Skales Tomb 72 (Karageorghis 1983: Pl. CXXI: 7, 8, 14; WP and Bichrome) and possibly also in Tomb 77 (ibid.: Fig. CXLIV: 5, apparently Grey Polished); in T. 35 at Kourion-Kaloriziki (Benson 1973: K503, T. 35.34;4 Bichrome) and probably also from the early Burial in T. 23 there (ibid.: Pl. 20: K825, Grey Polished [?]; Pl. 29: K438, WP). At Amathus, examples are T. 15: 14, 44 (WP and Bichrome respectively; Gjerstad et al. 1935: 91, 93, Pl. XXIII: 1); T. 19: 6, 28 (Bichrome, Gjerstad et al. 1935: 11, 118, Pl. XXV: 1); and T. 21: 28 (WP, Gjerstad et al. 1935: 117, Pl. XXVI: 1).5 In the centre of the island:

1 But Birmingham considered the early White Painted (WP) and Bichrome barrel juglets as vessels that originated in Phoenicia, which cannot be accepted. 2 I deal here mainly with the miniature barrel juglets (typically 6–11 cm long), and not with the larger varieties of this shape, which exemplify different phenomena. 3 CG II as defined by Einar Gjerstad and his colleagues—a century long (950–850 BCE)—has very little chronological substance to it. It should be either considerably shortened, perhaps eliminated from the Cypriot Iron Age chronological sequence altogether, or combined with CG IB. See Coldstream 1999; Gilboa 1999b; Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Smith 2009: 231–233 and passim. 4 This vessel is relatively large (16 cm in height) and elaborately decorated with cross-hatched lozenges, which is unusual for the small barrel juglets. 5 And possibly another juglet from the same tomb, which appears in the same photograph, but is not listed in the catalogue. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 7 in Idalion, T. 3: 7,6 92 (Bichrome and WP, Gjerstad et al. 1935: 636, 640, Pl. LXXIX); in the north of the island—in Kythrea Tomb 4 (Nicolaou 1965: Pl. IX: 5, No. 4/26; WP7); in Vathyrkakas-Karavas Tomb 1 (Pieridou 1964: T. 1: 25, WP) and in several tombs at Lapithos-Kastros. Examples from the latter cemetery are T. 406: 83 (WP, Gjerstad et al. 1934: 200, Pl. XLV); T. 413: 15, 46 (WP, ibid.: 220, 221, Pl. XLIX) and possibly T. 401: 39 (from the second burial episode; Bichrome, ibid.: 176, 179, Pl. XLI: 1), and the assemblage of barrel juglets in the earliest burial in T. 403 (Bichrome and Black-on-Red, ibid.: T. 403: 60, 98, 133, 134, 190; pp. 188–190, Pl. XLIII; attributed by them to CG III). Barrel juglets are known in this time span mainly in WP ware, less so in Bichrome and towards the end of this time span, also in Black-on-Red (BoR). Indeed, barrel juglets are among the earliest shapes produced in this latter ware, perhaps the earliest (Schreiber 2003: e.g., 258, 273; cf. Coldstream 1985: 52). Subsequently, the shape becomes prolific during CG III, produced mainly in BoR and to a lesser extent in WP, Bichrome and occasionally in other wares as well, such as Grey/ Black Polished. Examples are from Skales Tombs 52, 54, 63, 71, 87, 93a (Karageorghis 1983: respectively Pls. XXI: 12, 22; LXXVI: 12, 14, 16; CII: 32; Fig. CXXXV: 23; Pls. CLXXXIII: 9; CC: 3, 5); Ktima T. VII: 49 (Deshayes 1963), Kourion-Kaloriziki T. 27 (Burial B, Benson 1973: Pl. 20: K675); and Nicosia T. 1 (Flourentzos 1981: Pl. XVI: 8, no. 21).8 Late CG III and CG III/Cypro Archaic transition vessels are attested for example in Skales Tombs 62 and 81 (Karageorghis 1983: Pls. XCVI: 104, CLXI: 128), and in T. 3 in Nicosia (Flourentzos 1981: Pl. XVIII: 18 (No. 47). It is difficult to trace a morphological evolution of the juglets within this time span (cf. Vandenabeele 1971: 12)—if such occurred at all. The main reason is that only very few tomb assemblages can be dated to a short span only, but it also stems from the fact that the lion’s share of the juglets (such as most of those from Skales) were published by photographs only, which renders the determination of the exact shape difficult. Gjerstad too did not offer an explicit classification and the Swedish Cyprus Expedition typology plates mostly present larger varieties of such jugs/juglets (Gjerstad et al. 1948: Jugs 2b, 2c). However, it is quite clear that the Swedes did differentiate between miniature juglets that are less “depressed”, and have simple splaying necks (occasionally defined as “lentoid-barrel shaped” or “globular barrel shaped”)— most of them classified as Type II—and more “depressed” juglets that were generally classified as Type III. Below I suggest some observations in this respect, based on the contexts of such juglets in the southern Levant. Beyond Cyprus, this is the only region where such vessels are prolific.

6 Both in its rounded shape and in the vertical strokes on the handle, this vessel is very similar to Khirbet Qeiyafa Juglet 1. 7 This juglet, however, is larger than the mostly miniature vessels discussed here. 8 They are common in funerary contexts that span the CG II–III or that cannot be accurately dated within this range, such as Tombs 46, 69, 77, 79 and 83 at Skales (Karageorghis 1983: Pls. XLIV: 18, 22, 23; CXVII: 7; Fig. CXLIV: 5; Pls. CLIII: 12, CLXXI: 11); Ktima T. IIIb (Deshayes 1963: T. III(b): 2, 14, 43, 99; Pls. LV: 5–6; 7–8; and 9–10 respectively); and T. IV of the same cemetery (Deshayes 1963: T. IV: 41, Pl. LVI: 1, 2). Of these, T. III: 43 is a ‘football-shaped’ juglet comparable to Khirbet Qeiyafa Juglet 1. Stratigraphically, it was assigned to an early level in this assemblage (Deshayes 1963: 61). Other examples are Amathus T. 14: 6, 72, in the ‘fourth group’ in this tomb (Gjerstad et al. 1935: 89); and T. 18: 2, 3, 26, 36 ibid.: 105–108. 8 Ayelet gilboa

