Middle and Late Bronze Age Metal Tools from the Aegean, Eastern ...

Middle and Late Bronze Age Metal Tools from the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean, and
Anatolia: Implications for Cultural/Regional Interaction and Craftsmanship
by
Nicholas G. Blackwell
May 2011
Submitted to the Faculty of Bryn Mawr College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Middle and Late Bronze Age Metal Tools from the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean, and
Anatolia: Implications for Cultural/Regional Interaction and Craftsmanship
Abstract
This study considers the distribution and consumption trends of metal tools from
the second millennium BC over a wide geographical area including Crete, the Greek
mainland, the Greek islands, Cyprus, Anatolia, and Syria-Palestine. An exhaustive
database of 5300+ tools was compiled from these regions and time frame. While copper
and copper-alloy implements are attested in the third millennium and earlier, the
significant advancement of the metallurgical industry in the Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean is directly associated with the quantity and diversification of metal tools
during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. The progression of craft industries is also
related to the development and production of specific and sometimes specialized tool
forms.
The degree of pre- and proto-historic interaction among multiple regions is
evaluated through the lens of metal tools, items that were neither bulk nor elite goods.
The primary research questions are 1) to assess the meaning of patterns in tool
consumption and 2) whether it is possible to identify traveling craftspersons in the
archaeological record through such distributions. Analysis of the large database begins
with a broad overview of the tool choices made in each region and time period.
Implements are classified into discernible functional categories such as agricultural,
metallurgical, utilitarian, tools for small crafting, and carpentry/masonry. Given the
strong correlation between the evolution of metal tools and architecture, it should be no
surprise that carpentry/masonry implements are the preferred tools throughout the second
millennium BC, and therefore much of the study’s focus is on this category. A meticulous

investigation of the carpentry/masonry tool types identifies their distribution by area and
site, highlighting regional and local tool preferences. A thorough examination of tools
from metal hoards and shipwrecks reveals the existence of tool kits, and this observation
has important implications for reassessing how hoards are interpreted. While it is difficult
to track the movement of craftspersons from tools alone, distinctive trends of selection
and cross-regional comparison of tool types demonstrate identifiable links among several
regions. The exact meaning of the interregional tool similarities is less clear, though one
may speculate on the possibilities of deliberate craft interaction and exchange.

To my mother, who first taught me to appreciate history;
my father, a true craftsman possessing more tools than I can count; and
Joanie, with thanks for her loving support and patience

Volume 1
CHAPTER 1:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF PLATES xiii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xviii
ABBREVIATIONS xxii
CHRONOLOGICAL OVERVIEW xxiii
Introduction: metal tools, metallurgy, and craftsmanship in the Aegean, eastern
Mediterranean and Anatolia
I. The relationship between metal tools and craft industries in the Bronze Age 1
II. Metallurgy in the Middle and Late Bronze Age 5
III. Investigating local and interregional trends in the distribution of tools 10
CHAPTER 2: 16
Avenues for metallurgical research and project design
I. Assessing regional interaction through metallurgy 16
II. Framework of the study, research design and procedures followed 23
III. Organization of the database and its categories 29
IV. Terminology and tool identification 34
V. Limitations and caveats for this study 42
CHAPTER 3: 50
Metal tools in the second millennium BC: assessing value, function and distribution
I. A note about how data are presented in this chapter 50
II. The functional and social value of tools 51
III: The relationship of stone, bone, and metal tools 58
IV. General patterns of metal tools in the second millennium BC 63
v
1

V. Agricultural tools 72
VI. Metallurgical tools (including non-metal types) 87
VII. Utilitarian tools 100
VIII. Small craft tools 107
IX. Carpentry/masonry tools 115
X. Conclusions about the functional tool categories 125
CHAPTER 4: 129
Carpentry and masonry tools: types and distributions by site
I. Carpentry and Masonry tool types 129
A: Shaft-hole axes 130
B: Shaft-hole (or socketed) adzes 137
C: Double axes 138
D: Single, non-shafted axes and adzes 145
D1: Trunnion/lugged axes and adzes 148
D2: Single/flat axes 151
D3: Single/flat adzes 155
E1: Chisels 157
E2: Socketed chisels 164
F: Shafted, double-ended or combination tools (excluding double axes) 166
F1: Double adzes 167
F2: Ax-adzes 170
F3: Double hammers, ax-hammers and adze-hammers 172
F4: Pick-adzes 176
G1: Drills (solid) 177
G2: Hollow or tubular drills 179
H: Saws 186
I: Files and rasps 193
II. Carpentry/masonry tool consumption by site 194
Sites from Crete 196
Sites from the Greek mainland 199
vi

Sites from the Greek islands 202
Sites from Cyprus 204
Sites from Anatolia 207
Sites from Syria-Palestine 211
III: Summary of the broad regional carpentry/masonry tool preferences 213
Crete (Figure 4.21) 213
Greek Mainland (Figure 4.22) 214
Greek islands (Figure 4.23) 216
Cyprus (Figure 4.24) 217
Anatolia (Figure 4.25) 219
Syria-Palestine (Figure 4.26) 220
Shipwrecks (Figure 4.27) 221
IV: Conclusion for carpentry/masonry implements (Figures 4.28‒29) 222
CHAPTER 5: 225
Carpentry/masonry implements: variety and tool kits
I. The importance of tool kits 225
II. Methodology for identifying prospective tool kits 228
III. Ascertaining tool kits within different contexts 232
IV. Hoarding and tool kits 239
A: Hoarding practices and chronological/historical interpretive issues 239
B: Overview of hoard compositions in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean 251
C: Tools in hoards: frequencies, preferences and statistics 257
D: Deconstructing foundry caches: modification and functionality
of hoard tools 267
E: Tool kits as an organizing agent in the formation of a metal hoard 279
V. The metal objects from shipwrecks and detectable tool kits 292
VI. Conclusions about tool kits 303
CHAPTER 6: 307
Summary of the tool distributions and their implications for craftsmanship
vii

I. The study of metal tools: contextualizing the current investigation 307
II. Summary of the regional tool distributions and metallurgical centers 313
III. Interpreting how tool distributions relate to craftspersons 328
IV. Using metal tools to determine interregional contact and craft links 331
V. Traveling craftspersons 345
VI. Future directions for studying metal tools 356
BIBLIOGRAPHY 360
VITA 405
Volume 2
APPENDIX 1: Figures (charts, graphs, maps, etc.) 406
APPENDIX 2: Plates 490
APPENDIX 3: Hoard catalogue 519
APPENDIX 4: Middle and Late Bronze Age tool catalogue 546
Cretan tools 546
Greek mainland tools 571
Greek island tools 596
Cypriot tools 602
Anatolian tools 629
Syro-Palestinian tools 654
Shipwreck tools 663
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Shaft-hole ax distribution 131
Table 4.2: Shaft-hole adze distribution 138
Table 4.3: Double ax distribution 139
Table 4.4: Trunnion/lugged ax (and adze) distribution 149
Table 4.5: Single/flat ax distribution 152-53
Table 4.6: Single/flat adze distribution 155
Table 4.7: Chisel distribution 158
Table 4.8: Number of chisels by cutting edge width and region 160
Table 4.9: Chisel length and cutting edge width by region 162-63
Table 4.10: Socketed chisel distribution 164
Table 4.11: Shafted, combination and double ended tool distribution 167
Table 4.12: Double adze distribution 169
Table 4.13: Ax-adze distribution 171-72
Table 4.14: Shafted, double hammer distribution 173
Table 4.15: Ax-Hammer distribution 174
Table 4.16: Adze-Hammer distribution 175
Table 4.17: Pick-adze distribution 177
Table 4.18: Solid drill distribution 178
Table 4.19: Saw distribution 190-91
Table 4.20: MM carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 197
Table 4.21: LM carpentry/masonry tool distribution by sites 198
Table 4.22: Middle Helladic carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 199-200
Table 4.23: Late Helladic carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 201-02
Table 4.24: LBA islands: carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 204
ix

Table 4.25: Middle Cypriot carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 205
Table 4.26: Late Cypriot carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 206-07
Table 4.27: MBA Anatolia: carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 208
Table 4.28: LBA Anatolia: carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 210
Table 4.29: MBA Syro-Palestinian carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 212
Table 4.30: LBA Syro-Palestinian carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site 213
Table 5.1: Carpentry/masonry tools by context and number of examples
found with other tools 232-33
Table 5.2: Tombs with multiple carpentry/masonry tools of the same type 234
Table 5.3: Tombs with multiple carpentry/masonry tools of different types 235
Table 5.4: Tool data from the Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks 294
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The stages of metallurgical production and consumption 406
Figure 3.1a,b: Increase in metal tools from the MBA to LBA 407
Figure 3.2a,b: Tool distributions by context and time period 408
Figure 3.3a-f: Tool distributions and percentages by context and region 408-09
Figure 3.4a, b: Functional categories of metal (and some non-metal) tools 410-411
Figure 3.5a,b: Agricultural tool percentages and quantities 411-12
Figure 3.6: Distribution of agricultural tools according to site size 412
Figure 3.7: Distribution of agricultural tools by context 412
Figure 3.8: Agricultural tool types 413
Figure 3.9a-g: Regional quantities of agricultural tools 413-14
Figure 3.10a, b: Metallurgical tool percentages and quantities 415
Figure 3.11: Distribution of metallurgical tools according to site size 416
x

Figure 3.12: Distribution of metallurgical tools by context 416
Figure 3.13: Metallurgical tool types 417
Figure 3.14a-f: Regional quantities of metallurgical tools 417-19
Figure 3.15a, b: Utilitarian tool percentages and quantities 420
Figure 3.16: Distribution of utilitarian tools according to site size 421
Figure 3.17: Distribution of utilitarian tools by context 421
Figure 3.18: Utilitarian tool types 422
Figure 3.19: Distribution of knives by region and period 422
Figure 3.20a-g: Regional quantities of utilitarian tools 423-26
Figure 3.21a, b: “Small craft” tool percentages and quantities 426-27
Figure 3.22: Distribution of small craft tools according to site size 427
Figure 3.23: Distribution of small craft tools by context 427
Figure 3.24: Small craft tool types 428
Figure 3.25a, b: Awl percentages, quantities and distribution 428-29
Figure 3.26a, b: Carpentry/masonry tool percentages and quantities 429-30
Figure 3.27: Distribution of carpentry/masonry tools according to site size 430
Figure 3.28: Distribution of carpentry/masonry tools by context 430
Figure 3.29: Carpentry/masonry tool types 431
Figure 3.30: Carpentry/masonry tool variation by period 431-32
Figure 3.31a-g: Regional quantities of carpentry/masonry tools 432-37
Figure 4.1: Shaft-hole axes: regional measurements 438
Figure 4.2: Double axes: regional measurements 440
Figure 4.3: Scatter plot of chisels, adzes, axes, and trunnion blades 442
xi

Figure 4.4: Scatter plot of wide chisels compared to data in Fig. 4.3 443
Figure 4.5a, b: L:W ratio, box-and-dot plot for chisels, adzes, axes,
and trunnion blades 444
Figure 4.6: Trunnion/lugged axes (or adzes) regional measurements 445
Figure 4.7: Single/flat axes: regional measurements 446-47
Figure 4.8: Single/flat adzes: scatter plot 448
Figure 4.9: Scatter plot for all chisels 449
Figure 4.10: Chisels: scatter plots by region 450-51
Figure 4.11: Aegean broad chisels: scatter plot 452
Figure 4.12a, b: L:W ratio for Aegean broad chisels, box-and-dot plot 453
Figure 4.13a, b: L:W ratio for different chisel sizes, box-and-dot plot 454
Figure 4.14: L:W ratio for socketed, mortise, cold chisels, box-and-dot plot 455
Figure 4.15a, b: Socketed chisels: scatter plot and measurements 456
Figure 4.16a, b: Double adzes: scatter plot and measurements 457
Figure 4.17: Ax-adzes: regional measurements 458
Figure 4.18a, b: Solid drill: scatter plot and measurements 459
Figure 4.19: Hollow cylindrical metal objects; potential tubular drills 460
Figure 4.20: Saws: regional measurements 461-62
Figure 4.21: Crete carpentry/masonry tool pie charts 463
Figure 4.22: Mainland carpentry/masonry tool pie charts 464
Figure 4.23: Greek island carpentry/masonry tool pie charts 465
Figure 4.24: Cyprus carpentry/masonry tool pie charts 466
Figure 4.25: Anatolia carpentry/masonry tool pie charts 467
Figure 4.26: Syria-Palestine carpentry/masonry tool pie charts 468
Figure 4.27: Shipwreck carpentry/masonry tool pie charts 469
xii

Figure 4.28: Map showing MBA carpentry/masonry tool distributions 470
Figure 4.29: Map showing LBA carpentry/masonry tool distributions 471
Figure 5.1: Tool frequencies and distributions from Cretan hoards 472-73
Figure 5.2: Tool frequencies and distributions from Mainland hoards 473-74
Figure 5.3: Tool frequencies and distributions from Cypriot hoards 475-76
Figure 5.4: Tool frequencies and distributions for other hoard 477
Figure 5.5: List of hoards that contain tools 478
Figure 5.6: Similarity matrix (Jaccard’s Coefficient) for all hoards 479-84
Figure 5.7: Cluster analysis of hoards, based on Figure 5.6 485
Figure 5.8: Highlighted hoard clusters, based on Figure 5.6 486
Figure 5.9: Similarity chart by variable for hoards in Cluster #3 487
Figure 5.10: Similarity chart by variable for hoards in Cluster #4 487
Figure 5.11: Cluster analysis by variable for Cluster #3 hoards 488
Figure 5.12: Cluster analysis by variable for Cluster #4 hoards 489
LIST OF PLATES (all photographs by author unless otherwise specified)
Plate 4.1: Shaft-hole ax from Boğazköy; Ankara Museum 490
Plate 4.2: Fenestrated shaft-hole ax; Vaphio (LH IIA);Athens National Museum 490
Plate 4.3: Shaft-hole ax from Cyprus; Nicosia Museum; 1967/111-10/1 491
Plate 4.4: Double ax from Chamaizi; MM I-II; Heraklion Museum #1018 491
Plate 4.5: Double ax from Gournia; MMII-LMI; Heraklion Museum #555 491
Plate 4.6: Double ax from Knossos Unexplored Mansion, LM II 492
Plate 4.7: Double ax; Athens Acropolis hoard, LH IIIB; Acropolis museum 492
Plate 4.8: Double ax; Orchomenos hoard, LH IIIB/C; Chaironeia Museum 492
xiii

Plate 4.9: Andronianoi double ax, LH II-IIIA1. Athens National Museum 493
Plate 4.10: Trunnion/lugged blade from Alishar Höyük, LBA; Ankara Museum 493
Plate 4.11: Trunnion/lugged blade from Alaca Höyük, LBA, Ankara Museum, 493
Plate 4.12: Trunnion/lugged ax from Alaca Höyük, LBA; Ankara Museum 494
Plate 4.13: Trunnion/lugged ax from Alaca Höyük, LBA; Ankara Museum 494
Plate 4.14: Single/flat ax from Alambra; MBA; Nicosia Museum 494
Plate 4.15: Single/flat ax from Katarraktis (Drakotrypa), Patras Museum 495
Plate 4.16: Single/flat adze from Enkomi, LC III 495
Plate 4.17: Flat/single blade; probably a chisel; Chamaizi; Heraklion Museum 495
Plate 4.18: Bit-sized chisel-like tool; Boğazköy; Boğazkale Museum 496
Plate 4.19: Bit-sized chisel-like tool; Boğazköy; Boğazkale Museum 496
Plate 4.20: Narrow or size 2 chisel; Enkomi; Nicosia Museum 496
Plate 4.21: Narrow or size 2 chisel; Mylonas hoard; Mycenae Museum 496
Plate 4.22: Chisel of size 3; Enkomi; Nicosia Museum 497
Plate 4.23: Chisel fragment, size 3; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 497
Plate 4.24: Size 4 or wide chisel, from Knossos, Unexplored Mansion 497
Plate 4.25: Size 4 or wide chisel; Athens Acropolis hoard; Acropolis Museum 497
Plate 4.26: Size 5 chisel from Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 497
Plate 4.27: Cold chisel from Uluburun shipwreck, Bodrum Museum 498
Plate 4.28: Mortise chisel from Uluburun shipwreck, Bodrum Museum 498
Plate 4.29: Socketed chisel from Beycesultan, Pamukkale Museum 498
Plate 4.30: Socketed chisel from Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios 498
Plate 4.31: Double adze from Meniko; Nicosia Museum 499
Plate 4.32: Double adze from Ayia Triadha (Shaw 2009, 251 plate 38a,b) 499
xiv

Plate 4.33: Double adze from Enkomi Gunnis Hoard; Nicosia Museum 499
Plate 4.34: Double adze from Enkomi Maison des Bronzes, Nicosia Museum 499
Plate 4.35: Ax-adze from Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes; Louvre Museum, AM 2187 500
Plate 4.36: Ax-adze from Enkomi; Nicosia Museum, CM Met 2175 500
Plate 4.37: Double hammer from Gournia, Heraklion Museum #965 500
Plate 4.38: Adze-hammer, Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes, Louvre Museum,AM2188 500
Plate 4.39: Trésor de Bronzes adze-hammer and ax-adze. Louvre museum. 501
Plate 4.40: Adze-hammer; Brunnen 212 hoard, Nicosia Museum 501
Plate 4.41: 2 pick adzes, Ayia Triadha. Photographs in Shaw 2009, fig. 37 501
Plate 4.42: Drill, Nicosia Museum, Fr. 1960, inv. 265 501-02
Plate 4.43: Saw type 1: Prosymna; Athens National Museum, #13146 502
Plate 4.44: Saw type 2: Knossos, South house hoard; Heraklion Museum 1803 502
Plate 4.45: Andronianoi hoard saw; Athens National Museum 10797 502
Plate 4.46: Saw type 3: Gournia, Heraklion Museum 571 502
Plate 4.47: Saw type 3: Boğazköy-Hattusha; Çorum Museum, Bo. 77/146 503
Plate 4.48: Saw type 4: Kalapodi band saw; saw fragment in Felsch 1996, plate
63 entry 2236; reconstruction in Küpper 1996, Plate 128 middle. 503
Plate 4.49: Saw type 4: Orchomenos hoard: Chaironeia Museum #544 503
Plate 4.50: Saw type 4: Orchomenos hoard: Chaironeia Museum #582 503
Plate 4.51: Knossos saw; round tip, Stratigraphical Museum, Evans’ Box 1877 503
Plate 4.52: Rasp from Mochlos; photograph in Shaw 2009, 252 Plate 47 504
Plate 4.53: File from Athens Acropolis hoard; Acropolis Museum #7004 504
Plate 5.1: Katamachi hoard – Ioannina Museum 505
Plate 5.2: Kalydon-Psorolithi hoard – Agrinio Museum 505
Plate 5.3: MX 502; double ax frag.; Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum 505
xv

Plate 5.4: MX 503; double ax frag.; Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum 506
Plate 5.5: MX 509; double ax frag.; Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum 506
Plate 5.6: MX 524; double ax frag; comparison to MX 503; Chaironeia Museum 506
Plate 5.7: MX 541; double or single ax frag.; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia 507
Plate 5.8: MX 515: broad chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard, Chaironeia 507
Plate 5.9: MX 516: chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard, Chaironeia Museum 507
Plate 5.10: MX 517; chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 508
Plate 5.11: MX 518-21; chisel fragments; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 508
Plate 5.12: MX 518, chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 508
Plate 5.13: MX 519, chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 509
Plate 5.14: MX 520, chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 509
Plate 5.15: MX 521, chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum 509
Plate 5.16: MX 601, manipulated vessel fragment, Orchomenos hoard, Chaironeia 509
Plate 5.17: Mycenae Poros Wall hoard implements, Athens National Museum 510
Plate 5.18: Mycenae Tsountas hoard, Athens National Museum 510-11
Plate 5.19: Athens Acropolis hoard, Athens National Museum 511-12
Plate 5.20: 2 double ax fragments; Athens National Museum, #6905-6 512
Plate 5.21: Double ax fragment; Kalydon hoard, Agrinio Museum, AM 79 513
Plate 5.22: Anthedon hoard, Athens National Museum 513
Plate 5.23: Double ax fragment; Anthedon hoard, #18180 513
Plate 5.24: Double hammer, Enkomi Foundry hoard, British Museum 1/1468 514
Plate 5.25: Double adze; Enkomi Gunnis hoard, Cyprus Museum, L39 514
Plate 5.26: Double adze; Enkomi Gunnis hoard, Cyprus Museum, L37 514
Plate 5.27: Double adze detail, Enkomi Gunnis hoard, Cyprus Museum L37 515
Plate 5.28: Mycenae Mylonas hoard tool kit; Mycenae Museum 515
xvi

Plate 5.29: Orchomenos tool kit, Chaironeia Museum 516
Plate 5.30: Mathiati hoard (photographs in Catling 1964, plate 52a, b) 517
Plate 5.31: Enkomi Foundry hoard tool kit; British Museum 517
Plate 5.32: Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes 518
Plate 5.33: Pyla-Kokkinokremnos, Crucible scraper, Cyprus Museum 518
xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are numerous individuals, institutions, and fellowships that contributed to
this study or helped me to carry out the work. The topic of this study was suggested to me
by my advisor, Professor James Wright of Bryn Mawr College, as a means of combining
my research interests in metallurgy and cultural interactions between the Aegean and
eastern Mediterranean during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Neither of us expected
that there were so many metal tools from these periods and regions. I thank Professor
Wright for his patience as he helped me work through compiling and analyzing this
material. His constant advice, encouragement, careful readings of drafts, and remarkable
expertise were instrumental to the shaping and completion of this study, as well as to my
own scholarly development.
I am grateful to the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology and
the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Bryn Mawr College for supporting my
research as well as my entire graduate school education. In addition to Professor Wright,
my experience at Bryn Mawr has been enriched through discussions, preliminary
examinations and/or classes with Professors Mehmet-Ali Ataç, Richard Hamilton, Peter
Magee, Alice Donohue, Pamela Webb, Stella Miller-Collett, and Brunilde Ridgway. I am
also indebted to Michael Toumazou (Davidson College), Derek Counts (University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee), P. Nick Kardulias (College of Wooster), and Aleydis van de
Moortel (University of Tennessee) for their advice, suggestions and support during the
course of the dissertation but also in shaping me as a field archaeologist.
xviii

Several fellowships provided financial support for overseas research and time for
writing. Initial funds for the dissertation came from the Fanny Bullock Workman
Traveling Fellowship and the Bryne-Rubel Fellowship, both through Bryn Mawr College.
Additional support for travel to and research in Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey came from
the Danielle Parks Memorial Fellowship from the Cyprus American Archaeological
Research Institute (CAARI), and a Council of American Overseas Research Centers
(CAORC) Multi-Country Research Fellowship. Finally, a Mrs. Giles Whiting
Dissertation Fellowship provided extensive financial assistance for the final stages of
writing.
During the course of my overseas research, I benefitted greatly from time spent at
the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA), both as a regular and
visiting student associate member. The school provided extensive guidance and help for
acquiring permits in Greece; in particular I thank Director Jack Davis, Bob Bridges,
Maria Pilali, and Elena Kourakou. While in Greece, there were a number of individuals
who offered academic advice or logistical aid in studying museum materials. In this
regard, Jack Davis, Sherry Stocker, Tom Brogan, John Camp, Joseph Maran, Ulrich
Thaler, Todd Whitelaw, Lena Papazoglou, Constinantinos Paschalidis, Vasilis
Aravantinos, Yannis Fappas, and Christos Kleitsas were extremely helpful. For their
hospitality in providing lodging, I thank Cathy Person, Jake Butera, Marcie Handler,
Jeremy LaBuff, and Stavroula Kyriakou.
I am very grateful to Director Tom Davis, Vathoulla Moustoukki, Diana
Constantinides, and Evi Karyda for their assistance during my stay at CAARI. My
research on Cyprus would not have been possible without the involvement of the
xix

Department of Antiquities. I gratefully acknowledge the entire department, particularly
the director at that time, Pavlos Flourentzos, current director Maria Hadjicosti, and Despo
Pilides. Several scholars of Cypriot archaeology also gave me permission to study
material or enriched my understanding of the Cypriot Bronze Age, including Sophocles
Hadjisavvas, Alison South, Vasiliki Kassianidou, George Papasavvas, Reinhard Jung,
Penelope Mountjoy, A. Bernard Knapp, and Matthew Spigelman. I am grateful to Stella
Diakou and her family for help with transportation during my stay on the island.
The American Research Institute in Turkey in Ankara (ARIT) – especially Elif
Denel and Pelin Ongoren – were instrumental during my study period in Turkey. I thank
Andy Goldman, Lee Ullmann, Andreas Schachner, Andreas Müller-Karpe, Sachihiro
Omura, George Bass, Cemal Pulak, and Edmund Rodgers for their help with my project
and/or hospitality during my research time in Turkey. I am also indebted to Emre
Kurucayirli for his assistance in applying for permits as well as for his hospitality.
I would also like to extend thanks to the following museums and their staffs: from
Greece, the Athens National (Prehistoric and Bronze collections), Agrinio, Ioannina,
Chaironeia, Kalamata, Mycenae, Patras, Knossos Stratigraphical (BSA), Thebes, Argos,
Heraklion, Agroa and Chora Museums, in addition to the Tiryns Apotheke and the
INSTAP Study Center; from Cyprus, the Nicosia, Larnaca, and Limassol Museums; from
Turkey, the Anakara, Çorum, Boğazkale, Pamukkale (Denizili), and Bodrum Museums;
the Louvre Museum and the British Museum.
I thank all of my colleagues at Bryn Mawr College, who provided friendship and
encouragement throughout my graduate school experience, as well as the library and
xx

administrative staff at the college—especially Jeremy Blatchley, Camilla Mackay, Teri
Lobo, Lea Miller, and Pam Cohen.
I am grateful to my parents and sister for their steady support throughout my
education. Most of all, I am thankful for my wife, Joanie, for her patience,
encouragement, and editing. The completion of this project would not have been possible
without her.
xxi

ABBREVIATIONS
EBA Early Bronze Age
MBA Middle Bronze Age
LBA Late Bronze Age
EIA Early Iron Age
EM Early Minoan
MM Middle Minoan
LM Late Minoan
EH Early Helladic
MH Middle Helladic
LH Late Helladic
EC Early Cypriot
MC Middle Cypriot
LC Late Cypriot
EPG Early Proto-Geometric
CV Coefficient of variance
L Length
W Width
Diam Diameter
ce Cutting edge width
cm Centimeters
Fig. Figure
C/M Carpentry/Masonry
xxii

MBA
2000-
1600
LBA
1600-
1050
CHRONOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
Ceramic phases and approximate dates of the second millennium BC 1
Crete Mainland Cyprus Anatolia Syria-
Palestine
MMIA MHI
MC I-III Kultepe MBA
2000-1900 2000-1900 2000- Karum II 2000-1600
1700/1600 1950-1836
MMIB-IIB
1900-1700
(Protopalatial)
MMIII-LMIB
1700-1450
(Neopalatial)
LM IA
1625-1525
LM IB
1525-1450
LM II
1450-1425
LM IIIA1
1425-1375
LMIIIA2
(early)
1375-1325
LM IIIA2
late-LM IIIB
1325-1200
LM IIIC
1200-1125
MH II
1900-1700
MH III
1700-1600
MHIII-LH I
1650-1525
(Shaft grave era)
LH I
1625-1525
LH IIA
1525-1450
LH IIB
1450-1425
LH IIIA1
1425-1375
LHIIA2 (early)
1375-1325
LH IIIA2 late -
LHIIIB
1325-1200
LH IIIC
1200-1050
MC III-LC I
1700/1600-
1400
LC IIA-B
1400-1200
LC IIC
1300-1200
LC IIIA-B
1200-1050
xxiii
Kultepe
Karum II
1800-1700
Hittite Old
Kingdom
1650-1500
Hittite
Middle
Kingdom
1500-1344
Hittite
Empire
1344-1200
LBA
1600-1150
1 Chronology for the Aegean is based on Cline’s Modified Traditional Chronology. See Cline 2008, 453.
Also see the chronological table in Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008, xvi-xvii. For a table showing the high
absolute chronology, especially important for LM I-II and LH I-II, see Manning 2010, 23 Table 2.2.

Chapter 1: Introduction: metal tools, metallurgy, and craftsmanship in the Aegean,
eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia
I. The relationship between metal tools and craft industries in the Bronze Age
By the Late Bronze Age (LBA), 1600‒1050 BC, tools became one of the
predominant categories of metal objects from the Mediterranean world. 1
The ubiquity of
metal tools at this time was the result of the evolution of craft industries that utilized
them, as well as developments in metallurgy. The prevalence of metal implements in the
LBA emerged from trends established during the early second millennium BC. Yet close
to three times as many tools have come to light at LBA sites in comparison to the
aggregate amount from the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), 2000–1600 BC. Metal utensils
are repeatedly found in early second millennium contexts, and their occurrence is
predicated on a region’s technological knowledge as well as its ability to acquire metal
resources. For instance, the greatest concentration of MBA metal tools is from Cyprus, an
island rich in copper. On the other hand, implements from the early second millennium
are infrequent on the Greek mainland and islands—areas that lack an abundance of
natural copper besides relatively minor ore sources at Lavrion, Kythnos and Seriphos.
With limited quantities of metal available on the mainland and Cyclades, these areas—
during the MBA—trailed other regions in the quality of craft products and technology.
The inception of metal tool production occurs as early as the fourth millennium
BC in the Near East, while a handful of metal tools are dated to the Final Neolithic period
1 For an overview about the consumption of metal objects on Crete and the Greek mainland during the
LBA, see: Hakulin 2008, 199-201, Fig. 1b; Kayafa 2008, 212-218, Diagrams 6-7.
1

in the Aegean. 2 Small copper implements (e.g. small chisels, a small knife, and hooks)
have also turned up in Chalcolithic Cyprus at the end of the fourth millennium BC. 3
Despite these early developments, it is not until the Early Bronze Age (EBA, or third
millennium BC) that metal tools became more widely used and scattered in the Aegean
and eastern Mediterranean. 4 These early forms are simple and typically made of copper
or a mixed alloy, such as arsenical-copper. 5 The soft, malleable nature of copper meant
that EBA copper tools were not durable or very effective in cutting certain materials like
wood and stone. Arsenical-copper improved the strength of metal objects but it, too, was
relatively weak and had to be annealed repeatedly to create hardened cutting edges.
Eventually, annealing made metal objects too brittle and subject to breaking. Tin-bronze
provided a level of strength unavailable with other copper-alloy combinations; its ratio
also enabled greater creativity in devising and diversifying effective tool types. Yet the
regular employment of a standardized tin-copper ratio reflecting true bronze is not
achieved throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean until the LBA. 6
This is not to
say that tin-bronze items are absent from the MBA; they do occur, at varying proportions,
but the probability of tools composed of tin-bronze is higher in the LBA than earlier eras.
The production of metal tools depended upon other factors in addition to the
requisite metal sources. One was the technological skill and general understanding of
metalworking and alloy mixing—that is, the ability to transform raw copper (in its ore
state or processed form) into a desirable object. Even if metallurgy was practiced at one
2
Renfrew 1972, 310-313; Branigan 1974, 97-102; Kayafa 2008, 212-213, Diagram 2.
3
Balthazar 1990, 92-95.
4
Deshayes 1960; Catling 1964, 62-66; Branigan 1968; Branigan 1969; Renfrew 1972, 313-317, 325-332;
Branigan 1974, 21-31, 102ff; Tripathi 1988; 39-52; Philip 1989; Balthazar 1990, 113-265; Müller-Karpe
1994, 28-49.
5
Charles 1967; Renfrew 1972, 314; Branigan 1974, 71-77; Pare 2000, 9.
6
Pare 2000. 9-12.
2

site, this technology may not have been commonly known throughout the region. For
instance, metallurgical operations represented information that was probably restricted to
a select group of specialists. Market demands, the needs for specific tool types, and the
scale of production were also important in determining which implements (and how
many) were made. Such preferences were directly related to the sophistication and
character of the craft industries that utilized the implements. Innovative tools enhanced
the ability of a craftsperson to complete a project, yet with the advancement of some
industries, artisans must have dictated what tool forms (old and new) were to be
manufactured. Unquestionably, the availability of metal was greater in the LBA than in
the MBA, and this explains, in part, the increased number of tools in the later period. As
craft industries became more sophisticated, however, their needs must also have
accounted for the higher concentration of LBA implements.
Carpentry and masonry work benefitted the most from the development of strong
metal tools. Stone and bone implements existed for thousands of years before metal
versions were adopted, and the utilization of metal tools impacted wood- and stone-
working activities more than any other type of work. Stone and bone tools (e.g. blades,
awls, and borers/piercers) sufficiently served activities like agriculture, meat and carcass
processing, leather working, and other basic cutting needs. Chipped-stone tools, like
obsidian blades, could cut into or shave wood, and simple stone axes perhaps felled small
trees and bushes. Yet-larger scale timber and carpentry projects like cutting down thick
trees, processing lumber, and forming planks/beams to be used in shipbuilding and/or
architecture needed stronger and more diverse implements; metal versions fulfilled such
requirements. Likewise, more delicate tasks like cutting out mortise holes would have
3

een easier with metal tools than stone versions. Aside from dressing hammers and
rubbing stones, stone implements are improbable devices for fashioning finely cut
masonry blocks. 7 Production of ashlar masonry and orthostate blocks required the cutting
efficiency and precision that metal tools offered; these masonry types are produced
throughout the second millennium in the Aegean, Cyprus, Anatolia and Levant. Thus the
evolution of metal tools and architecture was intricately associated, and each industry
likely drove the progression of the other. Despite the importance of metal tools to
architecture, there may be some uncertainty about what type of implement fashioned a
block. Shaw, for instance, notes the finely cut masonry in the Minoan palaces were
produced more often with bronze chisels than by saws, the latter being the traditional
interpretation. 8
Given the strong correlation between the evolution of metal tools and
architecture—specifically the need for metal implements in forming smoothly surfaced,
often elite, masonry—it should not be a surprise that carpentry/masonry implements are
the most common MBA and LBA tool types. Because of the popularity of these wood-
and stone-working tools, a detailed investigation of their distribution, function, type, and
place of deposition represents a major portion of this investigation. Although the
construction of monumental and elite public architecture with cut stone spread
throughout the area under study from the 18 th through 12 th centuries BC, it is unclear how
much impact one culture had on a neighboring one. With the association of tools and
architecture in mind, this study examines the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean/
7 For the importance of hammer dressing (often with stone hammers) in Mycenaean and Hittite
architecture, see: Wace 1949, 135-136; Mylonas 1966, 16-18; Boehmer 1972, 218-220, plates LXXXVIII-
XC; Wright 1978; Boehmer 1979, 55-56, plates XXXIII-XXXIV; Loader 1998, 47; Neve 2002, 93.
8 Shaw 2009, 46-47.
4

