Bronze Anklets from Ḥorvat Tevet (Jezreel Valley): New Light on Exchange and Identity Construction in the Iron I

ABSTRACT

This article presents the results of lead isotope analysis (LI) conducted on four bronze anklets from an early Iron Age burial (Burial D/F3) at the site of Ḥorvat Tevet, Israel. The results show that the copper in these items most likely originated in Timna. All the known LI data from the Late Bronze and early Iron Age southern Levant is then plotted to demonstrate that Arabah copper dominated the region in the early Iron Age. The significance of these objects for reconstructing exchange networks in the early Iron Age Jezreel Valley is briefly explored. We then turn to discussing the social meaning of these objects. Based on a catalogue of all known southern Levantine burials dated between the Late Bronze III (12th century bce) and Iron IIA (9th century bce) containing anklets or bracelets in association with skeletal remains with biological sex and age determinations, we conclude this was likely the burial of a high-status female.

KEYWORDS:

• archaeometallurgy
• gender
• jewellery
• Levant
• copper
• lead isotope analysis
• Iron Age
• ancient economy

Introduction

Ḥorvat Tevet is a small site located some 15 km north-east of Tel Megiddo in the north-eastern margins of the Jezreel Valley (Fig. 1). The site consists of three terraces sloping south to the northern bank of Naḥal Tevet at the foot of the Ha-Moreh Hill. Successive trial and salvage excavations at the site uncovered a sequence of nine occupational levels spanning the Late Bronze I–Medieval Periods.¹ Throughout most of this time, Ḥorvat Tevet was the home of a rural community, whose subsistence economy was based on the nearby fields. It was only in the late Iron IIA that the site acquired its public nature, marked by a series of destructions and reconstructions (Sergi et al. 2021; Butcher et al. 2022; Spiciarich et al. 2023). The following article, however, will focus on the rural community that inhabited the site in the early Iron Age.

Figure 1. Map showing location of Ḥorvat Tevet (map by Omer Ze’evi).

The earliest Iron Age occupation at Ḥorvat Tevet (Level 8) is associated with some scanty domestic remains (on the upper terrace), rock-cut pits (on all three terraces), and at least 25 burials on the northern margins of the site, all dated to the Iron I. Most of these burials were poorly furnished with just a few ceramic vessels as grave goods. One individual (Burial D/F3) however, was differentiated by a unique, more elaborate burial, which included four bronze anklets. The presence of jewellery in burials is a well-known phenomenon, but the use of bronze anklets and bracelets (‘bangles’) as burial offerings was specifically common in the southern Levant during the LB II–Iron IIA (Tufnell 1958; Green 2007, 287–94; Brody and Friedman 2007; Golani 2013, 144–50; Weitzel 2021, 84–6, 188–91; Braunstein 2018; Verduci 2018, 125–37; 2021). This is exactly the period during which copper production in the Arabah Valley grew in intensity, reaching an unprecedented peak in the Iron I/IIA (Levy et al. 2008; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012; Ben-Yosef 2016; Kleiman, Kleiman, and Ben-Yosef 2017). Studying the production techniques and origin of such items provides insight into exchange networks into which a rural community in the Jezreel Valley was integrated during the early Iron Age. Furthermore, examining the bronze anklets in their archaeological context sheds light on the meaning of these objects in both life and death for those who wore them.

In the following, we present the results of lead isotope analysis (LI) on four bronze anklets found in Ḥorvat Tevet Burial D/F3. By plotting this data against available LI data from other sites, we provide further evidence that Arabah copper came to dominate the southern Levant (and much of the eastern Mediterranean) in the early Iron Age. We will then discuss the significance of these objects for the reconstruction of exchange networks in the early Iron Age Jezreel Valley. Namely, there are implications that Tel Reḥov (located 25 km from Ḥorvat Tevet) was a major player in a northern branch of this trade. Finally, we argue that these, and other metal objects, were important symbols of both social rank and gender identity for rural elites in the Jezreel Valley.

The Iron I Cemetery in Ḥorvat Tevet

The Iron I cemetery extends over an area of at least 250 × 100 m along the northern outskirts of the site. The burials were found 0.3–0.5 m below the modern surface inside pits cut from the basaltic bedrock (Figs. 2–3). The acidity of the bedrock resulted in poor skeletal preservation, and thus only limited information regarding age, sex and body treatment could be determined. The ceramic assemblage from the graves consists of common, local Iron I forms, including rounded bowls with a simple or inverted rim, carinated bowls with an S-shaped profile (‘cyma’ bowls), chalices with a plain or flaring rim, dipper juglets with a rounded base and trefoil mouth, small lentoid flasks with two handles, ridge-necked (non-hippo) storage jars, and lamps with a pinched rim and rounded base (Fig. 4; Table 1). These types have close parallels in Iron I strata, such as Tel Dan VI–IVB, Tel Hadar IV, Tel Hazor XII/XI, Tel Kinrot VI–IV, Tel Megiddo VI, Tel Reḥov VII and Tel Yoqne‘am XVIII–XVII (Weitzel 2021, 59–84 with references). Moreover, there was nearly a total absence of red-slipped and hand-burnished vessels that distinguish the Iron IIA ceramic horizon.

Figure 2. Excavation areas at Ḥorvat Tevet. The boundary of the cemetery is represented by the dotted line that encompasses all of Areas D and E and the northern parts of Areas A, B, and C (map by Anastasia Shapiro, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Figure 3. Area D, where Burial D/F3 was found (modified by authors and Itamar Ben-Ezra after original drawing by Shatil Emmanuelov, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

Figure 4. A selection of ceramics from the Iron I cemetery of Ḥorvat Tevet (drawing by Yulia Gottlieb, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

Table 1. Descriptions of Vessels in Fig. 4.

