The Metal Assemblage of Early Iron Age el-Aḥwat: Trade and Metalworking in the Margins of the Southern Levantine Central Highlands

Abstract

The large metal assemblage of the unique site of el-Aḥwat, a short-lived Iron I settlement, is presented here for the first time. It mainly comprises local tools, jewellery and evidence of bronzeworking, typical of Iron Age I urban settlements in the lowlands, mostly continuing Late Bronze Age traditions. Spatial distribution of the metal finds shows that metals were abundant across the site. Lead isotope analysis reveals that the copper at the site is local, originating from the Arabah, and that the silver is from the Aegaean-Anatolian sphere. Copper spills and ingot suggest that copper and bronze were worked on the site. As metals are rare in the central hill country during this period, the results suggest that el-Aḥwat should be reconsidered as an exceptional site, not only in its large size, unique architecture and marginal location between the highlands and lowlands, but even more so as its inhabitants maintained commercial connections with the lowlands, coast and beyond, and were probably engaged in metalworking.

Keywords:

• Iron Age I
• El-Aḥwat
• Metalworking
• Trade
• Central hill country
• Lead Isotope Analysis

Introduction

The Iron Age I (ca. 1150–950 BCE)¹ site of el-Aḥwat (ITM 208900/710400; Fig. 1) is located between the central hill country (or the Samarian Highlands) of the Southern Levant and the urban centres of the Jezreel Valley and the Mediterranean coast (the lowlands). It includes possible fortifications and cultural affiliations with the highlands, lowlands and beyond, as far away as Egypt, representing a sudden, unexplained and very different type of development in the margins of the Iron I highlands.

Fig. 1: Map of el-Ahwat and vicinity, including nearby sites populated in the Iron I and main roads (map prepared by Sapir Haad and processed by Itamar Ben-Ezra; reconstruction of ancient roads after Gadot 2006a: Fig. 41.1; Mazar 2020: Fig. 4.17)

Following the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1150 BCE), a period of little settlement in the central hill country, hundreds of new small settlements sprang up across the region, most of them unfortified villages with hardly any evidence of intra- or inter-site hierarchy. There is no evidence of architecture of an obvious public nature in these sites either, and their material culture consisted mostly of simple household ceramics, with indication of only few influences from the neighbouring regions (e.g., Rosen 1994: 346; Dever 1995; Lehmann 2004; Faust 2015; Mazar 2015: 8–9). Only meagre evidence of basic settlement planning exists at a few sites (e.g., Shiloh, Giloh, et-Tell [ʻAi] and ʻIzbet Ṣarṭah; Mazar 2019: 167‒169). Within a few decades, the northern and central coastal and valley settlements, some of which had been severely destroyed in the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age (e.g., Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Tel Reḥov and Gezer), were rebuilt. The material culture (ceramics and metalwork) in these sites, all located in the lowlands, generally showed continuity from the Late Bronze Age, accompanied with a demographic decline and geographically limited maritime trade (Gilboa 2014; Mazar 2015: 8–9). Petrographic studies showed that inter-regional commerce in the Levant was at a very low point in the century following the collapse of the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Cline 2014: 148–152; Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008; Gilboa, Waiman-Barak and Sharon 2015; Gilboa 2022).

Signs of recovery are evident during the later part of the Iron I (ca. 1050–950 BCE). Dor, Megiddo, Reḥov and Kinneret emerge as significant urban centres (Münger, Zangenberg and Pakkala 2011; Gilboa 2014; 2022; Mazar 2020: 85), accompanied by a significant intensification of overseas trade, driven mostly by private initiative (Gilboa 2015; and see more below).