Anatolian tool industries as a means of ascertaining craft interaction, particularly for
carpenters and masons, within this multi-cultural area. At the very least, a specific
investigation of the wood- and stone-working tools can reveal local tendencies in craft
preferences, if not definable links of interaction between different regions.
II. Metallurgy in the Middle and Late Bronze Age
Comprehension of the metallurgical stages enables the value of finished metal
objects—even ordinary ones like tools—to be realized, and provides an important
background for interpreting the scattering of tools. The totality of metal tools within
Anatolia, the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean portrays an impressive, and in some
cases industrial, level of metallurgical organization and production. Metallurgical
practices, however, may not have been practiced in every region during the MBA and
LBA. Numerous factors can limit a region’s ability to produce metal objects, not the least
of which is access to raw sources and the technological skill to manipulate molten metal.
Furthermore, pyro-technological information could be guarded by individuals or groups
to enhance their status or ensure their livelihood. 9
The availability of raw materials varied, typically based upon a region’s proximity
to natural metal sources. Copper mines are found in the Troodos massif on Cyprus, the
Anatolian Taurus Mountains, Laurion in Attica (limited quantities), the Greek islands
(minor amounts, mostly on Kythnos and Seriphos), the Rhodope Mountains in Thrace,
and Sardinia. Copper sources are non-existent on Crete, and this issue has perplexed
10
scholars for some time. Tin sources (found in Afghanistan and possibly Anatolia) are
9 Nakou 1995; Blakely 2006, 3.
10 Branigan 1971; Muhly 2008a; Tzachili 2008b.
5

extremely scarce and the dearth of tin mines is difficult to account for in light of the vast
quantities of bronze objects from the LBA.
The metallurgical chaîne opératoire, or the sequence of activities spanning from
the ore’s acquisition at the mine to the finished metal object, was complex. Upon
successful procurement of cupriferous ore, several operations were carried out to extract
pure copper from the rock. This transformation included initial roasting and smelting of
the ores which produced impure copper, sometimes called matte or furnace
conglomerate. This intermediate product underwent several additional smelts before all
impurities were removed from the pure copper. After this laborious process, smiths could
transport the metal in its raw form or re-melt and mix it with another metal to create an
alloy for casting and production. 11
Following casting, further work was necessary, such
as polishing and sharpening, to ensure the functionality of the finished object. These
various metallurgical stages rarely occurred at a single location, thereby emphasizing the
complexity of the entire industrial process. Other restrictive factors in metalworking
included fuel, weather (e.g. windy conditions to flame a fire), time (e.g. seasonal work),
and market demands.
Several archaeological artifacts attest to metallurgical activity. Furnaces, kilns,
hearths, tuyéres, bellows, and crucibles are necessary equipment for creating and working
with extremely hot temperatures. Molds, slag, and various waste products (investiture
fragments from lost wax processes, for example) represent signs of working with
11 The distinction between smelting and melting is important to recognize within archaeometallurgical
remnants, since the procedures reflect very different stages of the metallurgical process. The difference is
well explained by Swiny (1986, 66): “…the term smelting or primary smelting is used to represent the
initial reduction of an ore to a refined or semi-refined state, as opposed to remelting and/or refining.” It is
also worth noting Tzachili’s (2008a, 9) observation on the difference between smelting and melting:
“Smelting is considered to be a more advanced stage than simply melting, because it requires a
corresponding advance in pyrotechnology.”
6

liquefied metal. Ingots, scrap metal, and metal strips are raw or processed materials
necessary for carrying out certain metallurgical operations. On their own, these objects
are not definitive proof of metalworking. Different tools, such as tongs, furnace spatulas
and charcoal shovels, indicate thermal-related activities. 12
A combination of these
remains enables the recognition of second millennium metallurgical activity, particularly
within Anatolia, Cyprus and Crete.
During the MBA, metallurgy was practiced in Cyprus, central Anatolia, portions
of western Asia Minor, Crete, and the Greek mainland. The absence of metallurgical
work in the MBA Cyclades contradicts what is known about the region in the EBA.
13 The
Middle Cypriot (MC) metallurgical industry appears relatively humble, if judging only by
the traces of archaeometallurgical remains. There are at least seven MBA sites with
evidence of metalworking and most are located near the copper mines in the central part
of the island (e.g. Ambelikou, Alambra, Katydata, etc.). Despite the suggestion of a low-
scale metallurgical industry from the archaeological remains, MC copper was
undoubtedly being exploited and shipped to neighboring regions. The 18 th century Mari
tablets mention the acquisition of Alashiyan (Cypriot) copper, and recent metal analyses
from Middle Minoan (MM) IIB Quartier Mu, Mallia confirm that Cypriot copper was
sent to Crete at this early stage. 14
Not only was MC copper exported, but it was
ostensibly shipped in opposite directions, to the Near East and to the Aegean.
Furthermore, the local Cypriot consumption of metal was high, gauging by an
12
The importance of tongs in metal working is well described by Evely (2000, 365): “[the] movement of a
loaded crucible, mold or merely the adjustment of fuel in the hearth can only be safely attempted with a
device that ensures a secure grip whilst permitting the craftsman’s hands to remain at a reasonable distance
from the heat source.”
13
Day and Doonan 2007; Papadatos 2007; Muhly 2008b; Gale, Kayafa and Stos-Gale, 2008.
14
Heltzer 1989; Poursat and Loubet 2005.
7

extraordinary number of metal tools on the island—an unmistakable phenomenon when
the tool counts from each region are compared.
Metalworking is relatively common during the MBA in Anatolia, both along the
Aegean coast and on the central plateau. Kültepe is a major metallurgical center, with
evidence of nineteen different MBA workshops at the site. 15
Given the prominence of
metalworking in Anatolia and on Cyprus, it was anticipated that these regions would
yield the greatest number of tools from the MBA. A notable amount of MBA tools have
turned up in Crete, trailing only Cyprus and Anatolia in total output. The popularity of
implements in Minoan contexts corresponds to traces of MBA metalworking on the
island. Minoan smiths must have been influenced by indigenous metallurgical traditions
stemming from the third millennium, but were probably open to inspiration from
Anatolia and/or Cyprus, places from which Crete acquired metal. The rest of the Aegean
does not exhibit strong indications of metallurgy, though some Middle Helladic (MH)
sites have yielded remains of metalworking (e.g. Sesklo, Lerna, Malthi and Nichoria).
Metallurgy is more common in the LBA, which coincides with the period’s
16
increased demand for and consumption of tools. The Cypriot metallurgical industry
reaches its peak during the LBA, and remnants of metalworking have turned up at nearly
every Late Cypriot (LC) site. Despite the ubiquity of metallurgy on the island, the
number of oxhide ingots from Cyprus is surprisingly low when compared to their
distribution throughout the rest of the Aegean and central Mediterranean. 17
The
importance of metal production in Anatolia, so apparent in the MBA, maintained its
15
Müller-Karpe 1994, 49-66.
16
For a summary of Late Cypriot sites and the metallurgical evidence found at each, see Knapp 2008, 211-
239.
17
Kassianidou 2009.
8

elevancy during the LBA. Production regularly took place at urban centers; the primary
producer was Boğazköy, with several areas within the citadel bearing remains of
metalworking. While metal production is rare in the MBA Levant, it is better documented
in the LBA with traces from Ugarit and Kamid el-Loz.
In the Aegean, LBA metalworking is well documented on Crete, thereby
maintaining the island’s tradition of the craft. There are at least a dozen, and probably
several more, Late Minoan (LM) sites with traces of metallurgical production. These
traces are mostly indicative of melting and casting rather than smelting. 18 For the most
part, these Cretan metalworking sites occur along the coast—especially along the
northern and eastern sides—implying that there may have been easy access to imported
metals as ships arrived at each port. Metallurgical activity is not restricted to Minoan
palatial or urban centers, and more humble settlements like Mochlos have demonstrated
successful and effective metal production, probably serving local consumption needs. 19
The presence of metalworking at several kinds of Cretan sites parallels how tools are
equally distributed on the island. These patterns differ from other regions, and reflect the
socio-political organization of the Neopalatial peer polity palatial/urban centers.
Despite a rich collection of tools from Late Helladic contexts and the indication of
metalworking in the Pylos Linear B tablets, the identification and excavation of metal
workshops on the mainland has not occurred. Evidence for raw material (ingots) and
scrap metal in hoards should not be considered explicit signs of metallurgical activity.
Without the ingots and hoards, Late Helladic (LH) metallurgical activity appears to have
regressed from the MH period judging by the recovery of archaeometallurgical items;
18 Hakulin 2004.
19 Soles and Davaras 2004; Brogan 2008.
9

this observation is astonishing since the number of LH metal tools was twelve times
greater than the MH repertoire. The lack of Mycenaean metallurgical workshops is
difficult to explain and future excavations will likely rectify the imbalanced picture, but
one must consider the possibility that a large percentage of Mycenaean metal objects
were produced at a location other than the mainland—though this suggestion does not
coincide with the evidence from the Linear B texts. The evidence for metallurgy on the
LBA islands is equally sparse, and it is clear that Crete has the best preserved assemblage
of metalworking remains in the LBA Aegean.
These second millennium metallurgical trends help to contextualize the
distribution of implements. Understanding where metal was produced and at what scale
may illustrate the significance of certain regional patterns of tool consumption. It is this
topic—assessing the meaning of how metal tools were consumed over a long period of
time and a wide area—that provides a central research focus to the current study.
III. Investigating local and interregional trends in the distribution of tools
Contact and connections among the Aegean, eastern Mediterranean and Near East
during the second millennium BC was considerable, especially during the LBA. Textual
records bespeak of high level state-to-state commerce, corroborated in the archaeological
record by distributions of luxury items and raw materials like copper oxhide ingots. 20
the absence of textual sources, studies about the exchange of commodities—either bulk
items or luxury/prestige ones—is a typical method for assessing cross-cultural relations.
The approach of the present study is to evaluate the degree of pre- and proto-historic
interaction among multiple regions through the lens of metal tools, items that were
20 Moran 1992; Feldman 1996; Gale 1991; Lo Schiavo et al. 2009.
In
10

neither bulk nor elite goods. As noted above, the evolution of metal tools coincides with
advancements in architecture, and the relationship of tool distributions to other industries
(craft related or otherwise) may reveal regional tendencies in tools and the type of work
for which the implements were necessary.
Considering the level of contact and the international style that developed in the
Mediterranean during the LBA, the notion of traveling craftspersons is a natural
explanation for similarities in crafted products. One of the research goals of this study is
to assess the meaning of the distribution and frequency of tools. How closely do these
patterns reflect the choices and activities of the craftspersons who used the implements?
Is it possible to determine similarities in their use and their attendant craft industries
across multiple regions? The scattering of implements within a region may suggest how
metal was consumed in that area as well as reflect the general availability of tools in a
society. Are tools equally dispersed in a landscape at different kinds of sites, or are they
primarily restricted to one urban or palatial center? Furthermore, what types of contexts
have yielded tools? By identifying how tools were deposited into the archaeological
record, one may acquire a better understanding of a tool’s function and value.
An exhaustive dataset of 5,309 second millennium BC implements (mostly metal
though stone molds are included) from Crete, the Greek mainland, the Greek islands,
Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria-Palestine was compiled to analyze the consumption patterns
over time and space. The broad geographical and chronological limits of the investigation
revealed localized tool preferences indicative of regional craft work, as well as more
limited evidence for cross-cultural contact and exchange. The breadth of this tool study is
surpassed only by J. Deshayes’ 1960 publication, Les outils de bronze, de l'Indus au
11

Danube (IVe au IIe millénaire). While Deshayes’ monograph and other fundamental
works on metal tools provided a foundation for this project, several systematic research
trips to Greece, Cyprus and Turkey enabled the development of the extensive catalogue
through personal inspection of the objects. A description of the organization of this study
and how it proceeds is described below.
After this short introduction, there are five substantial chapters that form the
study. Chapter 2 highlights possible avenues for metallurgical research, while discussing
the selected methodology for the current project. The distribution, function/type, value,
context and assembly of implement groupings formed the structure of the project rather a
traditional typological approach. With each database entry, several classification choices
were made and these categories form the basis for the types of questions that were
queried with the data: functional category (carpentry or masonry, agricultural,
metallurgical, utilitarian, small craft, and ritual or prestige), geographic region, basic tool
size, context (burial, settlement, workshop, hoard, shipwreck, surface, or unknown) and
time period. These and other categories facilitated a quantitative investigation of tool
consumption, on a local and much wider scale, to reveal preferences that might not have
otherwise emerged.
Chapter 3 assesses the value of metal tools in pre- and proto-history and presents
the overall implement patterns by time period, region, and context. These observations
are discussed according to relatively well-defined functional tool categories. Agricultural
tools are rare in the MBA, but became popular implements in the LBA, primarily in
Cypriot and Syro-Palestinian contexts. Metallurgical implements are prevalent
throughout Anatolia, Cyprus and Crete, but they are scarce on the Greek mainland.
12

Utilitarian devices are extremely popular in the Aegean, although they appear with some
regularity throughout each region. Implements designed to cut wood are prohibitively
difficult to tell apart from those meant for stone. Consequently, carpentry and masonry
tools are grouped together as one category, and this functional classification (consisting
of axes, adzes, chisels, saws, drills, etc.) is the most ubiquitous type of tool.
Consequently, Chapters 4 and 5 offer a focused case study on the carpentry and masonry
implements to appraise their importance in each region, the implied tool preferences of
these industries, and any signs of craft-related connections between different areas.
The types of carpentry and masonry tools and their occurrence in each region
under study are examined in Chapter 4 to bring to light the craft choices and tool
selections that were made. The dispersal of these implements emphasizes local
consumption as well as identifying specific tools as characteristic of a certain region. For
instance, saws are prominent on Crete while the double ax is indisputably an Aegean
implement. Shaft-hole axes, trunnion/lugged axes and socketed chisels, on the other
hand, typify Anatolian and eastern Mediterranean tools. Similarities between Mycenaean
and Minoan tool selections are not as strong as expected, yet there seems to be a
Mycenaean and Anatolian link, best represented in stonework from tool markings made
by saws and drills. Remnants of tubular drilling, as circular mortises, appear in
architectural foundations throughout Hittite and Mycenaean citadels; the tubular drill was
also utilized to manufacture sculpture in central Anatolia and the Greek mainland.
Cypriot tools blend indigenous types with specific forms found in Anatolia, Syria-
Palestine and the Aegean. The LC utensils have very little in common with the
13

Mycenaean tool repertoire, yet some examples, surprisingly, resemble or imitate
Neopalatial prototypes.
The identification of tool kits, particularly those related to carpentry/masonry, is
explored in Chapter 5. These deliberate tool groupings are evident within numerous
second millennium metal hoards and shipwreck assemblages. Tools represent the
dominant category in metal caches, and the selection of tool types within these
assemblages was often intentional—indicative of a tool kit—rather than a haphazard
accumulation of scrap metal for melting and recasting. The traditional attempt of
identifying a single functional interpretation for a hoard’s collection of objects is overly
simplistic and not very useful, for the internal composition of a hoard is more complex,
perhaps by design, than previously suspected. The basic nature of metal hoards is that of
metal items stockpiled together. Whether these items were deposited in a single act or
formed through gradual accumulation is uncertain, and both scenarios likely occurred.
Mediterranean hoards are interpreted here as representing a stash of metal items that were
in storage, which the owner could add to or deplete from at any time he so wished. One
of the consistent factors in the formation of a hoard from the Greek mainland, to Crete, to
Cyprus is the inclusion and importance of tool kits—though the precise nature of the set
varied from region to region. Craft-related tool kits appear to have been one of many
factors dictating the formation and structure of metal hoards, and traditional ways of
evaluating metal assemblages in the Mediterranean Bronze Age should be reconsidered.
The general tool patterns from the study region during the second millennium are
summarized in the concluding Chapter 6. The limited evidence for interregional tool and
craft connections are highlighted, and it is evident that the notion of traveling
14

craftspersons is difficult to confirm from tool distributions alone. Textual sources
demonstrate that craft mobility was a common practice among elite sponsors in highly
centralized societies, and perhaps such exchanges occurred in the study area. The
distribution of metal implements indicates that interregional links existed, but
determining the nature of that contact without textual sources is difficult. If more tool kits
become recognized in the archaeological record, the ability to track the movement of
crafts persons will be aided. It must be acknowledged, however, that tools are not ideal
for demonstrating mobility, yet the regional patterns of tool consumption suggest
probable connections and interaction among various regions. This point is explored and
emphasized throughout the study. How the similarities in tool repertories from different
regions came about, and whether such commonalties resulted from traveling
craftspersons, is less clear.
The data that this dissertation is based upon is presented in two catalogues.
Appendix 3 lists the extant metal hoards and the materials found within them, and
Appendix 4 represents the complete collection of MBA and LBA tools that were
compiled in this investigation. The catalogue tool list is divided initially by general
region and subsequently by each site in alphabetical order. Within the entry of each site,
tools are placed in a chronological category: MBA, LBA, or General second millennium.
With the data presented in this way, it is easy to check the quantity and kinds of tools that
have been recovered from a particular site. Rather than a typological listing, this structure
allows for a quick, albeit partial, assessment of how metal resources were consumed at
the local and regional level. It can also indicate (however incompletely) the prominence
of craft work in a region or site as suggested by the presence of metal tools.
15

Chapter 2: Avenues for metallurgical research and project design
This chapter describes the research structure and methods of analysis for Middle
and Late Bronze Age metal tools from the Aegean, eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia.
To frame and enrich this study, various metallurgical studies that address cross-cultural
links are appraised. The initial chapter section evaluates the methods used in previous
scholarship for assessing interregional contact with metallurgy, and then identifies how
the current study differs. Subsequent chapter segments present the research procedures,
variables, and limits that drive the inquiries of the project. As terminology has played a
decisive (and occasionally problematic) role in classifying metal objects, issues of
nomenclature pertinent to the study are addressed. The chapter concludes by reviewing
the limitations of and caveats for the investigation.
I. Assessing regional interaction through metallurgy
Metallurgy is a popular lens by which to examine cross-cultural interdependence
in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, since the quantification of international trade in raw
materials provides a useful metric for interaction. Moreover, similar metallurgical
practices and traditions among different regions may reflect cultural links. One premise
of this project is that the final stage of the metallurgical process—the distribution,
consumption, and use of the finished products—represents a viable and underappreciated
method for evaluating cultural contacts. A brief history of the past archaeometallurgical
approaches used to assess interregional contact contextualizes the tactic undertaken by
this study, which emphasizes tool distributions.
The wide distribution of Cypriot copper in Late Bronze Age contexts, particularly
in the Aegean and central Mediterranean, has steered the discussion about proto-historic
16

exchange systems over large geographic areas. 21 The knowledge of alloying and the
pyro-technical capabilities required for smelting and casting can be traced over time and
space. The acquisition of metallurgical know-how has long intrigued scholars, and is
often cited as an important factor explaining contact between two areas. Yet the
assessment of any region’s metallurgical industry must be balanced by consideration of
both local advancements and potential influence from abroad. Renfrew’s seminal work
emphasized the indigenous nature of Aegean metallurgy while advocating for limited
connections between areas: “Metallurgy grew up in each region, although strongly
influenced by the others. If there was a Metallschock, a sudden reaction produced by the
first impact of metallurgy and metal products upon the populace, it was a shock which
was locally inspired and produced.” 22 Large-scale diffusion models do not effectively
account for the spread of metalworking across broad areas, although it is possible to
document the general chronological and spatial developments of the craft. For instance,
“present evidence indicates that the production and use of copper and its alloys spread
throughout the Mediterranean from east to west.” 23 Localized developments in
metallurgy, open to external inspiration, are more likely than wholesale technological
transfers from one region to another. 24
Despite local preferences in many regions, metallurgy is a potential indicator of
25
trans-cultural contact, exchange, and movement of ideas and peoples.
Commonalities in
ore sources, production techniques, and elemental compositions of objects have been
21
Knapp and Cherry 1994; Gale 1991; Lo Schiavo et al. 2009.
22
Renfrew 1972, 338.
23
Kassianidou and Knapp 2005, 216.
24
Nakou 1995; Craddock 2000, 162; Thornton et al. 2010, 309-310. This is not to say that smiths and
metallurgists did not travel, for they seem particularly mobile during the Aegean EBA; see Sherratt 2007,
251-252.
25
Deshayes 1960; Catling 1964; Branigan 1974; Pare 2000; Sherratt 2000; Kassianidou and Knapp 2005,
230-231; 235-239; Sherratt 2007, 251-252.
17

cited as evidence for metallurgical connections. Earlier diffusion theories, though, show
that overemphasizing these similarities can be dangerous. Pare’s anti-diffusion discussion
about the chronological transition to full tin-bronze in Europe and the Mediterranean
highlights how these regions must have operated independently; at different tempos;
within their own socio-economic system; and according to differing resources and
traditions. 26
metalworking.
This observation provides a cautionary note for distinguishing craft links in
Metallographic studies evaluate the structural properties and composition of metal
objects. This method of analysis can identify technological and/or work preferences made
by the metal smith; the process involves cutting a small section from the metal object—
often along the cutting edge—and subsequently examining the structure of the sampled
piece under a microscope. Within Aegean studies, metallographic analysis is relatively
new. Tselios has demonstrated its value by establishing parallels and differences of
regional metalworking on Crete based upon microscopic evidence of casting, cold
27
working, and/or annealing. A preponderance of Aegean studies on prehistoric metals
address technological and provenience issues through chemical investigation. 28
Each
object’s elemental composition contains evidence of the technological activities,
intentional or not, of smiths during casting. Successful mixing of alloys, presumably,
required a level of metallurgical proficiency indicative of informed choices. Therefore,
the appearance of similar compositional ratios, such as arsenic copper or full tin-bronze,
over wide and even culturally different areas has signaled interregional contact and
technological exchange. This approach is not flawless, since it is difficult to discern at
26 Pare 2000, 26 figure 1.14.
27 Tselios 2006; 2008, 127-129.
28 Muhly 2008a, 40-41.
18

what point in history smiths were sufficiently aware of materials’ properties to
intentionally blend alloys. Early and Middle Minoan metallurgy is dominated by
arsenical copper, yet questions abound as to whether arsenic was added deliberately or by
accident. 29 If objects from separate regions have comparable elemental ratios, similar
modes of production and metallurgical choices may have been made, alluding to a
possibility of technological exchange. In addition to elemental analyses, scholarship on
metallurgy has probed the dispersal and origins of raw materials. Muhly, in fact,
acknowledged that sourcing was the primary research question in Minoan
archaeometallurgy over the past century. 30
The history of provenience studies is marked by two significant
archaeometallurgical movements, both of which have been met with criticism. The 1950s
German project, Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie (SAM), conducted optical
emission spectrography on thousands of copper-alloy objects from Europe and the
Aegean. By the 1980s, lead isotope analysis permeated all metal research in the quest for
identifying copper sources. Research groups at Oxford (U.K.), Mainz (Germany) and the
Smithsonian Institution (USA) produced numerous lead isotope studies that flooded the
archaeometallurgical field for two decades. These metallurgical analyses appraise cross-
cultural contact and the movement of raw materials and technology. The problems with
lead isotope analysis are well addressed elsewhere; the method is better used on single-
31
casted (non-recycled) objects such as copper oxhide ingots.
Casted metal objects are
formed by blending pure alloys, or more likely, by combining various melted-down and
29
Charles 1967; Branigan 1968; Branigan 1974; Zwicker 1991; Sherratt 2007, 253-255.
30
Muhly 2008, 36.
31
For an important discussion and criticism of lead isotope analysis, see the following articles collected
together in Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8.1 (1995): Budd et al. 1995a; Gale and Stos-Gale 1995;
Hall 1995; Sayre, Yener, and Joel 1995; Muhly 1995; Pernicka 1995; Budd et al. 1995b.
19

ecycled items. Final products like tools are not ideal candidates for lead isotope analysis,
since the ratios are distorted when the sample contains metals from multiple sources or
recycled materials. Research questions of previous studies have focused on the
implications of a single, middle metallurgical stage: the distribution and exchange of raw
products. In fact, Muhly notes that Aegean archaeometallurgy has only recently shifted
towards addressing basic metallurgical questions such as the initial procedures of ore
prospection, crushing, smelting, and refining. 32
There are three major stages in the metallurgical process. The first and second
phases involve several tasks, from mining prospection to casting and producing objects in
the metallurgical workshop. The final stage related to metallurgy is understudied; it
encapsulates the distributional patterns of the finished products (Fig. 2.1), as well as
questions pertaining to the fate of the items. What happens to the manufactured objects
after leaving the metallurgical workshop? How are they utilized and where are they
dispersed? How do metal objects become deposited in the archaeological record? The
general systems that dictate this final phase, defined as the consumption of objects and
their use lives, require explanation. Previous investigations have overlooked the
intricacies of this metallurgical stage, yet it is a prime candidate for gauging cross-
regional contact and interaction, primarily due to the wide distribution of metal artifacts.
By identifying regional choices in tool consumption, similar object preferences may be
discerned within different areas. Such patterns shed light on potential interaction and
require an explanation.
Although it has been pointed out that finished metal products have been
disregarded in many discussions of cultural interactions, casted objects have hardly been
32 Muhly 2008a, 41.
20

ignored in previous scholarship. Muhly notes that the intensive analytical focus on
sourcing revealed that, “the [20 th century scholarly] emphasis was upon the finished
product, the artefacts themselves.” 33 Traditional approaches to metallurgical analysis
offer detailed typological studies, but fail to probe the social implications of object
selection, utilization, and disuse. 34 Typological analysis undervalues the mechanisms and
schemes that govern the final metallurgical stage. There are more investigations on
Aegean weaponry than tools, even though both types of objects are conjointly described
in excavation reports and appear in the same museum cases. 35
When tools are the subject
of specialized studies, they are often considered along with weapons. Yet, the abundance
of prehistoric metal tools mandates their own study, exclusive from weapons.
Studies on Bronze Age metal implements vary from regionally-focused to
comprehensive. Deshayes’ publication is the most ambitious, covering an area from the
36
Indus Valley to the Danube River. Cypriot (Catling; Balthazar), Minoan (Branigan;
Shaw; Evely; Hakulin), Early Mycenaean (Tripathi), Mycenaean (Harding; Iakovidis;
Downey), general eastern Mediterranean (Bass), and Anatolian (Erkanal; Müller-Karpe)
studies on metal implements provide a fundamental basis for comprehending and
assessing the cross-regional nature of second millennium tool industries. 37
Despite this
33
Muhly 2008, 40.
34
See the comprehensive and detailed Prähistorische Bronzefunde series for typological studies in
metallurgical artifacts. For an example of metal tools in this series, see: Erkanal 1977.
35
This imbalance in scholarship may result from the perception that quantities of weapons outnumber tools.
For example, in his discussion of EBA metals, Renfrew (1972, 325) notes: “Finds of tools are less
commonly made than of weapons, since, during the early bronze age, metal tools were not often buried
with the dead.” A brief survey of literature on weapons includes: Daggers (Dietz 1971; Dakaris 1967),
spearheads and arrowheads (Avila 1983) lances and spears (Höckmann 1980a; 1980b; 1987), spearheads
(Reinholdt 1993), swords (Catling 1956; Sandars 1961; 1963; Foltiny 1964; Weinstein 1981; Kilian-
Dirlmeier 1990; 1993; Eder 1999), greaves (Mountjoy 1984; Fortenberry 1991) and general weapon and
warfare studies (Yalouris 1960; Fortenberry 1990; Càssola Guida and Galli Fonseca 1992; Thomas 2005).
36
Deshayes 1960.
37
Cyprus: Catling 1964; Balthazar 1990; Minoan: Branigan 1968, 1974; Shaw 1973a, Shaw 2009; Evely
1993; Evely 2000; Hakulin 2004; Hakulin 2008; Early Mycenaean: Tripathi 1988; Mycenaean: Harding
21

ich published dataset, only a few scholars, such as Deshayes and Catling, have
considered broad multi-regional tool links. The creation of typologies within large
datasets is an analytical method that pervades all of these studies. Categories are
instrumental in effectively managing data, but traditional, chrono-typological divisions
are not helpful in revealing the regional consumption preferences of metal tools.
Generally, implements are unsuitable temporal indicators, for metallic items and sub-
forms are not as diverse as ceramic styles. Typological analyses also become confusing
when conflicting standards and nomenclature are applied. Yet typological studies are
valuable and can differentiate local tools from foreign ones, though they overlook
research questions with potentially greater implications—e.g. the preferences for tools
according to their function and find context. Many tool investigations fail to explore the
mechanisms that constitute the final metallurgical stage, including the implications of
regionally-specific consumption patterns.
The foundational studies referenced above provide a basis for this study’s
comprehensive dataset. Although this project considers various categories of objects, it
intentionally does not create new implement typologies. Doing so would cause even more
confusion with terminology for readers of tool studies, since implement names vary (if
only slightly) from scholar to scholar and particularly among regions. Rather, extensive
consideration of the myriad tool preferences by region, chronological period, and context
is given in hopes of elucidating the interregional nature (or lack thereof) of tool
preferences. The distribution of metal tools reveals local and multi-cultural differences
1975; Iakovidis 1982; Downey 2001; Eastern Mediterranean: Bass 1967; Anatolia: Erkanal 1977;
Müller-Karpe 1994.
22

and similarities in tool popularity. The discussion of these patterns and their implications
for craft industries represent a substantial portion of this dissertation.
II. Framework of the study, research design and procedures followed
The notion that interregional contact may be detected in a post-production
metallurgical stage—the consumption of the finished metal products—led to the
development of this project, with three research questions in mind. The first inquiry asks:
What were the mechanisms and factors that influenced artifact distributions and regional
tool preferences? Second, what can tool distributions and frequencies reveal about the
associated craft industries over broad spatial and temporal spans? Finally, is it possible to
detect mobile craftspersons or interregional parallels in craftsmanship through tool links
and similarities? These questions are scrutinized throughout the dissertation and form the
research agenda of the project.
The limits that shape this study are broadly defined by the second millennium BC
and the geographic spaces of the Aegean, Anatolia, eastern Mediterranean, and Syria-
Palestine. Peripheral locations to these regions, such as the central Mediterranean,
Balkans, Mesopotamia and Egypt, were not considered due to reasons of feasibility. It is
acknowledged that these excluded areas may have influenced the development of the tool
and craft industries examined in this project, and this issue will be examined in post-
doctoral study. The regions under study witnessed developments in metallurgy and
architecture that were similar to each other during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.
Architectural advancements, specifically the ability to cut stone, during the second
millennium seem to parallel innovations in metallurgy, including the propagation of tin-
bronze and the perfection of masonry tools.
23