No.	Object no.	Type	Comments
1	3080/1	Bowl	Light reddish clay
2	4107/1	Bowl	Orange clay
3	3090/1	Bowl	Orange clay
4	3087/1	Chalice	Reddish-brown clay
5	1250/1	Juglet	Light brown clay
6	3086/1	Juglet	Black clay; red-slip and hand-burnish
7	11157/1	Flask	Pink clay
8	10511/1	Lamp	Buff clay
9	3075/1	Storage Jar	Reddish clay

On the other hand, two small juglets with handle attached mid-neck, often referred to as ‘black juglets’, were found in two of the burials (e.g., Fig. 4:6). This type is typically dated to the Iron IIA (Arie 2013, 705–6; Weitzel 2021, 74). Aside from this single type however, there are no other vessel types from the cemetery or from Level 8 that must be dated exclusively to the Iron IIA. Moreover, although this type becomes pre-eminent in the Iron IIA, one similar juglet was attributed to stratum VIA (Iron I) from Yigael Yadin’s excavation at Tel Megiddo, suggesting that production of this type had apparently begun at the time of Tel Megiddo’s destruction (Zarzecki-Peleg 2016, 39, Fig. 9:14, 285).² The presence of these juglets pushes the date of the latest burials to the very end of the Iron I or the very beginning of the Iron IIA, i.e., the mid-10th century bce. Although when viewed in isolation this pottery could date as late as the 9th century, the overall number of burials and low burial density,³ the fact that Level 8 did not leave behind a thick layer of accumulation debris, and the lack of other fossiles directeures for the Iron IIA or the LB III (12th century bce), all suggest a short duration of the cemetery and nearby village. We, therefore, prefer to minimise the lifespan of the cemetery to the 11th–10th centuries bce, in accordance with radiocarbon results retrieved for Iron I strata from nearby sites (Lee, Bronk Ramsey, and Mazar 2013; Toffolo et al. 2022). Thus, the end date of the cemetery was close in time to, or even slightly later than, the destruction of Tel Megiddo VIA and contemporary strata.

The use of the cemetery by adults and sub-adults, males and females, the clustering of tombs, and the location of the village nearby, all imply that the cemetery was used by the family group(s) residing in the village of Ḥorvat Tevet Level 8. The burials reflect a society with a kin-based social structure and minimal accumulation of wealth. Therefore, the site was probably inhabited by a local kin-based community in the Iron I whose subsistence economy relied on the nearby fields, with minimum exchange with nearby rural and urban centres (Amir et al. 2021; Weitzel 2021; Weitzel et al. 2024).

Burial D/F3

While most of the burials are simple pit burials containing similar sets of grave goods (the ‘funeral kit;’ cf. Baker 2012), one burial stood out as being unique. Burial D/F3 consisted of an L-shaped pit with a niche hollowed out on its northern side to form an overhanging rock ledge under which the body could be partly obscured (Fig. 5). The skeleton was poorly preserved. However, all the surviving elements were fully fused and thus can be assumed to belong to an adult individual.⁴ Despite poor skeletal preservation, the orientation of the body was inferred by the presence of lower leg remains on the western end of the pit and skull fragments adhering to a cluster of vessels on the eastern end (Figs. 6–7). Judging from the distance between the two elements, the individual was probably laid to rest in a fully extended position with the skull protruding out from underneath the rock ledge.

Figure 5. Plan of Burial D/F3 (modified by authors and Itamar Ben-Ezra after original drawing by Christopher Banbury, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

Figure 6. Anklets underneath the rock ledge on the western end of Burial D/F3. Note the small fragments of lower leg bone inside the anklets.

Figure 7. Cluster of vessels encircling the head of the deceased on the eastern end of Burial D/F3.

The north-eastern corner of the grave seemed to be intentionally connected with Burial D/F4 to the north, which held another adult burial and a jar burial (presumably of an infant). This suggests that these two units functioned together as a crude family tomb. A larger and more diverse ceramic assemblage accompanied the deceased in Burial D/F3 (Fig. 8; Table 2). A storage jar with a dipper juglet (Fig. 8: 5) inside was placed on top of the eastern edge of Burial D/F3. At a depth of 0.2 m below the jar, a cluster of grave goods encircled the head of the deceased. This cluster consisted of a chalice (Fig. 8: 3), a lamp, the base of a closed vessel (Fig. 8: 4), and a juglet (8: 6). Residues of beeswax and animal fat detected inside the juglet, and animal fat in the chalice, are the remnants of mortuary ceremonies (Amir et al. 2021). A large bowl (Pl. 8: 1) was placed next to the feet. An additional chalice (Fig. 8: 2) was recovered from the grave fill above the body. North of the large bowl and under the rock ledge were four bronze anklets in which small lower leg bone fragments were found in situ (Fig. 9; Table 2). Linen textile fragments preserved on the exterior of three of these anklets are the remains of attire worn by the deceased at the time of burial.

Figure 8. Ceramic Assemblage from Burial D/F3. Note: storage jar and lamp not illustrated (drawing by Yulia Gottlieb, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

Table 2. Descriptions of Items in Figs. 8 and 9 (Contents of Burials D/F3).

No.	Object No.	Type	Comments	LI Sample No. (see Tables 3, 4)
8: 1	3090/1	Bowl	Orange clay
8: 2	3040/1	Chalice	Orange clay
8: 3	3087/1	Chalice	Reddish-brown clay
8: 4	3089/1	Jug?	Reddish clay
8: 5	3078/1	Juglet	Brown clay; white substance on interior
8: 6	3086/1	Juglet	Black clay; red-slip and hand-burnish
9: 1	3091/1	Bangle	Bronze; 133.1 g	OE-41
9: 2	3091/2	Bangle	Bronze; linen textile on the exterior; 121.3 g	OE-43
9: 3	3091/3	Bangle	Bronze; linen textile on exterior; 131.2 g	OE-40
9: 4	3091/4	Bangle	Bronze; linen textile on exterior; 130.9 g	OE-42
–	3067/1	Storage Jar	Not illustrated (robbed)
–	3088/1	Lamp	Not illustrated (robbed)

Figure 9. Bronze Anklets from Burial D/F3 (drawing by Yulia Gottlieb, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

Burial D/F3 was notable for standing out in several ways. First, with its rock ledge covering the body, it featured a more elaborate burial pit. Second, Burial D/F3 contained double the number of objects and object types of any other burial in the cemetery. This larger and more diverse funeral kit suggests a more elaborate funeral with more actions being performed or symbolised, e.g., serving, pouring libations, storing, lighting, etc.