Within this regional and chronological diversity, the ethnic identity and origin of the inhabitants of the central hill country has been extensively debated. Some scholars have envisioned them as Shasu pastoralists who crossed the Jordan River in search of new grasslands (e.g., Zertal 1998; Faust 2006: 172–187; 2015), others have claimed that they were local populations who changed their nomadic way of life and settled down (e.g., Finkelstein 1996), and still others have suggested that they were refugees fleeing the oppressive Canaanite urban society (e.g., Mendenhall 1985; Dever 1995). The region became the focus of archaeological and historical research concerning the Israelite ethnogenesis (e.g., Killebrew 2005). The inhabitants of the small, remote and sometimes isolated sites were called ‘proto-Israelites’, and the investigation of their lifestyle, economy and social framework was often related to the emergence of ancient Israel (e.g., Finkelstein 1996; Dever 2003, both with references). Some scholars have identified two ethnic groups—the Canaanites in the lowlands and the proto-Israelites in the highlands—but others have suggested that variation in material culture reflects geographic, economic, or social factors, rather than ethnicity (e.g., London 1989; Bloch-Smith 2003; Gadot 2017). Based on the latter opinion, it has recently been suggested that the early Iron Age settlement in the highlands was a result of a general renewed flourishing of the urban system in the late Iron I and Early Iron IIA (e.g., Gadot 2019; Sergi 2019).

Within this context stands the site of el-Aḥwat, located high above the northwestern end of theʻArunah Pass (Wadi ʻArah), which is one of the few passes between the Sharon Plain and the Jezreel Valley (Fig. 1; see Gadot 2006a), commanding a sweeping view over the coastal plain and parts of Wadi ʻArah. However, it is far from the ancient road and is located 2‒3 km north of a cluster of small, typical central hill country rural sites (Fig. 1; Zertal and Mirkam 2016: Fig. 13; Zertal 2012: 24–25, 425). The site was excavated and published by Zertal (2012), revealing an exceptional, short-lived Iron I settlement, markedly larger than other central hill country sites (3 ha; Fig. 2). Its remains were covered by a Late Roman/Early Byzantine agricultural layer (4th‒5th centuries CE).

Fig. 2: General plan of el-AI:iwat and excavated areas (illustrator: Sapir Haad)

The most noticeable, unusual and debated aspect of the site is its architecture: the ruins of three free-standing towers (e.g., Fig. 3), inner quarters separated by thick wide walls and heaps of stones, and a large building. The entire site was enclosed by a broad and wavy stone wall (ca. 5‒7 m wide) with inner corridors (Fig. 4). A stone fortification wall around a settlement is unique in the Iron I highlands of the Southern Levant, and the thickness of the wall and its corridors have no known parallels in the Iron I Southern Levant (Zertal 2012: 411‒415; Mazar 2019: 167‒169). An installation in Area D was identified as an iron furnace (U407; Winter 2012), supposedly pre-dating all other evidence of iron smithing in the Levant (Fig. 5; e.g., Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007; Gottlieb 2010; Eliyahu-Behar and Yahalom-Mack 2018).

Fig. 3: Tower 53 collapse, in 1994 (photo taken at time of excavation)

Fig. 4: Section of the broad and wavy stone wall with an inner corridor, south of Tower T50 (photo taken at time of excavation)

Fig. 5: The supposed iron-processing furnace, in 1996 (photo taken at time of excavation)

Zertal compared the free-standing towers and irregular wall with corridors to the architecture of the proto-Nuragic culture of Sardinia and the Toreenic culture of Corsica (Zertal 2012: 411–423), suggesting, on this basis, that el-Aḥwat was an Egyptian stronghold populated by the Shardana, presumably serving as mercenaries (ibid.: 433–434). The Shardana are commonly considered to be Sea People who settled in the Levant, based on their mention in Egyptian texts (especially the Medinet Habu relief and Onomasticon of Amenope; Adams and Cohen 2013). It has been suggested that they originated from Sardinia, subsequently invading the shores of the Southern Levant (e.g., Dothan 1986; references in Gilboa 2005: 47–49; Ugas 2016: 852–865).