Quantities of raw metal were widely circulated among these areas, a result of the
exploitation of specific ore sources. Technological advancements in metalworking were
broadly commensurate within the study regions. Some regions progressed more quickly
than others in terms of metallurgical practices, yet the consumption of metal tools
throughout this defined geographical space provides an opportune arena for gauging craft
interaction. Another common element of these regions was the widespread development
of elite architecture at various points in the second millennium. Cut stone blocks appear
in monumental buildings by the Middle Bronze Age in Crete, Anatolia and Syria-
Palestine; by the Late Bronze Age, Cyprus and the Greek mainland also produced
impressive masonry. 38
Definitive architectural links between these regions are elusive,
yet prospective technological connections may be discernible from the distribution
patterns of construction tools.
As the overall goal of this dissertation is to ascertain instances of contact between
several craft industries over broad spatial and temporal parameters, the study does not
employ any archaeometallurgical techniques in its analysis. Research that probes the
elemental composition, lead isotope ratio, and the metallic structure of objects remain
essential scientific and metallographic methods for investigating metals, despite their
absence from this study. Access to a laboratory, financial constraints, and difficulty in
obtaining permits for sampling metal objects were impediments that prevented these
scientific methods from being undertaken. Moreover, many objects in the database have
been chemically tested in the past. Scientific sampling is required when research agendas
dictate such methods, but was not directly relevant to the goals of this study, which in the
first instance was to create a new inventory that is as complete as possible; it turned out
38 Shaw 1973a; Shaw 1973b; Wright 1978; Hult 1983; Harmansah 2007; Shaw 2009.
24

that this task in and of itself was very large, and certainly a necessary first step. Despite
the immense value of scientific sampling and the questions it may address, this project’s
queries are more concerned with the socio-economic processes and craft preferences that
governed the distribution, movement, and deposition of objects in the archaeological
record. Its research design is simple and deliberately different from typologically- or
scientifically-focused metallurgical studies.
The basic, yet laborious, approach of inspecting and handling objects in person
was used to compile the study’s tool database and to make detailed observations of the
implements. Several fellowships, including the Fanny Bullock Workman Traveling
Fellowship and the Bryne-Rubel Fellowship, both from Bryn Mawr College; the Danielle
Parks Memorial Fellowship from the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute
(CAARI); and the Council of American Overseas Research Centers (CAORC) Multi-
Country Research Fellowship, provided me with the opportunity to conduct research on
tools in Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, England and France. Four separate trips, totaling 27
weeks, were made to museums and sites in the aforementioned countries between March
2008 and September 2009. Originally, the investigation of physical tools was meant to be
supplemented by an extensive examination of the remnant tool marks on architectural
blocks. It was hoped that a dual study on tool cuttings and the actual implements would
elucidate tool function as well as any crafting characteristics indicative of technological
transfer between different cultures and their architectural traditions. This desire led to a
period of research spent inspecting tool marks on prehistoric public and elite buildings.
Numerous archaeological sites with distinguishable cut blocks (displaying saw and chisel
marks, drill holes, etc.) were visited, including 25 in Greece, 11 in Cyprus and 10 in
25

Turkey. Upon touring these sites, it became evident that a comprehensive study of tool
marks required its own research project if it were to match the level of thoroughness
given to the metal tools. The identification of regional tool preferences and kits in this
dissertation establishes a contextual background for craft industries that may be explored
in the future through tool markings, and the importance of tool markings is acknowledged
when discussing tool types not preserved in the archaeological record (e.g. the
pendulum/convex saws and the tubular drill).
Although many tools are well published with good photographs and descriptions,
seeing and studying as many implements first hand was important for several reasons.
First of all, tools are difficult to categorize, and it was hoped that personal inspection
would confirm basic functional classifications. Object descriptions vary according to
region, so a form of standardization was necessary to evaluate the tools across myriad
cultures. For instance, many tools from the Late Bronze Age came from hoard contexts,
prompting them to be understood as scrap metal assemblages. It was necessary to re-
examine these hoard tools to ascertain whether the implements were serviceable at the
time of deposition or merely items junked for recycling. The inspection of the hoard tools
proved useful in reassessing the value of hoarded items, the interpretation of specific
components of an assemblage, and the general understanding of the entire cache. These
findings are discussed in Chapter 5.
From the outset, the project attempted to differentiate between wood- and stone-
working tools through meticulous examination, for these craft tools are not easily
differentiated. To gauge tool functionality, the cutting edges of the implements had to be
checked, an impossible task when using publication photographs alone. It was hoped that
26

the determination of tool functionality and specifically the discernment between wood-
and stone-working implements would be possible by inspecting traces of wear on
implements. To this end, every tool examined in person was photographed with a digital
SLR Canon Rebel Xti camera using a compact macro-lens, aimed at documenting
difficult-to-capture evidence of use wear. In addition to the detailed photographs, each
object was measured and inspected for traces of use-wear or other minute details that are
not typically published; drawings were made when time permitted. A small portable
macro-scope with up to 25 times magnification was employed to closely inspect the
implements. With official permission from the appropriate authorities, materials were
studied in twenty-four museums: fifteen in Greece, two in Cyprus, one in England, one in
France, and five in Turkey. An additional nine museums in Greece, two in Cyprus, and
ten in Turkey displayed various tools (also incorporated into the database) that were seen
but not handled. Of the different metal tools from the second millennium BC, almost
every preserved implement type was viewed or studied during my research time in the
museums.
A comprehensive searchable database (using FileMaker Pro) for second
millennium copper and copper-alloy tools (as well as some non-metal tools like stone
molds) was developed to manage the volume of information—over 5,300 objects—that
this project yielded. Analysis of the tool dataset is framed by the assumption that patterns
of tool consumption can indicate regional preferences of implements that reflect local
craft industries. The database has assisted in revealing patterns according to variable
searchable categories, such as region, functional implement type, time period, and
context. These classifications are explained in more detail in the next chapter section.
27

The method for interpreting data from this large database relies on both broadly-
and narrowly-defined queries, and discussion of the evidence moves from a bird’s eye
view to the more specific. The queries of this project represent a small portion of what
the database offers, and scholars with other agendas may use the evidence in different
ways. For instance, more attention may be given to comparing metal tool production and
consumption and ascertaining the relationship of these two processes. The spatial
variance between production centers and the distribution of final metal products may
indicate the degree to which tools were moved throughout the Mediterranean. A general
understanding of metallurgy by region and period, discussed in Chapter 1 and also
summarized in Chapter 6, enriches our understanding of the metal tool industries.
Recognizing the centers of metallurgical production puts the dissemination of metal tools
into perspective; this issue could be studied in greater detail than is treated here.
Tools intended for carpentry, masonry, metallurgy, agriculture, and minor crafts
(e.g. textile and leather working) are copious and survive in various contexts. The
calculation of the percentages of each tool category by region, context, and period reveals
intriguing patterns of preference, consumption, and deposition. Querying these major
categories established an understanding of the tool distributions, which occurs in Chapter
3. This foundation permitted a more detailed investigation of a single tool category—
carpentry and masonry implements—in Chapters 4 and 5, which offer a better evaluation
of interregional craft links. Because they are the most common, wood- and stone-working
implements were spotlighted. Moreover, traces of carpentry/masonry implement use are
occasionally visible on stone remains, and such markings reveal different kinds of
implements no longer preserved in the archaeological record. Hoards are recognized as
28

key factors in interpreting carpentry and masonry tools, and many incorporate tool kits in
their assemblage. Using hoard compositions as a guide, tool groups are understood as
better indicators of interregional craft links than are isolated items. The composition of a
tool kit may show resemblances either to local or foreign patterns of tool consumption.
The identification of tool kits in Chapter 5 represents one possible method for assessing
the mobility of craftspersons.
III. Organization of the database and its categories
All MBA and LBA metal tools found within the study area (at least those known
to me) were included in the database, even if they lacked specific contextual details. The
definition of a tool is addressed in the following chapter section, as are methods for
differentiating tools from weapons. The entry and classification of every tool into
FileMaker Pro enabled numerous consumption patterns to be revealed. The chief
categories for each entry included: chronological period, general area, general site size,
context, and tool functionality. These basic groupings provide a technique for evaluating
the general tool industries and, in particular, the carpentry/masonry implements. More
detailed database fields include: specific region, ceramic phase, object dimensions, and
other custom inquires (e.g. delicate or detail work?, part of a tool kit?, multi-functional
tool?, marked or decorated tool?). These details are considered for the carpentry/ masonry
tool data, providing a more nuanced investigation of those objects.
The range of database options for chronological period is broad: the transition of
the Early to Middle Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age?
(only a handful of examples), and Unknown. Objects that lack contextual details are
regularly published without precise dates, though they are understood as coming from the
29

second millennium BC. Such cases are listed in the database as unknown, yet deserve to
be included in the current dataset, for they date in all likelihood to either the MBA or the
LBA. The EBA‒MBA transitional category is a result of objects from Early and Middle
Minoan tholoi burials, prominent in the Mesara. A considerable number of tools (n=78)
are dated to this broad period because of the difficulty in dating such contexts. 39
Other
transitional periods are also problematic; tools from the Shaft Graves (MH III-LHI),
Neopalatial contexts (MM III-LM I), and Old Hittite levels (1650-1500 BC) are classified
as from LBA, despite the possibility of their existence at the end of the MBA. The issues
pertaining to these transitional phases preclude a clean division of the tools into either the
Middle (2000‒1600 BC) or Late Bronze Age (1600‒1050 BC) categories (see the
chronological table on page xxiii). Basic chronological trends are evident from the
database, but these tendencies are general. The overall pattern would be tighter if each
individual tool had a clearer date, which unfortunately often is not the case. In the study
of carpentry and masonry tools, the implements are separated according to different
phases of the LBA (e.g. early LBA or 1600-1400 BC; peak LBA or 1400-1200 BC; and
late LBA or 1200-1050 BC) to provide a more accurate assessment of the propensities of
tool consumption.
The Greek mainland, Greek islands, Crete, Cyprus, Anatolia, Syria-Palestine, and
shipwrecks from the southern coast of Turkey represent the classification options in the
database for where a tool was found. More specific locales within these places (e.g. site
by site) are tracked and discussed for the carpentry and masonry tools.
39
Branigan 1968; 1993, 12-15; 143-148.
40
A site by site entry for all tools in the dataset is listed in Appendix 4, the catalogue of MBA and LBA
tools.
40
Thus the
regularity of wood- and stone-working implements in smaller regional areas like the
30

Argolid and the central Anatolian plateau is distinguishable. What kinds of sites acquired
metal tools, and how are they scattered throughout a landscape? This question addresses
the issue of tool availability, which may be considered by comparing distributions found
at palatial and urban contexts against humbler settings. Sites are divided into four
classifications: large (palatial or major urban center), medium (secondary to palace/urban
center, i.e. towns and villages), minor (unimpressive rural setting), and those known from
stray finds alone. The creation of this database field helps demonstrate how tools are
consumed within a hierarchy of sites.
Tool classification according to context and functionality are key analytical
elements in this study. Seven different contexts are available for each tool entry: hoard,
burial, settlement, shipwreck, workshop, cultic site/sanctuary, and unstratified or
unknown (including unprovenienced). Tools are divided into six functional groupings:
agricultural, metallurgical, utilitarian, implements for small craft activities,
carpentry/masonry, and ritual/prestige items. Some objects, like knives, may fit into
several of these classes. While the possibility of multi-category implements exists, these
practical divisions are sufficiently differentiated to allow for accurate trends of tool
selection. Groupings are as inclusive as possible while still remaining distinctive to
uncover basic patterns of tool consumption.
Tools utilized in agricultural work include sickles, pruning knives or pruning
hooks, plowshares or hoes, shovels, picks, plow scrapers, and pick-adzes. The last two
objects are tenuous as agricultural implements. Only one plow scraper is known in the
31

study area (from Cyprus), and its identification and function are debatable. 41
Pick-adzes
are rare implements, serviceable either in agriculture or masonry.
Metallurgical objects, like most tools for agriculture, are easily distinguished and
rarely bridge different functional categories. Metallurgical implements include those
necessary for both casting and post-firing operations. Molds (metal and stone), charcoal
shovels, tongs, furnace spatulas and a crucible scraper are implements that facilitate the
handling of hot materials in firing procedures. The only uncertain item within this group
is the crucible scraper, which may have removed slag remnants from the sides and
bottom of crucibles. This argument, however, is based only on logic and one physical
example (see Plate 5.33). Objects that reflect post-firing activities encompass
sledgehammers, files, wedges, anvils, swage blocks, cold chisels, castings, and billets.
The final two items are not tools, but make a reasonable case for metallurgical production
and post-production cold-working activities (e.g. polishing, hammering, finishing, etc.).
Objects classified as utilitarian implements are classified as such for their basic
cutting capability. Knives, razors, cleavers, scrapers, cutting or slashing implements, and
other indistinct blades are grouped together for their all-purpose character. The customary
feature of these tools is their cutting ability. Some implements would have been used to
prepare food, especially meat, but this tool type must have served a variety of other
purposes. Evely cites multiple uses for a knife: “paring and whittling; chopping; sawing;
scratching; scraping and cutting; carving; stabbing, and piercing.”
42
Some utilitarian
implements, such as “razors,” may have fulfilled personal hygiene needs. The
41 Catling (1964, 85, H1) identifies a socketed implement with a truncated-like end from the Mathiati hoard
(Cyprus) as a “plough scraper”. Catling also notes that the object is otherwise unknown in the Aegean or
Near East and is “similar to one used by ploughmen in Cyprus to scrape their shares clean when they clog
on heavy land.”
42 Evely 1993, 20.
32

functionality of small, indistinct implements is difficult to interpret, for several crafting
operations required tiny, pointed objects. The evaluation of whether small, slender tools
with narrow points were utilized for textile production, leather working, engraving, or
even writing is impossible in most cases. 43
For this reason, a catch-all category
incorporates those objects whose function is indistinguishable. Awls, small pointed tools,
engravers, styli, double spatulas, punches, and other undefined tool shafts are classified
as items intended for small craft activity, such as those examples cited above.
Carpentry and masonry tools include adzes (single/flat or lugged), axes
(single/flat, shafted, or lugged), double axes, double adzes, ax-adzes, chisels (narrow,
broad, socketed, cold, or mortise), drills, double hammers, hammer-axes, saws, a drawing
compass (uncertain identification), and pick-adzes. Whether these tools were used for
wood- or stone-working defies identification; the same implement type could be
employed variously on either material. Although marks appear on many tool edges, the
assessment of use-wear trends on these implements is problematic without microscopic
metallographic examination.
44
Some tools exhibited scratches that resulted from ill-
conceived conservation attempts rather than actual use. The ancient marks that are visible
were often caused by whetstones that sharpened the cutting edges. Comparative
ethnographic and experimental work is necessary to better appraise the differences
between prehistoric wood- and stone-working copper-alloy tools, particularly on the
cutting edges. As it was impossible to differentiate between objects used on wood and
those used on stone, carpentry and masonry tools were grouped into one category.
Despite the difficulty in discerning between carpentry and masonry tools, these objects
43 For a reinterpretation of Cypriot awl-like implements as styli, see Papasavvas 2003.
44 Evely (1993, xxii) encountered similar problems when attempting to recognize “identifiable patterns of
wear” on metal tools. Use-wear analysis on tools is undertaken, however, by Semenov 1964.
33

are sufficiently differentiated from tools in the other functional categories. A single
object has been identified as a drawing compass; the veracity of this identification is
secondary to the fact that it raises the question of measuring implements and their relative
absence in preserved tool assemblages.
Carpentry/masonry implements are rarely confused with other tool categories, but
ambiguity exists between particular tools within that category (e.g. axes) and weapons.
This issue is addressed in the following section. Another problem for classifying
carpentry and masonry tools is the terminology used by previous publications. Axes,
adzes, and broad chisels are tricky to differentiate, and the applied nomenclature can vary
by region. To standardize these categories for comparative purposes, categories dictated
by the cutting widths of objects were formed for hard-to-read objects. This approach, as
explained below, will simplify and enhance the analysis of carpentry and masonry tools.
IV. Terminology and tool identification
Stone and metal implements are readily apparent in most archaeological
assemblages, even if the precise nature of the utensil is obscure. Yet problems of
detection may occur. Identifying certain stone tools (e.g. pounders) from un-worked
rocks may sometimes prove difficult, while the distinction of metal tools from both
weapons and small personal items also has its challenges. Most tools and weapons are
sufficiently well defined, yet certain items (e.g. axes and knives) fall into either category
depending upon the set of definitions used. Recognizing particular small metal objects
(e.g. pointed items with narrow shanks) as either small tools or personal items is also
difficult. The form of these narrow metal items varies minimally, and their precise
function can be ambiguous. Needles and pins are traditionally objects of personal use, yet
34

comparably-shaped awls, punches, and other pointed shanks are probable tools for
crafting.
Function is important because it must be identified in order for an object to
qualify as a “tool,” the working definition of which is required before embarking on
further discussion of type and distribution. Since this study is primarily concerned with
the implications of craftsmanship, tools may be considered here as: a device for
performing a task of production. This is not to say that tools are inherently defined by
being associated with a craft. Pins and needles could serve as tools if they aided a task of
production, but there may be ambiguity if they were used for personal adornment or to
hold clothing together. Likewise, utilitarian objects such as knives are not inevitably
attached to specific crafts but are still obvious tools used in producing something. The
Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates that a tool is handheld, but some devices such as
the pendulum saw and tubular drill were not operated in one’s hands, and so they might
be best classified as machines. Despite these definitions, a certain degree of subjective
interpretation is unavoidable in classifying tools, especially small, indistinct objects. At
the other extreme, large implements may present classification quandaries when there are
similarities in form and design and if a tool resembles a weapon.
The terminology assigned to each object has wide ramifications, and Doumas
notes that, “the archaeologist’s responsibility in attaching names to artifacts is great, since
the danger of proceeding to misinterpretation as a consequence of misnomers is even
greater.” 45
45 Doumas 1998, 157.
This truth is pertinent when differentiating tools from weapons, since these
objects serve very different purposes. Despite the remarkable divide between the
connotations of the two types of objects, some examples could fit into either category. In
35

his reconsideration of third millennium stone “battle-axes,” Doumas argues that these
objects are misnamed and should be identified as hammer-axes. Valued by metal smiths,
the hammer-axes were used to produce sheet metal or metallic vessels. 46 The importance
of terminology and its implications for functionality is captured by Hutchinson’s
assessment of the same stone axes found throughout Europe in addition to the
Mediterranean: “we must face a depressing possibility…that our splendid battle-axes
with which our Indo-Europeans are supposed to have fought their way through Europe
were nothing more than the tools of miners, masons, and carpenters.” 47
The true
identification of these specific stone objects is irrelevant for the current project, yet this
example highlights the ramifications of an object’s name and the importance of
distinguishing tools from weapons.
This study deliberately excludes weapons in an effort to concentrate its analysis
on tools. A few object types in the database, like certain axes and dagger-like knives or
razors, could have functioned as weapons, but I have followed previous scholarship in
designating them as tools. In his work on Cypriot metals, Catling identifies swords,
rapiers, dirks, daggers, spearheads, javelins, spear butt-spikes, and arrowheads as
48
weapons. As for the Greek mainland, Tripathi lists Middle Helladic and Early
Mycenaean weapons as swords, daggers, spearheads, dirks, arrowheads, and
Schlachtmesser. Primarily found in burial contexts in the Mycenae Shaft Graves and the
Messenian tholoi, Schlachtmesser are large knives characteristic of the Early Mycenaean
period. 49
They are impressive and could have served as weapons, but are included in the
46 Doumas 1998, 158-159.
47 Hutchinson 1950, 62.
48 Catling 1964.
49 Tripathi 1988. For the listing of the Schlactmesser, see pages 184-185.
36

tool dataset since a utilitarian function cannot be excluded. The ambiguity of knives as
either tools or weapons is evident in Deshayes’ typology; two of his knife categories are
listed as weapons instead of tools. 50
Arrowheads are another problematic object, for some
forms are morphologically similar to what has been identified as an awl. The majority of
awls in the dataset were not examined in person, so this issue of nomenclature is not
resolved by this study.
Axes are customarily identified as tools rather than weapons in the regions under
study. Yet certain ax types from the Levant, specifically duckbill and crescent-shaped
fenestrated versions, are considered weapons.
51
Other well-known object types also present labeling challenges. For instance, a
double axe in the so-called “weapon hoard” from Late Cypriot Enkomi was coined a
“battle axe” by Catling.
These objects are found in silver and gold
in addition to copper and are also represented in paintings, seals, and other media. They
seem to be objects of prestige, possibly used in rituals. Despite the identification of these
specialized Levantine axes as weapons, it is not impossible that they (at least the copper
or copper-alloy versions) were, on occasion, used for more basic utilitarian purposes that
would fit the definition of a tool. For this reason, the copper-alloy duckbill and crescent-
fenestrated axes from Syria-Palestine are included in the current tool dataset. These axes
illustrate the challenge of differentiating weapons from tools, even when the
classification seems clearly defined.
52
The inclusion of other weapons in the same context suggested,
50
Deshayes 1960, 328 (Knife categories L and H).
51
Philip 1989.
52
Catling (1964, 88, D2) explicitly states that “it is not clear whether this is a tool or a weapon. As a tool, it
would not be very practical with edges so narrow in relation to the length of the blades. It would have made
a serviceable weapon, however, for close fighting in a melee.”
37

to Catling, a violent purpose for the double axe. Although this double ax is larger than
most examples, its size does not preclude it from retaining a utilitarian function.
The gradation between tools and weapons is notably blurred when evaluating
razors and daggers. Razors are often designated as objects of personal use, 53 yet leaf-
shaped versions appear very similar to some dagger forms. The Late Helladic II objects
from the Pylos Kato Englianos grave circle demonstrate this ambiguity. Blegen
differentiated double-edged razors (leaf-shaped) from daggers within the burials, despite
their close morphological similarity. 54 When identified by their shape, razors and daggers
take on the functional interpretations that their names convey. Objects identified as razors
may be misnomers, and are incorporated in this dataset within the functional category of
utilitarian objects. Razors likely served an array of tasks; as such, they are indeterminable
tool forms, though many resemble daggers and vice versa. The distinction between
daggers and other tools, specifically knives, is also problematic in some Cypriot contexts.
A Middle Cypriot blade has several interpretations, including a thrusting weapon
(Balthazar), dagger (Catling), or the more commonly accepted knife (Stewart, Åström). 55
This example reveals how terminology and classification differ not only regionally but
also according to each scholar.
Once an object’s functional category is identified, its type may be classified. As
some implements bear a close resemblance to other types, minute differences are
essential at this stage. For instance, single axes and adzes are comparable in their
appearance and dimensions. Differentiation between these tool forms relies primarily
53 Tripathi 1988, 96; Iakovidis 1982; Papadopoulos 1978.
54 Blegen et al. 1973, 156-161, 163-164, 167-168.
55 Balthazar 1990, 324; Åström 1977-78.
38

upon the cutting end profile, although “adzes tend to be less robust than axes.” 56 Axes are
swung with chopping motions while adzes enable paring. An ax’s cutting edge is formed
by two beveled sides, while an adze’s tip is only beveled on one side, and flat on the
other. Evely clarifies the functional difference between axes and adzes: “Essentially they
are related tools: the adze though, with its cutting edge turned through a right angle in
relation to that of the axe, is presented to the object being worked in a manner so that it
chips and pares rather than chops.” 57
This minor variation defies recognition when a
cutting edge is heavily corroded or badly preserved.
The desire to classify stems from efforts to comprehend vast amounts of data and
is all the more problematic by the formation of multiple typologies. Balthazar notes that
three different typological systems exist for Early and Middle Cypriot metals, each
formed by Åström, Catling and Stewart, respectively. The unavoidable problem of
triplicate typologies is recognized: “each of the typologies remains in common use today;
some scholars choose to follow one system, while others attempt to incorporate all
58
three.” Merrillees notes the futility in devising new typologies, given what already
exists: “any nomenclature that departs radically from the systems already enshrined in the
archaeological literature will not in any case be followed.” 59
A revised typological
scheme is unwarranted, but some standardization is necessary to examine objects cross-
culturally because items are published under different names. This study offers a
simplified method of comparison that avoids the function-laden nomenclature.
56 Evely 1993, 75.
57 Evely 1993, 62.
58 Balthazar 1990, 306-307.
59 Merrillees 1985, 13.
39

Different tool names may imply dissimilar connotations, even for implements
whose appearances are comparable. Chisels, adzes, and axes are morphologically similar,
yet the exact appellation given to each object may differ by region. The terminology
affiliated with the variations of each object type is particularly troublesome. For instance,
publications employ both “lugged” and “trunnion” to describe some axes or adzes. 60
“Single” and “flat” are other terms that scholars have used interchangeably to describe
basic axes and adzes. 61 Broad chisels that have cutting edges at least three centimeters in
width are comparable to flat/single axes and adzes. Broad chisels and single-edged axes
are similar objects whose identification differs by regional and temporal parameters. The
problem of identifying smallish axes from chisels is also challenging, as recognized by
Tripathi. 62 In an overview of Neolithic and EBA metallurgy, McGeehan-Liritzis devised
a simple technique, based upon size, for distinguishing between chisels and axes. 63
Since
chisels wield more precision than axes, which make deep cuts with chopping motions,
differences in cutting widths and overall lengths should be clear. Chisels typically have a
narrower cutting edge to concentrate pressure in a confined area for detail work, unlike
the basic cutting needs serviced by a wider ax blade. McGeehan-Liritzis suggests a tool’s
length divided by its maximum width forms a ratio that can distinguish axes from chisels.
Ax ratios from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Aegean fall below 4.4, while chisel
ratios hover well above. This formula serves as a valuable guide, and this length-over-
60 Lugged adzes/axes: Bass 1967, 97ff; Pulak 1988a, 15. Trunnion axes: Catling 1964, 87-88; Evely
1993, 58-61; Iakovidis (1982, 224) uses the term “lugged or trunnion axe.”
61 Flat axe/adzes: Catling 1964, 85-87;Bass 1967, 95ff (uses “plain adzes”); Branigan 1974,24, 166;
Åström 1977-78, 12-18; Balthazar 1990, 360ff; Evely 1993, 72-76; Shaw 1973a, 47ff.
Single axes: Branigan 1974, 165ff; Evely 1993, 55-58; Iakovidis 1982, 224 (calls them “one-edged axes”).
62 Tripathi 1988, 41, 46.
63 McGeehan-Liritzis 1996, 58-59; Kramer-Hajos and O'Neill 2008, 194-195.
40

width formula is used in Chapter 4 to identify general traits of morphologically similar
tools.
Chisels represent the most diverse tool type, as there are major differences in
length, width, thickness, and the absence or presence of a hafting system. 64 Some chisels
are so small that their only identifying feature is their chisel-like point. Most chisels were
for wood- and stone-working, but the smallest chisel-like tools would have been delicate
enough to fashion softer materials like ivory. 65 Evely notes that modern tool kits of
carpenters and stonemasons may contain up to thirty different kinds of specialized
chisels. 66
The common denominator of chisels is the shape of their cutting edge, which
resembles the profile of an ax blade. To compare morphologically-similar tools
throughout multiple regions, this project recognizes the widths of cutting edges as a
defining and distinctive trait in addition to the length-over-width ratio. Problems with
implement terminology could be rendered inconsequential if cutting widths and ratios
prove themselves as useful dividers.
Carpentry/masonry tools that are difficult to distinguish (single axes, adzes,
chisels) may be classified in five grades based upon their cutting edge width. These
groupings are broadly defined to eliminate terminological and typological issues, while
enabling cross-regional comparisons. Category 1 objects have a cutting edge width of 0.5
cm or less. Category 2 implements have a cutting width ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 cm. The
width of Category 3 objects varies from 1.6 to 2.9 cm. The breadth of Category 4 tools
spans 3.0 to 4.9 cm. Finally, Category 5 tools have widths 5.0 cm and greater. Nearly all
flat or single axes fall within Category 5, while Category 2 objects are indubitably
64
Evely’s (1993, 2) criteria for chisel divisions are based on “shape, size, robustness, and so on...”
65
Evely 1993, 2.
66
Evely 1993, 2.
41

chisels. Categories 2 and 4 occur frequently within the dataset, demonstrating the
variability of tool sizes. The fourth grouping represents the range of greatest overlap for
single axes, adzes, and wide chisels, all of which served myriad craft activities. The
ambiguity of these tool types within Category 4 is clarified somewhat when tool length is
taken into consideration as well (see Chapter 4). For comparison with the dimensions of
single blades, the cutting widths of the shafted, double-sided tools (e.g. double axes, axe-
adzes, axe-hammers, pick-adzes, and double adzes) were measured by the same
classification scales. Double axes routinely show Category 5 cutting widths, while adze
blades have Category 4 measurements. It is hoped that the cutting width distinction
provides a useful method for highlighting the tool needs and preferences of craft
industries.
V. Limitations and caveats for this study
There are important limitations to this study that must be recognized. Even though
an impressive and comprehensive database of second millennium copper and copper-
alloy tools was compiled, this list cannot be exhaustive. Most of these implements are
already published, but have not been gathered into a single catalogue and study. There are
undoubtedly tools that were missed while forming the dataset; such cases were perhaps
excavated recently or remain unpublished. Specific regions in this study are better
represented than others, which corresponds directly to the geographical areas that were
visited during the course of the doctoral research. Therefore, the data for Cyprus, Greece
(the mainland and Crete) and Turkey are more thorough than that from Syria, Lebanon,
or Israel. The Syro-Palestinian examples rely heavily on Deshayes’ impressive yet
outdated work. As Egyptian tools have been well studied, they may provide an important
42

dataset with which to compare the Mediterranean implements. Such a task must be
relegated to a future study, since expanding the current project in that geographic
direction was not viable. 67
As for the veracity of the tool percentages and quantities presented, some
inaccuracies based upon data entry mistakes are inevitable. The database has been
continually updated and tweaked, yet with a dataset of over 5,300 objects, a small margin
of human error is to be expected. Moreover, even with the strict attention paid to
terminology, a few tools are possibly misidentified, based either upon incorrect published
identifications or fallacious personal observations. The process of tool classification can
be subjective, perhaps best illustrated by the distinction between knives and sickles. Very
small tools whose exact functions were not verifiable also proved problematic; they were
thus classified into a catch-all category representing minor crafts. A more meticulous
study is required if the accurate identification of these small tools is to be achieved. In all
likelihood, such work will have to rely a great deal upon ethnographic and experimental
comparisons.
There are limitations to a study with broad spatial and temporal parameters such
as this one. Yet, in addition to the “big picture” interpretation of the general tool
preferences by region and period, a refined study on the carpentry and masonry tools is
possible. Contextual issues also must be acknowledged. Many tools lack proper
contextual details other than the general region from which they are said to have
originated. The lack of provenience for many objects does not preclude their inclusion in
this investigation. Although tools without provenience are not securely dated, they are
helpful in assessing overall regional tool preferences. Find contexts are examined in some
67 Petrie 1917; Scheel 1989; Davies 1987.
43

detail for the carpentry/masonry tools. Different tool depositions reveal various
mechanisms of tool use and disuse. Additionally, there are chronological issues that must
be noted when dealing with evidence from numerous cultures. Many cultural divisions
and ceramic phases (e.g. MH III-LH I, MMIII-LM I, Old Hittite, etc) do not align
perfectly within the framework of the Middle or Late Bronze Age, yet these broad
chronological divisions were employed for the sake of comparison. At least for the study
of the LBA carpentry/masonry implements, more specific (though still rather broad)
chronological categories were used. It must be emphasized that tools themselves are poor
indicators of time outside of a few cases, and generally should not be employed to
evaluate chronology. Although the frequency and distribution of tools cannot be used as a
primary method for dating implements, the patterns may provide a general guide for the
consumption tendencies over time and space.
Roughly 20% of the tools in the dataset were seen and/or handled in person. This
percentage reflects a great deal of time and research spent in numerous museums from
several different countries, yet an even better understanding of the tool industries would
have been gained if more tools had been examined. As previously mentioned, the study
does not utilize any current scientific, archaeometallurgical techniques of analysis.
Although such procedures would enhance the interpretation and overall comprehension
of metal tools, it was not essential for resolving the posed research questions on tool
distributions, interregional links, and craft mobility.
Historically, excavations have been conducted more often at large, impressive
sites in part because of a greater scholarly interest for the LBA than the MBA. Such
weighted archaeological research may naturally result in disproportional datasets. This
44

issue should be acknowledged when evaluating the general tool patterns, especially when
having to deal with comparisons between the MBA and LBA as well as between palatial
and rural sites. Although the disparate and incomplete nature of archaeological data is
recognized, it is hoped that the study’s broad lens minimizes the effects of narrowly-
focused archaeological excavations to provide valid patterns of tool consumption.
This dissertation does not compare the metal and stone tool industries
comprehensively. Despite the similarity in function of some stone and metal tools, these
categories are rarely considered concomitantly. 68 Lithic studies are prominent in
prehistoric analyses, but more so in the Paleolithic to Neolithic/Chalcolithic periods.
There is an outdated perception that stone tools gave way to metal versions entirely in the
third and second millennium B.C. 69 Karimali notes the coexistence of metal and stone
tools during the second millennium and advocates that these two media be evaluated
concurrently. 70 A similar observation has been made regarding stone and metal weapons;
Iakovidis notes that the majority of Late Helladic arrowheads were produced in bronze
but that flint, chert and obsidian were also exploited. 71 The preservation of lithic
industries and technology should not be underestimated since “flaked lithics may have
retained similar functions (e.g., as cutting tools) over long periods.” 72 That stone tools
were desirable when metal versions were available may be surprising at first. Raw
materials for lithics, however, are readily obtainable and less expensive alternatives to
metal versions. 73
In fact, Kardulias notes the persistence of flaked stone production in the
68
Karimali 2005, 201-204.
69
Runnels 1982, 363-364; Runnels 1985, 357-359;Hartenberger and Runnels 2001, 280; Karimali 2005,
201-204.
70
Karimali 2008, 315-317.
71
Iakovidis 1982, 222.
72
Kardulias 2009, 310.
73
Kardulias 2009, 341.
45