Furthermore, the anklets were the highest-quality objects found in the cemetery and the rarest. They were limited in their distribution to just one or two additional burials.⁵ The anklets were made of raw materials that had to be imported from afar, and could also be melted down and re-used (see below). To take several of these objects out of circulation was a conspicuous act that would have conveyed social prestige and a high level of wealth accumulation among the otherwise nondescript burials in the cemetery. Therefore, this burial apparently attests to a certain amount of wealth differentiation within the Iron I community at Ḥorvat Tevet.

The Bronze Anklets

The four bronze anklets from Burial D/F3 consist of an open bronze ring flattened on one side with a semi-circular cross-section (Fig. 9; Table 2). The ring largely maintains its thickness as it approaches the terminals, which are squared off and almost touching. All four examples measured between 8 and 8.5 cm in outer diameter and ca. 6.5 cm in inner diameter. Their weight ranged between 121 and 133 g. Textile fragments were preserved on the exterior of the specimens in Fig. 9: 2–4.

These objects equate to Golani’s (2013, 147) Type I.5, which occurs almost exclusively at sites in the Shephelah and Benjamin plateau and is mainly, though not exclusively, found in Iron IIA contexts. Like the juglet type described above, this emphasises the later date of Burial D/F3 in relation to most of the other burials in the cemetery. This type, however, is not very different from other open-ended bangle subtypes such as those with tapering and/or overlapping ends, rounded cross-sections, etc. that date primarily to the Iron I–II and have a wide distribution across the southern Levant (Golani 2013, 144–52; Verduci 2018, 127–33) and beyond (Curtis 2013, 107–10).

Elemental and Lead Isotope Analysis

In order to assess the composition and provenance of the anklets from Ḥorvat Tevet, the objects were subjected to chemical and lead isotope (LI) analysis.⁶ The results of the baulk chemistry are presented in Tables 3–4. Although these items should technically be referred to as bronze, the measured tin content is only 1.1–2.7%. Such low and unstandardised Sn content barely affects the characteristics of the alloy (Fürtauer et al. 2013) and is usually regarded as an unintentional alloy (e.g., Craddock 1988). Accordingly, the anklets are probably made of recycled metal and not pure copper alloyed with fresh tin. Scrap metal was a widely used commodity in the Eastern Mediterranean during the early Iron Age (e.g. Budd et al. 1995; Hauptmann, Maddin, and Prange 2002; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014); thus, it is not surprising to encounter artefacts that are made of such metals. Nevertheless, the chemical analysis suggests these items are made of fairly high-quality metal as shown by the very low content of elements such as silicon, calcium (representing slag or soil contamination in the metal) and iron (representing both slag or soil and metallic residues from the smelting process).

Table 3. Chemical composition of samples as determined by ICP-AES and ICP-MS. Results are in wt.%.

Sample	Cu	Pb	Sn	Fe	Mg	Mn	K	P	Al	Ca	SiO2
OE-40	76.790	0.651	2.278	0.287	0.054	0.027	0.054	0.054	0.054	0.054	0.13015184
OE-41	74.501	0.646	2.761	0.270	0.059	0.029	0.059	0.059	0.223	0.188	0.25851939
OE-42	72.973	0.483	2.027	0.319	0.087	0.024	0.048	0.048	0.294	0.232	0.27992278
OE-43	72.925	0.519	1.193	0.622	0.078	0.026	0.052	0.052	0.275	0.233	0.31120332

Table 4. Lead isotopic ratios and measurement of the analysed samples.

Sample	Pb^208/Pb^204	Pb^207/Pb^204	Pb^206/Pb^204	Pb^208/Pb^206	Pb^207/Pb^206
OE-40	38.271	15.6476	18.1628	2.10712	0.86159
OE-41	38.107	15.6371	17.986	2.11872	0.86948
OE-42	38.124	15.6353	17.9999	2.11798	0.8687
OE-43	38.136	15.6377	18.0141	2.11699	0.86815

Complete LI results are presented in Table 3 and plotted against relevant ore bodies from the Mediterranean basin (Fig. 10). The LI signature of the anklets agrees well with the data from the Arabah. They form two clusters, OE-40 and OE-41,42,43. The former is most probably derived specifically from Timna copper, as it does not match any known LI ratios of the DLS formation in Faynan. It should be noted that some Sardinian ores slightly overlap these of the Arabah and match the LI of the anklets from Ḥorvat Tevet; however, this option is much less likely based on geographical consideration and the fact that copper ingots from Sardinia tend to show much lower lead content than the metals from the Arabah (Begemann et al. 2001).

Figure 10. Ratios of the analysed objects compared with previously analysed ore specimens from potential sources in Timna (Gale et al. 1990; Dsael et al. 2012; Harlavan et al. 2017; Segal et al. 2015) and Faynan (Jansen 2011; Hauptmann 2000) in the Arabah, Sardinia (Begemann et al. 2001), Anatolia (Hiaro, Enomoto, and Tachikawa 1995; Hauptmann et al. 2002; Seeliger et al. 1985; Wagner et al. 1985; Wagner et al. 1986; Wagner et al. 1989) and Cyprus (OXALID).

Early Iron Age Metal Trade

Although using LI analysis for provenance studies of ancient metals was already suggested more than fifty years ago, in the past decade it has been gaining more scholarly attention than ever before (Pernicka 2014). With this trend, in recent years several dozens of LI analyses of copper and copper-based objects from the Levant dated to the Late Bronze and Iron I have been published. The results of these analyses were grouped for the current research and are plotted together here in order to provide a wide perspective of the Iron I copper circulation and trade in the Levant. Also, in order to emphasise the contrast between the Late Bronze Age and Iron I Levantine copper trade, previously published LI data from Levantine Late Bronze copper objects were also gathered and plotted against Iron I data (Figs. 11–13).

Figure 11. LI results of copper artefacts from Late Bronze and Iron I contexts in the Levant divided according to chronology (Bruins, Segal, and van der Plicht 2018; Philip, Clogg and Dungworth 2003; Stos-Gale 2006; Yahalom-Mack and Segal, 2009; Yahalom-Mack and Segal, 2018, 2020).