Zertal’s attribution of el-Aḥwat to the Sea People phenomenon has been rejected (e.g., Finkelstein 2002; Mazar 2019: 168*), with Finkelstein (2002: 189) suggesting that the ‘city wall’ was originally built as a fence or terrace in the Late Roman period on top of the Iron I buildings, and that, based on the presence of mid- to late Iron I (Megiddo VIA) forms in the assemblage, the site post-dates the Sea People phenomenon by about 100 years (and see Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007: 79–80). Unfortunately, Zertal’s final excavation report (2012) does not provide any quantitative data on the ceramics, which might have provided a better chronological resolution for the dating of the Iron I stratum. Furthermore, the only four radiometric dates published from el-Aḥwat (Sharon et al. 2007: 41) do not enable us to determine the precise chronology of the Iron I stratum in general and of the wall in particular. The result is that el-Aḥwat is rarely taken into consideration with regard to the Iron I settlement phenomenon or in the debate over the formation of ‘early Israel’ or any other entity (e.g., Gadot 2019; Sergi 2019; Lehmann 2021), although the evidence suggests that this is a key site for the study of the Iron I.

El-Aḥwat differs in most aspects from the neighbouring central hill country sites. The ceramic assemblage comprises an unusual mix of highland and lowland forms (Beʻeri and Cohen 2012; Zertal 2012: 414, 427), and finds include a large assemblage of glyptic (Brandl 2012; Zertal 2012: 411‒415), as well as fish imported from Egypt (Lernau 2012; Routledge 2015). These suggest that el-Aḥwat maintained commercial connections with sites in the Jezreel Valley and along the Mediterranean coast. Until recently, however, metal was not considered to play a significant role at the site, since only one metal artefact—a bronze head bearing Egyptian motifs (ears, eyes and curls)—was published in the final report (Cohen 2012).

After Zertal’s untimely passing in 2015, one of the authors (S.B.) found a box containing 175 metal artefacts from el-Aḥwat in Zertal’s storage facilities. This metal assemblage consists mainly of copper and bronze objects, including earrings, rings, needles, toggle pins, arrowheads, tools, spills and raw iron chunks. The box also contained 30 iron artefacts, including nails, knives and a sickle, as well as a few silver, gold and lead items. Each artefact was preserved in a plastic bag with the context information, but not all the loci recorded in the box were registered in the final publication. In addition, many of the finds were unearthed from mixed contexts (containing both Roman and Iron Age artefacts), cleaning loci, or unsealed fills, and consequently, they cannot be securely dated on the basis of provenance.

In this paper we focus on the Iron Age stratum. Therefore, all the items originating from loci registered as clean Iron I contexts were selected for further examination. In addition, a few items whose context was not recorded but which can be typologically associated with the Late Bronze or the early Iron Age were selected as well. Based on this sorting, 41 of the 175 items were selected and studied as outlined below for their typology, geographic distribution, chemical composition and source of metal. The results further highlight the uniqueness of el-Aḥwat as a central hill country site in which metals were commonly used and worked—evidence of the commercial links of its inhabitants with the Jezreel Valley and the Mediterranean coast.

Materials and methods

All items were cleaned at the metal conservation lab of the Zinman Institute of Archaeology of the University of Haifa. The items were chemically treated, immersed in ammonium hydroxide (14%) and formic acid (14%), and corrosion was removed using a brush. The items were classified into typological groups and compared to local parallels. The various typological groups were plotted on the plans of the excavation areas.

After cleaning, the metal items were subjected to chemical composition surface analysis, using a Bruker Tracer III-V hand-held Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) analyser. At least three measurements per item were performed, on different sides of the objects (60 sec, 40 kV, 1.8 µA). The results remained uncalibrated but gave a first impression of the chemical composition of the metals.