The southern Levant, Phase 1: Ir1|2 in Phoenicia (early Iron IIA in Israel)—initial occurrence of barrel juglets 9 The first Iron Age horizon in the Levant during which containers of Cypriot origin are attested in any meaningful number is the Ir1|2 transitional horizon in Phoenicia, which parallels CG IB/II in Cyprus (Gilboa and Sharon 2003). This horizon equals the period recently dubbed in northern Israel “Early Iron Age IIA” (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006; A. Mazar 2011: 107; for the correlation, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003, esp. Table 21. It parallels more loosely the “Early Iron IIA” in Judah (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; regarding this, see more below). Among the containers shipped to the southern Levant in this period small barrel juglets are well-attested, though still apparently not very abundant. Since assemblages in the Levant that can be exclusively assigned to this horizon are quite limited in number and size, it is difficult to define the exact scope and distribution of the barrel juglets at that time. It is clear, however, that they are significantly fewer than small Cypriot containers shipped to the Levant in the immediately following ‘Phase 2’, discussed below. Well-stratified or otherwise well-dated contexts that produced barrel juglets of this horizon can be identified in southern Phoenicia only, most importantly in two stratified sites—Tyre (Strata XII and X-2; respectively Bikai 1978: Pls. XXXII: 7; XXVIII:1, 2; WP), 10 and Dor (Gilboa 1999b: Fig. 6: 10, WP; and three yet unpublished fragmentary Bichrome examples from Phase B/9a). To these should be added a few specimens from T. 1015 at Achziv (Prausnitz 1997: Pl. 1: 1; here Fig. 1: 3; a vessel that is nearly identical to Khirbet Qeiyafa Juglet 1).11 Significantly, even the abundant CG ceramic assemblages of Tyre and Dor in this period—by far the largest outside of Cyprus—produced only a few barrel juglets (the rest are mostly open shapes). In their morphology these earliest juglets diverge from most of the other known vessels of this category (both in Cyprus and in the Levant). They are ʻfootball-shapedʼ, i.e., with rounded shoulders, pronounced knobs, and the simple necks are only slightly splayed. Juglet 1 from Khirbet Qeiyafa belongs to this category. In contrast, most of the later juglets in the southern Levant (discussed below) are more strictly barrel-shaped or ʻboxyʼ in appearance (meaning that the shoulders and narrow faces are flatter), the knobs often less protruding, or absent altogether, and the upper part of the neck more conspicuously flaring. Many juglets of these latter shapes have a neck-ridge at the junction between handle and neck. The morphologically ʻearlyʼ barrel juglets are attested in other Levantine contexts as well, mostly in Phoenicia. Examples occur in the cemeteries of Kh. Silm in the environs of Tyre (Chapman 1972: Fig. 31: 167) and at Achziv. The Achziv tombs yielded the largest number of barrel juglets beyond Cyprus. Most of the earliest tombs there served

9 Since we are dealing here with a Cypriot shape whose chronological and other associations with the Levant are chiefly brokered by Phoenicia, I use here the chronological terminology suggested for Phoenicia in Gilboa and Sharon 2003, notwithstanding the fact that I am concerned here with a southern site. 10 The vessels from Tyre X-1 are very late in this horizon. 11 As is clearly evident from its section drawing. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 9

Figure 1 Examples of barrel juglets from the Levant: (1–2) Khirbet Qeiyafa; (3) Achziv T. 1015; (4) Achziv T.N. 1; (5) Tell el-Far>ah (S); (6) Sarepta; (7) Tel Zeror; (8) Azor. 10 Ayelet gilboa for multiple burials and cannot be dated with enough accuracy within the Ir1|2–Ir2a range, and may well span both horizons. Among them, juglets of ʻearlyʼ shapes as defined above occur in Tomb T.N. 1 in the northern cemetery (burial period 2; E. Mazar 2004: Fig.16: 6, photo 95; here Fig. 1: 4),12 and in Tomb T.C. 4 in the southern cemetery (E. Mazar 2001: Figs. 11: 5; 12: 1, 2, 3; 12: 1–5).13 Another WP juglet that may belong to this horizon was found at Tell Abu-Hawam (Herrera and Gomez 2004: Pl. II: 11).14 Other than in Phoenicia, barrel juglets, which by their shape and context may belong to this horizon (or alternatively to the next, discussed below) are few, and therefore it is difficult to determine if and to what extent such containers were distributed beyond Phoenicia. Possible candidates are from Beth-Shean Lower V (James 1966: Fig. 22: 9; a rare BoR specimen) and from the Tell el-Farʿah (S) Tombs (Duncan 1930: 86G; here Fig. 1: 5). Regarding other southerly regions, at Lachish, Cypriot barrel juglets are unknown in the tell deposits, but Olga Tufnell, with varying degrees of certainty, attributed quite a few that were found in tombs to Stratum V, an occupation assigned to the early Iron Age IIA horizon in Judah (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; for the juglets, see Tufnell 1953: Pl. 88: 329, seemingly all Bichrome, from Tombs 100, 218, 224, 6006; and Pl. 88: 332, apparently Black/Grey Polished, from T. 218). In fact, however, none of these tomb deposits can be equated with this stratum. The earliest assemblages in them (such as in Tombs 218 and 224) probably parallel Stratum IV (Zimhoni 2004: 1699–1700 and Table 25.31). They inter alia produced BoR neck-ridge juglets (Tufnell 1953: 203, 215–217), which cannot be earlier than Stratum IV (for which see further below). Since the barrel juglets are represented in the site report by only a few quite schematic drawings, it is difficult to assess their exact shape.