Figure 12. LI results of copper artefacts and from the Levant divided by site and suggested source in original publication (citations are provided in Fig. 11).

Figure 13. Map showing the distribution of copper in Levantine sites during the Iron I according to LIA. The small map shows sites beyond the Levant where copper from the Arabah was found in Iron I contexts. The dark square indicates the specific area represented on the larger map. In Megiddo, Sidon and Beirut, copper was matched only with Arabah ore (Eliyahu-Behar and Yahalom-Mack 2022; Vaelske, Bode, and El-Morr 2019). In these sites, however, LI data is not specified and thus do not appear in Figs. 11–12.

The following is a brief review of the Iron I data presented in Figs. 11–13. First, with regards to the Late Bronze/Iron I transition, a clear contrast between the copper sources of these periods is demonstrated by the LI data (Yahalom-Mack and Segal 2018; Fig. 11). During the Late Bronze, copper from northern origins (Cyprus, Anatolia and Greece) dominated the Levantine markets. In contrast, in the course of the Iron I, the copper in Levantine settlements overwhelmingly originated from the Arabah. This dichotomy, however, is incomplete; Yahalom-Mack and Segal (2018) show that copper from the Arabah had already reached as far as Tel Dan during the Late Bronze, and during the Iron I, metal from the north was found in few sites within the Levant (alongside metal from the Arabah, see Figs. 12–13).

As industrial scale smelting operations in Timna (in the southern Arabah) began in the course of the Late Bronze (Erickson-Gini 2014; Yagel, Ben-Yosef, and Craddock 2016), it is not surprising to find its products in Levantine settlements during this period. Nevertheless, with the start of the vastly more intense smelting operations in Faynan during the Iron I (Levy, Najjar, and Ben-Yosef 2014), Arabah copper completely dominated the regional markets. In fact, out of sixty-three sampled copper objects from secure Iron I contexts in the Levant, only one was suggested to be of northern origins (Sample BS-1B from Beth-Shean, in Yahalom-Mack and Segal 2009) and ten are said to originate from unknown sources (Fig. 12). Interestingly, while some of these unknown origins should probably be viewed as northern, LI ratios that fall in between data from different ore fields could imply the recycling and mixing of Arabah and northern copper (Yahalom-Mack, Finn and Ezrel. 2023). In addition to the above, LI data of Iron I copper assemblages from Saudi Arabia (Renzi et al. 2016), Egypt (Evian et al. 2021; Schulze and Lehmann 2014; Vaelske, Bode, and Loeben 2019) and Greece (Kiderlen et al. 2016) also match the Arabah ore field. The LI results show that the Arabah smelting industries were the main copper supplier of the Levantine region during the Iron I (Yahalom-Mack, Finn and Ezrel 2023), and probably even in the entire eastern Mediterranean.

The Bronze Anklets from Ḥorvat Tevet: Economy and Exchange

As demonstrated above, the four anklets in Burial D/F3 were produced from recycled copper that was sourced from Timna in the Arabah Valley. Despite wide exposure of the site, no evidence for metalworking has been found at Iron I Ḥorvat Tevet. Furthermore, jewellery moulds have only been found at urban centres, where specialised metalsmiths apparently resided (Golani 2013, 23, n. 46). For these reasons, the anklets in Burial D/F3 were likely acquired from a nearby city.⁷

Notably, the best parallel for this bangle type from a northern site is probably an unpublished specimen from Tel Beth-Shean (Golani 2013, 147). This joins further evidence which points to the integration of Iron I/IIA Ḥorvat Tevet into the socio-economic sphere of the Beth-Shean Valley (e.g., Mazar 2020, 103–4, 115–16; Amir et al. 2021; Butcher et al. 2022; Spiciarich et al. 2023).

Other than the four bronze anklets, the material associated with the Ḥorvat Tevet cemetery reflects integration within local trade networks. The ceramic assemblage was comprised exclusively of local types. Thus, all vessels used in the graves were likely produced in the site environs or acquired through local exchange. Furthermore, linen found on the bronze anklets from Burial D/F3 was of local production (Orit Shamir, personal communication), and it could have possibly originated in the nearby Beth-Shean Valley, which was a centre for linen textile production in the Iron I/IIA (Shamir 1996, 140–142; Boertien 2013; Mazar 2019). Finally, 13 vessels within the graves contained the remains of heated beeswax (Amir et al. 2021). Growing evidence suggests that bee-keeping was an important part of the economy of the Beth-Shean and eastern Jezreel Valleys during the Late Bronze III–Iron IIA. In addition to the evidence from Ḥorvat Tevet and Tel Reḥov (see below), residue of beeswax was discovered inside a clay anthropoid coffin at Tel Shaddud that was produced in the Beth-Shean Valley (van den Brink et al. 2017, 111–14; Namdar et al. 2017; Beeri, van den Brink, and Kirzner 2021, 13). Honey or beeswax was also found inside storage jars included as burial offerings at the site (Beeri, van den Brink and Kirzner 2021, 13, 17).

To date, the only apiary known archaeologically in the entire Bronze and Iron Age Near East was found in Tel Reḥov Stratum V (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2020). This stratum is dated to the beginning of the late Iron IIA, meaning that Tel Reḥov was a production centre for beeswax during the late 10th–early 9th century bce. However, apiculture there could have begun even earlier. The excavator recently described how the site developed peacefully throughout the Late Bronze to Iron IIA without any major destruction events, and exhibited much continuity in its material culture traditions (Mazar 2020). Notably, beeswax was also used in the lost wax technique for producing bronze objects and thus likely related to the Arabah copper trade (Mazar 2016, 103). This could also be an explanation for how the bronze anklets reached the site. The discovery of beeswax at Ḥorvat Tevet and Tel Shaddud seems to relate the central and eastern Jezreel Valley to the overall production patterns visible in the early Iron Age Beth-Shean Valley. The presence of metal jewellery in some of the burials suggests an interaction between a few local elites at Ḥorvat Tevet and an urban centre that was involved in the Arabah copper trade. One candidate would be Tel Reḥov – the major urban centre of the Beth-Shean Valley. This reconstruction raises the possibility, already discussed by Mazar (2020, 105), that some of the copper produced in the Arabah made its way to Tel Reḥov and the Beth-Shean Valley, and was even traded and exported from there to the Phoenician coast, which could also explain the unprecedented continuous prosperity of Tel Reḥov in the Iron I–IIA.