Isthmia region throughout the historical periods. 74 Excavations at major LBA centers
such as Enkomi (Cyprus) and Tiryns (Argolid) have uncovered numerous stone
implements (chisels, miniature axes, celts, sickles, and other cutting implements) that
verify material plurality within tool assemblages, even within the carpentry/masonry craft
paraphernalia. 75 The perseverance of stone pounders and querns for food preparation is
predictable, but the continued production of stone implements for cutting is
unanticipated, considering the availability of more effective metal utensils. Although
Rosen observes the decline and disappearance of some flint tools (especially axes/celts
and awls/drills) in the Bronze Age Levant, this transitional process is not based solely
upon the metallic advantages: “Other variations, including trade, specialization, and the
nature of the tools being replaced, were at least as significant as the nature of the metals
themselves.” 76 Karimali argues that metal and stone tools must be studied together
because they “were used in a continuum of economic and consumption behavior which
pertained to a set of different but integrated activities.” 77
The ways in which stone and
metal tools were used simultaneously by craftspersons, particularly carpenters and
masons, is unclear. A superficial discussion of stone implements is offered at the end of
Chapter 3, but a full scale investigation exploring these materially-divergent tool forms
and their relationship to the metal types is warranted in a separate study for the future.
Gender roles are poorly investigated within the prehistoric Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean and continue to be so in this study of craft industries.
74
Kardulias 2009.
75
Courtois, Aristidou, and Lanitou 1984; Rahmstorf 2008.
76
Rosen 1984, 504.
77
Karimali 2005, 201-205; Karimali 2008, 317.
78
For a number of articles on gender as seen through the prehistoric record on Cyprus, see Bolger and
Serwint 2002. For a discussion of gender and potters in the Aegean, see Nordquist 1995.
78
The correlation
46

etween craft production and gender has been overlooked partially because of inadequate
evidence from texts and iconography. Women are prominent within the Linear B records
either as priestesses or dependents of the palace, primarily for the textile industry. 79
Despite the association of females with textile working, gender responsibilities within
other craft activities are ambiguous. Iconography from New Kingdom Egypt depicts
males working with several crafts (ship construction, carpentry, metalworking, ceramic
production, etc.), yet the evidence is not as straightforward in other regions. Moreover,
iconography may reflect the ideal as opposed to reality. Marinatos thus observes that
women in Egyptian and Minoan painting are depicted as a “mother and nurturer.” 80 The
affiliation between gender and prehistoric ceramic production is addressed in Cypriot
scholarship. 81 Stewart argued that males in workshops produced Early Cypriot pottery;
on the other hand, Frankel explained regional similarities in Middle Cypriot motifs on
White Painted pottery as the result of mobile female potters. 82 Hankey hypothesized that
Late Cypriot potters were also female. Alternatively, Walz, focusing on ethnographic and
contemporaneous evidence from neighboring regions, concluded that female potters on
Cyprus were the exception rather than the rule during the LBA. 83 Recently, Clarke has
revisited archaeological assumptions between women and ceramic production; she uses
the Ceramic Neolithic period in Cyprus to demonstrate that the “diversity [in the
repertoire of motifs] is not the result of post-marital residence patterns…and that there is
absolutely no evidence to suggest that women were the sole producers of pottery.” 84
79
Nosch 2003, 13-18; Chadwick 1988; Deger-Jalkotazy 1972.
80
Marinatos 1995, 582.
81
London 2002.
82
Stewart 1961; Frankel 1974.
83
Hankey 1983; Walz 1985.
84
Clarke 2002, 261.
47

Gender responsibilities are investigated differently in the Aegean, using limited textual
and iconographic evidence.
The Mycenaean Linear B tablets reveal aspects of female roles otherwise
undetected, including prestigious cult positions associated with certain rights and
privileges, as well as more mundane labor duties. 85 The Pylos and Knossos tablets
document an impressive quantity of skilled female workers (over 1,400 in the Pylian
tablets) who appear as dependents of the palaces. 86 Nosch notes more than 750 dependent
Pylian women who produced textiles as their primary task, yet other household activities
are also occasionally ascribed to them. 87 These data demonstrate the complexity of
gender skills, which have too often been ignored in prehistory because, as Kopaka
argued, “Aegean gender activities are illustrated only by a few, fragmentary and
unequally informative pieces of evidence. The existing documentation is mainly
dominated by some sets of anthropomorphic images.” 88 Kopaka notes that the “gender of
the producer” has not been adequately considered, leading her to question the gender
roles of “hunters, gatherers, cultivators, shepherds, bee-keepers, bronzesmiths, seal
engravers, perfumers, jewelers, tablet-kneaders and scribes, woodcutters, masons, textile
workers, breadmakers, firekindlers, water carriers, warriors, and defendants.” 89
Although
these inquiries are not answered in the Aegean realm, such probing accentuates severe
gaps in the scholarly understanding of craft activities. Ideally, the responsibility of each
gender should be considered in discussions of craftsmanship, yet it is difficult to ascertain
how gender roles dictated preferences for metal tools and their affiliated craft traditions.
85
Nosch 2003, 22.
86
Killen 1979, 133; Billigmeier and Turner 1981, 3. Chadwick 1988, 89-93.
87
Nosch 2003, 15.
88
Kopaka 1997, 526.
89
Kopaka 1997, 527-528.
48

Gender may have been a defining element in the formation of tool preferences, and could
have varied by region and culture. This question is not sufficiently addressed in this
study, and the uncertainty of how to analyze gender relations and craft skills is a
noteworthy limitation.
Despite the restrictions and flaws briefly addressed here, the prospective findings
from a remarkably rich dataset are critical for evaluating several fields of study including
metallurgy, craftsmanship, architecture, agriculture, and cross-regional interconnections.
The breadth of this project is challenging and rewarding. Any deductions attained here
delineate a small fraction of the information that may be gleaned from this dataset of
second millennium tools. Future research questions and approaches remain limitless and
no doubt include schemes both more broadly and narrowly conceived than those
attempted here. It is hoped that the current enterprise promotes the scholarly significance
of tools and their promising contribution to an array of specialized fields.
49

Chapter 3: Metal tools in the second millennium BC: assessing value, function and
distribution
I. A note about how data are presented in this chapter
It is necessary to explain how data from the tool catalogue are analyzed and
presented quantitatively in this chapter. Tool distributions are considered by functional
category, region, period, and context. These data are usually presented in two ways: as a
total tool count for each respective category and as a percentage. Of course tool
percentages change depending on what is being examined. For the purpose of
highlighting a particular region’s tool preferences over time—and to evaluate such
patterns beyond simple counts—percentages are calculated by determining an
implement’s popularity within the tool repertoire found in a specific region and time
period. This computation is made for each of the functional tool categories considered in
this chapter, and the percentages are displayed in Figures 3.5a b; Figures 3.10a, b;
Figures 3.15a, b; Figures 3.21a, b; Figure 3.25a; and Figures 3.26a, b. As an example of
how these proportions were calculated, consider the carpentry/masonry tools from Crete.
There are 71 such tools from MBA Crete (Fig. 3.26b), and this number represents 49.7%
of the 143 total implements on the island during that period (Figure 3.1b). For the LBA,
there are 379 carpentry/masonry tools and this number equates to 58% of the 653 total
LBA Cretan implements. Thus, it is clear that although there is a remarkable quantitative
increase in carpentry/masonry tools from the MBA to the LBA, the region’s tendency to
produce and use these implements changes only slightly (from 49.7% to 58%). By
examining the data in this manner, it is possible to compare a region’s tool preferences
over time and space.
50

II. The functional and social value of tools
This chapter describes the general distribution of tools by region and time period.
The significance of individual implements to an owner, particularly as objects of value,
should not be underestimated. Comprehending and calculating the worth of second
millennium bronze implements is difficult, not least because many tools are fragmentary
and/or occur in metal hoards thought to be destined for re-melting (see Chapter 5 and
hoard list in Appendix 3). Metal-producing centers from the Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean were summarized in the introduction to draw attention to the resources
required for successful bronze working and the locations where this activity occurred.
Smelting copper, casting bronze and recycling copper-alloy items are complicated
processes requiring time, energy, and technological knowhow, all of which have been
undervalued and understudied in the past. Metal implements were costly, in part because
of the extensive resources invested in their production. In this chapter section, the
functional and social value of tools are assessed: first by considering individualized
marks and signs on tools, then by exploring the ethnography of metal tool production,
consumption and use.
Signs and/or decorative elements were occasionally etched, either before or after
casting, onto the surface of metal tools. Markings inscribed on implements vary from
single signs to full inscriptions. For instance, some Cypriot tools display Cypro-Minoan
characters, while adzes from the high priest’s hoard at Ras Shamra contain full Ugaritic
inscriptions. Inscribed signs are rare on Aegean tools, though a mark on an EM II-MMII
double ax from Selakanos is an exception. 90
Some symbols on tools bear resemblance to
the enigmatic mason’s marks that frequently appear on Cretan architecture. A Cypriot
90 Branigan 1969, 2-4, figure 1.
51

double adze from the Enkomi Gunnis hoard has a sign that resembles Hood’s “hockey
sticks,” a mason’s mark that occurs at least five times on Knossian architecture. 91 Despite
the large corpus of inscribed signs on Minoan buildings and an equally impressive
collection of literature on the subject, the purpose of a mason’s mark remains unknown. 92
To complicate matters, markings are found in other media as well, for instance on
ceramics and copper oxhide ingots. 93
Signs on tools have not been studied with the same
enthusiasm as those on masonry, pottery or ingots. Any similarities between these
inscrutable symbols are difficult to explain because their meaning may change with the
medium on which they appear. Yet signs (discrete marks, short series of characters, or
full inscriptions with complete words) convey specific information that extends beyond
decoration.
Symbols individualize objects while enhancing their meaning, though the exact
semiotics are often difficult to determine. Regardless of their meaning, incisions on
implements denote a sense of pride and ownership and serve as a marker for
identification. In personalizing an object, symbols and simple geometric patterns
establish a strong bond between the tool and its owner/user. The phenomenon of
decorating implements has persisted through the present day, emphasizing the human
tendency to brand and personalize one’s possessions, even mundane functional items.
Early American tools were often decorated, if only by the date of production and the
manufacturer’s or owner’s mark.
94
A connection between user and tool seems universal,
and this point is emphasized by Sloane with regard to Early American implements: “The
91
Hood 1987, 207.
92
Begg 2004a; Begg 2004b.
93
Pot marks: Hirschfeld 2002; Oxhide ingot marks: Bass 1967, 72-76; Yalçin, Pulak, and Slotta 2005, 561,
569-571 entries 3, 33, 37-39, 45-46.
94
Sloane 2002, 3-6.
52

feeling that certain tools had souls of their own was not unusual; an axe might be marked
‘Tom’ or ‘Jack’ simply because the owner felt it was a companion worthy of a pet
name.” 95
Using ethnographic evidence from modern Greece, the relationship of a
craftsperson with a set of tools is highlighted in more detail below, and this discussion
may provide insight on how prehistoric craftspersons valued tools.
Ethnographic evidence from Greece further clarifies the role of signs,
monograms, and other minor marks that adorn tools. Implements were extremely
valuable and small details enhanced their worth in the eyes of the owner. The following
quotes convey the significance of markings on implements from the 19 th and early 20 th
centuries in modern Greece:
…The most beautiful thing I’ve ever heard came from uncle-Yianni, the blacksmith from
Korthi in Andros. When he made a sickle he’d carve a little bird on it along with his
96
stamp so that the sickle would sing when the harvester used it!
The manufacturers of tools as well as the craftsmen who use them have a deep emotional
relationship with them which they often express with the designs and decorations they
engrave on the wood and iron. Or they put their stamp and signature on the tool, an image
or a monogram. Because besides being useful they want the tools they make to be
97
beautiful. They want the tools to say who made them and who used them.
The assessment of an implement’s aesthetic value is an unusual line of inquiry in most
tool analyses. Archaeologists strive to interpret the functionality of tools without entirely
considering the value of an implement to a craftsperson. This task is admittedly
subjective, and a metal’s weight often overshadows other characteristics that contribute to
its value. An implement’s worth (judging by the myriad resources necessary to produce
it) and the significance of ownership are not fully recognized in weight-driven analyses.
95
Sloane 2002, 3.
96
Quote by Giorgos Speis, researcher, see Polyzoi 2009, 85.
97
Polyzoi 2009, 83.
53

The link between a craftsperson and one’s tools is complex, for there may exist a
“deep emotional relationship,” as described above. Such a connection between an
individual and implements is indicated by Pavlos Korfiatis, a 20 th -century machinist born
in Pireaus, Greece: “I could kiss the lathe, it could kiss me, hug me.” 98 Personal
attachments to certain tools may dictate their continued possession, even if the
implements are no longer functional. Objects affiliated with memories are difficult to
discard, and so broken, seemingly non-desirable utensils may be retained for varied
purposes. Even if objects could not fulfill their original purpose, they may have served as
mementos for triggering recollections. Keepsakes are special items passed down through
generations, and tools, like most objects, could attain an heirloom status. A quote by
Triantafyllos Boudala, a shipbuilder from Skopelos (born in 1927), confirms the
possibility of tool heirlooms: “I have a broken measure from back then…it broke and my
grandfather kept it as a keepsake and then my father had it and then I got it…” 99
Not
every tool achieved the status of a memento, yet tools were evidently retained for
multiple reasons not entirely based on their functional value.
The question of a tool’s worth and whether the object was retained by a
craftsperson is especially pertinent to interpreting metal hoards, which typically
contained numerous implements. It is exceedingly difficult to gauge the value of items
within a metal hoard. Scholars have envisioned hoards most often as dedications or as
scrap metal destined for recycling in a furnace (see Chapter 5). Such approaches simplify
hoarding behavior and impose a modern value system, which overemphasizes metallic
worth, upon archaeological data. Identifying a unified purpose for a hoard is challenging
98 Polyzoi 2009, 85.
99 Polyzoi 2009, 85.
54

since the values of individual objects are wide-ranging. Needham acknowledges this
difficulty by noting that objects can be “imbued with characteristics of being. Such
considerations affect the range of ways in which objects might be valued, but also
impinge on the practical matters of the longevity of use-spans or the treatment of material
at the close of its life.” 100 Saving tools (and other objects) as keepsakes would
demonstrate that implements were valued for reasons beyond their functional practicality.
In the archaeological record, the Ta 700 Linear B tablets and a Linear A-inscribed tripod
from the Mycenae Shaft Graves indicate that memento-hoarding occurred in the Aegean
Bronze Age. 101
Three passages about tools—posted on display panels in the Man and Tools
Museum of Greek Folk Art in Athens—articulate the bond that individuals have with
their implements and emphasize that tools, as transferrable wealth, are regularly saved
over time. These quotes convey the social and personal values placed on modern Greek
implements, and suggest that metal tools were equally important to prehistoric
102
craftspersons.
These ethnographic quotes are considered below:
Tools as a source of life and security
Man makes tools and devises techniques to harness nature, to make use of raw materials
to process them, so that he can create what he needs. Tools enhance his power, realize his
103
dreams, and ultimately ensure his survival.
Tools before the Industrialization…
There were many different tools. Some simple, some complex, all created from the
wisdom of experience passed on from generation to generation. Most of them are
100 Needham 2001, 277.
101 Ventris and Chadwick 1973; Palaima 2003.
102 Another Greek ethnographic collection, the Museum of Cretan Ethnography, is located in Voroi, Crete.
The importance of tools in quarrying and architecture is evident in the museum’s architecture displays. See
photographs of these displays on the museum’s website:
http://www.cretanethnologymuseum.gr/imke/html/en/4201.html
103 Polyzoi 2009, 69.
55

specialized and intended for specific tasks. Often the craftsman would modify them and
create his ‘own’ tools for what he needed. 104
Tools
Tools have ‘real’ value as well. Craftsmen work hard to acquire them and many times
travel far to find them. Tools have a long life and are passed down from generation to
generation. They find their rightful place among homes and fields in wills and dowry
105
contracts.
These tool descriptions emphasize an implement’s value, specialization, and necessity—
all of which contribute to the success of the craftsperson. Because of their personal value,
tools are rarely discarded though often modified. Broken or fragmentary tools in metal
106
hoards may have developed alternative purposes than their original intention.
Tools, being useful to and cherished by craftspersons in 19 th century Greece, were
invaluable for their ability to provide a livelihood and were a form of transferable wealth.
In one passage, the tools are said to “ensure his survival” while another quote presents
tools as having achieved heirloom statuses. These ethnographic vignettes suggest that
tools were more likely to be passed down through generations and repaired, if broken,
than to be discarded. Late 19 th century tools from modern Greece were valued at 1,500
drachmas according to a stonemason’s will from Syros—this number is two and a half
times the monthly wage of a bank manager (600 drachmas) and roughly 25 times that of a
messenger (60 drachmas).
This
issue of broken tool functionality is addressed in Chapter 5 by considering tool variation
and object worth within so-called foundry hoards.
107
These objects were priced according to their metallic worth
and quality of craftsmanship. Documents from Skyros record a dowry given to a bride in
1802 in which a plowshare, pick-ax, two hoes, and two axes were included as part of the
104
Polyzoi 2009, 69.
105
Polyzoi 2009, 91.
106
For a general discussion on the importance of fragmented objects in the archaeological record, see
Chapman 2000.
107
Polyzoi 2009, 91.
56

contract. 108 Tools are mentioned in other legal documents from this period, as in an
example of an apprentice who received a tool set as a gift upon completing his service
and training. 109
These ethnographic examples provide clues for understanding prehistoric
craftspersons, their tools and their trade.
A good indication of the value of metal tools in the Bronze Age is offered by the
evidence at Akrotiri, as noted by Palyvou: “Bronze tools were, of course, quite common
[at the site], but it seems that they were too precious to leave behind when the residents
110
abandoned the town.” The rarity of metal implements on Thera is contrasted by the
abundance of stone tools left by the residents. 111
Bronze tools were expensive to produce
and acquire, so they were retained whenever possible. It was more economical to adapt,
repair and maintain them (e.g. sharpen and harden cutting edges) than to re-melt or
recast.
Tools were regularly adapted to fit the individual needs of owners. Some tools
from hoard contexts were altered to the point that their functions were changed, a point
discussed in Chapter 5. Tool forms may be manipulated to serve different or enhanced
purposes, though they could also be melted and recast. Evidence for morphological and
functional manipulation underscores the high value—not necessarily based on metallic
worth—and diversification of prehistoric implements.
108 This dowry was given to Anna Vrokolaka, and it is worthwhile to quote the relevant sections of the
document, as translated in Polyzoi 2009, 93: “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Amen and all the saints, my wife Kali Pavlou and I, Nikolas George Vrokolakas, hereby conclude this
dowry contract for my daughter, Anna, giving her first with God’s mercy, our blessing and our parents’
blessings. We give her a house in Castro near Mali’s property…and one ploughshare, one pickaxe, two
grubbing hoes and two axes…”
109 The apprenticeship agreement involved four years of work to the miller, and upon completion the
apprentice received some money and a set of tools. The contract was made on Syros at a public notary by
S. Maximos in 1827. See Polyzoi 2009, 159.
110 Palyvou 2005, 114.
111 For a brief description of the stone and metal tools, see Doumas 1983, 114-115, plates 68-71, 74.
57

III: The relationship of stone, bone, and metal tools
Future investigations on craft work should appraise the roles of diverse materials
in tool industries. Before evaluating the distribution of metal implements, a quick
overview of stone and bone types is warranted to convey how they relate to metal
versions. Metal implements were strong, sturdy and effective, yet non-metal tools were
consistently manufactured as alternatives to more expensive metal versions. The
difference in efficiency between metal and non-metal tools is hard to determine, but it
was not so great that non-metal tools (made of wood, bone, stone, and even ceramic)
became obsolete. Wooden tools were certainly utilized for agriculture, a point
demonstrated by the ethnographic record. 112
Other than the utilization of large wooden
mallets, metallurgical and carpentry/masonry tasks may not have benefitted from wood
implements.
Bone tools, likewise, are probably too brittle for carpentry and masonry, but they
were serviceable for small craft activities. Evely identified a small selection of bone tools
within Minoan contexts, and the majority of these tools consist of awls, points, punches,
113
and spatulas. Bone implements may be more prevalent than published reports convey,
as these objects could have been misidentified, discarded or simply ignored in old
excavations. Well-excavated and studied artifact assemblages, such as those from Lerna,
record numerous small bone implements. 114
Several different types of bone tools (e.g.
flat, thin points; thick, rounded points; spatula-like items; pins or needles; etc.) were
recovered from MM-LM Kommos, leading to speculation that the site had a bone-
112
Wulff 1966, 267-276; Frank and Miller 2001, 28, 37-38; Polyzoi 2009, 62-63.
113
Evely 1993, 106.
114
Banks 1984 (1967), 263-484.
58

working industry. 115 MBA and LBA bone tools are also reported from the lower city at
Boğazköy. 116 Bone tools at Kition, originally interpreted as styli, are now recognized by
Smith as textile implements, specifically “weaving tools for beating in the weft,
particularly when creating a solid field of color, as in tapestry weaving.” 117 In addition to
bone, Evely notes that “antler, horn, shell and even ivory” were fashioned into
serviceable Minoan implements. 118 Moreover, a few terracotta implements have been
found, yet their function was likely more ceremonial than practical. For instance, two
terracotta double axes from the Eilethyia cave on Crete served as votive offerings. From
Mochlos, there are LM terracotta tongs, but it is unclear whether this object was truly
operative in metalworking. 119
While the precise relationship between lithic and metal tools is not fully
understood, the role of these objects within craft industries remains a significant inquiry
for future research. There are three types of lithics (out of Runnels’ thirteen categories)
that have parallels with metal types, and these groups are listed below:
(1) Flaked tools of flint, obsidian, and other materials (includes cutting tools and a wide
variety of other tools…).
(2) Axes, adzes, battle-axes, chisels and other cutting tools shaped by pecking, grinding,
polishing, and perforating hard rocks.
(3) Handstones used for abrading and percussion. 120
Perhaps the most challenging question is how to understand the relation of the cutting
tools made of metal and stone. Many stone tools performed cutting tasks almost as
effectively as metallic versions; the primary advantage of metal types was their
115
Ruscillo 2006, 799-800; Blitzer 1995, 497-500.
116
Boehmer 1979, 49-52, plates XXIX-XXXI.
117
Smith 2009, 35.
118
Evely 1993, 106.
119
Soles 2005, Soles 2007, Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008.
120
Runnels 1994, 168-169, Table 8.1. For a detailed report outlining the different categories for ground
stone and chipped stone implements, see Blitzer 1995, 425-496, plates 8.1-8.74, 8.89-8.101.
59

durability. Stone cutting objects became dull quickly and had to be retouched and
sharpened more often. 121 Obsidian blades were extremely sharp and may have served
everyday cutting needs (for instance, processing fish), 122 but it is also possible that they
were used for crafting. Obsidian, in addition to other qualities, is effective in cutting
wood. 123
Obsidian blades also offered alternatives to metal knives and sickles.
The outdated and simplistic notion that metal implements completely replaced
124
lithic types is no longer tenable. Evely recognized as much by pointing out the diverse
repertoire of stone tools in the Bronze Age: “the range, variety and degree of
specialization of stone tools appear to increase even as the development of metal tools
was gaining momentum.” 125
It is well recognized that stone tools were contemporary
with metal versions at major LBA urban centers (e.g. Tiryns, the Palace of Nestor,
Enkomi, and Hattusha) but it is less certain how those lithics complemented or
augmented bronze tools in craft work. Perhaps stone versions served as backups for the
metal forms. It is possible that an artisan’s tool kit consisted of both metal and stone
implements, each intended for a specific purpose. Evely explains the simultaneous
preference for stone and metal tools in the Bronze Age, but notes that certain stone
implements—those with cutting edges—declined with the production of metal ones:
The continuing popularity of these [stone] objects is presumably to be accounted for by
their relative cheapness, wide naturally-occurring availability and, no doubt, an
effectiveness not greatly inferior to any metal counterpart. Perhaps the major advantage
of metal over stone (excepting flint, chert and obsidian) is the keenness and durability of
the edge that can be put on the former: it can be no coincidence that the commonest metal
121
For ethnographic data about the use of stone tools to cut elephant hide, see Frison 1989, 777-778.
122
Experimental archaeology has demonstrated the effectiveness of obsidian blades in cutting and scaling
fish. Moreover, use-wear patterns on obsidian flakes from Franchthi Cave and Uzzo Cave (Trapani, Sicily)
suggest that the stone tools were used to butcher fish. See, Iovino 2002, 203, 206.
123
For a discussion of Minoan obsidian tools, see Evely 1993, 119-141.
124
This is clear from survey data of flaked stones from the southern Argolid: Kardulias and Runnels 1995,
108-109, Table 5.20.
125
Evely 1993, 116.
60

tools are edged cutting ones that quite replace the ‘Neolithic’ axe/adze/chisel group by
the Late Bronze Age, whilst the other categories of stone tool types remain constant in
their production. 126
Axes, adzes, chisels and hammers are the best examples of stone implements that share
functions with metal tools. There are various types of stone axes, including but not
limited to ones with shaft holes; ground stones with a simple cutting edge; small, single-
127
edged celts; and ceremonial types. Functional stone axes and/or adzes are well known
from as early as the fifth and fourth millennia BC, in the Aegean Neolithic and the
Chalcolithic period on Cyprus. 128 Stone celts or axes are repeatedly found in Neolithic
settings, and were capable of minor cutting projects but were hardly efficient in felling
timber. 129 It is this category of stone axes, variably termed chisels or adzes, which must
have declined with the proliferation of metal tools. A thorough examination of the
distribution of stone celts, adzes and chisels in the MBA and LBA is warranted for
comparison with the metal types. 130
A study of this sort would highlight the roles that the
traditional stone implements served, perhaps alongside with metal tools, in craft work.
Stone hammers are another category of implements underrepresented in the
archaeological record, but practically any fist-sized rock could have functioned as a
handheld hammer.
131
Stone hammers have been found in numerous Bronze Age sites,
through survey and excavation, but there is no comprehensive study that pulls all of this
126
Evely 1993, 116.
127
There are two stone ceremonial stone axes from the Hittite site of Ortaköy-Şapinuwa; the stone axes
bear a striking resemblance to the ax held by the warrior on the “King’s Gate” at Hattusha-Boğazköy. The
objects have not been published, but are on display in the Çorum Museum in Turkey.
128
Stroulia 2003, 27; Strasser 2008, 160-161; Elliott 1981.
129
Stroulia 2003, 1, 27-28.
130
A very cursory overview revealed that these stone celts or the like were found in MBA contexts at Ayios
Stephanos, Eutresis, Malthi, and Lerna while similar LBA finds were confirmed at the Athenian Agora,
Tiryns, Enkomi and Boğazköy. For references, see: Eutresis: Goldman 1931, 207. Ayios Stephanos:
Taylour and Janko 2008, 434-435. Malthi: Valmin 1938, 348-352. Lerna: Banks 1984 (1967), 85-99.
Tiryns: Rahmstorf 2008, entry 1246, 1247, 1250, 1253, etc.; Enkomi: Dikaios 1969; Boğazköy: Boehmer
1972, 203-204, plate LXXVI.
131
For some examples from Kommos, see: Blitzer 1995, 440-441, plates 8.13, 8.90; Shaw 2006b, 742-743.
61

information together. In the Aegean, stone hammers from the MBA and LBA have been
reported from the southern Argolid, Lerna, Paralimni Teichos Dymaion (Achaea), Malthi,
Nichoria, Kommos and Akrotiri, although this list is hardly comprehensive. 132 Stone
dressing hammers are also thought to have been part of the Mycenaean and Hittite
mason’s tool kit. In addition to the actual stone hammers, there is good evidence for
hammer-faced conglomerate blocks from the Mycenae tholoi and the conglomerate and
cyclopean stones from the gates and walls from Mycenae and Tiryns. 133
The exact relationship between metal and non-metal tools for each craft industry
is uncertain. Non-metallic implements were certainly cheaper alternatives, and they
remained effective but possibly less efficient. Metallurgical advancements provided
craftspersons with a greater range of tool forms even as traditional stone implements
were retained. Whetstones are regularly reported with metal tools, for they were a
necessary component to a craftsperson’s tool kit; whetstones aided the maintenance of
metal implements by keeping them sharp and effective. Smaller craft activities would
have utilized non-metal implements (bone, stone, ceramic, etc.) just as often as metallic
versions. Metallurgical activities regularly employed stone materials; stone pounders
were used to crush ore, stone molds were employed to fashion objects during the casting
process, and the use of whetstones was helpful in refining the finished products.
Carpentry and masonry work likely exploited stone for jobs that required pounding.
Stone hammers could strike chisels or smooth a surface while dressing a stone block. Yet
132 Southern Argolid: Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 118-121. Lerna: Banks 1984 (1967), 99-110.
Paralimni Teichos Dymaion: Papadopoulos 1978, 155. Malthi: Valmin 1938, 344-348, 352-353.
Nichoria: Blitzer 1992, 729. Kommos: Blitzer 1995, 440-441; Shaw 2006b, 742-743. Akrotiri: Doumas
1983, 114, plate 68 (for Doumas’ large demolition, hammer-like stone).
133 For hammer dressing on the Mycenae tholoi, see: Wace 1949, 34, 36, 44, 135-136; Wright 2006, 17
figure 1.4. For hammer dressing on conglomerate and cyclopean blocks in the citadels, see: Mylonas 1966,
16-18; Wright 1978, 159, 189, 202, 217, 258 note 307, Figs. 88, 89, 92, 120; Loader 1998, 47.
62

the ability to cut stone and wood in the second millennium was a task probably reserved
for metal tools. Stone axes, adzes and chisels are attested from LBA tool contexts, but the
effectiveness of these objects in the carpentry and masonry industries is not clear.
Although obsidian blades were sharp enough to whittle wood, they may not have been
the favored tools of carpenters. The enhanced cutting capabilities that metal utensils
offered partially accounts for the rapid development of carpentry and masonry industries
during the second millennium BC.
IV. General patterns of metal tools in the second millennium BC
Metal tools are produced as early as the Final Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods
in Greece and Cyprus respectively, yet these regional metallurgical developments lagged
behind those in Anatolia and the Near East. The earliest metallic objects consisted of
small trinkets and utensils, such as pins and needles, rather than larger tools. Although
tin-bronze occurs sporadically in contexts from the third millennium Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean, arsenical copper dominated metallurgical technology in the EBA. Tin-
bronze is prevalent in the early second millennium, yet arsenical bronze and other
copper-alloys were also employed. Pare argues that the Aegean’s full transition to tin-
bronze occurred only in the mid-second millennium, between 1600 and 1400 BC. 134 The
prevalence of tin-bronze in the LBA resulted in a greater availability and enhanced
repertoire of metal tools. Stone implements, however, were not entirely abandoned in
favor of metal versions. Lithic production continued throughout the Bronze Age (and
even into historical periods), despite the pervasiveness of bronze tools. 135
134 Pare 2000, 26 figure 1.14.
135 This is evident at Lerna, as noted by Hartenberger and Runnels 2001, 280: “It was long an axiom of
archaeology that flintknapping and stone-tool use gradually faded away when bronze tools and edged
63

In addition to greater amounts of tin-bronze in circulation, metal tool industries
were influenced by the genesis and development of some craft activities. A correlation
likely exists between the expansion of metal tool technologies and the ability to cut stone
for public edifices in the Near East, Anatolia and Crete as early as the MBA. Renfrew
observed that, “metal axes, chisels and gouges opened entirely new fields to the carpenter
and shipbuilder. Saws, chisels and gravers gave new opportunities to the lapidary and the
sculptor, as well as to the architect.” 136 Renfrew further asserted that carpentry,
leatherworking and masonry were transformed by metal implements and that “the great
value of metal tools was the increased versatility afforded in the working of other
materials.” 137
It is unclear whether the evolution of tool technologies affected
developments in crafting techniques, or vice versa. Did architectural needs prompt
progression and diversification of metal tool industries, or were construction skills
developed in response to the availability of innovative metal implements? These
questions may remain unanswered but a correlation undoubtedly exists between
advancements in crafting practices and tools. Shifts in tool preferences over time and
within functional categories are explored throughout this chapter.
The highest consumption of tools from the MBA (Fig. 3.1a, b) corresponds to
areas that had direct access to copper or had the means to acquire it. Consequently, most
early second millennium tools came from Cyprus and Anatolia, locations with natural
copper resources. Although copper sources exist on Kythnos and Seriphos in the
weapons were added to the material culture of the Aegean world after the end of the Neolithic, but the
nearly 12,000 lithics from Bronze Age Lerna demonstrate clearly the continuing importance of stone tools
in this period. Even the rather limited degree of craft specialization in EH-MH Lerna…is evidence for the
ongoing economic and technological value of lithic artifacts in Bronze Age society.” Also see, Runnels
1994, 166, 168; Runnels 1982.
136
Renfrew 1972, 325.
137
Renfrew 1972, 331-332.
64