The southern Levant Phase 2: Ir2a in Phoenicia (late Iron IIA in Israel)—zenith of barrel juglet distribution In the Ir2a horizon in Phoenicia (or late Iron IIA in Israel) the shipment of small Cypriot containers to the southern Levant intensifies significantly. This horizon parallels CG III in Cyprus (Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008).15 The most prolific, wide-spread and extensively-discussed Cypriot export, then, is that of the BoR containers, mostly (though not exclusively) small/miniature ones (often erroneously termed “Cypro-Phoenician”; see Schreiber 2003). Yet again, these Cypriot containers are

12 But both burial periods 1 and 2 already comprise BoR neck-ridged juglets (E. Mazar 2004: Fig. 16: 2–4). These are indicative of the next chronological horizon (Ir2a, for which see below). Unless these phases encompass both Ir1|2 and Ir2a, the barrel juglets should be assigned to Ir2a. 13 In all there are 13 barrel-shaped juglets in this tomb, mostly WP, a few Bichrome and one BoR. Other barrel juglets are more conspicuously barrel shaped, such as E. Mazar 2001: Fig. 11: 4, 7, 8. The tomb also contained (a few) BoR amphoriskoi (ibid.: Fig. 10). There are insufficient contextual data to aid in the differentiation between earlier and later depositions in this tomb. E. Mazar (ibid.: 75) dated this tomb to the late 11th/early 10th century, which is too high even for adherents of the High Chronology (see below). 14 Uncovered under the walls of Building 17–23 of Sub-stratum III.B1 (Herrera and Gomez 2004: 123–124). 15 Contra Nicola Schreiberʼs suggestion to correlate its beginnings with “CG II” (e.g., Schreiber 2003: 272). For critiques, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 61; Iacovou 2004. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 11 well attested in a core area in southern Phoenicia and its immediate vicinity (the coast of Galilee, the >Akko plain, the Carmel coast and the western Jezreel Valley), but now they are distributed, and in fact better attested, farther afield—as far as the Huleh basin and the Jordan Valley in the east and Philistia and Judah in the south (for the distribution of BoR in the Levant in this period, see Schreiber 2003: 28–30, 184–185; Appendix 1 on pp. 315–326). Judahite sites that produced such vessels are, for example, Beth Shemesh, Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell Halif, Tel Sheva and even remote >Ein el-Qudeirat in northeastern Sinai (Stratum 4b; Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: Pl. 11.11.11). In theory, this extensive southern distribution (relative to that in Phoenicia) may be ascribed to the fact that taken together sites in Judah have been much more extensively excavated than those in Phoenicia. However, the dearth, indeed, of small BoR containers in Phoenicia is underscored by the fact that at sites that produced abundant CG assemblages of this period, chiefly Tyre and Dor, BoR small containers are conspicuously under-represented (for Tyre, see Bikai 1978: 53 and her comment in Coldstream 1988: 37).16 All this signals a significant change in clientele—the rising importance of (probably elite) customers in Israel, Philistia and Judah and concomitantly possibly also a reshuffle in trade networks. Alongside these common BoR exports, barrel juglets continue to be shipped to the Levant. They are much better attested than in the previous horizon, but never nearly as common as the various small BoR neck-ridged juglets, amphoriskoi, etc. They are usually Bichrome, occasionally WP and seldom BoR (Gilboa in press).17 The distribution of barrel-juglets in this period overlaps that of the BoR small containers only partially. Like the latter, they are known in the more southerly sites of Phoenicia. Stratified or otherwise ,well-dated examples in this region occur at Sarepta II/D-5/6 Level 8 (Koehl 1985: Fig. 21: 217, here Fig. 1: 6; and possibly two other fragments, p. 127: Nos. 216, 218; Anderson 1988: Pl. 32: 20; all Bichrome); the Tyre al-Bass Cemetery (Aubet and Núñez 2008: Fig. 13, upper row; Bichrome); Tell Abu-Hawam (Herrera and Gomez 2004: Pl. II: 10; Bichrome); and Shiqmona (Zemer and Rotgaizer 2011: Figs. 32, 33; WP). Dozens of such vessels were uncovered in the Achziv tombs, mostly in the earliest, eastern tell and southern cemeteries, such as in T. 979 (Burial Phase 2; Prausnitz 1997: 24, 26, Pl. 3: 6, 7, 8; Bichrome and at least one BoR); Tomb T.C. 2 (E. Mazar 2001: 49, Figs. 21: 7, 26: 1–7);18 and in T. ZXI (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: Fig. 3.10: 28, a BoR conspicuously barrel-

16 The situation at Tell Keisan is unclear. No such vessels figure in the site report (Briend and Humbert 1980), but several are housed in the Tell Keisan store-rooms in Jerusalem; their stratigraphical associations are, however, unclear to me. The relatively numerous examples in the Achziv tombs again somewhat tip the balance. The well-known BoR assemblage at Horbat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000) is not enumerated here since I do not consider this site Phoenician. 17 Like the small BoR containers, the number of barrel juglets in the Levant rapidly dwindles after the Iron IIA. 18 They occur both in the earliest burial phase and in the pit assigned to the second burial phase. At least one of them, a complete vessel, is Bichrome and the rest, which are quite fragmentary, are probably WP. The early phase in this tomb already contained BoR ridge-necked juglets (E. Mazar 2001: Fig. 21) and thus cannot precede the Phoenician Ir2a. E. Mazar (ibid.: 76) dated this tomb to the 10th century BCE. According to any chronology Cypriot BoR, appearing for the first time in late Iron Age IIA (Phoenician Ir2a), is by and large a 9th century BCE phenomenon, though some would allow for a beginning in the late 10th (see below). 12 Ayelet gilboa shaped specimen). Examples are also known from Dor (unpublished, in Phase B/8) and nearby Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978: Figs. 17: 14; 33: 14).19 Other barrel juglets in Phoenicia, which, based on their shape (see above), most probably belong to this period, are again primarily from Achziv (in Tombs ZI and ZX in the southern cemetery; Dayagi-Mendels 2002: Figs. 3.1: 85, 86; 3.9: 29); among the Kh. Silm and Qraye funerary material (Chapman 1972: Figs. 31: 165), and among Woolley’s so-called Beka>a group (Woolley 1921: Pl. XX; Figs. 35, 36). Beyond Phoenicia, barrel juglets of this horizon are few and far between. They are known mostly from the very western end of the Jezreel Valley, alongside Israel’s central coast, and occasionally in Philistia—at Yoqneʿam (Zarzecki-Peleg 2005: 335: Fig. II.46: 3), Megiddo, Tel Shadud (for the two latter sites see respectively Arie 2011, Vol. II: Figs. 17.8: 9; 9.4.3: 15), Tel Zeror (Tomb V; Ohata 1967: Pl. X: 3; here Fig. 1: 7); Tel Michal, Stratum XIII (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig: 7.3: 12), Azor, Tomb 79 (Dothan 1961: Pl. 34: 5; for a drawing, see Gilboa in press: Pl. 14.2.6: 3; here Fig. 1: 8), and in the Yavneh favissa (Joanna Smith and Raz Kletter, personal communication). Only rarely have such vessels found their way to farther destinations, such as Deir Abu Da>if in the eastern Jezreel Valley (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 20: 24; a rather large specimen), and even to sites in the Negev: Tel Sheva Stratum VI (Brandfon 1984: Fig. 30: 9) and Nahal La>ana in the Negev Highlands (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004: Fig. 48: 11). Morphologically, the majority of these examples conform to the ʻlate shapeʼ as defined above: conspicuously barrel-shaped/ʻboxyʼ, with pronounced flaring necks, oftentimes ridged. This notwithstanding, a few ʻearlyʼ shapes are still attested, such as one juglet in the Yavneh favissa. Yet again, based on this evidence, juglets of ʻlateʼ shapes from more problematic contexts may be attributed to this period as well. These include most of the barrel juglets known from Philistia (for several such juglets at Tell el-Far>ah (S), mostly in tombs, see Duncan 1930: 86: B–D, F, H; and also one from Gezer, 86E). In Judah, barrel juglets of this horizon are probably all the Lachish examples mentioned above. Noteworthy is their complete absence from sites that produced numerous BoR containers such as Hazor (Huleh basin), Horbat Rosh Zayit (lower Galilee), Megiddo and Ta>anach (Jezreel Valley), and from many other sites that yielded BoR containers.