The Bronze Anklets from Ḥorvat Tevet in Context: Symbolism and Identity Construction in a Rural Community

Previous studies have noted correlations between the practice of wearing bangles with sub-adults/adult female burials (Braunstein 1998, 293, 295; Green 2006, 520–22, Tables 5.1–5.2; Braunstein 2018). Green (2007) concluded that while single anklets have been found on male/female and adult/sub-adult skeletons, multiple anklets are found only on sub-adult and biologically female skeletons. For this study, we assembled a database of 75 burials from the southern Levant dated to the Late Bronze III–Iron IIA in which there was a clear object-body association between metal bangles and individuals with either age or sex determinations (Table 5).

Table 5. Burials in the southern Levant with sex or age identification with bangles in situ (Late Bronze III–Iron IIA)

Site	Burial	Date	Bangle Type (N)	Material	Age	Sex	Notes	Reference
Tel Ashkelon	253	Iron IIA	Bracelets (?)	Copper or Bronze	Adult	Female		Master and Aja 2017, 138, 141, Fig. 6
Tel Ashkelon	337	Iron IIA	Bracelets (4?)	Copper or Bronze	Child	N/A		Master and Aja 2017, 138, 142, Fig. 7
Azor	D56	Iron I	Bracelets (2)	Bronze	7–8 years	N/A		Ben-Shlomo 2012, 45–7, Fig. 4.36: 18–19
Azor	D58	Iron I	Bracelets (4)	Bronze	Adult	Female	On wrist	Ben-Shlomo 2012, 48–9, Fig. 4.38: 9–11
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	116	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Adult	N/A		Laemmel 2003, 13
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	124	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Adult	Female	On left arm	Braunstein 1998, 484–5; Laemmel 2003, 17–18
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	126	Iron I	Anklet (1) Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Child	N/A	Bracelet on right arm	Braunstein 1998, 486; Laemmel 2003, 18–19
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	132	Iron I	N/A (2)	Copper alloy	Child	N/A		Laemmel 2003, 23
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	133	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze	Adult	N/A	One anklet on each leg	Braunstein 1998, 489; Laemmel 2003, 23–24
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	134	Iron I	Bracelets (2)	Iron?	Adult	N/A		Laemmel 2003, 25–26
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	210	Iron IIA	N/A (1)	Iron	Child	N/A		Braunstein 1998, 495; 2018, 61
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	222	Iron IIA	Anklets (N/A)	Bronze	Child	N/A		Tufnell 1930, 11
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	235	Iron IIA	N/A (2)	Bronze	Adult	Female?		Braunstein 1998, 498; 2018, 60
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	505	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Child	N/A		Laemmel 2003, 23
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	513	Iron I	N/A (1)	Bronze	Child	N/A		Braunstein 1998, 514; Laemmel 2003, 44–5
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	642	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Adult	Female		Laemmel 2003, 163
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	645	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Adult	Female		Laemmel 2003, 166
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	647	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Adult	Female		Laemmel 2003, 167–8
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	661	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Adult	N/A		Laemmel 2003, 172
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	809	Late Bronze III	Bracelets (2)	Bronze	Child	N/A		Braunstein 1998, 648–9; Laemmel 2003, 190–1
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	811	Late Bronze III	Bracelets (2)	Copper alloy	Child	N/A		Laemmel 2003, 192
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	815	Late Bronze III	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Child	N/A		Braunstein 1998, 655–6; Laemmel 2003, 194
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	832	Iron I	Bracelets (4)	Bronze	Child	N/A	Two bracelets on right arm and two on left arm	Braunstein 1998, 663–4; Laemmel 2003, 201
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	846	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Adult	Female		Laemmel 2003, 210
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	853	Iron I	Bracelets (4)	Bronze (3) Iron (1)	Child	N/A	One bronze and one iron on right wrist, one bronze on left wrist One bronze N/A	Braunstein 1998, 680; Laemmel 2003, 213–14
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	859	Iron I	Bracelets (2)	Iron	Adult	Female?	One on right arm, one on left arm	Braunstein 1998, 685; 2018, 60; Laemmel 2003, 217–18, Pl. 241
Tell el-Far‘ah (S)	863	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Child	N/A	On right arm	Laemmel 2003, 219
Irbid	Ivory Tomb	Late Bronze III	Anklet (1) Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Adult	Female	Anklet on left leg; bracelet on right arm	Fischer, Bürge, and al-Shalabi 2015, 212, 220, Fig. 11: 2
Wadi Fidan 4	Tomb 1, L701	Late Bronze IIB– Iron IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze or Copper	Adult	N/A	Wadi Fidan 4	Beherec, Najjar and Levy 2014, 674
Wadi Fidan 40	92	Early Iron IIA	Anklets (2) Bracelet (1)	Copper Anklets; Iron Bracelet	Adult	Female	One anklet on each leg; bracelet on left arm	Beherec 2011, 250–6
Wadi Fidan 40	97	Early Iron IIA	Bracelet (1)	Copper	Juvenile	N/A	On right arm	Beherec 2011, 260–3
Wadi Fidan 40	371	Early Iron IIA	Bracelet (1)	Copper	6–8 years	N/A	On right arm	Beherec 2011, 619–22
Megiddo	37 B	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	Infant	N/A	On left arm	Guy and Engberg 1938, Pl. 137: 14
Megiddo	37 C 2	Iron I	Bracelets (4)	Bronze	Infant	N/A	Jar burial	Guy and Engberg 1938, Pl. 138, 1
Pella	89 (Skeleton 16)	LB IIB–Iron IIA	Anklets (6)	Bronze	Adult	Female	Three anklets on each leg	Green 2007, 290, citing Bourke and Sparks, personal communication.
Pella	89 (Skeleton 21)	LB IIB–Iron IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze	Adult	Female	One anklet on each leg	Green 2007, 290, citing Bourke and Sparks, personal communication.
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	3A	Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Iron	10–12 years	N/A		Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	33A	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Bronze and Iron	0–6 years	N/A		Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	35	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	1–3 years	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	40	Iron I/IIA	Bracelets (3)	Iron	Infant	N/A	Jar burial	Tubb and Rowan 1988, 75
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	51	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2) Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Child?	N/A	Bracelet on left arm	Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	61A	Iron IIA	Bracelet (1)	Iron	6–7 years	N/A	On left arm	Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	63	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2) Bracelets (2)	Bronze	Neonate	N/A	Bracelet on each arm	Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	92	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze	15 + years	Female?		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	120	Late Bronze III/Iron I	N/A (1)	Bronze	Infant	N/A	Jar burial	Pritchard 1980, 64, Fig. 25: 2
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	123A	Iron IIA	Anklets (4) Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Adult	Female	Two anklets on left leg, two on right leg; bracelet on left arm	Pritchard 1980, 65, Fig. 27: 13; Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	153B	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	12–15 years	N/A	On left arm	Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	161B	LB IIB/III	Bracelets (2)	Bronze	2–4 years	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	172	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Iron	0–10 years	N/A		Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	176	Iron I/IIA	Bracelets (3)	Bronze	5–9 years	N/A		Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	177	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Iron	22–32 years	Male		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	209iii	LB III/Iron I	Anklet (1)	Iron	1–5 years	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	213	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	24–34 years?	Female?	On left arm	Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	218A	LB III/Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Adult	Male	On left arm	Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	218B	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze	17–25 years	Female		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	247	Iron I/IIA	Bracelets (2)	Bronze	3–5 years	N/A	One bracelet on each arm	Tubb and Rowan 1988, 79; Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	255	Iron I/IIA	Bracelets (2)	Iron (1) Bronze (1)	1–3 years	N/A		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	276	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Adult	N/A		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	292	Iron I/IIA	Bracelets (2)	Iron	0–5 years	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	293	Iron I/IIA	Anklet (1) Bracelet (1)	Bronze	Child?	N/A		Rowan 1990, 38; Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	300B	LB III/Iron I	Anklets (2)	Bronze	Child?	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	322	Iron I	Bracelets (2)	Iron	Adult?	N/A		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	335	Iron IIA	Bracelets (2)	Iron	0.6–1 year	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	359A	Iron I/IIA	Bracelets (2)	Iron	4–6 years	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	367	LB II/III	Anklets (2) Bracelet (1)	Bronze	3.8–6.4 years	N/A		Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	372	LB III/Iron I	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	3–7 years	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	379A	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Iron	24–30 years	N/A		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	403	Iron I/IIA	Bracelets (2)	Bronze	1–2 years	N/A		Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	411	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze	8.6–13.6 years	N/A		Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	416	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Bronze	20–29 years	Female		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	425	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Iron	1.4–2.8 years	N/A	On left arm	Green 2007, 291
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	429A	Iron I/IIA	Bracelet (1)	Iron	5–9 years	N/A	On left arm	Green 2007, 292
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	459B	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze	15–18 years	Female		Green 2007, 293
Tell es-Sa’idiyeh	510A	Iron I/IIA	Anklets (2)	Bronze	6–8 years	N/A		Green 2007, 292
Sahab		Iron I/Iron IIA	Anklet (1) Bracelet (1)	Bronze Anklet; Iron Bracelet	Adult	Male?		Ibrahim 1972, 32