Cyclades, the Aegean had to import most of its metal sources from the east, and recent
lead isotope analysis of copper from Protopalatial Mallia confirms this assertion. 138
Copper seems to have be absent from Crete, though this issue has perplexed scholars for
over a century. 139 There are hints of a Middle Cypriot international metal industry, as
implied by the references to Alashiyan copper in the 18 th century Mari tablets, and a few
remnants of metalworking on Cyprus from that time. 140 The metallurgical remains from
MC Kadatya and the LM IB Cypriot copper ingots from Mochlos may testify to a more
sophisticated MC and early LC metallurgical industry than previously recognized. 141
The
exportation of MC copper was in all likelihood a small-scale operation, and the
distribution of the MBA tools conveys that copper from that period was consumed mostly
on Cyprus.
Of the 1208 MBA tools known from the study area, more than half were found on
Cyprus. Catling attributed the “great numerical richness of the metal objects” from the
EC and MC periods to the island’s copper resources, since the assemblage of items
142
“clearly shows a vigorous exploitation of the raw material.” Yet the abundance of
metal tools on MBA Cyprus is also accounted for by social phenomena specific to the
Cypriot early second millennium, when many tools were deposited in cemeteries along
the northern coast of Cyprus. Keswani argued that indigenous nascent elites exploited the
copper-rich island for competitive consumption of metal; subsequently they advertised
their newfound wealth and prestige in the mortuary realm. 143
While MBA tool disparities
138
Poursat and Loubet. 2005.
139
Muhly 2008a, 35; Tzchali 2008.
140
Heltzer 1989, 8-9, 24-25; Kassianidou 2008.
141
Kassianidou 2008, 256, 266; Soles 2008, 143, 156.
142
Catling 1964, 76.
143
Keswani 2004.
65

y region may reflect social and craft-related preferences, it is just as likely that differing
levels of accessibility to copper resources dictated the consumption patterns.
Within the entire study area, tools are almost three times more prominent in the
LBA than in the previous period (Fig. 3.1a, b). The far-reaching rise in LBA tools
throughout the study region likely corresponds to an expanded, international metal
industry on Cyprus, though this is not to say that the objects were produced on the island.
The distribution of LBA implements reflects greater accessibility of raw copper
throughout the Mediterranean. International exploitation of copper resources and the
greater availability of the metal partially explain the dramatic shift in tool consumption
during the second millennium. The evolution, expansion and even palatial organization of
craft industries also contributed to the increased number of tools in circulation.
While the other regions witnessed a dramatic rise in LBA tools, the Cypriot
quantities decreased by 12.5% from the MBA to the LBA. This is an odd pattern, but it
broadly demonstrates that the copper industry on the island was exploited by local
inhabitants for their own needs in the MBA (with some evidence for export).
Subsequently in the LBA, the international export of Cypriot metal became more
important than the island’s local consumption demands. The discrepancy in the volume
of metal consumed on Cyprus versus the Aegean in the LBA is emphasized by the
distribution of Cypriot copper oxhide ingots. A surprisingly low number of ingots have
been found on the eastern island, yet they are well distributed throughout the Aegean and
central Mediterranean. 144
Contrasting the decline in Cypriot tools from the MBA to the
LBA, the Greek mainland witnessed a twelve-fold increase in tools from the MH to LH
period. This change is remarkable, for LH implements represent the largest collection of
144 Gale 1991; Kassianidou 2009; Lo Schiavo et al. 2009.
66

tools from any region or period and the MH utensils are one of the smaller sets in the
dataset. Yet the high incidence of LBA metal tools on the mainland makes the absence of
substantial Mycenaean metal workshops perplexing.
A broad contextual division of the tools reveals general depositional practices
(Fig. 3.2a, b). Hoards; burials; settlements; unstratified/unprovenienced/surface/unknown
contexts; cultic sites or sanctuaries; workshops; and shipwrecks represent the various
categories created for contextual analysis. These are broad classifications that help to
elucidate basic consumption trends. A more detailed, contextual review is undertaken in
Chapters 4 and 5, where the carpentry and masonry implements are used as a case study.
During the early second millennium, the mortuary realm is the preferred context for
deposition, as nearly half of the MBA tools were recovered in burials. Hoard and
settlement contexts were also prominent at this time, but tools from sanctuaries and
workshops are rare. The importance of including metal tools in MBA burials illustrates
that they were valued and collected more for prestige purposes than for specific craft
activities. By the LBA, settlement and hoard contexts became the most popular
destinations for tools, followed by burials (Fig. 3.2a, b). There is a notable increase in
settlement contexts from the previous period, reflecting the wider availability of tools in
the LBA. On the other hand, the frequency of tools deposited in burials declines from the
MBA to the LBA (Fig. 3.2b). One may surmise that tools were markers of prestige and
status more often in the MBA, while their inclusion with the dead became less important
in the LBA when a greater number of tools were in circulation. Objects in the dataset that
have very poor or no contextual information are listed under the chronological category
of “general second millennium.” There are 504 such tools (Fig. 3.1b), while there are 524
67

database entries whose contextual category is classified as poor or indistinct (unstratified,
surface, or unprovenienced; Fig. 3.2a).
There is an assumption here that the archaeological record (with its imperfect and
unbalanced investigation of sites) reflects a partially accurate picture of general tool
preferences. The implications of the contextual tool patterns are tempered by the widely
uneven and disparate levels of archaeological information known from each context. For
example, excavated MBA settlements on Cyprus and the Greek mainland are rare and the
corpus of MBA material culture from those regions relies upon mortuary finds. It is
probable that the current contextual record has significant gaps in terms of tool data.
Finds from an MBA shipwreck would certainly enhance the period’s quantity and variety
of tools, for implements found on LBA shipwrecks represent a significant corpus (6.8%)
of the utensils from the later era. With this problem acknowledged, one may expect a
greater number of tools from MBA settlements to be found in future excavations.
The distribution of utensils according to their contextual classification reveals
regional variation. These tool quantities and their corresponding frequencies during the
MBA and LBA are listed in Figures 3.3a-f. Listed as a percentage, the tool proportions
provide a consistent measure of comparison by region, context, and time period. These
patterns of tool consumption demonstrate that regional trends were often consistent over
time. For example, tool frequencies were steady from the MBA to the LBA in the
following contexts: Cretan hoards, Cretan settlements, Greek mainland burials, and
Anatolian settlements (Figs. 3.3a, b, e). Shifts in depositional behavior are also
recognizable. A decrease in the frequency of settlement tools from the MH to the LH
period is unexpected, given the propagation of LH settlements in relation to the MH
68

landscape (Fig. 3.3b). 145
This change may be the result of greater quantities of tools being
allocated to LH hoards and it is probably related to the custom of depositing metal (tools
in addition to weapons and vessels) in LH II-III burials. The practice of tool hoarding on
Crete remained unchanged throughout the second millennium (Fig. 3.3a), yet there were
significant shifts in hoarding practices on the Greek mainland, Cyprus, Anatolia and
Syria-Palestine by the LBA (Figs. 3.3b, d, e, f). The frequency of Cypriot tools in hoards
increased from 13.6% to 30.2% over the course of the second millennium, while the
Greek mainland witnessed a spike from 9% to 28.3%. It is interesting to note that tools
were hoarded with the same regularity in Mycenaean contexts as on Cyprus, for each of
these two regions has yielded an impressive number of metal caches. The implications
and significance of hoarding metal objects, particularly tools, are explored in Chapter 5.
Distinctive modifications occurred in how Cypriot tools were deposited in the
archaeological record from the MBA to the LBA. A large number of MC implements
(484 examples or 78.6% of the known MC tools) were found in burials; by the LC period,
mortuary finds were surpassed by those in hoards and general settlement contexts (Fig.
3.3d). The decline of tools in burials is perhaps exaggerated by the fact that fewer LC
cemeteries have been excavated than from the MC period.
146
Regardless of this important
problem, the change in depositional practices between the MC and LC periods probably
reflects transformations of a socio-economic and political nature. Catling attributed these
changes to external influence, though his conclusion is too simplistic and does not
145 The decrease of metal tools in settlements may parallel the diachronic distribution of bronze vessels.
Metal vessels were more frequent on the mainland in the early Mycenaean era than after the LH IIIA
period. The shift in the occurrence of bronze vessels likely reflects changes in burial practices (the primary
Mycenaean context for the vessels) from the early LBA to the end of that age. By LH III B period, vessels
appear principally in hoards and treasures rather than graves. See, Matthäus 1980a, 340-342.
146 Catling (1964, 78) summarizes the contextual issues of the LC implements: “Few tools come from
controlled excavations; the larger tools are rarely, if ever, found in tombs, and the majority belongs to
founders’ hoards.”
69

accurately account for the internal developments on the island: “It seems quite certain
that the great change that then affected the industry [between the EC-MC and LC
periods] was not the result of an internal technical revolution, but was due to the impact
on the island of foreign metal-workers, their techniques and their products.” 147
Catling’s
claim is not supported by the current evidence, which shows that the island’s craft
industries, for the most part, seem to have acted upon indigenous preferences and
demands for tools. Judging by the broad regional and temporal tool tendencies, Cyprus
displays a unique dataset, reflecting very different social, economic, and political factors
in comparison to other areas (Figs. 3.1 and 3.3).
Classification of the entire corpus of tools into functional categories is shown in
Figure 3.4, and an analysis of the regional, chronological and contextual patterns of these
groupings constitute the majority of this chapter. Carpentry and masonry tools are the
most ubiquitous objects, followed, in quantity, by utilitarian objects, small craft tools,
agricultural tools, metallurgical implements (including stone molds), and ritual or
prestige items. The division of the dataset into functional categories indicates the
preference for tool types as well as the choices that were made in utilizing copper.
Agricultural and metallurgical tools are found in relatively low quantities. Many
implements for farming and metalworking are large, meaning that greater amounts of raw
metal was required to produce them; therefore it seems probable that their production and
use was confined to elite installations, which could afford them. Manufacturing smaller
tools, such as those intended for minor craft and utilitarian needs, did not require as much
material. The comparatively low number of metal agricultural tools suggests that they
were valuable with restricted distributions, most often found at large palatial or urban
147 Catling 1964, 78.
70

centers and within hoards (Fig. 3.6-7). Lithic and wooden agricultural tools were the
traditional forms, since they were easy to produce and their materials widely available.
Because of their low cost, non-metal agricultural equipment may have been preferred
over metal versions, though the latter were probably more efficient and long lasting. 148
Clearly metal agricultural tools were not essential, and they are preferred in some regions
and not in others. Likewise, the comparative dearth of tools for metalworking is
unanticipated given the good evidence for metallurgical activity throughout the second
millennium BC. The predominance of carpentry/masonry tools probably reflects the
advancements made in wood- and stone-working over the course of the MBA and LBA.
Moreover, these industries benefitted the most from metal cutting tools, and so such
implements were understandably produced and consumed in great quantities.
For analyzing contextual distributions in a more focused manner, sites are divided
into four categories according to a hierarchy—determined by importance and general
size. These are 1) Large, meaning central places such as palatial or urban centers, 2)
Medium, meaning sites secondary to the central places, 3) Minor, meaning rural or
unimpressive settings, and 4) Undetermined, because they are unstratified, stray finds, or
have no provenience. This categorization highlights the distribution of objects from site
to site and indicates which levels of society consumed tools more regularly than others.
Palatial or large urban sites have yielded nearly half of the tool dataset; the prominence of
such centers is evident in the following discussions about each tool category. Although
individual tools are common within archaeological contexts, greater importance was
148 It is also possible that metal edges were fitted to wooden agricultural implements, as known from
modern, pre-industrial times. Evidence for such practices, however, has not turned up or is yet to be
identified in the prehistoric record. Also see Sloane, 2002, viii for an explanation of the advantages of
wood over metal for agricultural, Early American tools.
71

given to stockpiled tools. Thirty-five percent of the utensils in the database were found
with at least one other implement, primarily because of the prevalence of tools in hoards
but also in burials and from shipwrecks. The significance of intentional tool groupings,
such as kits and hoards, represents an important research topic of this project, which is
described in more detail in Chapter 5. In the following sections the subdivisions by
function (see Figs. 3.4a, b) will be discussed in order; for each category, the tool patterns
will be presented by region, period and context.
V. Agricultural tools
Metal agricultural tools facilitated mundane tasks—such as digging and removing
earth, tilling hard and compact soil, and reaping cereals and grains—pigeonholing them
as ordinary implements. The infrequent appearance of these utensils in metal, however,
challenges this categorization (Fig. 3.4a, b). Metal agricultural implements had a special
economic value, indicated by their restricted chronological and geographic distribution.
Metal tools likely increased work productivity, yet they were not essential, and stone and
wooden agricultural utensils were successfully employed throughout the Neolithic and
Bronze Age. Linear B tablets document significant agrarian industries on the Greek
mainland and Crete, but the scattering of metal tools does not convey such a grand
picture of agricultural production. Bronze implements for farming were expensive to
produce and were probably objects for the privileged rather than essential, everyday
items. Common farmers could not have afforded these bronze tools, judging by the tight
control of metal that the Palace of Nestor maintained in allocating resources to the
72

Messenian smiths, as recorded in the Jn series of Linear B tablets. 149
The regional
consumption patterns of metal farming equipment, presented in this section, bear out their
limited frequency and implied worth.
Metal agricultural tools like hoes or plowshares, sickles and shovels were
basically non-existent in the early second millennium. Only six MBA metal examples are
known from the entire study region (Figs. 3.5a, b). At least on Crete, one may have
expected these tools to have been found, assuming that agricultural activity intensified
under the first palaces. Yet the production of metal farming tools perhaps was a luxury
even for the early palaces. The limited amounts of MBA copper certainly contributed to
the low count of these tools. It would have been wasteful to manufacture large metal
implements, when cheaper wooden and stone alternatives were effective. Metal versions
are found more regularly in the LBA only after tin-bronze became standard throughout
the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean and once metal resources were more prevalent.
The absence of these implements in the MBA is not an issue of archaeological recovery.
For example, Protopalatial Quartier Mu at Mallia is a well preserved and carefully
excavated MBA site with evidence for metalworking, including the production and
consumption of tools.
150
(e.g. molds or castings) does not exist.
Yet metal agricultural equipment or evidence of their production
Once metallic agricultural tools were available in the LBA, they complemented,
but did not replace, the wood and stone versions. Sickle-like blades were made of lithics
well before the introduction of the metal version, and they did not become obsolete when
149 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 140ff; Uchitel 1990, 195-199; Smith 1993, 171-204; Gillis 1997, 506 note
5. A similar, palatial bronzeworking system may have existed at Knossos as at Pylos; see, Killen 1987, 68-
70.
150 Poursat 1985; Poursat and Olivier 1996.
73

the larger and stronger metal types were made. Moreover, the importance and value of
wooden tools in farming should not be underestimated. Wooden hoes, plows, and shovels
were effective in breaking up soil, especially if their tips were fire-hardened. The efficacy
of wood implements is clear from ethnographic examples. 151 Wooden tools may also
incorporate a small portion of metal to fashion an effective implement. For instance, one
could line the tip of a wooden plowshare or shovel with metal; this practice would limit
the amount of metal that was needed without sacrificing functionality. Winnowing-forks
(or pitch-forks), rakes, harrows, and threshing sledges are other effective implements
typically made from wood, thus emphasizing the importance of the material to
agricultural activities. 152
Yet with the inception of metal agricultural equipment, the
efficiency of digging and plowing likely increased. There are regional differences,
however, in the use of metal for agricultural tools.
By the LBA (Fig 3.5b), there is a dramatic rise in agricultural tools (381
examples), although the proportion of these metal items (10.9%) was low in comparison
to other functional tool categories. Regional patterns of consumption are distinctive in
this period. Metal agricultural implements were more prominent in the eastern
Mediterranean than in the Aegean. Cyprus and Syria-Palestine exhibit a comparable
percentage (just under 20%) of their region’s total tool count (Fig. 3.5a, b). The
preference for this functional category in the eastern Mediterranean is reinforced by
numerous fragmentary (and some complete) picks and hoes—probably originally from
Cyprus—aboard the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck. Bronze tools for agriculture were
151 Frank and Miller 2001, 28.In a discussion of Early American tools, Sloane (2002, viii) notes that
wooden shovels may have been more effective and more durable than metal versions.
152 For modern evidence of these tools made in wood, see: Wulff 1966, 267, 275-6 (20 th century Persia);
Polyzoi 2009, 63 (19 th and 20 th century Greece); Whittaker 2000, 61-62, 64-66 (Cyprus); Frank and Miller
2001, 37-38 (colonial New Mexico).
74

exclusive items inaccessible to most individuals—especially rural farmers. The
distribution of agricultural tools according to a site’s size supports this claim (Fig. 3.6 and
Fig. 3.9a-f). The preponderance of agricultural tools came from palatial or urban centers.
Lower-level sites yielded these implements as well, but there was clearly differential
access to metal agricultural tools. Nearly half of the farming instruments were recovered
in hoards, while a substantial number of tools came from shipwrecks (Figs. 3.7 and 3.9a-
g). Agricultural implements are much rarer in other contexts. The primary distribution of
these tools in hoards and at palatial-like sites highlights their restricted nature. In some
cases, the agricultural equipment may have been controlled by an authoritative agency,
akin to the farming tools in the MBA Kutalla hoard from Mesopotamia. 153
Several aspects regarding the Cypriot and the Levantine tool data stand out and
imply that these cultures shared similar tendencies in agriculture: 1) the popularity and
common incidence of agricultural tools, 2) the standard preferences for certain tool types,
and 3) parallel find contexts. Generally, sickles and hoes/plowshares dominate the
agrarian tool forms (Fig. 3.8). Picks are also common, though restricted to Cyprus and the
154
Gelidonya shipwreck.
Cyprus yielded a diverse assemblage of agricultural tools, many
of which are not found in abundance elsewhere (Fig. 3.9d). Syria-Palestine’s repertoire
lacked the Cypriot diversity, yet the proportion of agricultural tools, calculated from the
total number of Levantine tools, matched that of Cyprus (Fig. 3.5a, b). Sickles and
153 The management of agricultural implements by a state is attested from the Mesopotamian MBA. The
18 th century BC Kutalla (or Loftus) hoard from Tell Sifr (Iraq) supplies evidence of a state-owned cache
consisting of numerous agricultural tools (14 spade blades and 48 sickles) that were stored seasonally.
Mesopotamian textual records confirm that agricultural equipment was collected and stashed away by the
state during times of inactivity; implements were later redistributed when the appropriate work period
began. See Moorey 1971.
154 The picks on the Gelidonya wreck were likely picked up on Cyprus, as pointed out by Bass 1967, 88.
Within Cyprus, the picks are mostly concentrated at Enkomi. It is somewhat surprising that picks are not
found in other regions. Pick-adzes are found on Crete, but single picks are absent on Crete other than an
EBA-MBA example from Selakanos.
75

hoes/plowshares were preferred in both regions; Cyprus yielded 33 sickles and 35
plowshare/hoe objects from the LBA while Syria-Palestine produced 14 sickles and 16
plowshares/hoes from the same period (Fig. 3.9d, f). 155 Cyprus produced other evidence
for plowshares including three castings and a metal mold. 156 There are other agricultural
similarities between Cyprus and the Levant; an Ugaritic shovel has its parallel with
Cypriot types. 157 Deshayes identified a blade from Ras Shamra as a pruning knife. 158 This
specialized blade (also found on Crete) cut the stem of grapes to limit the flow of water
and also grafted fruit trees. The use of such a tool suggests certain agricultural products,
specifically wine and raisins. The Syro-Palestinian knife resembles the ‘pruning hooks’
from Cyprus and the Gelidonya shipwreck. 159
Both Cypriot and Syro-Palestinian agrarian
implements are primarily found in large palatial or urban sites, thus cementing the related
agricultural profiles of the two regions.
Metal farming items were restricted to privileged personnel (at least on the Greek
mainland, Cyprus and Syria-Palestine) because of their cost and the availability and
effectiveness of traditional wood and stone tools. The prestige given to agricultural metal
tools is substantiated by cultic deposits. Six tools came from Cypriot and Anatolian
sanctuaries, and a miniature, possibly votive, sickle was recovered at Enkomi.
plowshare castings found underneath Temple 4 at Kition formed a foundation/votive
155
These numbers do not include the general second millennium agricultural tools from Syria-Palestine (2
sickles and a plowshare).
156
Plowshare castings are found in the Kition foundation and Mathiati hoards (Karageorghis and Demas
1985, 109, plate 88.4, 6; Catling 1964, 284, plate 51g). The plowshare mold comes from the Enkomi
Gunnis hoard (Catling 1964, 281-282).
157
Galliano and Calvet 2004, 189 entry 176 and 254 entry 296.
158
Deshayes 1960, catalogue entry 2865.
159
In addition to the quantity of pruning hooks reported in Figures 3.9d and 3.9f, there is a metal pruning
hook mold from the Mathiati hoard on Cyprus; see Catling 1964, 282-284, plate 50b.
160
Dikaios 1969, plate 147.45a, figure 176.47.
160
Two
76

deposit. 161
These finds prove that certain agrarian metal objects, including miniatures and
castings, conveyed a sense of prestige and potentially religious connotations.
The appeal of agricultural metal tools in the eastern Mediterranean is emphasized
by their abundance on shipwrecks. Cape Gelidonya yielded over a hundred agricultural
items, mostly fragmentary picks and hoes, though complete examples were also
162
recovered (Fig. 3.9g). Another hoe/plowshare came to light when the Institute of
Nautical Archaeology (INA) briefly re-investigated the site in the late 1980s. 163 Bass’
interpretation of the ship’s metal cargo was influenced by the agricultural objects, which
he identified as scrap metal. Bass envisioned a metal smith on board who provided
metallurgical services at each port of call and who utilized the broken tools as raw
material for manufacturing new objects. In addition to the picks and hoes, a variety of
other agricultural tools were discovered at Gelidonya, including a sickle, shovel, mattock
and two pruning hooks. The diversity of these tools suggests that they were deliberately
assembled. Given the infrequency of bronze agricultural tools in the study region, the
shipwreck’s impressive tool cache may suggest that that the farming implements retained
a value greater than scrap metal. The identification of all of the utensils as scrap warrants
re-evaluation, for other shipwrecks produced complete agricultural tools. Seven sickles
and one hoe/plowshare were found with the Uluburun shipwreck. 164
A concentration of
metal objects, including a plowshare, was found underwater near Kibbutz Hahotrim,
Israel (south of Haifa). This site likely represents a scattering of objects thrown overboard
161
Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 109, plate 88.4, 6.
162
Bass 1967, 84-95.
163
Bass 1988, 2-5; Pulak 1988b, 13-17.
164
There may be additional Uluburun agricultural tools not yet conserved or published.
77

ather than a shipwreck. 165
Yet, like the Gelidonya and Uluburun examples, the Kibbutz
Hahotrim plowshare was probably taken aboard a vessel for an undetermined reason.
The existence of LBA agricultural equipment at three different underwater sites in
the eastern Mediterranean raises important questions about the value of the tools. Metal
sickles and plowshares perhaps were commodities traded throughout the eastern
Mediterranean and Aegean on account of their prestige or utility. Alternatively, they may
represent part of the tool assemblage kept on the ship. The objects on a Byzantine
seventh-century shipwreck at Yassi Ada (Turkey) included several kinds of agricultural
166
tools: one spade, one hoe, seven billhooks and two mattocks. These implements were
discovered with two axes, leading Katzev to conclude that “these tools would have been
used by a shore party landed to replenish the ship’s supply of fresh water, firewood, and
food as well as to collect timber for hull repairs and brush dunnage for cargo storage.” 167
It is uncertain whether the complete agricultural implements from the Bronze Age
shipwrecks served a similar purpose. The economic implication is that individuals on
those early ships acquired a type of wealth generally unavailable to most commoners:
agricultural tools.
Crete and the Greek mainland had highly productive agricultural systems, as
indicated by the textual evidence and analogies between the large Aegean palatial
magazines and Near Eastern centers.
168
Yet metal agricultural tools on Crete are not
common, judging by their total numbers and their low proportion within the region’s tool
165 Wachsmann 2009, 208-209.
166 Katzev 1982, 265.
167 Katzev 1982, 265.
168 Finley 1957, 134-136; Palmer 1998-1999, 223-225; Palmer (2001, 43) notes that the Near Eastern
analogies prevent comparisons between prehistoric and historical Greek agriculture: “Since the 1950s, the
approaches taken to study Late Bronze Age Greece, and the close parallels of the Linear B economic
records with Near Eastern palace records, rather than Homeric or Classical economy and society have
accentuated the differences between Mycenaean and Classical Greece.”
78

count (Figs. 3.5b and 3.9a) — this, in spite of well-documented storage centers for
agricultural surplus at Knossos, Mallia, and Phaistos. The dearth of Minoan agricultural
implements is underscored by the fact that Evely’s seminal work on Minoan tools does
not show any agrarian items. The Aegean palatial archives and storerooms point to a
successful agricultural industry as part of a staple-based economy. 169 Evidently, the
combination of high costs for manufacturing metal items and the availability of cheap
stone and wood alternatives resulted in a limited number of bronze tools for farming. The
lack of such metal implements, however, did not coincide with inadequate agricultural
yields, judging by the surplus storage areas in the Cretan palace centers. 170
Commonalities in agricultural tools between the eastern Mediterranean and the
Aegean are few. The scanty occurrence of agricultural metal implements within the
Aegean tool assemblages is striking (Fig. 3.5a, b; 3.9a-c). The preferred agricultural tool
in prehistoric Greece was the sickle, which aided the harvest of cereals. Of the 80 LBA
Aegean tools, sickles comprise 65 (81.3%) of the known examples (Figs. 3.9a-c). Sickles
are also the most common agricultural tool in Anatolia and the Uluburun shipwreck. The
171
Aegean world is noted for its multiplicity of crops as early as the Neolithic period.
Archaeobotanical evidence from LBA Aegean sites has revealed a wide range of cereals
(wheat, barley, corn, emmer, hulled barley, bread wheat) and pulses (lentils, chickpea,
pea, bean, celtic bean, bitter vetch, Spanish vetchling). 172
Despite this rich assortment of
crops, the Linear B, Linear A and Cretan Hieroglyphic texts each only have two grain
169
Christakis 2008.
170
For a discussion on the implications of storage in the Neopalatial palaces, see Christakis 2008.
171
Halstead 1992, 107.
172
Halstead 1992, 108, Table 1; Hansen (1988, 42) also reports the primary plants and crops from the
Aceramic Neolithic through the Late Bronze Age in Greece. Also see, Palmer 2008, 623.
79

ideograms. 173 The Linear B ideograms (*120, *121) were originally interpreted to be
emmer wheat and barley, but Palmer argues that those exact designations are not secure,
although staple foods and grains are likely represented. 174 Killen believes that *120 and
*121 definitely represent wheat and barley but is uncertain which ideogram corresponds
to which cereal. 175
The diverse archaeobotanical data from the Aegean and the frequent mention of
grains in the texts seem to coincide with the region’s preference for the metal sickle. The
high occurrence of the tool within the Aegean is comparable to the pattern from the
eastern Mediterranean, but it is unclear whether the same cereals were cultivated in both
regions. A more detailed investigation of sickles, beyond what is presented here, may
reflect the types of grains harvested. Wulff notes that ethnography of Iranian agricultural
practices demonstrates that sickles were used “after the grain is fully matured, except
176
barley, which is pulled out by the roots.” Moreover, there are important functional
variations in morphologically-different sickles: “Two types of sickle are found [in
Persia], hooked grain-cutting sickles and a much smaller, almost straight one that is
actually a grass-cutting sickle but is sometimes also used for smaller plots of grain.” 177
Evidently, variations in the size and form of a sickle may reflect the diversity of the crops
harvested.
The dearth of metal digging implements (shovels, hoes/plowshares, etc.) in the
Aegean is surprising (Figs. 3.9a-c). Halstead argues that Cretan farmers employed ox-
drawn plows: “[There are] a number of indications of extensive plough agriculture in the
173
Killen 2004, 156-160;Palmer 2008, 622, 624ff.
174
Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 130; Palmer 2008, 621, 637.
175
Killen 2004, 156.
176
Wulff 1966, 271-272.
177
Wulff 1966, 272.
80

late bronze age palace archives of Crete. First the archives record working oxen, and the
maintenance of specialist work animals suggests large-scale agricultural concerns.” 178
Pairs of oxen are indeed listed in the Knossos Ce, Ch and C tablets. 179 Moreover, a
Minoan hieroglyphic sign (#27) is interpreted as a plow, confirming the importance of the
implement in the MBA. 180 Although a simple device, the plow was “required to break up
the soils for planting and to insure that the crops planted receive enough moisture from
the rain.” 181 One might expect the Aegean to have produced more metal plowing
equipment, for the plow is attested as early as the EBA with terracotta yoked-oxen
figurines from the Corinthia (Tsoungiza). 182 On Cyprus, the plow is depicted as early as
the third millennium with the terracotta Vounous model, but metal plowshares did not
appear on the island until the 13 th and 12 th centuries. Tillage with plows does not require
the tool’s end to be metal, as articulated by Catling: “It is to be assumed that for many
centuries, ploughs carried no metal share, the scratch point was perhaps fire-hardened to
help it withstand the wear and tear of use.” 183
Apparently, wood plows were not replaced
with metal versions in the Aegean Bronze Age. It is unclear why bronze plowshares were
ignored by Aegean peoples when such implements were regularly used in the eastern
Mediterranean. Based upon storage capacities and palatial records, the Aegean
agricultural system operated successfully without the excessive employment of metal
implements.
178
Halstead 1992, 112. Also see, Halstead 1995a, 18.
179
Halstead 1999a, 319.
180
Hansen 1988, 51, figure 3.
181
Pullen 1992, 48.
182
Pullen 1992, 48-53. Halstead 1995a, 11.
183
Catling 1964, 81; Pullen 1992, 48-53.
81

The relative absence of Aegean digging implements is also curious since the
Mycenaeans were highly skilled in manipulating the landscape and moving large
amounts of earth. Innumerable tools were required for the construction of earthen levies
in the Kopaic basin drainage project, for the diversion of a river bed and the construction
of an earthen dam near Tiryns, for additional irrigation works in Arcadian Orchomenos,
and for local needs, such as the excavation and reopening of chamber tombs. 184 Digging
instruments, including shovels and plowshares, are attested in a few LBA contexts, and
presumably they were utilized in these massive projects. Loader calculated that
approximately 52,000 and 300,000 cubic meters of earth were removed to create the
canals at Tiryns and the Kopaic basin, respectively. 185 The soil from the canals formed
the earth embankments of the water systems, meaning that the earth was not transported
very far from where it was dug out. Although digging tools were necessary to break up
the soil, the earth could easily be removed in baskets, as suggested by depictions of
laborers in Egyptian paintings. 186 Smaller projects, such as hollowing out wells and
reshaping terraces, also required implements that facilitated the transformation and
movement of earth. 187
Thus the scarcity of metal digging tools in the Aegean is
unexpected, given the numerous earthen projects of the Mycenaeans.
Although the Aegean did not produce excessive quantities of metal agricultural
tools, textual sources and storage areas for harvested products suggest that farming
thrived in the region. Clearly, wood and stone implements were utilized more often than
metal ones in Aegean agrarian practices. Metal tools for farming were generally
184
Kopaic basin: Iakovidis 2001; Knauss 1996; Tiryns dam: Balcer 1974; Zangger 1994; Knauss 2004.
Arcadian Orchomenos: Knauss 1996.
185
Loader 1998, 101-109, 181 appendix 4.
186
For a short discussion of Aegean baskets, see Evely 1999.
187
For a discussion on the possibility of terracing the Aegean Bronze Age, see: Rackham and Moody 1992.
82

unavailable outside the Mycenaean palatial centers (Fig. 3.9b), thereby resembling the
restrictive distributions of the implements in other regions (e.g. Cyprus and Syria-
Palestine in Figs. 3.9d, f). The limited distribution of the metallic agricultural tools may
reflect a palatial role in agrarian activity. The Linear B archives (e.g. the Pylos E-series)
do attest to extensive land holdings, presumably related to agriculture and animal
husbandry. 188
Since the decipherment of Linear B, the palaces and their records have
traditionally been understood as reflecting a centralized operation that redistributed staple
189
goods. Thus agriculture at and within the vicinity of Knossos, Pylos and Mycenae was
thought to be controlled by the palace, especially with regard to the production of grain,
wool, and flax. 190 Subsequently, the Mycenaean economy has been modeled as either
staple or wealth finance systems, although Nakassis has recently challenged this
dichotomy. 191 Palatial interests in agricultural production were dictated by needs of the
elites and “palace personnel.” 192 Local communities, according to Killen and Halstead,
were the primary agents of grain distribution rather than palatial centers. 193 Galaty and
Parkinson reach a similar conclusion: “the palaces did not collect agricultural surpluses
from all members of society and then reallocate them…the Mycenaean elite appear to
have taken only as much as was necessary to run the palaces.” 194
This assertion is
amended by Nakassis’ interpretation of the Pylian staple goods in the Linear B records.
These texts confirm the collection of staple grains and livestock by the palace; such
188
Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 237, 266 (Er01); Palmer 1998-1999; Halstead 1992, 112.
189
Finley 1957, 134-136. For an overview of this issue and its problems, see Halstead 1988.
190
Palmer 2001, 55.
191
Nakassis 2010. For wealth finance models, see: Halstead 1992; Galaty and Parkinson 2007.
192
Palmer 2001, 53; Halstead 2001.
193
Killen 1998; Halstead 2001, 50.
194
Galaty and Parkinson 2007, 5, 13.
83

goods were redistributed in two distinctive ways: through palace-sponsored feasts and as
payments to certain skilled laborers. 195 When goods were collected by the Pylian palace,
it was often for the feasts. Nakassis emphasizes that the “direct allocation of staple goods
to individuals in return for goods or services rendered” was a form of payment (with
adjustable quantities) rather than regular rations. 196
Although the palaces did not reallocate staple goods to the general population
(except for the public feasts and payments to individuals), two different systems for
collecting harvested products existed. It is clear that local village landholdings and their
197
products were subject to taxation by the palaces. Killen also argued that the grains
listed in the Linear B texts were produced on village landholdings rather than on palatial
land. 198 Other legal arrangements are also possible, and some tablets from Knossos are
concerned primarily with the grain produced by specific fields or certain individuals
rather than the total quantities accumulated in the palace. 199 These observations imply a
share-cropping system that provided staple goods for the Mycenaean palaces, but not
necessarily in surplus quantities. Halstead describes how this operation may have
worked: “palatial grain production involved a share-cropping arrangement, whereby the
palace provided plough animals and perhaps their fodder, while local communities
provided human labour and ostensibly land.” 200
If the palaces provided oxen to plow
fields in a share-cropping system as the Linear B texts suggest, it is reasonable to assume
that agricultural equipment was also distributed by the palaces. Thus, expensive metal
195 Nakassis 2010, 133-138.
196 Nakassis 2010, 134.
197 Killen 1984.
198 Killen 1998; Galaty and Parkinson 2007, 13.
199 Halstead 1999a, 319.
200 Halstead 2001, 41.
84

agricultural tools perhaps were tightly controlled and loaned out under contractual share-
cropping arrangements between the palace and local communities.
Considering the dearth of agricultural implements in the Aegean, it is worth
reviewing what is known about agriculture from the second millennium beyond the
textual records. Botanical evidence provides the greatest help, for the agricultural systems
of localized sites and broader regions may be reconstructed with the appropriate data. 201
Major changes in Aegean farming occurred during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze
Age; this transition is marked by “greater crop diversity, increasing crop purity and
specialization and intensification in land use resulting in the production of surplus.” 202
Zangger also recognized a vital transformation in the Pylian landscape during the LBA:
after forests were cleared for grazing, the planting and cultivation of olive and orchard
trees followed (according to evidence gleaned from pollen cores). 203 By the LBA, “the
majority of Mycenaean farmers would have practiced small scale mixed farming,”
according to Palmer. 204 Subsistence farming would have resulted in scattered agricultural
sites, cultivation of diverse crops and storage of surpluses. 205
Any discussion of agriculture must take into account the relevant soil conditions.
Greek soils are poorly developed with low levels of clay and nitrogen due to an arid
206
climate and limited surface vegetation. Zangger has argued that the Aegean—
especially Thessaly, the Argive Plain and the southern Argolid—witnessed a period of
serious soil erosion “within 1000 years after the introduction of agriculture.” 207
The
201
Hansen 1994, 186.
202
Hansen 1988, 51.
203
Palmer 2001, 65; Zangger et al. 1997, 589-592.
204
Palmer 2001, 76.
205
Sarpaki 1992, 61-2.
206
Sarpaki 1992, 62.
207
Zangger 1992, 18; Sarpaki (1992, 62) also observes that agriculture adversely affected soil conditions.
85