Discussion The Cypriot barrel juglets in the Levant in Phase 1 (Ir1|2 in Phoenicia=early Iron IIA in Israel), exemplify a commercial phenomenon starting towards the end of the CG IB/II horizon, prior to the extensive production and export of BoR containers. The fact that from the moment these vessels were produced, they were also used for overseas shipment, indicates that the shape was inter alia meant to serve this endeavour. Noteworthy is the fact that other than one barrel juglet in Greece that apparently belongs to this phase— from Lefkandi Palia Perivolia Grave 22 (Popham, Sackett and Themelis 1980: Pl. 137: 9;

19 The context of this BoR juglet, however, is unclear: it is attributed in the report to Stratum VII (Ir2a), but the registration and locus numbers do not fit this stratum. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 13 a quite rounded Bichrome example)—no such vessels are known in this period in any other Mediterranean region. In addition, very few barrel juglets in Syria can at present be demonstrated to belong to this horizon or to the next. Two (of WP and Bichrome wares) were recently uncovered at coastal Tell Tweini (Vansteenhuyse 2010: Ill. 1: 5 and personal communication), and one such vessel from Zincirli cannot be accurately dated (von Luschan and Andrae 1943: Pl. 18: e). A few such juglets also reached Egypt (Aston 1996: Figs. 44: 3, 50:24). Further study needs to be conducted in order to assess whether these juglets were also intended to serve commercial networks within Cyprus. From a general Mediterranean perspective, this specific horizon, paralleling Attic and Euboean Late Proto-Geometric, is the first horizon since the Bronze Age where intensive cross-Mediterranean flow of goods is attested— reaching as far as the Atlantic coast of Iberia—in which Cyprus had a major role (see Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008: 146–158; Kourou 2008: 320–355; see also Nijboer 2008, but he attributes most of this traffic to the Phoenicians).20 These contacts, however, involved mostly prestigious metal objects (and most probably the metals themselves). The barrel juglets case, as detailed above, is much more restricted spatially, and also constitutes a rare network (or networks) distributing some commodity packed in clay containers. In the Levant, it seems that the earliest ʻbarrel jugletsʼ attested are the football-shaped ones.21 In Cyprus, however, with the contextual limitations explicated above, and the partial morphological data in publications, I could identify such shapes only in a few instances. In the CG IB/II range these are the vessels mentioned above from T. 77 at Skales, T. 21 at Amathus, T. 3 (No. 7) at Idalion and T. 4 (No. 26) at Kythrea.22 Others occur in tombs spanning both CG IB/II and CG III, such as Skales Tombs 71 and 90.23 Two WP juglets that are nearly identical in form to Khirbet Qeiyafa Juglet 1 were uncovered in T. 53A in the Lapithos Lower Geometric cemetery and defined as Type III (Donohoe 1992: Figs. 20:15, 20). The tomb has been assigned by Donohoe to CG III, but at least some of the pottery in it seems earlier. It remains to be seen whether the rough typological evolution outlined here may in the future be corroborated by finds in Cyprus. It may be assumed a priori that there are regional variances in this respect. In addition, the early football shaped type as defined here probably indicates that the morphological ancestors of the small barrel juglets were the lentoid two-handled flasks with knobs (e.g., Karageorghis 1983: Pl. CLX: 65). Containers of this latter shape were also exported to the Levant, but apparently only rarely (cf. an example from Achziv T. Z. XI—Dayagi-Mendels 2002: Fig. 3.10: 29). In this early phase, other than in Cyprus itself the (alas, unknown) contents of these containers were consumed mainly in southern Phoenicia, by which term I include not only southern Lebanon but also the coast of Galilee, the >Akko plain and the Carmel coast in

20 Also, Nijboer takes a High Chronology stance, and he does not always differentiate between the horizons termed here Phoenician Ir1|2 and Ir2a. 21 Naturally, the two typological ʻstagesʼ outlined here—football-shaped to more barrel/box- shaped—probably exemplify a more gradual process. 22 The neck of this juglet, however, rather than being simple, has a distinct collar. 23 A good example of a Bichrome football-shaped juglet is kept at the AUB Museum in Beirut: Karageorghis and Badre 2009, no. 72, right. 14 Ayelet gilboa