Bangles are most often found with sub-adults (45 burials). In adult burials, single anklets were rare, and in both cases were found on individuals who were also wearing one bracelet (two burials). Whenever found with adults with sex identification, multiple anklets and multiple bracelets are found only with individuals either sexed as female or whose sex was not identified (14 burials).⁸ To the best of our knowledge, not even a single Late Bronze or Iron Age burial has yet been found in the southern Levant in which a securely identified adult male was found with multiple anklets or multiple bracelets. The only secure occurrences of bangles with biological males at all are Tell es-Sa’idiyeh T. 177 and T. 218A (Tubb and Rowan 1988, 78; Green 2007, 293). This is corroborated by Levantine visual sources, which depict females adorned with multiple anklets, while male figures are mainly shown wearing single anklets (Green 2007, 297–303; Golani 2013, 150–2; Verduci 2021, 132; with earlier references). Since Ḥorvat Tevet Burial D/F3 was osteologically identified as an adult, sub-adult age can be ruled out for this individual. Therefore, Burial D/F3 likely held an adult female. The identification of the ‘richest’ burial in the Iron I cemetery at Ḥorvat Tevet as an adult female and its association with metal objects provides important insights into how gender identity was symbolised in this rural community in both life and death.

The apertures of the anklets in Burial D/F3 measured just 6.5 cm in inner diameter. These would have been difficult to slip over the foot of a grown adult; and, due to their rigidity, prying them open would have required considerable force and the help of tools (Green 2007, 295). Thus, these objects may have been put on the individual at a younger age and then grown into. Whatever the case may be, as objects made of valuable, recyclable bronze, the choice not to remove these items and to bury them must have been deliberate. Despite this, the anklets were hidden under the deceased’s attire at the time of final interment, suggesting that the person was already identified with the anklets, and it was unnecessary for the funeral participants to see the objects during the ceremony.

These objects were probably not specific to the funeral kit, but instead worn in everyday life as a semi-permanent part of the body (Verduci 2021, 129). The fact that bangles appear often on figural depictions of females who are interpreted as goddesses of sexuality also suggests a connection with sex and high-status (Bahrani 2001, 157–8; Green 2007, 300; Benzel 2013; Verduci 2021, 132–4). At the same time, the fact that bangles are associated with sub-adults suggests that even bangle-wearing individuals classified as adult females according to bioarchaeological data could have held a sub-adult status within the society (Green 2006, 139–40; Braunstein 2018, 55). Yet, these objects should be associated with only a select group of females. Although skeletal data is sparse, assuming ca. 50% of those buried in southern Levantine cemeteries were females, only a small minority are found with bracelets/anklets. Therefore, these probably represent a case of intersecting vertical rank and gender identity.