Five earrings were selected for detailed chemical and Pb-isotopic analyses. Sample preparation and analyses were performed in the clean laboratory of the Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The items were drilled using a 1 mm drill. To avoid external contamination, surface drillings were discarded. After that, 20‒25 mg of silver were dissolved in HNO₃ and diluted with distilled water (10 mL). Intermediate residue (HNO₃) was separated from the solution, dissolved in aqua regia (HNO₃:HCl = 1:3) and diluted with distilled water (up to 10 mL). The samples were analysed for Ag, Cu, Pb, Au, Bi, Ni, Zn, As, Sn, Sb, Fe and Co, using ICP-MS (Agilent 7500cx) after calibration with external multi-element standards (Merck ME VI). The contribution of metals from the acid used in the procedures was determined by measuring procedural blank samples. In addition, standard reference samples (USGS SRS T-183, T-175) were examined at the end of the calibration and at the end of the analysis for precision accuracy and detection limit estimation. Blanks were always lower than 1%. The precision and accuracy of the ICP-MS were ±5% for all samples.

The Pb-isotopic ratios were used to identify silver and copper ore sources. For a full explanation of the methodology and its limitations and for the graphic representation of the two-stage geological model ages on which the results are plotted, see Eshel et al. 2019. Isotopic measurements were conducted with a MC-ICP-MS (Thermo Neptune Plus) mass spectrometer. Mass fractionation corrections for Pb in both samples and NIST-981 standard were based on a ²⁰⁵Tl/²⁰³Tl isotopic ratio of 2.3875 after adding a Tl solution (50 ppb) to both the NIST 981 standard and the samples. Replicate measurements of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SRM-981 standards yielded mean values of ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 16.9318 ± 0.0003, ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁴Pb =15.4839 ± 0.0003 and ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 36.6756 ± 0.0009 (2σ, n = 6).

Results

Forty-one metal items, mostly from well-defined contexts, were selected for typological analysis (Table 1; Figs. 6–9). Spatial distribution of the metal items and bronzeworking remains (Figs. 10–12) demonstrates that metals were abundant in all excavated areas, both in domestic (Areas C1 and D) and public (Area A3) structures. The results show that most of the el-Aḥwat metal tools continue Late Bronze Age traditions and are typical of the LB II–Iron I timespan in the Southern Levant. These tools include needles, toggle pins, arrowheads, short drill points and a haematite weight. The jewellery items, on the other hand, display several innovations that are specific to the Iron I in the Southern Levant. These include solid, elongated lunate earrings and side openings in earrings, both known throughout the Southern Levant (Sass 2002; Verduci 2014: 259). The tool and jewellery parallels are not limited only to the lowlands; they can also be found in central hill country sites, including Bethel, ʻAi and Tell en-Naṣbeh (Table 1).

Fig. 6: Metal jewellery of el-Abwat: 1-11) earrings; 12-14) rings (see Table 1; photographs by Sapir Haad)

Fig. 7: Metal items of el-AI)wat: 1-3) toggle pins; 4-5) arrowheads (see Table 1; photographs by Sapir Haad)

Fig. 8: Metal items of el-Abwat: 1-3) needles; 4) haematite weight; 5-10) chisels; 11) axe head; 12-14) drill points (see Table 1; photographs by Sapir Haad)

Fig. 9: Metal items of el-Ahwat: 1) tweezers; 2) copper spill; 3) copper ingot; 4) disk-shaped artefact (see Table 1; photographs by Sapir Haad)

Fig. 10: Plan of Area A3, Stratum II (Iron 1), showing location of metal artefacts (numbers refer to Cat. Nos. in Table 1; *refers to bronze head [Cohen 2012]; illustration by Sapir Haad)

Fig. 11: Plan of Area C1, Stratum II (Iron I), showing location of metal artefacts (numbers refer to Cat. Nos. in Table 1; illustration by Sapir Haad)

Fig. 12: Plan of Area D, Stratum II (Iron I), showing location of metal artefacts (numbers refer to Cat. Nos. in Table 1; illustration by Sapir Haad)