Israel.24 (In contrast, Schreiber [2003: 26, 48] and Iacovou [2004], for instance, exclude these regions from early Iron Age Phoenicia sensu stricto.25) The Khirbet Qeiyafa juglets, by their context (for which see more below), and as attested by the shape of Juglet 1, are the only examples beyond Phoenicia that can be safely attributed to this early horizon (a few other candidates were discussed above). Two juglets are certainly insufficient to postulate established inland trade networks (through Phoenician ports?). However, the fact that the only contexts in the Levant that produced several barrel juglets are tombs (and a favissa associated with a cultic complex) does indicate that cemeteries are where most of the barrel juglets ended up. Assuming that they were not destined specifically to serve as funerary offerings (an assumption I cannot corroborate), this would mean that both within and outside of Phoenicia they were more extensively distributed than may currently be gleaned from habitation contexts. As detailed above, the number of such vessels at Khirbet Qeiyafa (two) nearly equals their numbers at Tyre and at Dor—two sites with extensive commercial ties with Cyprus and abundant CG ceramics. Who were the carriers of these vessels during this period? No serious commercial initiative to distribute them beyond Phoenicia can be demonstrated; their dispersion rather seems to be the result of some inland southern Levantine distribution mechanism that tapped into Cypro-Phoenician exchange networks. The fact that a particular ceramic form was designed towards the end of CG IB/II to serve this ʻexportʼ (inter alia?) may hint at a Cypriot initiative. Their shipment to the Levant may well be an epiphenomenon of a primarily Cypriot phenomenon, although further research is needed to assess such a possibility. Nevertheless, the commercial initiative embodied by the ʻbarrel juglets phenomenonʼ sheds additional light on this still quite obscure period in Cypriot history. Assuming that these vessels did not reach Khirbet Qeiyafa randomly (cf. Gilboa 1989: 217), or with some secondary content, they also provide limited information regarding the socio-economic standing of the siteʼs inhabitants, since whatever these vessels contained must have been costly (see also Schreiber 2003: 65–72). In Phase 2, as defined above—CG III in Cyprus, Ir2a in Phoenicia, late Iron IIA in Israel (and roughly Iron IIA in Judah, for which see below)—the situation becomes more complex because of the beginning of the extensive BoR export to the Levant (in itself a phenomenon that is in need of fragmentation into sub-phenomena and perhaps different networks).26 This phenomenon, too, was lately characterized by Schreiber (2003: 51) and Iacovou (2004: 63) as resulting from Cypriot initiatives. As mentioned, barrel juglets continued to be shipped to the southern Levant concurrently with BoR containers.

24 This suggested cultural agglomeration may not be relevant for later phases of the Iron Age. 25 Since very few early Iron Age contexts are known north of the Tyre/Sidon range, the possible distribution of such vessels in northern Phoenicia cannot be gauged. For the time being, for example, no such vessels have been published among the Iron Age Cypriot material from Beirut. 26 Similarly, Schreiber 2003: 312. I do not consider here the significance of larger containers of BoR ware and indeed of BoR open shapes in the Levant. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 15

Curiously, however, though in this period barrel juglets in Cyprus are mostly BoR, those arriving in the Levant are still mainly of Bichrome and WP wares, which differ in their material properties (e.g., porosity) from BoR; BoR and Black/Grey Polished barrel juglets in the Levant are extremely rare. This may indicate that the commodities shipped in the barrel juglets were different from those in the BoR containers. As well in Phase 2 (as compared to Phase 1), barrel juglets are better attested in the southern Levant beyond Phoenicia, but their distribution only partially overlaps that of BoR containers.27 (Some serendipity must of course be acknowledged in uncovering these not very common finds.) As opposed to the BoR containers, barrel juglets in this phase are still best known from Phoenicia (and its immediate environs). All this may indicate that they were, at least partially, distributed through other networks, and possibly that they held commodities other than those in the BoR containers, directed at other clientele.

Chronological implications The chronology of the ceramic assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa Stratum IV is a subject of on-going debate, centering on two main aspects. The first is its relative placement in the ceramic sequence of Judah: should it be defined as an early Iron IIA assemblage as maintained by the excavators (lately Garfinkel and Kang 2011, with references) or alternatively placed very late in the Iron I (Singer-Avitz 2010; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a). The second, and partly concomitant aspect, is that of absolute chronology: the significance of the site’s radiocarbon dates for the chronology of its main occupation layer in Stratum IV (e.g., Garfinkel and Ganor 2009: 35–38; Garfinkel and Kang 2011; Garfinkel et al. forthcoming; advocating a late 11th/early 10th century date); for state formation in Judah; and for the general question of early Iron Age chronology. My comments below pertain mainly to the contribution of the Cypriot vessels to the issue of relative chronology. In relative terms these juglets establish a clear connection between Khirbet Qeiyafa Stratum IV and the sequences of Phoenicia and northern Israel while correlation with southern/Judahite sites is less straightforward. 28 Addressing the absolute chronology aspect in earnest is beyond my scope here, so regarding this issue I only refer below to the currently prevailing competing views.

Relative chronology One issue that has been avoided by all participants in this dispute is the manner in which the Khirbet Qeiyafa destruction pottery (yet to be fully published) may be integrated, in relative terms, with ceramic sequences of more northerly sites in Israel. Finkelstein and

27 BoR containers are also attested in the northern Levant (Schreiber 2003: Appendix 1). 28 In general, participants in the ʻvery late Iron I or very early Iron IIAʼ controversy have not given enough consideration to the fact that such a tight question must involve quantitative aspects of the ceramic assemblages being compared. Currently this has not been done and to a large extent is indeed impossible since for the most part the relevant comparable Judahite ceramic assemblages are small (such as from Arad XII), and/or lack quantitative data, and some are also notoriously difficult to define stratigraphically—the obvious case being Lachish Strata V and IV (see Zimhoni 2004). 16 Ayelet gilboa

Fantalkin, for example, recently stated explicitly that the Khirbet Qeiyafa dates have no direct bearing on the general Iron Age chronological dilemma (2012: 41). Regional affinities of the pottery indeed render this task extremely difficult. Therefore, the two barrel juglets are important since they provide a first concrete chronological link between the Khirbet Qeiyafa destruction assemblage and northern Israelite and Phoenician sites (and through them with the chronologies of Cyprus and Greece). In the Levant, late Iron I contexts—Ir1b in Phoenicia, the last phase of the period commonly termed in Israel Iron IB, i.e., the ‘Megiddo VIA horizon’ (e.g., Mazar 1990: 300, Table 6)— have indeed produced CG imports, but mostly in Phoenicia, with no miniature barrel juglets whatsoever, and hardly any containers at all. Since in this period in Cyprus (CG IA-mid-CG I; for this correlation, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008), barrel juglets were indeed not produced yet, this absence is not accidental. Consequently, the first conclusion is that the Khirbet Qeiyafa assemblage, in relative terms, cannot parallel the Iron I as currently defined in Phoenicia and northern Israel.29 This does not reflect automatically on the terminology and chronology of the roughly contemporaneous late ‘Iron I’ horizon in Judah. Establishing such a correlation between north and south will require a meticulous ceramic study, which I did not undertake here. However, as recently reported (Garfinkel and Kang 2011) Khirbet Qeiyafa IV produced at least one vessel of the ‘Black Juglets’ category. Both in Israel and in the south, such vessels do not occur before their respective ‘Early Iron IIA’ horizons. 30 It is indeed hazardous to rely on such scant evidence, but presently this type somewhat tips the balance in favour of a Judahite Iron IIA definition, but further study is required in order to assess whether Black Juglets first appear in Israel and Judah concurrently. The placement of the Khirbet Qeiyafa juglets within the Iron IIA range of Judah/ Israel cannot be decided by the Cypriot juglets (since they occur throughout this range), but rather by the rest of the ceramic assemblage. Since it is unanimously agreed that the ceramic assemblage of the Stratum IV destruction ʻhoversʼ around the Iron Age I/II transition (with which I concur), it is impossible to place it in the late Iron IIA of Israel/ Judah (Ir2a in Phoenicia). Thus the unavoidable conclusion is that the Khirbet Qeiyafa juglets establish a concrete link between the destruction moment of Stratum IV and the early Iron IIA, at least in Israel (Ir1|2 in Phoenicia), and probably also in Judah, the latter as suggested by the excavators.