Bronze Age Mediterranean climate is comparable to the modern environment, and so
dry-farming, dependent on natural rain, was prominent, as it is today. 208 The need to
retain water in the absence of irrigation in prehistoric Greece may have caused farmers to
exploit (and protect) the landscape by forming terraces, although these have been difficult
to discover in the landscape. 209 The implications of soil erosion on agricultural activity
and its yield remain unknown. Soil investigations are extremely useful for
comprehending the agricultural potential of certain landscapes. 210 Morris’ monograph on
the soil conditions at Karphi, Chrysokamino and Kavousi (Vronda and Kastro) in Crete
offers an excellent example of this type of study. 211 Morris considers the water-holding
capacity of different soils for determining the capability of various locations for
achieving agricultural success. He notes that two soil types in the Kavousi region,
rendzina and alluvium, were “suitable for farming if adequate moisture was present.” 212
Morris is thus able to reconstruct the area’s agricultural activity based on a concurrent
examination of the archaeological and soil data.
A full understanding of second millennium agriculture must take into account
palatial records, palaeobotanical evidence, indications of storage for surpluses, the nature
of soils and, of course, the preserved agricultural implements. The distribution of farming
tools sheds light on the regional choices in metal consumption. There are obvious
208
Van Wersch 1972, 177; Yassoglou and Haidouti. 1978, 33; Bintliff 1977, 17-18. Cf. Moody, Rackham,
and Rapp 1996, 293-294 (for differences between the present environment and prehistory). For the modern
Cretan environment, see Rackham and Moody 1996, 33-38.
209
Zangger 1992, 18; Rackham and Moody (1992, 129) observe that modern Greek walled terraces were
hardly damaged by severe rainstorms and that only nominal water erosion occurred. Morris (2002, 44)
notes that agricultural terraces will erode over time as demonstrated by the erosion of Minoan terraces at
Karphi.
210
Yassoglou and Haidouti 1978; Bintliff 1977, 5-6, figures 1-2; Parsons and Gifford 1995, 292-305;
Grove and Rackham 2001, 262, 266-267.
211
Morris 2002.
212
Morris 2002, 76.
86

disparities between the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean in the methods employed for
cultivating, tilling and manipulating the land. The restricted availability of valuable metal
agricultural tools exposes how various cultures employed metal resources differently.
Therefore, it would be a mistake to identify distinctions in agricultural production and
efficiency based solely on the distribution of metal tools.
VI. Metallurgical tools (including non-metal types)
Implements associated with metalworking were comparatively rare (Fig. 3.4a, b,
Fig. 3.10a, b). There are 357 metallurgical tools, representing 6.7% of the dataset, yet
only 128 of these examples are metal. The other tools consist of stone and ceramic molds,
which are classified here as smithing implements. The paucity of metallurgical tools does
not match the comprehensive evidence for second millennium metalworking, as seen
with the distribution of raw materials (copper ingots), finished objects (tools, weapons,
vessels, etc.) and remnants of metalworking operations (slag, furnace fragments,
crucibles, tuyères). The prevalence of metalworking is well documented throughout the
MBA and LBA, except on the Greek mainland (see the brief metallurgy summaries in
Chapters 1 and 6). Therefore, metalworking is attested archaeologically more so through
traces of smelting, melting, and casting processes than from the quantities and
distributions of the metallurgical tools. Slag was discarded in heaps at or near production
sites, while tools were repaired and recycled, thus limiting their preservation in the
archaeological record. The scarcity of metallurgical utensils does not mean that they were
irrelevant to the industry, and the distribution of the tools alone is not a reliable gauge for
assessing the prevalence of metalworking. More metallurgical implements exist in the
LBA (203 examples) than in the preceding period (119 examples; Fig. 3.10a, b). The
87

frequency of these tools, however, decreases slightly from the MBA (9.9%) to the LBA
(5.8%). There are 32 undated tools, and their percentage (6.3%) within the general
second millennium collection coincides with the LBA frequency. The intermittent
occurrence of metalworking instruments is partially attributed to problems in
archaeological preservation and to the contexts in which the tools are usually found.
Metallurgical implements are rare in burials and shipwrecks, but common in settlements,
typical of workshops, and occasionally found in hoards (Fig. 3.12).
The implement set associated with metallurgical activity is diverse, reflecting a
multi-stage production process. Evely divided the metallurgical tool kit into three
categories: melting, casting and working. 213
Hearths, crucibles, tongs, withies, blowpipes,
bellows, tuyères and molds are associated with melting and/or casting. The majority of
these items, except for tongs and molds, were excluded from the current dataset since
they are not tools according to the definition outlined for this particular study. The range
of equipment for metalworking was great, and the tools reflect only a portion of the items
that were required. In addition to metalworking implements, furnaces or fragments
thereof, bellow pieces, tuyères, and crucibles are essential for staging metallurgical
operations and are well preserved in the archaeological record. The assortment of
implements related to Evely’s “working” stage include: hammers, mallets, punches,
points, drills, chisels, anvils, sinking blocks, tracers, swages and mandrels, stakes and
whetstones. The recognition of punches and points as metallurgical implements is open to
discussion. These small objects could enhance the work of a smith, but an exclusive
metallurgical function cannot be assigned to them. Consequently, diminutive pointed
213 Evely 2000, 326, figure 130.
88

objects are classified in this study under “small craft” tools rather than as metalworking
tools.
Although whetstones and cold chisels (wide implements with a flanged butt)
could have served metalworking purposes, they were not listed in the database as
metallurgical tools. Whetstones were excluded from the dataset and all chisels were
grouped as carpentry and masonry tools. 214
Whetstones are typically discovered with
metal implements, especially in burial and settlement contexts. They function, like files,
to manipulate certain items, and are especially apt for finishing and retouching the cutting
edges of implements and weapons. Whetstones also act as polishers or rubbers on other
stones, and are not strictly metallurgical in nature.
Thick cold chisels are potential implements for cutting or incising metal.
215 Some
of the marked surfaces on the copper oxhide ingots from Gelidonya and Uluburun are
thought to have been made with cold chisels. 216
As is shown in Chapter 5, metal
instruments could be cut and their shape manipulated. The broken edges of some metal
tools have cut marks, indicating that the objects were struck and severed by a cutting
implement, perhaps a chisel. Like whetstones, cold chisels suggest that other smithing
implements existed, which may be classified in other functional categories.
Hammers present another conundrum in the classification of tool types. Metal
hammers were not limited to metallurgy, for carpentry and masonry activities also
214
For a good assemblage of whetstones, see those from Kommos: Blitzer 1995, 441-447.
215
Catling (1964, 96) identifies cold chisels, however, as potential wedges that aided the “splitting of light
timber.”
216
Numerous Gelidonya ingots were impressed or incised with a sign (Bass 1967, 72-73) and 32 different
marks are found on Uluburun ingots; these incisions were made post-casting, possibly “at some point of
receipt or export rather than at the primary production center or centers” (Pulak 1998, 194-196). This
supposition is supported by a broad, cold chisel (KW 3577) found with some Uluburun ingots; the width of
the chisel blade is comparable to the length of the incisions on the ingots, leading Pulak (1992, 7) to assert
that the wide chisel marked some ingots.
89

mandated a striking implement. Wooden mallets are an option for carpenters and masons,
but the effectiveness of wooden hammers in metalworking is dubious. Stone hammers
were perhaps employed by all industries, especially for masonry but also for
metallurgy. 217 Doumas claimed that the Aegean smiths in the EBA used stone hammer-
axes to manufacture metal sheets and vessels. 218 For classification purposes, metal
hammers are included with smithing tools. Several different metal hammer types were
employed, including sledgehammers, miniature hammers, double-hammers, ax-hammers
and adze-hammers. 219
Large stone hammers or even substantial rocks could have been
serviceable items (and cheaper alternatives to metal versions) within the smith’s tool kit.
Stone hammers were excluded from the dataset, even though they could have been
valuable objects to metal smiths.
The known assortment and quantities of metalworking tools are presented in
Figure 3.13. Metallurgical tool types are split into two general divisions based upon the
thermal conditions that objects encountered. In order to manipulate and control pyro-
technology, implements that created distance between user and fire were indispensable.
Instruments for working with hot materials include tongs, (charcoal) shovels, furnace
spatulas, crucibles, crucible scrapers and molds. “Cold” metallurgical tools are
represented by various hammer forms, anvils/stakes, files, swage blocks, castings, billets,
wedge-like tools, and ingot breakers,
220
217 Stone dressing hammers were used in both Hittite and Mycenaean masonry work. For Anatolian
examples: Boehmer 1972, 218-220, plates LXXXVIII-XC; Boehmer 1979, 55-56, plates XXXIII-XXXIV;
Neve 2002, 93. Thaler 2007, 295. For Greek mainland examples: Wace 1949, 34, 36, 44, 135-136; Loader
1998, 47; Wright 2006, 17 figure 1.4.
218 Doumas 1998, 160.
219 Catling 1964, 99-100.
as well as the aforementioned whetstones and
220 Copper oxhide ingots are found in quarters and halves in addition to wholes. Presumably, oxhide ingots
were always produced in wholes, and so a substantial implement must have cut the thick ingots into the
desired proportions. Heavy duty chisels may have served this purpose, but this is unclear. For the sake of
90

cold chisels. The distinction between hot and cold metalworking tools helps to discern
different stages of metallurgy. Castings, billets, hammers, anvils, files, whetstones and
cold chisels are objects that suggest secondary or post-firing metal work.
The regional patterns for metallurgical tools reveal interesting cross-cultural
similarities and differences. Although Cyprus yielded the greatest collection tools from
the MBA, the island produced only four metallurgical implements from that time (Fig.
3.10a, b). MBA tools for metalworking are primarily found on Crete and Anatolia (Fig.
3.10a, b), where important early metallurgical sites are recognized (see metallurgical
summary in Chapter 6). The highest regional percentage of metallurgical tools is from
MBA Anatolia, where molds are the predominant implement type (Fig. 3.10a, b; Fig.
3.14e). The LBA Anatolian metallurgical tools are not as frequent as in the previous
period, but their consumption percentage is comparable to Crete and Cyprus from the
same time (around 8%) and suggestive of common craft preferences. As evident in
Anatolia, the percentage of metallurgical tools declined on Crete over the course of the
second millennium. There was a larger assemblage of metalworking utensils from the
Cretan LBA, but the percentage (Fig. 3.10a) decreased from that of the MBA. The
preferred metallurgical tool types remained consistent during the Cretan second
millennium, although tongs and anvils are unknown from MM contexts (Fig. 3.14a).
Aegean metalworking in the MBA preserved a tradition of that craft stemming
from the third millennium. 221
It is inexplicable why the percentage of Cretan and
mainland metallurgical tools declined from the MBA to the LBA (Fig. 3.10a, b); these
discussion, wedge-like tools or sledgehammers may have been appropriate implements for this task. No
unambiguous ingot breakers are currently known, yet the existence of such a tool is substantiated by logic
and hypothesized for at least two metal objects from the Mochlos Metal Merchant hoard (see Soles 2008,
151).
221 Day and Doonan 2007; Kakavogianni et al. 2008; Muhly 2008b; Gale et al. 2008; Betancourt 2008.
91

patterns occur despite the fact that metal consumption was much higher in the later
period—evident in part by the number of metal tools in each period (Fig. 3.1a, b). How is
it possible that MH metalworking tools are more frequent in their assemblage than LH
examples? Evidence for MH period is poor in the number of preserved metal objects, yet
traces of its meager, indigenous, metallurgical industry are evident. The MH metallurgy
is represented by a few molds, crucibles and foundries. Iakovidis interprets this evidence
as “an indigenous and widespread [MH] metal industry, operating from Thessaly to the
Peloponnese and practiced by local smiths working on their own and for their small
communities.” 222 Despite the remarkable rise in the mainland’s consumption of metal
products from the MBA to LBA, the frequency of smithing tools falls over these
periods. 223
Only 2.4% of the LH tools are identified as metalworking implements (found
in hoards, settlements and burials; Figs. 3.10b; 3.14b), and the absence of Mycenaean
metallurgical workshops in the archaeological record may account for this unexpected
pattern.
Metallurgical activity on the LH mainland is traditionally inferred from numerous
Mycenaean metal hoards, the contents of which are regularly interpreted as recyclable
material. Although these hoards are suggestive of metallurgical activity, the
archaeometallurgical evidence (crucibles, molds, tuyères, bellows, etc.) for pyro-
technological operations is entirely missing from these contexts and the LH mainland in
general. The veritable explosion of finished metal objects on the mainland in the LBA
thus contradicts the scanty evidence for metal workshops and smithing tools.
222 Iakovidis 1982, 213.
223 Iakovidis (1982, 214) notes that, “[p]ractically every LH site in Greece has yielded bronze artifacts.”
92

The primary difference between the MH and LH metallurgical implements is the
latter’s wider range of tool forms (Fig. 3.14b). Molds are the sole MH metalworking
implement, but a diverse selection of LH hot- and cold-working tools is preserved. Only
two LH molds are known, and the general absence of these objects on the LH mainland
underscores the lack of archaeological evidence for casting operations in Mycenaean
contexts. Nearly half of the LH smithing tools were found at large sites, where
metallurgy was more likely to have transpired. Charcoal shovels for metalworking are
known on Cyprus, and a long-handled, elaborate brazier from the Vaphio tholos tomb
may be interpreted in the same light. 224
This suggestion, however, is speculative, for the
Vaphio object would be the only metallurgical shovel outside of Cyprus.
As with several tool categories, the Cypriot consumption patterns of metallurgical
utensils are localized and different from the neighboring regions. Metalworking tools are
uncommon in the MC period, despite some archaeometallurgical remnants from this time
(suggestive of metal workshops) and the remarkably rich assemblage of MC copper-alloy
items. The low quantity and infrequency of MC metalworking tools belies the apparent
prosperity of the early, indigenous metal industry on the island. Copper-alloy objects in
the MC period typically occur in burials, but this context is the least common for
metalworking tools. The noteworthy rise in the occurrence (both quantity and frequency)
and variation of LC metalworking tools (tongs, sledgehammers, anvils and molds) is
partly due to greater archaeological exploration of settlements from that period (Fig.
3.14d). Given the more developed and expansive LC metallurgical industry, an elevated
incidence of metalworking tools is not surprising. The negligible percentage of MC tools
224 For charcoal shovels on Cyprus, see Catling 1964, 100-101; For the Vaphio brazier, see Kilian-
Dirlmeier 1987; Tripathi 1988, 366 entry 1328 with references.
93

is even more striking when compared to the relatively high proportion of Aegean and
Anatolian metalworking objects in the MBA (Fig. 3.10a, b).
Although there is no standard correlation between an industry’s level of
production and the percentage of preserved metallurgical tools, the consumption patterns
of metalworking tools are meaningful. The LC metallurgical tool repertoire is the most
diversified, and several Cypriot tools, like charcoal shovels, furnace spatulas, metal
molds and a crucible scraper (Fig. 3.14d), are not attested elsewhere. 225 The frequency
and variety of these Cypriot tools indicates an advanced and dispersed metallurgical
industry, at least for the LC era. Once again, Cyprus is unique in that its hoards are a
common context for metalworking tools; this phenomenon is not as prominent in other
regions. Some foundry hoards contain metallurgical tools, and such implements, when
found in that context, may represent a smith’s tool kit. Metallurgical tools appear
regularly in large urban centers (like Enkomi), possibly reflecting authoritative control
over metallurgical activity and production. 226 Urban localities are more likely to have
traces of metallurgical workshops than rural settings. 227
Smiths regularly worked at
urbanized sites for several reasons, including but not limited to the following: 1) craft
production may have depended upon or been subjugated to centralized, palatial control;
2) more densely populated areas would have provided a better market to sell finished
225
A spatula from Gelidonya may have functioned like a crucible scraper, which is identified at Pyla,
Cyprus.
226
The Linear B tablets from Pylos give us an idea about the control and allocation of metal in Mycenaean
Messenia. See Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 140ff. and Uchitel 1990. But also see, Costin 1991, 3-18 for a
theoretical framework for organized production and how it may look in state-level societies.
227
This claim is pertinent to the evidence from Cyprus, especially in the LC IIC-IIIA periods. The Linear B
records at Pylos, however, convey a different scenario for the mainland. The Pylian system of ta-ra-si-ja
indicates that bronze smiths were partially dependent on the palace but not operational within it. Nearly all
“Hither province” town names are associated with bronze working (see Galaty and Parkinson 2007, 5).
This suggests that small scale metalworking facilities should be evident at provincial sites like Nichoria or
Katsimigas. In total, there are 14 different place names for the hometowns of smiths and 9 of these occur
just once, meaning that some smiths probably lived in rural, otherwise unimportant areas.
94

goods; and 3) access to raw materials for crafting was in all likelihood easier at major
centers. Regarding the MH evidence, Iakovidis envisions indigenous, independent smiths
whose operations served local needs. 228 This scenario is supported by the early MH
metallurgical evidence at Nichoria (Area V) in the form of hearths, crucible fragments,
slag, and ash. 229 There are only five metallurgical implements (see Fig. 3.14c) from the
second millennium on the Greek islands: 1 mold from Ayia Irini, 2 tongs from Kos, and 2
molds from Phylakopi. The dearth of metallurgical tools on the islands suggests that the
tradition of metallurgy, well attested in this area during the third millennium, was limited
and unimpressive in the MBA and LBA. 230
Our understanding of island metalworking
practices during the second millennium will likely be enhanced by future excavations.
The apparent constraint in metalworking from this region suggests, for the time being,
that the raw materials and necessary tools for metalworking were not widely dispersed,
probably being restricted to significant island centers (Ayia Irini, Phylakopi, Akrotiri),
Crete and the mainland. Perhaps Minoan and later Mycenaean metallurgical practices
controlled resources and craftspersons, thus hindering such craft activity on the islands.
The exact role of the Mycenaean palaces in metallurgical production is unclear, as
the archaeometallurgical evidence fails to measure up to the picture painted by the
archival records. The irregularity of metalworking tools on the mainland provides a stark
contrast to the Linear B evidence and makes problematic the prominence of indigenous
Mycenaean metal smiths unless the written evidence from Pylos is not relevant for other
areas of Mycenaean habitation. Although the Knossian Linear B tablets refer to bronze
228 Iakovidis 1982, 213.
229 McDonald 1975, 109-110; Howell 1992, 26-27.
230 Branigan 1969; 1974.
95

quantities, actual smiths are mentioned only in the Pylian tablets. 231 The Pylian Jn series
comprises 27 tablets that record bronze allocation from the palace to various smiths. This
process is called the ta-ra-si-ja system; the term appears regularly with craft production
and means “an amount of raw material weighed out and issued for processing.” 232 In
documenting this ta-ra-si-ja scheme, the Linear B tablets preserve smith names, their
hometowns and the amount of bronze distributed to each smith. 233 Based upon the variety
of place names, smiths were well dispersed throughout the landscape. Roughly one-third
of the smiths did not receive a ta-ra-si-ja portion. Of the smith names preserved on
tablets, 193 were active (having received an allotment) and 81 were inactive. 234 Listing
active and inactive smiths demonstrates that bronze working may have been seasonal or
periodic work, depending on production needs and the procurement of the raw materials.
The average allotment of metal consisted of 3 to 4 kilograms, but a smith on Jn 601
received 12 kg while another smith only acquired 1.5 kg of bronze. 235 Chadwick
reconstructed the original workforce of metal smiths in the Pylian region to around 400,
based upon the large amount of bronze allocations such as Ja 749 (1046 kg). 236
Clearly,
the quantity of bronze smiths in the Linear B records does not coincide with the scarcity
of evidence for metalworking on the Greek mainland.
Iakovidis argues that Mycenaean “smiths were numerous and worked in groups”
and could be either attached or independent, and either sedentary or mobile.
231
Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 140. Killen (1987, 68-70) interprets the Linear B records from Knossos and
Pylos, however, as reflecting a very similar bronze-working industry under both palaces; Smith 1993.
232
Killen 2001, 161; Killen’s quote is adapted from Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 69-115. Also see, Killen
1987, 62.
233
Uchitel 1990, 195-199; Smith 1993.
234
Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 140.
235
Killen 2001, 173.
236
Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 140ff, 509; Killen 2001, 173; Gillis 1997, 506 note 5.
237 Iakovidis 1982, 226.
237
Of course
96

the organization of metal production does not fall into such stark dichotomies, for there
must have been a spectrum for the scale and intensity of metallurgical work. 238 The
absence of metallurgical workshops at palatial sites, however, is unanticipated and may
suggest that metal smiths traveled from region to region, never establishing a permanent
foundry or workshop. If smiths were not restricted to one location, how difficult was it to
perform both hot- and cold-working operations in various locations? The notion of the
mobility of craftspersons, particularly as related to metal work, is raised when assessing
the LH metallic vessels that do not have mainland antecedents, but which are attested in
Crete and Anatolia during the MBA. 239 Many of the earliest metal vessels on the
mainland, particularly those from the Shaft Graves, bear a resemblance to Cretan
examples. 240 A Linear A sign on one of the metal vessels from Grave Circle A further
emphasizes the probability that the vessel was produced on Crete and imported to the
Argolid. 241 Several explanations may account for the similarity of metal vessels,
including the possibility of itinerant craftspersons (Cretans and/or mainlanders) moving
within the Aegean landscape. 242
Perhaps the early Mycenaeans acquired their bronze
objects primarily from Neopalatial workshops on Crete. Even if some metal vessels were
produced locally on the mainland, they were inspired from Crete, thereby verifying a
crafting connection between the two regions. The scenario of traveling metal smiths is a
hypothesis put forward for interpretations of other archaeological data as well.
238
Costin 1991, 5-11.
239
Matthäus 1980a, 338-339; Iakovidis 1982, 218.
240
Matthäus 1980a, 340-341; Matthäus 1980b, 39-42.
241
Palaima 2003.
242
Matthäus 1980b, 39, 4z; Iakovidis 1982, 219.
97

The presence of metallurgical tools aboard the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck at the
end of the LBA plays a key role in Bass’ analysis of the wrecked vessel. 243 He argues that
the Gelidonya tools, especially the swage block and hammer/anvil, are indicative of a
smith on board (Fig. 3.14f). Other metallurgical objects on the ship (e.g. casting
fragments, scrap-like broken implements and copper ingots) point to this conclusion. A
spatula from the Gelidonya wreck may have functioned similarly to an object from Pyla
(Cyprus), which I identify as a crucible scraper. 244 The presence of a smith on a late 13 th
century vessel was interpreted within the historical setting of a putative Mediterranean-
wide metal shortage. Bass thus assumed that an independent smith or tinker exploited the
metal shortage for his own gain by offering metallurgical services at each port of call. 245
The limited amount of metal allocated to smiths in the Pylian Linear B tablets and the
numerous LBA hoards with scrap metal and broken objects contributed to the notion of a
metal shortage. Knapp et al., however, argued that the excessive number of named smiths
in the tablets and the hoards with extensive metal scraps actually denote a prosperous and
expanding metal industry. 246
The interpretation of a traveling smith on the Gelidonya
ship due to a Mediterranean-wide metal shortage perhaps requires revision. Moreover, a
pair of tongs, clearly indicative of metalwork, was found on the 14 th century Uluburun
vessel, well before any postulated metallurgical shortage. Tongs were either a commodity
for exchange or perhaps a component of an itinerant metal smith’s tool kit. Additional
243
Bass 1967, 163-165. Bass’ interpretation is also asserted by Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 239: “The
parallels between the tools and implements of the Gelidonya wreck deposit and those of the Cypriote
hoards therefore only reinforce interpretation of the Gelidonya wreck as a foundry ship.” Also see Sherratt
2000, 87.
244
For the object from Pyla: Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 33 excavation number 8, plate XXVII, XLV.
Also see Fig. 5.33 of this study.
245
Bass 1967, 163-164.
246
Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 257. For a discussion of the circulation of scrap metal at the end of the
LBA, see Sherratt 2000, 87-89.
98

Uluburun metalworking tools may be reported in the final publication of the wreck,
which will verify whether or not a smith was on the vessel.
Two examples from Cypriot archaeology point to extensive travel by smiths.
Similarities between Cypriot and Sardinian metal objects, such as tripods, and the rich
assemblage of Cypriot copper oxhide ingots on Sardinia are difficult to explain. 247 There
is no evidence for Cypriot settlements or burials on Sardinia, but Cypriot smiths are
thought to have worked on the western island, perhaps on a seasonal basis. 248 This
hypothesis accepts that craftspersons journeyed across extraordinary distances on
multiple occasions, but represents just one explanation for the Cypriot-Sardinian
connection. A secondary case for the movement of craftspersons is a migration of metal
smiths. Iacovou has argued that Aegean metallurgists moved to Cyprus during the 12 th
and 11 th centuries as indicated by linguistic evidence. 249
There is, however, an underlying
assumption to Iacovou’s argument. The migration of an entire craft industry bespeaks of
some craft exchange leading up to the movement of a group from one region to another.
Smiths, under Iacovou’s scenario, must have migrated to Cyprus with some
foreknowledge of the island and its metal resources. The LBA international copper trade
and sea routes could have been the catalyst that informed Aegean peoples about the
Cypriot metal industry; indeed, they had probably been participating in this system for as
much as half a millennium, given the clear connections between Crete and Cyprus in the
MBA. Given this well established relationship, specialized metallurgists may have been
encouraged to move to the eastern island. Generally, the evidence for how metallurgical
work was organized—whether the craft was dependent on palatial centers—and how
247 Kassianidou 2001.
248 Lo Schiavo 2001, 137-141.
249 Iacovou 2006, 327-328.
99

metal smiths moved throughout the landscape (if at all) are all inconclusive. Some of
these issues are discussed in more detail in the concluding chapter.
VII. Utilitarian tools
Utilitarian metal implements (1564 examples) rank second behind
carpentry/masonry tools in terms of overall quantity (Figs. 3.4a, b). Utilitarian tools are
multi-functional; knives, razors, scrapers, spatulas, cleavers, and undefined blades are
grouped together for their all-purpose character. These objects cannot be classified within
a specific craft category, and it is probable that they functioned in a mix of craft and
personal activities. Given their nature as cutting implements, these utilitarian tools
(excluding scrapers and spatulas) were capable of being used as weapons, but it is
doubtful that they were explicitly designed and manufactured for this purpose. The
number of utilitarian objects from the MBA and LBA is remarkable. These tools occur in
greater quantities in the later period, yet they represent a greater portion of the MBA’s
total tool count than that of the LBA (Fig. 3.4b; Fig. 3.15a, b). The chronological and
spatial distributions of the utilitarian tools indicate localized preferences and only a few
cross-cultural similarities. There is a slight increase in the proportion of utilitarian
implements from the MBA to the LBA on Crete. Although the overall sum of the LH
implements trumps that of the earlier era by a large margin, the percentage of these
utilitarian tools on the mainland (as measured against the region’s total count) declined
slightly from 51.3% to 49.1% over the second millennium. The percentage of utilitarian
tools on Cyprus drops substantially (63% to 21.3%) from the MBA to the LBA, and there
is a minimal fall (from 15.4% to 11.3%) in the Anatolian assemblage from the same time.
These patterns illustrate different regional preferences for utilitarian implements.
100

Although the MBA utilitarian implements are plentiful, these numbers are skewed
by the Cypriot data. As previously noted, Middle Cypriot metal tools are chiefly
preserved in mortuary contexts and the bulk of them (63%) are utilitarian implements. In
fact, of the 498 known utilitarian tools in the dataset, 388 are from Cyprus. These Cypriot
objects were produced for prestige purposes (especially those deposited in the mortuary
realm) rather than for their abilities as all-purpose cutting implements. Significantly
fewer tools from this category exist in the LC period, and the proportion of these tools in
the LC tool collection declined by over 40% from the previous era (Figs. 3.15a, b; 3.20d).
The irregularity of utilitarian objects in the LC era is attributed, in part, to fewer
excavated tombs from that period, yet genuine changes in the Cypriot consumption
preferences were also at play. The Cypriot and Anatolian data both show a decrease in
popularity among each region’s tool collections over time, and these patterns contrast the
steady selection preferences within the Aegean. The total sum of utilitarian implements
as well as their regional frequencies emphasizes the great popularity and broad
distribution of this tool category in the Aegean.
This regional diversity is also apparent on a smaller scale. For instance, the
Mycenaean cleaver is found throughout the Aegean world at the end of the second
millennium, yet it is conspicuously absent in Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean.
Since cleavers are found as far east as the Dodecanese (Rhodes and Kos), one would
think that these blades also would have made their way to Cyprus and the eastern
Mediterranean, especially in light of the plethora of LBA Aegean elements recognized in
Cyprus and Syria-Palestine. 250
250 Catling 1964, 106-107; Iakovidis 1982, 223.
101