Ironically, the four bronze anklets found in Ḥorvat Tevet Burial D/F3, may have simultaneously denoted a high social status while also restricting the wearer’s freedom of movement. While the total weight of the four items in Burial D/F3 was not huge, the hardness of the anklets would have caused discomfort while walking when an anklet struck against the ankle (Verduci 2021, 135), or if care was not taken to prevent chafing.⁹ In addition, the wearing of anklets in stacks would have created a tinkling, musical sound when walking, and thus drawing constant attention to the wearer and creating the inability to move in silence. This sound is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in a passage which also associates bangles with females and with the outward display of wealth (Isa 3:16–24).

Ethnographic evidence suggests that anklets often relate to status and wealth display in Middle Eastern society. For example, a nineteenth-century ce traveller’s account reports visiting a Bedouin encampment in Sinai and seeing the wives of the sheikh wearing elaborate jewellery sets, including heavy silver anklets (Paine 1859, 259–62). In Palestinian and some north African marriages, bangles and other types of ornaments can be given to the bride as a bride-price or as a gift from friends or relatives in preparation for the wedding (Granqvist 1931, 145–6; Fisher 1984, 241). A similar practice is reflected in Gen 24, in which Abraham’s servant presents Rebekah with a gold nose ring and two bracelets in exchange for marrying Isaac (Platt 1992, 826). Whether bangles were obtained at marriage or were placed on individuals at a young age and grown into, they served as a wearable form of wealth, and in many societies such items even function as currency. It has been argued, for example, that weights of ancient Near Eastern bangles correspond to known exchange standards (Lassen 2000, 241–4; Green 2007, 296; Brody and Friedman 2007, 99, 103 with further references).

A relatively large number of burials dated to the Late Bronze III–Iron IIA were excavated to varying degrees throughout the rural hinterland of the Jezreel Valley at the sites of Tel ʽAfula, Tel Qiri, Tel Kedesh, Tel Qishyon, Tel Shaddud, Kfar Yehoshua, and Nahal Yifat (Sukenik 1948, 8–13; Dothan 1955, 41–4; Druks 1966; Stern and Beit-Arieh 1973, 122, 1979, 13; Arnon and Amiran 1981, 206–7, 1993, 873–4; Arie 2011, 258–72, 299–303, 311–13; Yannai 2011; van den Brink et al. 2017; Beeri, van den Brink, and Kirzner 2021; Golani, Berger, and van den Brink 2021, 26*; Beeri forthcoming; Beeri and Bron forthcoming). Some of these yielded metal objects. Most of these cemeteries are characterised by a small number of well-furnished burials, differentiated by larger assemblages of ceramic grave goods, higher quality grave goods, and more elaborate graves. Metal objects seem to be the main characteristic that distinguishes a few burials in each cemetery. For example, one form of funeral kit includes a set of multiple bronze bangles (as in Burial D/F3). At Tel Shaddud, there was one example of this kit in the Iron I burials (T.2) and one example among the Iron IIA burials (T.35). The latter also included a shell necklace (Arie 2011, 265–8). Another distinctive type of burial is that equipped with bronze or iron knives and daggers. Bronze knives or daggers were found in the Tel Shaddud anthropoid burial and at Kfar Yehoshua (Druks 1966, 214; van den Brink et al. 2017, 117). Single occurrences of bronze knives or daggers were also found at Tel Kedesh T.1 and out of context at Nahal Yifat (Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979, 21, Fig. 11: 16; Arie 2011, 260). Iron knives were found in Tel Shaddud T.238 and T.247. In Tel Shaddud T.247, the knife co-occurred with an iron sickle and fibula (Beeri and Bron forthcoming). These burials generally also contained a higher number of ceramic offerings (5 to 14). The burial of a biological female at Tel Qishyon, which yielded twenty ceramic objects, also appears to be another elite burial, albeit without any metals.

Several burials with possible or probable sex and age identifications are among these ‘elite’ burials. This allows for hypothesising different forms of status enhancement used for males and females. For instance, Ḥorvat Tevet Burial D/F3 and the female tomb at Tel Qishyon are two of the highest-ranking burials in the Iron I–IIA Jezreel Valley and these are both the probable burials of females. In addition, Tel Shaddud T.2 and T.35 contained sets of bronze anklets/bracelets (Arie 2011, 265, 269). For the reasons described above, this strongly suggests that these burials held either children or adult females. On the other hand, when sex identification is possible, the deposition of knives, daggers, or spearheads is exclusively found in male burials, and is thus apparently an expression of elite male identity.¹⁰

Conclusion

According to LI analysis, the most likely origin for the copper in four bronze anklets found in Burial D/F3 at Ḥorvat Tevet comes from Timna in the Arabah Valley. When added to LI data obtained from other sites, it is clear that Arabah copper dominated the Levantine copper trade in the early Iron Age. This data could also be evidence for a branch of the Arabah copper trade that travelled north into the Beth-Shean Valley. The small community at Ḥorvat Tevet probably did not have direct relations with Arabah copper production sites but was instead related to an urban centre that did. At least one candidate is Tel Reḥov – a large and well-connected city that prospered throughout the Late Bronze and early Iron Age and with which Ḥorvat Tevet appears to have other material culture connections in the Iron I/IIA.

Within the community, these items were used to construct aspects of social rank and gender identity. The individual in Burial D/F3 was differentiated in burial from the general population, including by the wearing of anklets, which signalled social prestige and wealth. However, ‘the dead do not bury themselves’ (Parker Pearson 1993: 203, 1999: 3). Ultimately, the choice to prepare Burial D/F3 as an outstanding burial was the deliberate choice of those who participated in the funeral. The relative wealth of the grave goods assemblage may not reflect the wealth or power of the deceased per se, but instead reflect the wealth of family members who buried the individual. It is also notable that the ostensibly wealthiest burial in the cemetery was likely the burial of a female. However, since the marker of female identity in this case was apparently also a marker of vertical social rank, both social rank and gender identity can intersect to produce distinctive funeral kits.