29 In the past some barrel juglets in Israel, such as the above-mentioned ones from Achziv and Tel Zeror were assigned to the 11th century BCE, i.e., to Iron IB by the then nearly unanimously- accepted chronology. This, however, can no longer be sustained. 30 In the north, early Iron IIA contexts with Black Juglets are, for example, Stratum VI at Tel Rehov (A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen, personal communication), Yoqneʻam XV and Megiddo Vb (Zarzecky-Peleg 2005: 334). For their occurrence in the south not earlier than early Iron IIA, see Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 223. Following Garfinkel’s report on the Black Juglets, Finkelstein and Fantalkin (2012: n. 3) proposed a new chronological horizon for Khirbet Qeiyafa IV: an intermediate horizon between late Iron I and the early Iron IIA of Judah/Israel—a horizon yet unidentified elsewhere. This newly proposed horizon is certainly not an impossibility, since with time, hopefully, we will be able to better our chrono-typological resolution—but it is not warranted by the evidence. As an adherent of Occam’s razor principle, I suggest it be rejected for the time being. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 17

Proponents of the ‘very late Judahite Iron Age I’ for Khirbet Qeiyafa IV will have to demonstrate that this latter horizon can be considered at least partially concurrent with early Iron IIA in (northern) Israel. Alternatively, claiming with Finkelstein and Fantalkin that Khirbet Qeiyafa IV should be assigned to an intermediate horizon between the late Iron I and the early Iron IIA of Judah/Israel (see n. 32) will entail some explicit argumentation. Through Phoenicia and northern Israel a chronological link is established between Khirbet Qeiyafa IV, CG IB/II in Cyprus and Mid- to Late Proto-Geometric in Euboea. The early football shape of Juglet 1 and the simple splayed necks of both specimens fit this placement perfectly. They are among the earliest such juglets in the Levant, and perhaps among the earliest such vessels ever produced.

Some notes regarding absolute chronology All this means that the Khirbet Qeiyafa 14C dates must be considered against the entire body of relevant radiometric determinations from Israel (see mainly Bruins, van der Plicht and Mazar 2003; Sharon et al. 2007; Mazar and Bronk-Ramsey 2008; 2010; Boaretto, Finkelstein and Shahack-Gross 2010; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b; Mazar 2011; Boarreto, Gilboa and Sharon 2009b; Boarreto, Sharon and Gilboa in press; Gilboa, Boarreto and Sharon in press; and references in all these publications). They cannot be considered in isolation. This is especially true since I do not accept the excavatorsʼ claim (e.g., Garfinkel et al. forthcoming) that contextually the Khirbet Qeiyafa samples are ʻsaferʼ or otherwise superior to those at most other sites. I also agree with Finkelstein and Piasetsky (2010a) that the dates from Khirbet Qeiyafa cannot be averaged since they cannot be demonstrated to reflect a single event (these issues have been presented in Boaretto, Gilboa and Sharon 2009a). When compared to or modeled with the numerous available 14C determinations from Israel, most of which (though definitely not all) originate in northern sites (including Phoenician sites), the Khirbet Qeiyafa dates31 should not be considered among those of the late Iron I (as in Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a), but rather with early Iron IIA dates (Phoenician Ir1|2). This horizon has yielded to date very few 14C dates, all of them from the north. The few groups that have considered and modeled the entire body of currently- available radiometric dates from Israel have suggested the following time spans for this period: ca. 920–900/890 (Sharon et al. 2007: e.g., Fig. 7; Finkelstein and Piasetsky 2010b: Table 2 and Fig. 5) or alternatively a starting date ca. the mid-10th century (Mazar and Bronk-Ramsey 2010: 1681–1682).32 I do not consider here the longevity of this stratum (a few decades, as per Garfinkel, or about a century or more as per Finkelstein, Piasetsky and others), since I do not think that there are enough data to support either claim. The possibility that the site was constructed during ‘Davidic times’ cannot be ruled out, but artefacts from its destruction layer postdate David’s presumed reign, whatever radiometric chronology is employed.

31 Or, rather, those that have direct associations with the destruction assemblage. 32 This notwithstanding, in the text (p. 1685) the Iron I/II transition is still placed by them ‘early’ in the 10th century BCE (similarly in Mazar and Bronk-Ramsey 2008). 18 Ayelet gilboa

When the Khirbet Qeiyafa radiometric dates are considered as single dates, difficulties vs. other sites are readily apparent, and I provide here one example only: Radiometric dates produced from clusters of seeds at Tell el-Quderiat (Kadesh Barnea), from the destruction assemblage of Stratum 4, are very similar to the Khirbet Qeiyafa ones (Gilboa et al. 2009, Table. 1). In terms of relative chronology, however, the destruction of this stratum is definitely later than the Khirbet Qeiyafa occupation late( Iron IIA).33 Regrettably, then, there are no shortcuts in the Khirbet Qeiyafa case, and the absolute dates produced at this site must be considered from the wider perspective of radiometric data pertaining to the Iron Age chronological debate.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Yosef Garfinkel for inviting me to discuss these finds, and acknowledge the cooperation and advice of Elisabetta Boaretto and Ilan Sharon—my partners in the Iron Age Dating Project (supported by Israel Science Foundation Grants Nos. 778/00; 141/04). Anna Georgiadou kindly sent me photographs of the Kythrea juglet and provided useful comments. Joanna Smith and Raz Kletter permitted me to refer to the yet unpublished Yavneh favissa pottery and Smith commented on an earlier draft of this paper. The staff of the École biblique et archéologique française in Jerusalem allowed me to examine the Tell Keisan pottery and Amihai Mazar and Nava Panitz Cohen explained to me the ‘Black Juglets situation’ at Tel Rehov. I also thank the two reviewers of this paper, who contributed several constructive comments.