Site size and contextual analysis signify the general availability of the utilitarian
tools and the characteristics that governed both their selection and distribution. These
tools generally seem to be highly accessible and probably personal items. The
implements appear predominantly at minor sites (646 examples), but large (476) and
medium (392) size sites are not far behind (Fig. 3.16). The wide scattering of the
utilitarian tools is evident among the hierarchy of sites, and such dissemination is
explained by their ubiquitous appeal and general availability. The incidence of these
implements in every contextual category further illustrates their far-reaching distribution
(Fig. 3.17). Utilitarian tools are chiefly placed in burials throughout the MBA and LBA;
there are 356 such implements in MBA graves and 446 in LBA contexts. The high
number from the LBA is attributed to the Mycenaean tendency to include them as grave
gifts in chamber tombs. The phenomenon is evident on the mainland but also in the
numerous LH III chamber tombs on Kos and Rhodes (Ialysos). 251
Settlement and hoard
contexts are also typical for utilitarian tools, though both types are notably more common
in the LBA than the MBA. As burials are the preeminent context for this implement
category, a personal affiliation (individual ownership?) of these objects seems possible.
Razors, cleavers, undefined blades and scrapers or spatulas represent a small
portion of the utilitarian tool assemblage (Fig. 3.18). Scrapers and/or spatulas are tools
with thin edges, whose exact purpose in the prehistoric tool kit is ambiguous. This edge
could fulfill cutting and paring needs with a scrapping motion or perform spreading and
smoothing actions like a modern spatula. Two forms of razors principally survive. The
first is a double-sided implement with thin cutting edges, whose general appearance
251 See the appendixes listing the small metal finds from these chamber tombs in Georgiadis 2003.
102

esembles a wide, double-edged knife. 252 This razor’s shape takes the form of a leaf or
tongue. On the mainland, leaf-shaped razors became obsolete by the LH IIIA period. A
second razor type subsequently originated in the 13 th century as a small cleaver-like
object, whose identification as a razor is primarily based upon the thinness of the cutting
edge. 253 As previously noted, cleavers are Mycenaean implements that are largely found
in mortuary and settlement contexts throughout the Aegean. These heavy-duty objects
were effective for chopping and first appeared in the LH IIIA early period. 254
Cleavers may have enhanced the efficiency of meat-cutting, but it is unclear what
type of cuts they were capable of making. The length of these objects generally falls
between 15-25 cm, and they do not seem as large or as thick as modern meat cleavers
(typically 30-50 cm long and blades that are 0.7 cm thick). Yet it is intriguing that so-
called cleavers are introduced at the beginning of the 14 th century when the Mycenaean
palaces came into existence. It is conceivable that the implements were standard items in
the production of large feasts sponsored by elites. Cleavers, however, are regularly found
at minor burial sites and do not have strong affiliations with palatial centers in their
distribution. Almost 70% (43 out of 62) of cleavers were recovered in burials, and it
seems that they were part of the feasting assemblage that is often found in LB IIIA
graves. Perhaps cleavers were originally utilitarian items for food preparation in feasts,
and eventually took on elements of prestige over time. If cleavers were utilized in elite
sponsored and officiated feasts, the objects were probably initially manufactured for a
very specialized clientele. The distribution of cleavers on the mainland and Crete perhaps
252 Iakovidis 1982, 223, 215.
253 Iakovidis (1982, 223) argues that the “thinness of their blades make them mostly unfit for chopping but
very suitable for shaving or trimming and cutting hair.”
254 Iakovidis 1982, 223.
103

is significant, as both regions were localities for feasting. 255 The abundance of cleavers in
burials from Kos and Rhodes is more difficult to explain beyond the fact that the
chopping instrument was part of a Mycenaean cultural package in the Dodecanese.
Despite evidence for feasting in LBA Cyprus, the dearth of cleavers in the eastern
Mediterranean may signify that large-scale Mycenaean-style feasting did not spread to
the east. 256
Since knives represent 1176 out of 1554 utilitarian tools (75.7%), they are clearly
the favored utilitarian object from the second millennium (Fig. 3.18). In fact, knives are
the most ubiquitous tool type from the entire MBA and LBA study region, with 22.2% of
the current dataset comprised of these cutting implements. In his review of Mycenaean
257
metallurgy, Iakovidis noted that knives “are the most frequent of all bronze finds.”
Few changes in the overall knife repertoire occur, and LBA versions are continuations of
earlier forms. Despite their homogeneity over time, knives are traditionally divided into
typologies, often by blade and haft morphology. 258
The concern here is the regional
preferences and patterns for these implements. Although general distributions of
utilitarian implements are noteworthy, knife variation according to region is
unmistakable. Overall, knives are much more common in the LBA than the earlier period,
with the exception of Cyprus (Fig. 3.19).
There are similar quantities of knives from Cyprus (410) and the Greek mainland
(435) in the second millennium, yet the consumption patterns for each period are
opposite, thus pinpointing different regional choices. Knives are the primary MC tool
255 On this general subject, see Wright 2004; for the feasting evidence from Crete, see Borgna 2004.
256 This observation contradicts Steel 2004, 173-177, who notes that the Mycenaean drinking vessels on
Cyprus imply that certain Mycenaean feasting activities occurred there.
257 Iakovidis 1982, 215.
258 Sandars 1955; Catling 1964, 102-104; Deshayes 1960, volume II, 123-140 or entries 2324-2670.
104

type and their consumption fell notably by the LC period. This decline in knife
consumption signals a unique situation on Cyprus. MC knives were probably symbols of
status and wealth during the Middle Bronze Age as they advertised the acquisition and
consumption of metal and technological skill to other competitive elites. 259
In every other
region under consideration, knives were most common in the LBA. On the Greek
mainland, the quantity of knives escalated from the MH to the LH period, though the
general frequency of the items waned slightly over this time. With the exception of
Cyprus, the great popularity of knives seems to be an Aegean phenomenon, for they
appear in diminished numbers elsewhere.
The regional divisions of utilitarian implements according to period, type, site
size, and context reveal additional patterns (Fig. 3.20a-g). Within the Cretan assemblage,
the dominance of knives, the dispersed nature of the tools by site size, and the
multiplicity of contexts are notable traits (Fig. 3.20a). Cleavers rank second in LM
utilitarian preferences, strongly reflecting the Mycenaean influence upon Crete. From the
mainland, LH utilitarian implements are found just as often at large, palatial sites (around
45% of the time) as minor settings (Fig. 3.20b). Given the numerous palatial and urban
sites in the MBA and LBA, the aggregate of utilitarian objects from minor settings is
impressive (Fig. 3.16). These objects appear to have been more “moveable” within the
landscape than agricultural implements, implying a higher level of accessibility. The
utilitarian tools from the LH mainland occur in hoards and settlements, but burials, as in
the MH period, are the preferred context. Virtually all utilitarian tools from the Greek
islands came from minor sites and mortuary contexts. Knives, as one would expect, are
259 Keswani 2004.
105

the prominent LBA object type (53.6% or 59 out of 110 examples) on the islands, though
a noteworthy selection of razors and cleavers also appear at this time (Fig. 3.20c).
As previously noted, significant shifts occurred in the Cypriot tool industry. The
number of knives, razors, and scrapers or spatulas diminished considerably from the MC
to LC period (Fig. 3.20d). The objects are found in a range of different sites from either
period. Utilitarian tools primarily appear in burials during the MC period, while
settlements are the typical context in the LC era. The quantity of scrapers or spatulas on
Cyprus makes the island the largest consumer of this tool type. Scrapers or spatulas
appear in the Aegean MBA and LBA, yet they are not as customary in that area as on
Cyprus. 260
These utensils are evident in the Aegean and Anatolia, yet are slightly more
prominent in Syria-Palestine. Palatial and settlement sites typify the find spots of MBA
and LBA utilitarian tools in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine (Fig. 3.20e, f). Knives are
overwhelmingly the preferred all-purpose implement within Anatolian assemblages.
Anatolian razors are rare, while flanged blades, undefined implements (for cutting?) and
cutting/slashing tools are known but sporadic. The Anatolian flanged blades and
cutting/slashing tools find parallels in Syro-Palestinian utilitarian tools. Knives in Syria-
Palestine, like other regions, are the predominate utilitarian implement, followed by the
aforementioned scrapers or spatulas (Fig. 3.20f)
Overall, utilitarian implements appear in a variety of localities. Distributions in
Cyprus and the Aegean emphasize the ability of minor sites to acquire these tools, yet the
implements chiefly appear in palatial or urban centers in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine.
Given the present data, one must question whether utilitarian items served diverse
260
Scrapers/spatulas are sporadic on Crete, the mainland and the islands but they are known from each
region.
106

functions in different areas. The presence of utilitarian tools, especially knives and razors,
on shipwrecks (Fig. 3.20g) is anticipated, since these objects are likely personal
possessions owned by individual crew members. These shipwreck tools were probably
all-purpose items of personal use, but it is not unreasonable that they were part of the
carpentry/masonry tool kits aboard or even included with the ship’s cargo for sale. The
shipwreck utilitarian tools were discovered with numerous wood- and stone-working
tools, thereby resembling several metal hoards (from land) that contained both categories
of tools.
VIII. Small craft tools
A separate category of functional tools was formed for implements whose
purpose is vaguely indicated and ultimately unclear. These tools are handheld and
relatively short and slender. Their tool edges are very narrow, applicable only for delicate
or minute work. These utensils had many functions, ranging from industrial craft work to
toiletry needs, so it cannot be verified that all tools under this classification were
employed for craft activity. Leather working, textile production (including creating sails),
basketry, manipulating sheet metal, engraving and writing are a few activities made
possible with small implements. 261 Seal and ivory working are additional craft industries
that called for small tools. Awls are occasionally classified as woodworking implements,
yet this identification excludes other legitimate functional possibilities. 262
For instance,
awls could pierce leather and other materials just as likely as wood. The definitive
functional identifications of these tools may be aided by contextual details, yet context
261 Evely 2000, 485-510 (textile working), 511-521 (basketry), 522-527 (leather working). Smith (2009, 80)
argues that the textile workshops at Kition-Kathari produced sails.
262 Catling (1964, 97-98) includes awls as part of his carpentry tools.
107

cannot always aid functional interpretations. Metal styli, for example, were found in the
textile workshops at Kition-Kathari, yet it is unclear whether these slender, pointed
objects served as weaving implements or tools for documenting the craft industry’s
transactions. 263 The possibility of Late Cypriot metal styli—though bone tools surely
would have worked as well—is confirmed by several awl-like tools from various contexts
that have been re-identified as styli. 264
The total volume of metal preserved within this category is meager. There are 737
small craft tools listed in the dataset, which represents 13.9% of the second millennium
metal tools (Fig. 3.4a, b). Each of these implements is light, and so the cumulative
amount of bronze consumed by the tool category was minimal. There are four times as
many small craft implements in the LBA than in the previous period (526 vs. 129
examples), yet the proportion of these tools increased marginally from 10 to 15% over
the same period (Fig. 3.21a, b). Once again, patterns in the Aegean differed notably from
those in Cyprus and Anatolia. Although greater quantities of small craft tools existed in
the Aegean LBA than the MBA, the frequencies of these tools decreased over time within
each Aegean area (Fig. 3.21a, b). The meager Syro-Palestinian data for this tool category
also revealed a declining percentage in the LBA. An entirely different pattern appeared
on Cyprus and Anatolia, which is reminiscent of the utilitarian objects from those
regions. LC small craft objects were twice as frequent as in the previous period, while the
proportion of the LBA Anatolian tools tripled that of the MBA. By examining the
utilitarian and small craft tools concurrently, it becomes clear that the Aegean selected
these tool categories very differently than their eastern neighbors. The high occurrence of
263 Smith 2009, 37.
264 Papasavvas 2003.
108

small craft tools in the Aegean MBA may be explained by a continuation of EBA
production and consumption traditions. Small craft tools are found primarily at large sites
(Fig. 3.22) and within settlements (Fig. 3.23), thus reflecting a distribution different from
the more ubiquitous dissemination of utilitarian implements. The materials needed for the
production of textiles (wool and linen), ivory working (hippopotamus and elephant
tusks), leather (animal hides) and writing (knowledge) may have been restricted to urban
centers. This may explain why the small crafting implements are typically found at major
sites.
In rare cases, textile workshops are recognized within the archaeological record,
but it is often challenging to interpret where this work occurred and how resources were
gathered and allocated. Cypriot textile workshops were recognized by Smith at Kition-
Kathari (west of Temple 1) and Kition-Chrysopolitissa (domestic area) based upon
distributions of loom weights and spindle whorls rather than metal tools. 265 These work
areas demonstrate the difficulty of ascertaining the functional capabilities of small,
indistinct metal tools without contextual considerations. 266 Textile working seems to have
occurred in the Artisans’ Quarter at Mochlos (Buildings A and B), and this assertion rests
primarily upon the recovered non-metal objects; 63 loom weights, a bone awl and two
elongated bronze needles testify to textile production at the coastal site. 267
Textiles were a
staple industry of the Mycenaean and Cretan palaces, according to the impressive
numbers documented in the Linear B texts. The wealth acquired from this industry was
265
Smith 2009, 33-39, 71.
266
For a discussion on the tools (the distaff, spindle and whorl) that were used to spin fabric, see Crockett
1977, 10-24. Spindles or slender shafts could have been made in metal while whorls were customarily
ceramic. Also see the website from the Museum of Cretan Ethnography, specifically the section on
weaving: http://www.cretanethnologymuseum.gr/imke/html/en/421.html
267
Soles 2003, 93-94.
109

due in large part to 1) palatial livestock holdings (roughly 80,000‒100,000 different
animals are recorded in the Knossos tablets, while 30,000‒40,000 sheep are mentioned at
Pylos) but also to 2) flax cultivation and the accompanying production of linen. 268
Tzachili described the relationship between rearing livestock and the successful
production of textiles: “The Knossos palace was apparently the centre of a huge flock-
rearing enterprise. It assembled wool, made a detailed record of it, and distributed it to
dependent workers, who returned it in the form of finished textiles.” 269 The Linear B
tablets at Knossos and Pylos also chronicle numerous female textile workers. At Knossos,
the Ak tablets document over 500 women, and Killen, taking into account the
fragmentary nature of the corpus of tablets, suggested that there may have been close to
1000 originally. The numbers are equally impressive at Pylos, where 639 women are
recorded and a total number around 750 is imagined. 270
Many of the industries under the direction of the palaces, like textile production,
would have incorporated decentralized activities, as Galaty and Parkinson assert: “…even
the most centralized and controlled of Mycenaean industries would have depended at
271
least in part on exchanges that were difficult or impossible to control fully.”
Subsequently, Galaty and Parkinson hypothesize that weaving tools and signs of textile
production may be dispersed “throughout the hinterlands of Mycenaean states,” which
may or may not correlate to the Linear B records about the industry. Yet the level of
control and detailed accounts of the dispersed bronze smiths in the Jn series tablets
268
Tzachili 2001b, 179; Trantalidou 2001, 268; Rougemont 2007.
269
Tzachili 2001a,168.
270
Killen 2001, 172.
271
Galaty and Parkinson 2007, 5.
110

indicate that the palatial range of control was extensive. 272 Tzachili notes that the
majority of loom weights and spindle-whorls are found outside palatial centers and often
at ports. 273 The textual records convey that this work was completed entirely by women
and children. The Pylian tablets distinguish women working within the immediate
vicinity (Hither province) from those in the Further province. Likewise, the Knossos
tablets mention the regions where women worked, leading Nosch to conclude that “all
dependent women are assigned to textile occupations and work in their home villages.” 274
Whether women worked specifically within the palatial grounds is uncertain, but they
seem, according to the tablets, to be dependent on the palace. If textile production
occurred in village settings, the female workers still would have been in contact with the
urban centers, not least for the acquisition of raw materials as well as for payments of
their work. Several tablets from Pylos in fact mention the payment of staple goods to
women and children for their work with textiles. 275 If palaces managed the raw materials
as well as the payment for services, perhaps these large sites also oversaw the distribution
of the crafting tools. The primary distribution of small craft implements in large
settlements denotes that some of the minor crafting operations, like textile working,
occurred at these centers. Textile production, at least in the LBA Aegean, was controlled
by the palace, yet textile work must have taken place within and outside the palatial
grounds. 276
Despite the possible overlap in function among some tool forms, small craft
implements were divided into the following types: double spatulas, awls, pointed objects,
272 Smith 1993.
273 Tzachili 2001a, 172.
274 Nosch 2003, 21.
275 Nakassis 2010, 134-135.
276 Burke 2010.
111

punches, borers, undefined implements and styli (Fig. 3.24). A minute rotary drill was
necessary for seal engraving, yet such a tool is not recognized among the preserved
implements. This drill was probably not made of metal, for the stones that were cut were
harder than that of copper or bronze (e.g. more than Mohs 5). The tool may exist in the
archaeological record, but may be undetected or misidentified. Because of the ambiguity
of the implement types, the regional distribution of the small craft tools is not pursued in
depth, other than for awls. The significance of this implement category should not be
underestimated even though it is discussed in a limited manner here. With ethnographic
analogies and more detailed contexts, the comprehension of these tools and their
associated craft activities may be improved.
The characteristic small-craft tool is the awl, which was well disseminated among
the study regions (Figs. 3.24; 3.25a). Awls, like all tools in this functional category,
present challenges in their identification. For instance, awls with fine points were just as
likely to have been engravers. Because of this ambiguity, there are implements that
resemble engravers, small drills and punches, but are classified as awls in the database.
Therefore, the incidence of awls, as reported here, may be skewed by issues of object
identification. Awls were sporadically included in a carpenter’s tool kit, yet it is
impossible to ascertain whether awls were intended to be used on wood or other materials
like leather.
Although there was an increase in the percentage of small craft tools from the
MBA to LBA (Fig. 3.21b), the preference for awls (roughly 8.25% of all tools) remained
consistent in both periods (Fig. 3.25a). The steady existence of awls throughout the
second millennium, especially on Cyprus and Crete, revealed that the craft needs for
112

these implements hardly changed. The contextual distribution of awls, however, shifted
from the MBA to the LBA (Fig. 3.25b). In the MBA, burials are the likely destination
and awls are found regularly at medium and minor sites. By the LBA, awls primarily
occur in settlements, specifically large sites. This superficial overview suggests that awls
were personal objects during the MBA as emphasized by their deposition in tombs. I
hypothesize that small craft activities originated at the individual level during the MBA,
before eventually becoming controlled by corporate authorities by the LBA. Another
possibility is that the nature of small crafting tools ceased being meaningful during the
LBA and the tools were no longer placed in burials. It is reasonable to surmise that
leather working would have employed awls, and, as with weaving, LBA Aegean
production seems controlled by the palaces.
The Ub series of Pylian tablets provides textual evidence for leather working from
lists of raw sources, final products and craftspersons. 277 Pylos Ub 1318 records five
variations of hides (including goat, pig and deer skins) that are handed over to three
different kinds of workers who collectively produce eight types of finished products. 278
Although this crucial tablet bestows a “complete record of leather-working,” the specific
Linear B term for the occupation of leather working is unclear. Three possibilities exist:
di-pte-ra-po-ro, ku-re-we and wi-ri-ne-we. 279
Leather goods attested in the Linear B texts
277 Voutsa 2001, 150.
278 Voutsa 2001, 151. The following Linear B words are associated with the various stages of
leatherworking. Raw materials: di-pte-ra (worked leather?), wi-ri-no (unworked leather? Ox-hide?), e-rape-ja
(deer-skin), we-e-wi-ja (pig-skin?) and a-za (goat-skin?); Leather workers: au-ke-ija-te-we, me-ti-jano,
mu-te-we; Finished products: o-pi-de-so-mo (bandages?), ka-tu-ro (packsaddles?), wo-ro-ma-ta, ru-dea,
a-re-se-si, pe-di-ra, e-ma-ta, e-pi-u-ru-te-we, a-ni-ja (reins), o-po-qo wi-ri-ni-jo/wi-ri-ne-o (blinkers).
Trantalidou (2001, 285) states that hides can be used in a variety of purposes, including: “farming
implements (harrow), pack saddles, thongs for addles and panniers, ropes, sandals, shoelaces, protective
coverings for the yokes of oxen and cows.”
279 Voutsa 2001, 150-151.
113

include bandages, pack-saddles, reins and blinkers. 280 Other potential leather products
include clothing, dress accessories, footwear, sack-like containers, strips and thongs.
Egyptian tomb paintings from the New Kingdom depict other leather items including
shields, tires, chariot body coverings and quivers. 281
The number of leather products from
that era seems limitless, as Trantalidou’s list conveys:
The largest pieces of leather were used in saddle-making, for defensive weaponry
(shields, helmets, panoplies), offensive weaponry (bows), cabinet making (folding stools,
footstools, beds, mattress bases, pillows, revetment of wooden chests, etc.), shelter and
housing (tents door canopy, curtains-vela etc.), shipbuilding, musical instruments, toys
282
[and] bellows for smelting and casting metals.
The palatial demand for leather products must have been significant, and the raw
materials would have been supplied by the skins of animals sacrificed and/or slaughtered
in official ceremonies, like elite-sponsored feasts. The best evidence for the Aegean
leather industry and its operations seem to come from the Linear B tablets.
Numerous tools were required to process hides as well as to manipulate leather
into desirable finished products. Awls certainly would have been useful implements in
puncturing holes in leather pieces, but the leather industry would require other
implements as well. Knives and/or scrapers, for instance, were necessary to remove the
hide from an animal and to clean it by scraping away the flesh from the hide’s underside.
Chipped stones were very effective as cutting and scrapping implements for this task, as
demonstrated by ethnographic evidence, but metal knives would also have been useful.
The objects identified here as small craft tools probably represent only a portion of any
280 Voutsa 2001, 151.
281 Trantalidou 2001, 279.
282 Trantaliou 2001, 284.
283 Chipped stones (“large biface –reduction flakes”) have been shown as effective butchery implements on
modern elephants. See, Frison 1989, 777-779, 783, Figure 10. Archaeological evidence also indicates the
utility of chipped stones in butchering. Take, for example, the Early Holocene site of Akrotiri-Aetokremnos
(Cyprus), where hundreds of small thumbnail scrapers have been found. These stone tools were utilized in
the butchering and processing of pygmy hippopotami carcasses. See, Simmons 2001, 9-11.
283
114

industry’s tool repertoire. The brief examination of textile and leather production
illustrates that the tool assemblages for some craft industries are difficult to discern. A
future investigation that focused on minor tools and took ethnographic parallels into
account might clarify the functional craft differences within this category’s assemblage of
vaguely defined yet important implements.
IX. Carpentry/Masonry tools
General trends: The largest category of second millennium metal tools is
carpentry/ masonry implements, with 2253 examples, which is 42.4% of the total dataset
(Fig. 3.4a, b). Quantitatively, there are more than three times as many LBA as MBA
carpentry/masonry tools (Figs. 3.26a, b). Several of the tool types from the MBA and
LBA, particularly various ax forms, were known in the third millennium or earlier.
Copper axes, for instance, were found in Neolithic levels at Sesklo and Knossos. 284 A
number of metal assemblages from the EBA Aegean (northern Aegean, Greek mainland,
Cycladic islands and Crete), identified as carpentry hoards, consisted of copper axes, ax-
adzes and chisels. 285 Therefore, these implements were not introduced for the first time in
the MBA. Carpentry/masonry tools are prominent in several regions during the early
second millennium (Fig. 3.26a, b). Within the Cretan MBA assemblage, 49.7% of the
implements were intended for wood- and stone-working; comparably high percentages
are apparent in Anatolia (43.4%) and Syria-Palestine (83%). 286
The regularity of
construction tools in Crete, Anatolia and Syria-Palestine during the MBA corresponds to
the localities where monumental architecture was just emerging, at least within the study
284 Renfrew 1972, 311.
285 Branigan 1969.
286 The Greek islands also have a high percentage (50%), but this proportion reflects only two tools. It is
impossible to gauge the importance of the carpentry/masonry tools on the early islands since there are so
few tools from them.
115

egion. The proportions of carpentry/masonry tools for LBA Crete, Anatolia and Syria-
Palestine are also impressive. The Cretan and Anatolian percentages increased slightly,
while a palpable reduction in the percentage of carpentry/masonry tools is detectable in
Syria-Palestine, though they remained popular in that area. The prominence of
carpentry/masonry tools in these regions is unmistakable and coincides with the
architectural developments of the late second millennium.
The Greek mainland yielded a distribution of carpentry/masonry tools that one
would expect for that region: a relatively low number of examples (16 tools) during the
MH era when architectural developments lagged behind, and a dramatic increase in the
LH period (306 examples) when Mycenaean palaces and impressive tombs decorated the
landscape (Fig. 3.26b). The Cypriot pattern, however, defies expectations. The
development of 13 th and 12 th century urban sites with well-cut masonry should
correspond to major changes in the carpentry/masonry tool quantities and types. 287
Yet
there is only a meager increase in the consumption of these implements on Cyprus, from
167 to 183 tools. The incidence of construction tools throughout the Cypriot second
millennium varied minimally, falsely implying that the associated construction industries
remained relatively consistent. Yet this pattern of tool dispersal suggests that the
carpentry/masonry industries on LBA Cyprus probably developed indigenously. Despite
this intra-island perspective, the regional percentage of the LBA wood- and stone-
working tools on Cyprus (34%) parallels the proportions found on the Greek mainland
(32.3%) and the shipwrecks (30.8%). Regarding the shipwreck data, we must
acknowledge that the sample is vanishingly small with only two wrecks. Metal hoards
with carpentry/masonry tools are typical of both Cyprus and the mainland, and this is
287 For an overview of these major sites in the LC IIC-IIIA period, see Knapp 2008, 211-239.
116

surely one reason for the similar tool proportions in the LBA. The shipwreck metal
accumulations closely parallel the Cypriot and Aegean caches; this resemblance suggests
that the shipwreck metals should be considered hoard-like assemblages. Evidently,
comparable tool selections were made for metal assemblages in Cyprus, the Greek
mainland and on the ships. The LBA tool preferences within the Cretan, Anatolian, and
Syria-Palestinian implement assemblages illustrates that those carpentry/masonry
implements were even more popular than on Cyprus or the Greek mainland.
Over half of the carpentry/masonry tools were discovered at large sites,
comparable to the agricultural and metallurgical distributions (Fig. 3.27). Although the
carpentry/masonry utensils are well dispersed throughout the study region, their
concentration in large urban centers questions whether differing levels of society could
obtain the tools. What factors governed the dispersal of the carpentry/masonry
implements, and can distributions demonstrate that a tool’s availability and craft work
depended upon an urban center? These are natural, but difficult, questions that arise from
probing the tool data. An overwhelming number of tools appear in settlement contexts,
while hoards represent a secondary context (Fig. 3.28). Burials are the third prominent
setting, and the depositional behavior for this context shifts from the MBA and LBA. Of
the MBA carpentry/masonry tools, 34% (155 out of 455) were found in burials while
only 9.1% (132 out of 1444) of the LBA carpentry/masonry implements were attributed
to mortuary contexts (see Figs. 3.31a-f). Carpentry/masonry tools are rare in the Shaft
Graves and other contexts from the early Late Helladic period. The implements are more
common in Mycenaean burials of the 14 th and 13 th centuries, but their existence as LH III
burials goods remained atypical. The depositional shift in wood- and stone-working
117

instruments during the course of the second millennium may reflect changes in the
perception of the utensils. In the MBA, metal tools were scarcer, and their deposition in
burials perhaps was made with prestigious overtones. By the LBA, metal tools were more
ubiquitous, making them less desirable objects for inclusion with burials.
Tool types: Various forms of chisels and axes make up the greatest share of the
carpentry/masonry tools (Figs. 3.29; 3.30). Axes are broadly divided into the following
categories: single/flat; shaft hole/collared; lugged/trunnion; and double ended or
combination tools. Double axes, ax-adzes and ax-hammers are some examples of
combination implements, whereby ax forms were incorporated into the tool design. A
range of chisel forms exist, but the implements may be divided roughly into two basic
groupings: narrow and broad. Narrow chisels have a cutting width typically less than 1.5
centimeters, while broad chisels often have cutting widths between 3.0 and 5.0
centimeters. In addition to this basic distinction, chisels are classified by other means as
well, including: socketed; deep bar or mortise; cold; and bit-sized. Axes and chisels are
cutting implements, equally useful on wood or stone materials depending on the tool’s
morphology (and the softness of the stone). Three additional and significant tool types are
drills, adzes, and saws. Each of these implements has several different variations of its
form. The combined popularity of the drills, adzes and saws do match that of chisels and
axes. As previously mentioned, some tools straddle multiple categories. For example,
broad chisels could function as axes and vice versa, and this flexibility of identity is
considered more closely in Chapter 4.
The chronological distribution of the carpentry/masonry tool types (Figs. 3.30,
3.31a-g) reveals their popularity. There are idiosyncratic trends of selection for each tool
118

during the MBA and LBA, highlighting consumption choices by region and time period.
Numerous tool forms—including chisels, drills, adzes, and combination tools—were
more regularly used during the LBA than the preceding period. Although chisels were
common in the MBA, their frequency increased by 17% in the LBA. Solid-cast drills
were also attested in the MBA, but they were not popularized until the LBA. Adzes (both
single and combination tools with adze ends) are traditionally a LBA tool, for only a few
adze types have been recognized in the early second millennium. Double axes and ax-
adzes are relatively irregular MBA tools, but they became quite prominent later. Other
combination tools such as double-adzes, ax-hammers, hammer-adzes and pick-adzes did
not appear until the LBA. In terms of quantifiable numbers, MBA combination tools
consist of 28 examples (or 6.2% of the MBA carpentry/masonry repertoire) while the
LBA has 331 items (or 22.9% of the LBA assemblage). 288
Evidently, the double-sided
implements represent one of the preferred tool choices in the second half of the
millennium.
The proportion—as a percentage—for some tools (e.g. saws, lugged/trunnion
axes, and socketed chisels) was consistent throughout the second millennium. As these
particular implements have tight geographic distributions, their steady occurrence
signifies that local preferences often did not change. The consumption percentage and
quantity of at least two tool forms (e.g. the single/flat ax and the shaft-hole/collared ax)
declined from the MBA to LBA. Apparently, the esteem for these implements diminished
when other items were first introduced during the LBA.
288 The number of combination tools from the general 2 nd millennium reveals a similar frequency to the
LBA examples, suggesting that these implements are more likely to date to the LBA than the MBA.
119

Cretan patterns (Fig. 3.31a): The relatively high proportion of carpentry and
masonry tools during the MM period coincides with the establishment of the initial
Cretan palaces (Fig. 3.26a, b). The frequency of the tools was even greater during the
LBA, but only minor modifications occurred in the tool selections over time. Many of the
same implements were employed in both periods, though double axes and chisels were
more regular in the later era. Saws are found with comparable frequencies at either time,
while one tool, the shaft-hole ax, became obsolete by the LBA. Tool distributions
according to site size and context were steady in both periods. There is one minor
contextual difference: hoards and settlements are the typical contexts in the LBA while
tools were more evenly distributed in the MBA. The consistency of the Cretan tool types
contradicts the distributions found on the Greek mainland.
Greek mainland patterns (Fig. 3.31b): Metal carpentry and masonry tools are
strikingly rare in the MH period, with only 16 examples and five different types. There is
an extraordinary increase of metal implements by the LH era, both in the sheer quantity
and the variety of tools. Double axes, chisels and single axes occur in both periods, but
saws, ax-adzes, drills, socketed chisels, shaft-hole axes and trunnion or lugged axes do
not make their initial appearance until the LBA. Except for drills which occur often in the
early Mycenaean period, the other new tools date chiefly to the LH III period. A more
detailed chronological division of the region’s carpentry and masonry implements is
presented in the following chapter. In addition to the new tool forms in the LBA,
significant modifications in depositional behaviors appear. In the LBA, most
carpentry/masonry tools were found at large urban centers; these types of sites were
absent from the MH record. Hoards, containing more than 40% of the LH
120

carpentry/masonry tools, dominated the contextual choices of the LH period. 289
The LBA
mainland in fact produced the greatest number of hoarded carpentry/masonry tools.
Although double axes and ax-adzes occur in the LH period, other combination tools, so
prominent on Crete and Cyprus, are conspicuously absent.
Greek island patterns (Fig. 3.31c): The assemblage of carpentry/masonry tools
from the Greek islands is minimal, though much more frequent in the LBA than the
MBA. Chisels and axes (both double and single types) were the preferred implements of
this region, while drills and saws are rare. Single/flat and trunnion/lugged axes, typical of
MBA Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean, appear on the islands only during the
LBA. Considering some of the important settlement sites in the Cyclades (e.g. Akrotiri,
Phylakopi, and Ayia Irini), the comparatively low quantity of carpentry and masonry
tools is somewhat disappointing.
Cypriot patterns (Fig. 3.31d): The sum and proportion of Cypriot
carpentry/masonry tools increased slightly from the MBA to the LBA (Fig. 3.26a, b).
There are 167 MC carpentry and masonry tools, represented by five major tool types (flat
axes, shaft-hole axes, chisels, drills, and saws); most of these implements came to light in
mortuary contexts. In the LBA, settlement and hoard contexts are favored over burials in
the deposition of tools. MBA implements are distributed across medium and minor level
sites, while LBA carpentry/masonry implements are acquired and utilized almost
exclusively at larger urban centers. Flat/single and shaft-hole axes constitute more than
80% of the MBA tools. A wider assortment of tool forms is recognized in the LBA.
289 This percentage does not include a group of tools, found together in a burial, that resemble a hoard. The
Tomb of the Tripods (LH IIIA2-B1) at Mycenae produced 20 of the carpentry/masonry tools from burials.
There were 19 double axes within this single tomb. Since they occur in an obvious mortuary context, the
tools were intentionally grouped together, effectively acting like a hoard, though there was no intention to
retrieve the tools.
121