Table 1: Metal artefacts from el-Ahwat, from Iron I contexts

The square-based tassel earring (Cat. No. 10, Fig. 6:10) is unique. Tassel earrings in the Southern Levant are considered an innovation of the Late Bronze–Iron I transition and continued only into the Early Iron II (Sass 2002; Verduci 2014: 259; 2018: 88–93, Subtypes 1II.d–f). Parallels of plain flared attachments with horizontal incisions all date to the Iron I and are mostly found in Jordan and at the Egyptian mining temple of Timnah (Table 1; Verduci 2018: 191); the pendant from el-Aḥwat, however, has a unique square section, whereas the others have a circular cross-section. It has been proposed that tassel earrings derive from lunate earrings of an Aegaean origin, with bud-like pendants and incised decorations (Verduci 2014; 2018: 191, 250); other scholars suggest that they were a local innovation of the Iron I Southern Levant (Sass 2002: 24; Golani 2013: 115).

Two small bronze spills (Cat. Nos. 38–39, Fig. 9:2) and a cut copper ingot (Cat. No. 40, Fig. 9:3) suggest that bronze-working (copper re-melting) took place at el-Aḥwat. Five other copper spills and several pieces of slag were found in mixed contexts on the site; these, however, cannot be dated and therefore are not listed here. Uncalibrated XRF results reveal that the spills contained varying amounts of tin, further suggesting that bronze-working took place at the site. Metallographic analysis of the ingot and spills may shed light on the process; this, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. The results suggest that metalworking was practiced at el-Aḥwat, although no bronze-working furnaces or other evidence, such as melting pits, pot bellows or crucibles, were described in the excavation report.² Bronzeworking within urban centres was especially common in the Southern Levant lowlands during the Iron I, both in areas where bronze-working was known in the Late Bronze II, but mostly at sites with no previous evidence of metalworking (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2018: 202; and see more below).

Detailed chemical and isotopic analysis

Five earrings were subjected to detailed chemical and Pb isotope analysis: two silver (Cat. Nos. 2–3; Fig. 6:2–3) and three copper (Cat. Nos. 4, 7, 10; Fig. 6:4,7,10) earrings. The results indicate that the copper earrings did not contain significant amounts of tin— in other words, they were copper, rather than bronze, earrings (Table 2). The chemical compositions of Aḥwat_1 and Aḥwat_3 do not add up to 100%, possibly due to inaccurate weighing of the sample; however, XRF (uncalibrated) analyses indicate that no additional constituents were added to the copper. We therefore conclude that the earrings are made of pure copper, rather than tin-bronze.

Table 2: Chemical and lead-isotopic compositions of five earrings from el-Ahwatⁱ

ⁱ Results are calibrated using a hand-held XRF. In samples Aḥwat_1, Aḥwat_2 and Aḥwat_3, the chemical compositions do not reach 100%, probably because of corrosion of Cu (forming CuO) and Ag (forming AgCl or Ag O)

ⁱⁱ Results are calibrated using a hand-held XRF.

Lead Isotope Analysis (LIA) of the copper earrings show that they are consistent with the local Arabah Valley copper ores, Timna and Faynan DLS, which date to the Cambrian sequence, formed about 500 million years ago (Figs. 13–14).³ The lead-isotopic ratios of DLS ores from Faynan form a tight cluster on the graph, while the isotope ratios of ores from Timna show a wider scatter (Gale et al. 1990; Hauptmann et al. 1992; Hauptmann 2007: 81–82); however, the copper from el-Aḥwat is consistent isotopically with both ores. The LI ratios of the copper earrings are also consistent with Sa Duchessa (Domusnovas) ores from the Cagliari district, southwest Sardinia (Figs. 13–14). These are the only other known copper ores that are as old geologically as the Arabah Valley ores (Begemann et al. 2001; Valera, Valera and Rivoldini 2005: 64–66; Gale and Stos-Gale 2009: Fig. 5). Chemical data of the Sa Duchessa ores is lacking; therefore, the chemical composition could not be compared to the Arabah ores. Nevertheless, Sardinia seems to be a much less likely origin of the copper, as both Timna and Faynan are the nearest copper ores in the region and as they produced copper in large quantities in the Iron I (Rothenberg 1988; 1990; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012; Avner 2014; Levy et al. 2008; Levy, Najjar and Ben-Yosef 2014; Yahalom-Mack and Segal 2018). In addition, the relatively high lead content in the copper earrings (0.1‒0.7 wt%; Table 2) points to the Arabah, as both Timna and Faynan ores are lead-rich (Hauptmann 2007: 75–77). As Faynan copper ores usually contain higher lead concentrations than Timna (1‒6 wt%; ibid.: 75, 77: Fig. 4.10; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014b), the copper probably originated from Timna. The LI results of the copper earrings are also consistent with some copper ores in Sinai (Abdel-Motelib et al. 2012), but their published isotopic compositions are too few and too scattered to be considered. With these limitations, the results suggest that the copper earrings were produced from Arabah (Timna) copper.