Acknowledgements

This study is the outcome of a research project titled ‘The Archaeological Expression of Palace–Clan Relations in the Iron Age Levant: A Case Study from the Jezreel Valley, Israel,’ funded by the Gerda Henkel Stiftung (AZ 20/F/19) and directed by Omer Sergi, Hannes Bezzel and Karen Covello-Paran. Partial support was also provided by the Israel Science Foundation grant nos. 1880/17 and 408/22 to Erez Ben-Yosef. The illustrations were prepared by Yulia Gottlieb, Itamar Ben-Ezra and Omer Zeevi, and we extend our gratitude to them.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jordan Weitzel

Jordan Weitzel (MA in Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, 2021, Tel Aviv University) is a PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley. His research interests revolve around the society, economy, and polities of the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Omer Sergi

Omer Sergi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University. PhD (2013), Tel Aviv University; Post-Doc, Karls-Ruprecht University Heidelberg (2012–14); Associate Lecturer, Ancient Israel Studies, Tel Aviv University (2015–21); Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (since 2022); Co-Director, Ḥorvat Tevet Salvage Excavations (2018–19); Co-director research project “The Archaeological Expression of Palace-Clan Relations” (2019–23); Co-director, Tel Shaddud Regional Project (since 2022).

Karen Covello-Paran

Karen Covello-Paran, senior field and research archaeologist in the Archaeological Research Department, Israel Antiquities Authority. PhD (2015) Tel Aviv University; lecturer at International MA Program in Ancient Israel Studies, Tel Aviv University; Co-director, research project “The Archaeological Expression of Palace-Clan Relations” (2019–23); Co-director, The Tel Shaddud Regional Project (since 2022).

Hannes Bezzel

Prof. Dr Hannes Bezzel, Professor for Old Testament Studies, Friedrich Schiller-University, Jena. Born in 1975; studied protestant theology in Göttingen, Zurich, and Munich; 2007 Dr. theol. Göttingen; 2010 Junior professor for Old Testament Studies, Jena; 2014 Habil. Jena; since 2015 Professor for Old Testament Studies, Jena; Co-director, research project “The Archaeological Expression of Palace-Clan Relations” (2019–2023).

Omri Yagel

Omri Yagel (MA in Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, 2017, Tel Aviv University) is a PhD student at the Tel-Aviv University. His research interests revolve around archaeometallurgy, ancient technologies, metal trade and the copper industries of the Arabah Valley during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Yehudit Harlavan

Dr Yehudit Harlavan, Researcher, The Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem. Amongst research interests are provenance studies of silisiclastic sediments and ancient artefacts using iso-geochemistry tools, mainly the isotopic systems of Pb, Sr and Nd.

Erez Ben-Yosef

Erez Ben-Yosef is Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University’s Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. Since 2012 he directs the Central Timna Valley Project, a multidisciplinary research into copper production and trade during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Notes

1 Trial excavations were carried out on behalf of the IAA in the cemetery (Abu Zidan 2013), on the upper and middle terraces (directed by Karen Covello-Paran, 2012) and on the lower terrace (directed by Yoav Tzur, 2018–19). They were followed by two seasons of extensive salvage excavations on the upper and middle terraces of the site, carried out by the Israeli Institute of Archaeology on behalf of the Sonia and Marco Institute of Archaeology in Tel Aviv University (directed by Omer Sergi in 2018, and by Omer Sergi and Rachel Lindemann in 2019).

2 Cf. also Singer-Avitz 2016, 235 on the possible Iron I dating of this vessel type.

3 By comparison, the nearby cemetery of Tel Shaddud, in a similar geographic and social context, covers an area of comparable size to Ḥorvat Tevet and reportedly contained hundreds of burials just from the area of the water reservoir southwest of the tel (Raban 1977, 14; Arie 2011, Plan 9.4.1).

4 The skeletal remains were analysed by Rachel Kalisher.

5 Aside from Burial D/F3, bangles were also found in a burial excavated by Abu Zidan (2013). Abu Zidan also found two bangles out of context.

6 The analyses were carried out at the geochemical laboratory of the Israel Geological Survey according to the following procedure: To avoid external contamination, samples were slightly polished and then drilled in a clean hood using a Dremel 3000 equipped with a 2mm drill bit. Swarf (c. 30–70mg) was then collected and dissolved in Aqua Regia (HNO₃:HCl 1:3) dried and diluted with 3.1 M HCl up to 50ml. From each solution, 2ml were evaporated and re-diluted with 0.1 M HNO₃ for ICP-MS (Perkin Elmer NexION,) and Atomic-Emission-Spectrometer (ICP-AES, Optima-3300) elemental analyses. Internal standards were added (Rh-Re and Sc, respectively), and international standards were analysed along the studied samples. Lead was separated using the routinely used ion-chromatography method. Isotopic compositions of Pb (LI) were measured using a Nu Plasma HR-MC-ICP-MS instrument. Mass discriminations were corrected using internal Tl standard and repeated measurements of the SRM-981 standard.

7 That said, the moulds listed by Golani are all made of stone and were mostly found in Late Bronze Age contexts. Moreover, they were not used to produce the specific bangle type under examination here. This could imply that jewellery production techniques underwent a change in the transition from the Late Bronze to early Iron Age. The possibility that some jewellery (or at least this bangle type) was produced in moulds that do not preserve well in the archaeological record, such as sand moulds (Merkel 1986, 259; Van Lokeren 2000, 275; Kassianidou 2001, 101) or clay moulds that broke as part of the lost wax casting technique (Rose, Fabian, and Goren 2023), should also be considered.

8 For the purposes of this study, adult is defined as post-pubescent, i.e., the point at which it becomes possible to differentiate biological sex according to morphological features. We understand this may not be how the society we are studying defined adulthood (cf. Braunstein 2018, 54–5).

9 Among the Igbo people of western Africa, the discomfort of walking while wearing bronze anklets causes the female wearer to change her gait, in a way that is considered sexually attractive in the society (Fisher 1984, 73).

10 Neighbouring regions have, however, occasionally produced biological female burials equipped with knives (e.g., Green 2006, 137).