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). © Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2012 DOI 10.1179/033443512X13424449373669 6 aYELET GILBOA (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).