References Anderson, W.P. 1988. Sarepta I: The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Publications de l’université Libanaise, Section des études archéoloqiques II. Beirut. Arie, E. 2011. “In the Land of the Valley”: Settlement, Social and Cultural Processes in the Jezreel Valley from the End of the Late Bronze Age to the Formation of the Monarchy (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Aston, D. A. 1996. Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Twelfth-Seventh Cenetury BC). Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 13. Cairo and Heidelberg. Aubet, M.-E. and Núñez, F.J. 2008. Cypriote Imports from the Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre, Al-Bass. In: Doumet-Serhal, C., ed. Networking Patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant: The Lebanon and Its Mediterranean Connections. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon Special Edition. Beirut: 71–104.

33 Contrary to claims in Singer-Avitz 2008 and Finkelstein 2010 these dates cannot pertain to the Iron I. To cut a long story short: As proposed by Singer-Avitz some of the ceramic types of Stratum 4 at Tell el-Quderiat may indeed start in Iron I. Also, as noted in Gilboa et al. 2009: 84 and Finkelstein 2010: 113 there is some uncertainty regarding the relation of the floor on which the seeds and accompanying vessels were found. However, there is no Iron I stratum at Tell el-Quderiat to speak of and a very large concentration of seeds, accompanied by several in situ vessels, can only be attributed to the destruction moment of Stratum 4b, dating to the late Iron IIA. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 19

Benson, J.L. 1973. The Necropolis of Kaloriziki (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XXXVI). Göteborg. Bikai, P.M. 1978. The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster. Birmingham, J. 1963. The Chronology of Some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot Sites. AJA 67: 15–42. Boaretto, E., Finkelstein, I., and Shahack-Gross, R. 2010. Radiocarbon Results from the Iron IIA Site of Atar Haroa in the Negev Highlands and Their Archaeological and Historical Implications. Radiocarbon 52: 1–12. Boaretto, E., Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2009a. The Absolute Chronology of the Iron Age: The Archaeological Record from the 14C Perspective. Paper presented at The 35th Archaeological Congress in Israel, Jerusalem, April 2009. Boaretto, E., Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2009b. Radiocarbon Dating. In: Kochavi, M., Gadot, Y., and Yadin E. Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 575–579. Boaretto, E., Sharon, I. and Gilboa, A. In press. Radiocarbon Dating of the Iron Age Stratigraphic Sequence at Beth Shemesh. In: Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in Judah. Tel Aviv. Brandfon, F.R. 1984. The Pottery. In: Herzog, Z. Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 7). Tel Aviv: 37–69. Briend, J. and Humbert, J.-B. 1980. Tell Keisan (1971–1976) — une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Paris and Fribourg. Bruins, H.J., van der Plicht, J. and Mazar, A. 2003. 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs and Hebrew Kings. Science 300: 315–318. Chapman, S.V. 1972. A Catalogue of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qrayé and Qasmieh of South Lebanon. Berytus 21: 55–194. Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007. Excavations at Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh Barnea) 1976–1982 (IAA Reports 34). Jerusalem. Cohen, R. and Cohen-Amin, R. 2004. Ancient Settlements in the Negev Highlands Vol. II: The Iron Age and Persian Period (IAA Reports 20). (Hebrew). Coldstream, J.N. 1985. Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985: The Geometric and Archaic Periods. In: Karageorghis, V., ed. Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985. Nicosia: 47–59. Coldstream, J.N. 1988. Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: Some Preliminary Comparisons. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 35–41. Coldstream, J.N. 1999. On Chronology: The CG II Mystery and Its Sequel. In: Iacovou, M. and Michaelides, D., eds. Cyprus: The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon. Nicosia: 109–118. Dayagi-Mendels, M. 2002. The Achziv Cemeteries: The Ben-Dor Excavations of 1941–1944 (IAA Reports 15). Jerusalem. Deshayes, J. 1963. La nécropole de Ktima. Paris. Donohoe, J M. 1992. The Lapithos–lower Geometric Cemetery: An Early Iron Age Necropolis in Cyprus (Report of the 1931–1932 Excavations of the Cyprus Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Museum (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). PA. Dothan, M. 1961. Excavations at Azor 1960. IEJ 11: 171–187. Duncan, J.G. 1930. Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery (British School of Archaeology in Egypt Publications 49). London. Finkelstein, I. 2010. Kadesh Barnea: A Reevaluation of Its Archaeology and History. Tel Aviv 37: 111–125. Finkelstein, I. and Fantalkin, A. 2012. Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation. Tel Aviv 39: 38–63. Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. 2010a. Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology. Tel Aviv 37: 84–88. Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. 2010b. Radiocarbon Dating the Iron Age in the Levant: A Bayesian Model for Six Ceramic Phases and Six Transitions. Antiquity 84: 374–385. Flourentzos, P. 1981. Four Early Iron Age Tombs from Nicosia Old Municipality. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 113–128, Pls. XVI–XIX. 20 Ayelet gilboa