Fig. 13: a) ^{2 07}Pb/²⁰⁴Pb vs. ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb of silver and copper jewellery from el-Ahwat; b) ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁴Pb vs. ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb of silver and copper jewellery from el-Ahwat (Table 2). The results are plotted against selected ores: Iran, Naklak: Nezafati and Pernicka 2012; Aegaean, Laurion and Siphnos: Gale and Stos-Gale 1981b; Stos-Gale and Gale 1982; Vaxevanopoulos et al. 2022; Essimi in the Northern Aegaean: OXALID; Anatolia, Taurus: Yener et al. 1991; Sayre et al. 1992; Troad in Southwest Anatolia: Wagner et al. 1986. Sardinia Sa Duchessa (Domusnovas): Stos-Gale et al. 1995; Begemann et al. 2001; Valera, Valera and Rivoldini 2005; the Arabah (DLS in Faynan and Amir and Evrona formations in Timna): Gale et al. 1990; Hauptmann et al. 1992; 2007

Lead isotope ratios of the silver earrings are consistent with several silver-bearing lead ores of much younger formation model age, from about 100 million years ago. Such ores are known in Anatolia and the Aegaean. Specifically, Aḥwat_2 is consistent with the Taurus 2A ore field in Anatolia and with the Siphnos ores in the Aegaean, while Aḥwat_4 falls between several Ag-bearing lead ores, including Siphons in the Aegaean, Essimi in the northern Aegaean and the Troad in southwest Anatolia. It may also be a mixed silver item, which may contain silver from Laurion in Greece, for example, or the Taurus 1B ore field in Anatolia, which fall to the right of the item on the graph (Fig. 13). The results are too few and not indicative enough to determine the precise origin of the silver; we can only generally conclude that the silver originates from the Anatolian-Aegaean sphere.

Silver is not available locally in the Levant or Egypt and is therefore evidence of far-flung trade to the region (Gale and Stos-Gale 1981a). However, following the social, economic and climatic crises that marked the end of the Late Bronze Age, a shortage in silver occurred in the Levant from the LB III and throughout the Iron I, as evidenced by the systematic alloying of silver with copper from the Arabah (Eshel et al. 2021). Mediterranean trade during the early Iron Age in the Southern Levant was limited in its geographic extent to Egypt, Cyprus and the Levantine coast; trade with Anatolia, the Aegaean islands and beyond was extremely rare (refs. in Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008: 143–145; Lehmann 2008; Maeir, Fantalkin and Zukerman 2009; Kourou 2019; Mazar and Kourou 2019; Gilboa 2022). The silver items were possibly produced in the Late Bronze Age, when silver was available in the region before the collapse of the Mediterranean routes. Alternatively, it may be rare evidence of sporadic maritime trade with the Aegaean/Anatolia which occurred in the early Iron I or of the beginning of the revival of Mediterranean maritime trade in the later part of the period (Eshel et al. 2019; 2021). However, the chronology of the Iron I stratum at el-Aḥwat is not securely determined (see Introduction), and therefore it is impossible to associate the finds with any of the changing trade patterns.

