In the Bible there are three different words which the authorized version renders by “bracelet.” These are—1. myïX etzadah, which occurs in Num. xxxi. 50, 2 Sam. i. 10, and which being used with reference -to men only, may be taken to be the armlet; 2. tzamid, which is found in Gen. xxiv. 22, Num. xxxi. 50, Ezek. xvi. 11;— where these two words occur together (as in Num. xxxi, 50) the first is rendered by “chain,” and the second by “bracelet;” 3. ∏1^∣B* sheroth, which occurs only in Isa. iii. 19. The first probably meant armlets worn by men; the second, bracelets worn by women and sometimes by men; and the third, a peculiar bracelet of chain-work worn only by women. In 2 Sam. i. 10, the first word denotes the royal ornament which the Amalekite took from the arm of the dead Saul, and brought with the other regalia to David. There is-little question that this was such a distinguishing band of jewelled metal as we still find worn as a mark of royalty from the Tigris to the Ganges. The Egyptian kings are represented with armlets, which were also worn by the Egyptian women. These, however, are not jewelled, but of plain or enamelled metal, as was in all likelihood the case among the Hebrews. In modern times the most celebrated armlets are those which form part of the regalia of the Persian kings, and which formerly belonged to the Mongol emperors of India. These ornaments are of dazzling splendour, and the jewels in them are of such large size and immense value that the pair are reckoned to be worth a million of our money. The principal stone of the right armlet is famous in the East under the name of the Deviâ-e-nur, or “Sea of light.” It weighs 186 carats, and is considered the diamond of finest lustre in the world. The principal jewel of the left armlet, although of somewhat inferior size (146 carats) and value, is renowned as the Tdg-e-mah, “Crown of the moon.” The imperial armlets, generally set with jewels, may also be observed in most of the portraits of the Indian emperors.

Bracelets have at all times been much in use among barbaric nations, and the women frequently wear several on the same arm. The finer kinds are of mother of pearl, fine gold, or silver; others of less value are made of plated steel, horn, brass, copper, beads, <fcc.

This species of personal ornament was exceedingly common in Europe in prehistoric times. The bracelets of the Bronze Age were either of gold or bronze, silver being then unknown. In shape they were oval and penannular with expanding or trumpet-shaped ends, having an opening between them of about half an inch to enable them to bo easily slipped over the wrist. Those of gold were generally plain, hammered rods, bent to the requisite shape, but those of bronze were often chased with elegant designs showing a cultivated taste. Some forms of spiral armlets of bronze, peculiar to Germany and Scandinavia, covered the whole fore-arm, and were doubtless intended as much for defence against a sword-stroke as for ornament. The Etruscan and early Roman forms of bronze bracelet were for the most part cylindrical, with overlapping ends, or spiral and serpent-shaped. These were also the common forms in the Iron Age of Northern Europe, while silver bracelets of great elegance, formed of plaited and intertwisted strands of silver wire, and plain penannular hoops, round or lozenge-shaped in section and tapering to the extremities, became common towards the close of the pagan period. The late Celtic period in Britain was characterized by serpent-shaped bracelets and massive armlets, with projecting ornaments of solid bronze and perforations filled with enamel. In the Middle Ages bracelets were much less commonly used in Europe, but the custom has continued to prevail among Eastern nations to the present time, and many of the types that were common in Europe in prehistoric times are still worn in Central Asia. A treatise De Armillis Veterum, by Thomas Bartolinus, was published at Amsterdam in 1676