Gal, Z. and Alexandre, Y. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA Reports 8). Jerusalem. Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2009. Khirbet Qeiyafa 1. Excavation Report 2007–2008. Jerusalem. Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S., and Hasel M. G. 2012.The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa after Four Seasons of Excavations. In: Galil, G., Gilboa, A., Maeir, A.M., and Kahn, D., eds. The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE—Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament Band 392). Münster. Garfinkel, Y. and Kang, H. 2011. The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA? IEJ 61: 171–183. Garfinkel, Y., Streit, K., Ganor, S., and Hasel, M.G. Forthcoming. State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories and Radiometric Datings from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Radiocarbon. Gilboa, A. 1989. New Finds at Tel Dor and the Beginning of Cypro-Geometric Pottery Import to Palestine. IEJ 39: 204–218. Gilboa, A. 1999a. The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor. BASOR 316: 1–22. Gilboa, A. 1999b. The View from the East: Tel Dor and the Earliest Cypro-Geometric Exports to the Levant. In: Iacovou, M. and Michaelides, D., eds. Cyprus: The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon. Nicosia: 119–139. Gilboa, A. In press. Cypriot Imports of the Iron Age. In: Gitin, S., ed. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors. Jerusalem. Gilboa, A., Boaretto, E. and Sharon, I. In press. Radiocarbon Dating of the Iron Age Levels. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E.H., eds. Megiddo V. In press (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31). Tel Aviv. Gilboa, A., Jull, A.J.T., Sharon, I. and Boaretto, E. 2009. Notes on Iron IIA 14C Dates from Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh Barnea). Tel Aviv 36: 82–94. Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2003. An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. BASOR 332: 7–80. Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Boaretto, E. 2008. Tel Dor and the Chronology of Phoenician “Pre- colonization” Stages. In: Sagona, C., ed. Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology (Monograph Series of Ancient Near Eastern Studies). Louvain: 113–204. Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Volume IV, Part 2. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. Stockholm. Gjerstad, E., Lindros, J., Sjøqvist, E., and Westholm, A. 1934. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931, Volume I. Stockholm. Gjerstad, E., Lindros, J., Sjøqvist, E. and Westholm, A. 1935. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931, Volume II. Stockholm. Herrera Gonzalez, M.D. and Gomez, F. 2004. Tell Abu Hawam (Haifa, Israel): El Horizonte Fenicio del Stratum III Britanico. Huelva. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L., 2004. Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31: 209–244. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2006. Sub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate. Tel Aviv 33: 163–195. Iacovou, M. 2004. Phoenicia and Cyprus in the First Millennium B.C.: Two Distinct Cultures in Search of Their Distinct Archaeologies. BASOR 336: 61–66. James, F.W. 1966. The Iron Age at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VI–IV. Philadelphia. Karageorghis, V. 1983. Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Zypern 3. Konstanz. Karageorghis, V. and Badre, L. 2009. Cypriote Antiquities in the Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beirut. Nicosia. Kourou, N. 2008. The Evidence from the Aegean. In: Sagona, C., ed. Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology (Monograph Series of Ancient Near Eastern Studies). Louvain: 305–364. Cypriot Barrel Juglets at Khirbet Qeiyafa and other sites in the Levant 21

Koehl, R.B. 1985. Sarepta III: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X. Publications de l’Université Libanaise, Section des études Archéologiques II. Beirut. Magen, Y. and Eisenstadt, I. 2004. Ancient Burial Caves in Samaria. In: Hizmi, H. and De-Groot, A., eds. Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria: From the Bronze and Iron Ages (Judea and Samaria Publications 4). Jerusalem: 1–76. Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. (Anchor Bible Series). New York. Mazar, A. 2011. The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint. NEA 74: 105–111. Mazar, A. and Bronk-Ramsey, C. 2008. 14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response. Radiocarbon 50: 159–180. Mazar, A. and Bronk-Ramsey, C. 2010. A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and “New Perspective”. Radiocarbon 52: 1681–1688. Mazar, E. 2001. The Phoenicians in Achziv: The Southern Cemetery. Jerome L. Joss Expedition, Final Report of the Excavations 1988–1990. Cuadrenos de Arqueología Meditérranea 7. Barcelona. Mazar, E. 2004. The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1 at the Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th–6th Centuries BCE). Sam Turner Expedition Final Report of the Excavations (Cuadrenos de Arqueología Meditérranea 10). Barcelona. Nicolaou, K. 1965 Geometrikoi tafoi Kythraias. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 30–74. Nijboer, A.J. 2008. A Phoenician Family Tomb, Lefkandi, Huelva and the Tenth Century BC in the Mediterranean. In: Sagona, C., ed. Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology (Monograph Series of Ancient Near Eastern Studies). Louvain: 365–377. Ohata, K.1967. Tel Zeror II: Preliminary Report of the Excavation, Second Season, 1965. Tokyo. Pieridou, A. 1964. A Cypro-Geometric Cemetery at “Vathyrkakas”, Karavas. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 114–129. Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Themelis, P.G. 1980. The Dark Age Pottery (SM—SPGIII) from Settlement and Cemeteries. In: Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Themelis, L.H. Lefkandi 1—The Iron Age. British School at Athens Supplementary Volume 11. Oxford: 281–354. Prausnitz, M.W. 1997. The Stratigraphy and Ceramic Typology of Early Iron Age Tombs at Akhziv. Michmanim 11: 17–30 (Hebrew with English summary p. 66*). Schreiber, N. 2003. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 13). Leiden. Sharon, I., Gilboa, A., Jull, A.J.T, and Boaretto, E. 2007. Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49: 1–46. Singer-Avitz. L. 1989. Iron Age Pottery (Strata XIV–XII). In: Herzog, Z., Rapp, G., and Negbi, O., eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 8). Tel Aviv and Minneapolis: 76–87. Singer-Avitz, L. 2008. The Earliest Settlement at Kadesh Barnea. Tel Aviv 35: 73–81. Singer-Avitz, L. 2010. The Relative Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Tel Aviv 37: 79–83. Smith, J.S. 2009. Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Cambridge. Stern, E. 1978. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh Part One (Qedem 9). Jerusalem. Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) III: The Iron Age. The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East. London. Vandenabeele, F. 1971. La chronologie absolue du Chypro-Géometrique. Dédalo 7/14: 7–22. Vansteenhuyse, K. 2010. La céramique du chantier A. In: Al-Maqdissi, M., Van Lerberghe, K., Bretschneider, J., and Badawi, M., eds. Tell Tweini: onze campagnes de fouilles syro- belges (1999–2010). Damascus: 94–114. von Luschan, F. and Andrae, W. 1943. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli V: Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli. Berlin. Woolley, L. 1921. La Phénicie et les peuples Égéen. Syria 2: 183–184. Zarzecky-Peleg, A. 2005. The Iron Age IIA (Strata XVI–XIV). In: Ben Tor, A., Zarzecky-Peleg, A. and Cohen-Anidjar, S. Yoqneam II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period (Qedem Reports 6). Jerusalem: 90–168. Zemer, A. and Rotgaizer, O. 2011. Cypriot Pottery in Ancient Times. Haifa.