Discussion

Metals were essential commodities that fostered economy and trade throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages (e.g., Sherrat and Sherrat 1991; Gilboa 2022), suggesting that el-Aḥwat should no longer be discussed (only) from the point of view of ethnogenesis and identity, but instead with regard to economy and trade. The typological and Pb-isotope analyses reveal that the metal assemblage of el-Aḥwat is typical of the Southern Levant in the Iron I. The metal artefacts are mostly typical of the Late Bronze–Iron I in the Southern Levant, and the jewellery items display several innovations specific to the LB–Iron I transition in the region. Copper spills and slag indicate that bronzeworking was practiced on site, typical of the Iron I lowlands (see below). Lead isotopic ratios and lead concentrations in the copper show that the copper is local as well, originating from the Arabah, which produced copper throughout the LB III–Iron IIA timespan (ca. 1200‒800 BCE; Levy et al. 2004; 2008; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012). Although one unique tassel earring has been suggested to derive from an Aegaean type, this has not been accepted by all scholars. The source of the silver, which is rare on the site, may be either Anatolia or the Aegaean.

During the Iron I, bronze-working workshops within urban centres were especially common in the Southern Levant lowlands and coast, as evidenced at several sites, such as Tel Dan (Ilan 1999; Ben-Dov 2018), Tel Hazor (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014a), Tel Dor (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2018) and Megiddo (Yahalom-Mack 2009a; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017). Chemical and isotopic analyses have shown that the copper in these workshops originated from the Arabah mines (Faynan and/or Timna), which underwent a rapid growth in mining activities during the Iron I, replacing the role of Cyprus—the main copper provider to the region during the Late Bronze Age (Levy et al. 2008; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014b). While bronze and bronzeworking were abundant in the lowlands during the Iron I, evidence of metalworking and metal use in the highlands is scarce, suggested as evidence that the inhabitants of the central hill country were economically independent peasants who avoided trade (Rosen 1994: 346).

The results presented here call for a reconsideration of the presence of metalworking and use of metals in the central hill country during the Iron I, which often went unnoticed. Metals and metalworking were, in fact, documented in the highlands in various sites, such as Dothan (Master et al. 2005: Fig. 14:28); Bethel (Kelso 1968: 83–86, Nos. 530, 728); et-Tell (ʻAi) (Marquet-Krause 1949: Pl. XXXIX); Khirbet Raddana (Callaway 1993), Tell en-Naṣbeh and Jerusalem (Yahalom-Mack 2009b: 106–108; Gottlieb 2010: 100; Verduci 2018; Ben-Dov 2018: Table 31.1). However, most of the metal assemblages have not been published, and none of these sites have a clear stratigraphic sequence (Gottlieb 2010: 100). Consequently, the metal finds from these sites could not be assigned with confidence to the Iron I.

The abundance of metals alongside other imports (see above) link el-Aḥwat, situated in the margins of the central hill country, to the lowland ‘Canaanite’ material culture of the Iron I, suggesting that its inhabitants maintained commercial ties with the Jezreel Valley (Megiddo), the Mediterranean coast (Dor) and beyond. The results thus provide the first undisputed evidence of metalworking and trade in the central hill country during the Iron I. It is possible that trade was limited only to the periphery of the central hill country. However, Dothan, located 10 km southeast of el-Aḥwat (Fig. 1), also revealed a few silver and bronze artefacts found in Iron I contexts (Master et al. 2005: Fig. 14:28), suggesting that metal trade was not limited to el-Aḥwat or the Samarian Highland margins, but that el-Aḥwat served as a commercial point of contact between the highlands and the lowlands. The only comparable phenomenon (albeit to a much lesser extent and from the point of view of ceramics only) may be found at the site ofʻIzbet Ṣarṭah, which lies on the western fringe of the Samaria Hills. Stratum III atʻIzbet Ṣarṭah (dated to the 12th–11th centuries BCE) is generally identified with the hill country population of the Iron I, yet the pottery repertoire of this stratum indicates contacts between the inhabitants and the nearby coastal plain (Finkelstein 1986: 205–213; Gadot 2006b).

The disagreement regarding the precise dating of el-Aḥwat within the Iron I (see above) and the general lack of absolute chronology for the wave of settlements in the highlands (Gadot 2017; 2019) makes it difficult to correlate between the finds and historical and archaeological developments. One possibility is that el-Aḥwat flourished during the mid- and late Iron I, a period of acceleration in maritime commerce. Abundant ceramics from Tel Dor, located on the coast, 30 km northwest of el-Aḥwat (Fig. 1), reflect prosperity and extensive traffic between Egypt, Cyprus and the Levantine coast in this period (see references in Gilboa, Sharon and Boaretto 2008). Regardless of the precise dating of the results, they call for a reconsideration of el-Aḥwat as a key site in the history of the Iron I Southern Levant.

Conclusions

The large metal assemblage from el-Aḥwat consists mainly of local tools, jewellery and evidence of bronzeworking, typical of Iron I urban settlements of the Southern Levant. LIA reveals that the copper on the site is local, originating from the Arabah, and the silver from the Aegaean–Anatolian sphere. The results suggest that the inhabitants of el-Aḥwat were engaged in trade with the nearby Jezreel Valley and Carmel coast. The results highlight el-Aḥwat as a unique Iron I site, located on the margins of the central hill country, probably an important centre of metalworking and trade—a phenomenon that is, to date, unparalleled.

Contributors

Tzilla Eshel: School of Archaeology and Maritime Studies and Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0976-0877; corresponding author’s email: [email protected]

Ofir Tirosh: The Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; email: [email protected]

Yoav Bornstein: School of Archaeology and Maritime Studies, University of Haifa; email: [email protected]

Shay Bar: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa; email: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Alexander Iermolin of the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, for the cleaning and conservation of the artefacts, Sapir Haad for the photography and graphics, John Tresman for editing this manuscript, and the editor and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Figs. 3–5 are courtesy of the Samaria and Jordan Valley Survey Association.

Disclosure Statement

The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tzilla Eshel

Tzilla Eshel: School of Archaeology and Maritime Studies and Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa

Ofir Tirosh

Ofir Tirosh: The Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Yoav Bornstein

Yoav Bornstein: School of Archaeology and Maritime Studies, University of Haifa

Shay Bar

Shay Bar: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa.

Notes

1 The absolute chronology of the early Iron Age and its sub-divisions have been debated for nearly two decades. The debate generated two main chronological systems, known as the high (or amended high) and low chronologies. After an extensive effort to date strata of this timespan by the ¹⁴C method (Sharon, et al. 2007; Mazar and Ramsey 2010; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011; Lee, Ramsey and Mazar 2013), gaps among contrasting positions have narrowed to 30‒50 years, which is within the uncertainty range of ¹⁴C radiometric dating. Therefore, the chronology employed here represents the entire chronological range that is currently valid within the range constrained by ¹⁴C dating in the Levant.

2 While no on-site bronzeworking was reported in the final publication, an iron furnace was described (see above). There were, however, no reports of iron blooms or slag, which are typically discarded near an iron workshop (Yahalom-Mack and Eliyahu-Behar 2015: 294; Erb-Satullo and Walton 2017: 9‒10), and the identification of the furnace was based on the presence of iron minerals in the nearby soil (Winter 2012: 383).

3 The Timna ores of the Amir/Evrona formation mostly date to the Cretaceous age (some 100 million years ago); however, Pb-isotope ratios date to the Cambrian sequence, implying that Cambrian Pb has been incorporated nearly unchanged into the Cretaceous sandstone (Hauptmann 2007: 81).