Despite the greater tool diversity, four of the five MC tools (flat axes, chisels, drills, and
saws) continue to be used in the later period; only shaft-hole axes are absent. Five new
tools—single adzes, double axes, double adzes, ax-adzes and hammer-adzes—are
introduced in the LC era. Collectively, these new forms represent less than 20% of the
LC carpentry/masonry repertoire, meaning that the overwhelming majority of LC
construction implements are types that previously existed on the island during the MBA.
Although the greatest collection of MBA metal tools is from Cyprus, there are no
combination tools in the MC repertoire. Socketed chisels are attested in MC and LC
contexts; these objects are also popular in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine, confirming their
overall prominence in the eastern Mediterranean. On the other hand, socketed chisels
were extremely rare in the Aegean MBA and LBA.
Anatolian patterns (Fig. 3.31e): Carpentry and masonry utensils are frequent in
Anatolian assemblages throughout the second millennium. These tools are regularly
discovered in large settlements, and this depositional pattern remained consistent over
time. The quantity of carpentry/masonry tools increased throughout the millennium, as
did the consumption percentage (43.4% in the MBA to 45.2% in the LBA; Fig. 3.26a, b).
As with Cyprus, the majority of LBA tool types are known in the previous period.
Socketed chisels, other chisel forms, double axes, single/flat axes, saws, shaft-hole axes,
and lugged axes are evident in both periods. Anatolian adzes and drills are also attested in
both periods, albeit in minor quantities. A small percentage of the LBA assemblage
accounts for new forms, including two combination tools, the ax-adze and ax-hammer.
Only a few examples of these particular tools were uncovered in Anatolia. Anatolian
122

consumption patterns, above all, indicate localized preferences for indigenous tool types,
but fluctuations in the proportions of certain tools are detectable.
The proportional percentage of two prominent MBA tools (the shaft-hole ax and
the lugged ax) declined during the Anatolian LBA. Collectively, these tools represented
32.7% of the MBA tool repertoire, while they accounted for 14.8% of the later
assemblage. The percentage for the single/flat ax was also cut in half by the LBA, from
9.5% to 4.5%. The popularity and decline of this ax form parallels the implement’s fate
on Cyprus. Single/flat, shaft-hole and lugged axes are thus three MBA forms that were
preserved into the Anatolian LBA, but the popularity of these ax types clearly waned.
The introduction and/or increased consumption of drills, adzes and various combination
tools in the Anatolian LBA are also recognized in the Aegean and Cyprus. Known from
the MBA, the Anatolian double ax is better attested in the LBA. Chisels (including
socketed types) maintained their status as the preferred carpentry/masonry tool from the
MBA to the LBA, even increasing their share from 50% to 69.7%. The preference for
chisels in Anatolia is additionally verified by their high proportion among the non-
datable, general second millennium tools (70.8%).
Syro-Palestinian patterns (Fig. 3.31f): The carpentry/masonry tool patterns from
Syria-Palestine are similar to the observations made for Anatolia. Although Syria-
Palestine produced more carpentry/ masonry tools in the LBA than the MBA, the
frequency of the implements within the regional assemblage declined over those periods
from 83% to 57% (Fig. 3.26a, b). Despite this fall in percentage, the ubiquity of these
tools in the later period is still evident. As with the Cypriot MBA tool assemblage,
single/flat axes and shaft-hole axes were the favored utensils in early second millennium
123

Syria-Palestine. The status of the single/flat ax was consistent in both periods, yet the
preference for the shaft-hole ax declined after the MBA. Such a regression was also
evident with the Anatolian shaft-hole axes. The LBA Syro-Palestinian tool repertoire
largely consists of types attested in the MBA (e.g. single/flat axes, shaft-hole axes,
double axes and chisels). Saws are the only kind of Syro-Palestinian tool employed in the
MBA but not found in the LBA. Only four new tool forms occur in the Syro-Palestinian
LBA: drills, ax-hammers, ax-adzes and shaft-hole adzes. The introduction of these forms
in LBA Syria-Palestine parallels their appearance in Anatolia and Cyprus. The drills,
adze forms, and ax-hammers collectively makeup only 13% of the LBA Syro-Palestinian
repertoire, thereby confirming that the majority of the region’s LBA tools were a
continuation of earlier forms. The preference for indigenous tool types was a pattern also
detected with the Cypriot and Anatolian data. All three regions showed steady tendencies
in the tool choices and traditions throughout most of the second millennium. Only a
minor yet noticeable portion of these LBA assemblages were new tool forms (e.g. adzes,
drills and various combination tools). These diachronic conclusions are not applicable to
the Aegean, thus revealing disparities between the Greek and the eastern
Mediterranean/Anatolian tool industries.
Shipwreck patterns (Fig. 3.31g): Having examined the variety of tool types
throughout the MBA and LBA regional assemblages, one can better appreciate the cache
of carpentry/masonry tools from the Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks. Chisels also
were found off the coast of Israel at the site of Kibbutz Hahotrim, yet this site may
represent a scatter of objects rather than a shipwreck. Axes, chisels and adzes occur on
both ships, while drills and a saw are found at Uluburun but not Gelidonya. When the two
124

ships are considered jointly, there are only a few LBA carpentry/masonry tool forms
(such ax-hammers, double-adzes, and hammer-adzes) absent from a shipwreck context.
Similarities between tools on shipwrecks and those found in metal hoards on land are
significant and explored in depth in Chapter 5.
X. Conclusions about the functional tool categories
The preceding overview of the different functional tool categories demonstrates
that wood- and stone-working tools were the most frequent tool type in the second
millennium BC. While stone tools continued to be used for certain activities, carpenters
and masons benefitted greatly from the inception of metal, and particularly bronze, types.
The increased efficiency and capability of metal tools to cut and/or pare wood and stone
was a major reason why they were the preferred tool type cross-regionally. The
importance of these implements warrants a detailed investigation, and the following two
chapters examine the wood- and stone-working tools more closely than the broad trends
highlighted here. In Chapter 4, the carpentry/masonry tool types are presented and the
regional preferences and distributions for each kind of implement are discussed; the tool
consumption choices are also considered on a site by site basis. These inquiries elucidate
local and interregional trends—and connections—for the tool industries and presumably
craftsmanship. Chapter 5 appraises the various contexts for the carpentry and masonry
implements (particularly those from hoards and shipwrecks) and identifies potential tool
kits of craftspersons.
Future work may focus on the agricultural, metallurgical, utilitarian, and small
crafting tools in a more substantial manner than the trends that have been observed here.
Of all the tool categories, agricultural implements have the most striking chronological
125

distribution, as the category is quite rare in the MBA. With the inception of metal
agricultural tools in the LBA, distinct regional patterns and preferences are evident. For
instance, the tool category is more prevalent within eastern Mediterranean assemblages
than those from the Aegean. Agricultural implements from the Aegean are normally
sickles, meaning that metal hoes and plowshares, which are well attested on Cyprus and
the Levant, are generally absent in the Aegean. It is likely that the plowing of Greek soil
was conducted with wooden digging and tilling instruments. It is unclear why the
Minoans and Mycenaeans failed to adopt the metal versions. Perhaps the explanation is a
combination of the Aegean preference for and maintenance of a long-held tradition (using
effective wooden types) and the choice to utilize precious and imported metal resources
in a different manner. It may be more significant that eastern Mediterranean peoples
decided to employ metal hoes and plowshares than that the Aegean continued using the
traditional forms. While copper was readily available in the eastern Mediterranean
(meaning that there was metal to spare for the production of agricultural equipment), the
employment of metal hoes and plowshares may indicate a significant shift in how
agriculture was practiced in the region during the LBA.
Of the metallurgical implements, metal types constitute roughly one-third of the
category, as stone molds form the majority of examples. Concentrations of this tool
category are found in Anatolia, Cyprus, and Crete—all regions with archaeometallurgical
evidence that illustrate metalworking centers. The most complete repertoire of tools for
metalworking comes from Cyprus, where there are charcoal shovels, furnace spatulas,
tongs, sledgehammers, an anvil, molds (including those made of metal), and a possible
crucible scraper (Fig. 3.14d). The most surprising aspect of the distribution of
126

metallurgical tools is their general absence from the Late Helladic mainland, despite the
evidence for a high consumption of metal objects—including 947 tools—within the
region and period. This distribution coincides with the lack of excavated metallurgical
workshops on the mainland, and this picture is troublesome in light of the Pylian Jn series
tablets that document the palatial allocation and control of copper resources to bronze
smiths throughout Messenia. 290
Knives comprise the majority of utilitarian implements, and this category has
distinctive chronological and geographical patterns. The tools are prevalent in the Middle
Cypriot period, appearing mostly in burials. The concentration of these objects on MBA
Cyprus reflects local exploitation of the copper resources, specifically by new elites who
consumed and deposited metal as a sign of their social status and prestige. Utilitarian
tools on Cyprus are not as common in the LBA once the island’s social structure was
better established. Utilitarian implements are popular objects in the Aegean, particularly
on the mainland and the islands. The Cretan tools, though well attested, are not as
prevalent in comparison to the proportions found on the mainland and the islands. The
tools occur in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine as well, but their distributions are not as
distinctive as observed on Cyprus or in the Aegean.
The catch-all category of small crafting tools perhaps requires the most attention
for future investigations. The function of these objects could not be determined but they
were likely employed in a task of production and should be considered as tools. Awls and
small pointed objects best represent the group, and a detailed study, using ethnographic
and experimental parallels, would be useful for discerning the implements of the various
small crafts. From the distributions examined here, there seems to be broad regional
290 Smith 1993.
127

differences in the consumption of these tools. For instance, the tool frequencies from
Crete and the Greek mainland declined from the MBA to the LBA, while the proportion
of small craft tools on Cyprus and Anatolia increased (Fig 3.21a, b). It may also be
significant that the small crafting tools are concentrated at large urban or palatial sites;
this distribution suggests that certain craft industries were stationed at and controlled by
authoritative centers. This conclusion can be tested after a more thorough investigation of
the awl-like and pointed implements, many of which are difficult to differentiate and to
assign a specific function.
The broad regional and chronological patterns illustrated in this chapter show the
prevalence of metal tools during the MBA and LBA in the Aegean, eastern
Mediterranean, and Anatolia. It is clear that each tool category played a significant role in
how tasks and crafts were carried out. The greatest contribution of metal implements
during the second millennium BC was their impact on the carpentry and masonry
industries, and so these tools constitute the focus of the following chapters.
128

Chapter 4: Carpentry and masonry tools: types and distributions by site
Of the functional tool categories reviewed in Chapter 3, the carpentry/masonry
implements are the most common and their patterns of consumption deserve a closer
look. This chapter thus presents, in three sections, a detailed analysis of the types and
distributions of second millennium tools. The first describes the different kinds of
carpentry/masonry implements, records their dissemination by region and period, and
considers variations in tool size. The second section offers a site-by-site comparison of
the quantity and types of tools recovered in the archaeological record. Through this
method of analysis, important preferences in each area become evident. Several regions
showed a large concentration of tools at one site, while Crete demonstrated a more even
distribution of tools among its major sites. The chapter concludes by summarizing the
broad regional tool traditions as reflected in the selection of carpentry/masonry
implements. By considering the nature of each tool type, as well as the site-by-site
overview, one may identify specific implements as distinctive to particular regions.
Subsequently, the level of cross-cultural interaction, based on tool distributions, may be
evaluated.
I. Carpentry and Masonry tool types
The presentation of carpentry and masonry tools here does not represent the entire
assembly of implements that were available, as some are absent from the archaeological
record. A few implements, like the tubular drill and pendulum saw, are deduced from
their markings left on worked materials, and these important implements are discussed in
this chapter. Other necessary tools, such as levers, crowbars, and measuring and/or
marking instruments, likely existed but are unattested in the present data. Devices
129

comparable to modern rulers and tape measures are unknown from the Bronze Age,
although Romano envisions Minoan surveyors at Gournia employing the Egyptian
merkhet as a surveying instrument. 291 One would expect that measuring tools were
essential to any kit belonging to a carpenter or mason. 292
In order to cut materials into
specific lengths, some form of measure must have been employed. It was equally
important to create straight lines on materials either to guide a cut or to align blocks on
top of a foundation. A device like the modern chalk line would have been the simplest
way to create a straight line. A powdered string could make a temporary mark on wood
or stone to facilitate an even cut. Any type of straight edge may have been used, but a
powdered string was simple to work and provided a longer line and more precision.
These tool accessories and countless others would have aided craftspersons, and should
be taken into account when considering the preserved implements.
A: Shaft-hole axes (Plates 4.1-4.3)
Shaft-hole axes are blades with a single cutting edge at the tip and a circular or
oval hole at the butt end (Plate 4.1). This configuration enabled a handle to be attached or
hafted to the blade. Shaft-hole axes differ from single flat axes with the employment of a
shaft hole for the handle. Terminology for these implements differs by region, and certain
shaft-hole axes in Syria-Palestine and Egypt are probable weapons instead of tools. 293 For
the Levant, Philip differentiates axes as “narrow-bladed”, “fenestrated” and “shaft-hole”,
but all three types technically have a socketed shaft. 294
The fenestrated axes are
understood as weapons or prestige items of display, as some are made of gold or silver.
291
Romano 2003, 251. A depiction of the merkhet is preserved in the New Kingdom tomb of Menna in
Thebes (18 th dynasty). See Romano 2003, plate Lb for a representation of the device.
292
Pointed out by Evely 2000, 528.
293
Petrie 1917, 5-11; Davies 1987, 23; Philip 1989, 37-68.
294
Philip 1989, 37-44, 49-68.
130

Problems with nomenclature occur with the examples from Crete. Evely describes the
shafted, single axes from Crete merely as “single axes” and calls non-shafted examples
“flat axes”. 295 For the sake of comparison across regions in this study, these types are
considered shaft-hole axes, yet it should be recognized that there are significant
morphological differences among them. 296
The implement type appears throughout the
study region during the second millennium BC, yet is especially distinctive in certain
regions and periods, as summarized in Table 4.1.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 17 11 0 6
Mainland 10 0 8 2
Islands 2 0 0 2
Cyprus 15 13 1 1 (EIA)
Anatolia 39 18 16 5
Syria-Palestine 27 15 8 4
Shipwrecks 1 - 1 -
Total 111 57 34 20
Molds for shaft hole
(some fenestrated) axes
(all Anatolian, except
one from Byblos)
12 9 2 1
Table 4.1: Shaft-hole ax distribution
Two trends stand out for shafted ax blades: their prevalence in the early second
millennium, and their popularity in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine. This pattern is
unsurprising given the prevalence of the ax during the third millennium in Iran,
Mesopotamia and Luristan. 297 The diversity of this implement is impressive; Maxwell-
Hyslop formed 24 categories of shaft-hole axes while Deshayes classified the implement
into 15 typologies, each with numerous sub-groupings. 298
The prominence of shaft-hole
axes in MBA Syria-Palestine and Anatolia is connected, however loosely, with the earlier
Near Eastern tradition of the tool. While the Syro-Palestinian shaft-hole axes were
295 Evely 1993, 55-58, 72-75.
296 The diversity of these tools has been well recognized. See Deshayes 1960, 228, plates 18 to 29.
297 Maxwell-Hyslop 1949; Deshayes 1960, 229-230; Philip 1989, 60-65.
298 Maxwell-Hyslop 1949, 91-116; Deshayes 1960, catalogue entries 1265‒1840.
131

probably influenced from the east, at least two kinds are distinct to the Levant. The first is
what Philip terms “narrow-bladed” axes, which were produced in the coastal Levantine
region; this type of socketed ax was regularly found in burials from Palestine. 299 The
other major shaft-hole ax type from Syria-Palestine is probably a weapon—“fenestrated
axes” with two holes in the blade, also called duckbill axes. 300 Despite the militaristic
nature of the object, their ability to cut meant that they could have been used—however
inefficiently and sporadically—as a tool. Fenestrated or duckbill axes were therefore
included in this tool dataset, even though they are primarily understood as weapons. The
form of these blades may resemble a crescent shape, but they should not be confused with
the non-shafted “crescent axes” that typically occur in Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, and
Egypt during the third millennium. 301 Yet the fenestrated ax perhaps developed naturally
from the non-shafted crescentic axes. A series of MBA socketed axes have been found in
Egyptian graves—all from the eastern Delta region, in particular Tell el-Dab’a. 302 The
shafted axes, both fenestrated (duckbill) and narrow bladed types, are uncharacteristic of
the Egyptian repertoire of weapons and tools and must have been imported from the
Levant. 303
Shaft-hole fenestrated blades and molds are especially common to Byblos, but
the implement was also known and manufactured in Anatolia (according to molds from
Kültepe), and the ax is depicted with an “Asiatic” figure in an Egyptian tomb painting
299
Philip 1989, 40-41, 43-44.
300
Maxwell-Hyslop 1949, 119-121; Philip 1989, 49-59.
301
Philip 1989, 45-48; For Egyptian non-shafted, crescentic axes: Davies 1987, 39-41, entries 79-100,
plates 14-17.
302
Davies 1987, 54, entries 167-169, plate 30; Philip 1995, 71, Figure 1, 1-3.
303
When Petrie (1917, 11) published his monograph on Egyptian tools, he did not know of any prehistoric
socketed axes in Egypt, leading him to conclude: “The use of a socket was very slowly adopted by the
Egyptians; they never employed it for bronze or for hammers, and only a few socketed iron axes have been
found, which are probably Greek or Roman importations.” Now see, Philip 1995, 71, Figure 1, 1-3.
132

from the 19 th century (12 th dynasty). 304 Socketed fenestrated axes are unknown on Cyprus
or the Aegean, except for one example from Vaphio, which is discussed later (Plate
4.2). 305
The greatest collection of shaft-hole ax blades from the areas under study is from
Syria-Palestine and Anatolia. At least 11 Anatolian molds and one from Syria-Palestine
were designed to fashion various shafted ax blades; the majority of these date to the
MBA. The number of molds and shafted axes from the MBA reveals that production of
the tool peaked during the first few centuries of the second millennium. This
chronological phenomenon is also highlighted on Cyprus and Crete, where a greater
proportion of shafted axes occur in MBA than LBA contexts.
The MBA shaft-hole axes on Cyprus have a relatively narrow cutting edge and an
extended overall length (see Fig. 4.1; Plate 4.3). This distinctive shape resembles the MB
II narrow-bladed shaft-hole axes from Syria-Palestine, specifically the specimens from
Ras Shamra. While Buchholz argued that the Cypriot examples were manufactured on
the island, this assertion is tenuous at best, for the objects closely resemble examples
306
from Syria (more so than Palestine). At the very least, Philip believes that “the Cypriot
type fits easily into the general M.B. II pattern [of Syria-Palestine], as another regional
variant of a general Levantine tradition.” 307
Despite the uncertainty of its origin, the
Cypriot shaft-hole ax unquestionably falls in line with the tool’s tradition in Syria-
304
Philip 1989, 49, 58-59.
305
Two fenestrated shaft-hole axes, a duckbill and a crescent-shaped type, were originally attributed to
Cyprus by Evans 1935, 416, figures 345d and e. Catling (1964, 107) disregards the identification of the
axes as Cypriot because they were likely sold by an antiquities dealer. Moreover, the axes are otherwise
unknown on Cyprus and “their patina is quite unlike that of genuine Cypriot bronzes.”
306
Buchholz 1979, 88.
307
Philip 1989, 42.
133

Palestine and Anatolia. There are no definitive MBA examples of the tool on the Greek
mainland or islands.
Shaft-hole axes were not extensively used in the Aegean, probably because of the
overriding predilection for double axes. 308 Eight LH shafted axes are known from the
mainland, and all but one are from Epirus. These Epirote types probably coincide with
metallurgical practices from Albania rather than the Aegean. 309 Artistic renditions of
shaft-hole axes, however, do occur in the Aegean, despite their shortage in the LM and
LH periods. A 16 th century gold bracelet recovered in Shaft Grave IV (Grave Circle A) at
Mycenae provides an image of the tool. 310 The primary design, on the top of the bracelet,
is of four shaft-hole axes fanning out radially from a central point, where the bottoms of
the ax handles meet. It is thought that thin iron cut-outs overlaid each ax to enhance the
motif, though the cut-outs were not preserved. This bracelet, with its representation of
shaft-hole axes, is the only evidence for the tool within the shaft graves, as actual
examples are not found with the burials. The design could not have been adapted from
early Mycenaean tools, as the implement was absent from mainland contexts during that
time. The motif was perhaps taken from the Near East (Anatolia or the Levant), Egypt or
Crete. The 11 shafted axes from MBA Crete (all from Palaikastro), however, are rather
small and unlikely to be the source of inspiration. The diminutive size of the Cretan
specimens led Evely to question their functionality as practical implements and to
propose a votive or ritual function. 311
Depictions of shaft-hole axes appear in other
308
Deshayes 1960, 228; Evely 1993, 58.
309
Deshayes 1960 (entries 1798, 1803 and 1807) provides some examples of shafted axes from LBA
Albania. The Emirate examples seem to reflect a NW Greek/Albanian metallurgical practice rather than a
Mycenaean one.
310
Karo 1930-1933, 76-77, plate XLII, NM 263.
311
Evely 1993, 55, 58.
134

instances of Aegean imagery, leading Evely to conjecture that “later manifestations [of
shaft-hole axes] in artistic settings may be viewed as an anachronism, or drawn obliquely
from other cultural influences: thus, a Syrian form appears in some seal stones, and the
Linear A and B syllabary signs are ultimately derived from Egyptian sources.” 312
Since
the shaft-hole ax was incorporated into Aegean imagery during a time when the
instrument was sparse in that region, the artistic inspiration for the gold bracelet must
have developed outside the Aegean.
An array of shaft-hole ax types is extant, and many of the Anatolian and Syro-
Palestinian examples incorporate decorative features, either as simple designs or
zoomorphic images. The area of the shaft hole provides an ideal space for diverse and
creative flourishes. Some are so elaborate in their design that practical functionality
seems compromised. Consequently, richly adorned blades may be indicative of
313
ritual/prestige items rather than effective implements. The fenestrated shaft-hole axes
can also be understood as symbols of authority and prestige, for the two large holes in the
center of the blade weakened the object and prevented it from being an effective cutting
device—either as a weapon or a tool. 314 The occurrence of these objects in gold or as
miniatures in the Levant further demonstrates that they were markers of high status. 315
A fenestrated ax head with a crescent shape and a shaft hole, otherwise unattested
in the Aegean world, was found in a cist from the LH IIA Vaphio tholos tomb (Plate
312 Evely 1993, 58.
313 For instance, consider the elaborate ceremonial shaft-hole ax found in a shrine at Ugarit; the object has
an iron blade, copper shaft area depicting two lions and a boar, which are outlined with gold inlay. See
Galliano and Calvet 2004, 166 entry 150.
314 Philip 1989, 49-53.
315 For a gold fenestrated shaft-hole ax from MBA Byblos, see: Aruz, Benzel and Evans 2008, 55 entry 27;
for miniature, fenestrated axes from MBA Ugarit, see: Contenson 1992, 189, plate CLXIX, 3.
135

4.2). 316 Similar blades are known from Syria and Anatolia, but the Aegean example is
unique in having three shaft holes with gaps in between. Evans classified the object as a
weapon of “the Minoan prince,” but a comparable fenestrated ax head with three separate
shaft holes is also known from the MBA Sakçagözü hoard found in southeastern
Anatolia. 317 The occurrence of a crescent-like, fenestrated shaft-hole ax in the
Peloponnese testifies to cultural interaction with the east and it stands to reason that the
blade was a prestige/ceremonial item rather than a weapon or tool. The ax was most
likely a ritual object in the Aegean, utilized by priests, judging by seal depictions (from
Knossos, Vatheia near Knossos, and Vaphio) of long-robbed figures carrying a
fenestrated-like ax over their shoulders. 318 The ritual connotation of the Vaphio ax is thus
emphasized by the depiction of a similar looking blade on one of the seals from the same
grave. One reason for its specialized nature in the Aegean is surely because it was unique
to that region. The pairing of the Vaphio fenestrated ax with an ax-adze, decorated with a
figure-of-eight shield motif on its side, is unusual. 319
A ritual item like the ax blade is an
odd selection to be combined with a carpentry/masonry tool, even if it too was considered
a prestige item.
Regional distinctions and similarities are manifested not only in the distribution of
the tool but also in physical aspects such as the length and cutting edge width (Fig. 4.1).
As previously mentioned, the Cretan shaft-hole axes are notably smaller than those found
in the eastern Mediterranean. The Cypriot cases are the most standardized among the
dataset, as suggested by their low coefficient of variation (0.17 for both the length and
316
Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987, 203-204, figure 4; Tripathi 1988, 346 entry 1145. National Museum #1870.
317
Evans 1935, 418; Summers 1991, 178, figure 2, plate XXXIII.
318
Evans 1935, 413-414, figure 343; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987, 204 figures 7 and 8 (#225).
319
Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987, figure 2, 4, 5.
136

cutting edge). The coefficient of variation (CV) is calculated by the formula of
Standard deviation
Mean
. Lower coefficients signify a more consistent dataset while higher
values indicate more variable data. As one would expect, the Cypriot data best resembles
the measurements of the Syro-Palestinian tools. The lengths of the Syro-Palestinian and
Anatolian versions are quite comparable (around 14.5 cm on average with a similar
coefficient of variation), though the cutting width is nearly two centimeters greater in
Anatolia (5.5 cm) than in the Levant (3.8 cm).
B: Shaft-hole (or socketed) adzes
The shafted or socketed adze is a sibling of the shaft-hole ax, but it also bears a
resemblance to socketed hoes. 320 Shaft-hole or socketed adzes are identified by an adze
blade, which features a single bevel at the cutting edge, and either a shaft-hole or folded-
over socket at the butt end of the object for hafting. The tools are relatively large, with
lengths regularly over 20 cm and cutting edge widths greater than 6 cm. Comparatively
common in Iran and Mesopotamia, shaft-hole adzes are rare in the regions under study. 321
The tool was unknown in Egypt, even though single-bladed adzes were quite familiar to
that area. Since the tool is so rare in the Mediterranean regions, they are probably
alterations of socketed axes and hoes rather than imports from Iran or Mesopotamia.
When found in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean (Table 4.2), the shafted adze is
nearly exclusive to Syria and Anatolia (Ugarit, Alalakh, Boğazköy), except for a single
early example in the Aegean—from Quartier Mu at Mallia. This restricted distribution
further underscores the dominant tradition of single shafted implements (mostly axes) in
the Near East. The tool is best known at Ras Shamra, where eight shaft-hole adzes were
320 For the similarity of socketed adzes and hoes, see Petrie 1917, 18-19; Deshayes 1960, 230-239.
321 Deshayes 1960, 238-239, catalogue entries 1841‒1933.
137

part of a metal hoard that was stashed under the threshold of the high priest’s house near
the Baal and Dagon temples. 322
The surfaces of several adzes were inscribed in Ugaritic,
thus recording a dedication to the city’s high priest.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 1 1 - -
Mainland 0 - - -
Islands 0 - - -
Cyprus 0 - - -
Anatolia 5 1 4 -
Syria-Palestine 9 - 9 -
Shipwrecks 0 - - -
Total 15 2 13 0
Table 4.2: Shaft-hole adze distribution
C: Double axes (Plates 4.4-4.9)
While shafted axes with single blades are typical of tool repertoires from the
eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia, shaft-hole axes with two blade ends are distinctly
Aegean. The double ax is more effective than single-blade tools because “it does not have
to be sharpened as often and is perfectly balanced for swinging.” 323 The tool occurs as
early as the third millennium on Crete and the Greek mainland. Verification of the tool’s
early manufacture comes from a double ax mold in an EM IIB context at Vasiliki.
Physical examples of the tool appear in the early carpenter hoards, such as the EM II-MM
II Selakanos and Samba (Pediados) hoards, as well as the Thebes EH hoard. 324
The regional and chronological distribution of double axes is outlined in Table
4.3. By the MBA, the tool type is well documented on Crete, but its presence is sporadic
elsewhere. Indeed less than ten percent of the known double axes are dated to the MBA,
as the implement is predominately restricted to the LBA. The dramatic increase in double
322 Schaeffer 1956, 251-275.
323 Shaw 2009, 40.
324 Four or five double axes from the Selakanos hoard: see Branigan 1969, 2-4; Branigan 1974; Deshayes
1960, entries 736, 737, 2038, 2018, 2045. One double ax from the Samba (Pediados) hoard: see Branigan
1968; Branigan 1969. One double axes from the Thebes EBA hoard: see Renfrew 1967; Branigan 1969;
Branigan 1974, 134, 153; Maran 1989.
138

axes (as well as corresponding molds) on Crete by the LBA is recognized by Evely: “it is
not until the Neo-Palatial period that the trickle of actual examples becomes a flood.” 325
Beyond Crete, the increase of double axes over time is quite dramatic on the mainland,
but also recognizable in Anatolia and Cyprus. The reason for this sudden and intensified
consumption of double axes during the LBA is unclear. The paucity of examples from
Cyprus, Anatolia, and Syria-Palestine provides a stark contrast to the rich quantities
recovered in the Aegean. Due to the popularity of shafted single axes and trunnion/lugged
axes in areas other than the Aegean, a strong market for the double ax never materialized
in the eastern Mediterranean or Anatolia. Therefore, five Gelidonya and two Uluburun
double axes should be understood as implements typical of Aegean assemblages rather
than of the eastern Mediterranean. 326
Shaft-hole and trunnion/lugged axes were more
accessible than double axes in the eastern Mediterranean, and despite the regional
preference for the single-blade tools, the double axes were found on the ships. It is very
possible, but not certain, that these double axes were originally manufactured in the
Aegean before ending up on an international vessel. The reason for these tools aboard the
vessels remains a mystery, but perhaps they were a tool kit, as argued for in Chapter 5.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 327
235 25 (7 are EBA-MBA) 137 70
Mainland 112 3 (1 is EBA-MBA 104 5
Islands 12 2 8 2
Cyprus 4 0 4 0
Anatolia 12 1 9 2
Syria-Palestine 3 1 2 0
Shipwrecks 7 - 7 -
Total 382 32 270 79
Table 4.3: Double ax distribution
325 Evely 1993, 54.
326 This supposition does not claim that the shipwreck double axes were manufactured in the Aegean, but
merely indicates the regional selection tendencies for the double ax.
327 For a list and discussion of Minoan double ax molds, see Evely 1993, 41-55, figures 20-21, plates 14-15.
139

Whether the double ax was an implement of carpenters, masons, or both cannot
be determined at present. Shaw recognized the double ax as suitable for woodworking,
but the probability or likelihood of its use for stonework cannot be excluded. 328 Despite
its potential as a mason’s tool, Evely observed that “there are no indisputable clues to
suggest if, in fact, it was used on dressing masonry blocks.” 329
If used on masonry, the
double ax would have roughly shaped an architectural block. At the very least, it seems
that the tool’s general absence in Cyprus, Anatolia, and Syria-Palestine indicates that it
was not a regular implement of a mason’s tool kit in those regions. It is less clear whether
the tools were used on stone in the Aegean.
Aegean double axes have a long history of scholarship, not only because of their
ubiquity but also on account of the numerous depictions of the tool in other media.
Cretan double axes are generally divided into two functional categories: ceremonial and
utilitarian. The double ax is widely regarded as a cultic symbol in Minoan culture, based
on the frequency of its representation on seal stones, mason’s marks, Linear A, pottery,
and even in the shape of a cist grave, 331 as well as numerous miniature double axes
fashioned out of precious metals and deposited at shrines, such as the peak sanctuary at
Iukhtas. 332 Large, cultic double axes consist of sheets cut out of bronze, then hammered;
these objects were undoubtedly symbolic rather than functional. 333
For this reason, the
ceremonial Minoan double axes are not included in the current tool dataset, though they
328
Shaw 2009, 39.
329
Evely 1993, 55.
330
Evans 1914; Petrie 1917, 13-15; Deshayes 1960, 253-261; Catling 1964, 88-89; Spyropoulos 1972;
Shaw 1973a, 45-47; Branigan 1974, 21-22; Evely 1993, 41-55; Onassoglou 1995; Onassoglou 1996;
Haysom 2010.
331
See Evans 1914; Alberti 2009.
332
For an up-to-date review of this topic and its literature, see Haysom 2010; also Buchholz 1959; for
Iukhtas see Karetsou 1981.
333
Shaw 2009, 39.
330
140

are impressive and meaningful in their own right. Utilitarian double axes are well-made
and solid-cast, and are the only kind of double ax found outside of Crete (Plates 4.4-6).
The initial preference for double axes on Crete may have been linked to its affiliation
with cults, but the proliferation of the functional implement on the Mainland was due to
its high utilitarian value. Shaw notes that considering the “worn, sometimes battered
condition resulting from repeated use, they [double axes] must have been a versatile,
popular tool.” 334
The success of the double ax as an effective implement, rather than its
reverence as a ceremonial object, is the reason for its wide dispersal throughout the
Aegean. Yet studies on the double ax have not adequately acknowledged a disconnection
in the production and consumption tendencies between Minoan and Mycenaean types.
The depositional record for double axes differs from Crete to the mainland.
Double axes are abnormal as burial gifts, for less than ten percent come from mortuary
contexts. Of the 33 double axes attributed to burials in the dataset, 20 were placed in a
single grave at Mycenae (Tomb of the Tripods).
335
Evidently, the double ax was rarely
removed from circulation deliberately—a probable indication of its high functionality.
LH double axes are repeatedly recovered in metal hoards (65 of the 104 LH examples
were from a cache), but the occurrence of double axes in Minoan hoards (37 of 137) is
less frequent. Considering the number of double axes from Mainland hoards and the
impressive assembly from the Tomb of the Tripods, it is very rare for mainland double
axes to be found without any other tools.
The distribution of double axes on the mainland is more restricted than on Crete.
The implement has been recovered from 27 mainland sites, but the majority came from a
334 Shaw 2009, 39.
335 Onassoglou 1995; Onassoglou 1996.
141

few select palaces (e.g. Mycenae, Athens, Orchomenos, and Thebes). Double axes are far
less frequent at lower-level Mycenaean sites; when they appear outside the palace, they
occur in hoards. Minoan specimens, on the other hand, are ubiquitous throughout the
island (68 sites), both in the “rural village and urban/palatial centre alike.” 336
Therefore,
the availability of the double ax was more restricted on the mainland, while the tool was
employed by a wider range of users on Crete.
One might assume that the Mycenaean double ax developed organically from
Minoan types, and this supposition seems to be supported by the sheer volume of tools in
both regions. Yet important differences between the Cretan and mainland double axes
include their period of use and their basic shape (Plates 4.4-9). A distinct chronological
gap exists between the use of the tool on Crete (primarily in the Neopalatial period) and
the inception of the tool on the mainland during the LH III period. Given the popularity
and broad scattering of the Cretan double ax during the Neopalatial period as well as the
numerous Minoan items in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, it is inexplicable why double
axes were not found in any early Mycenaean context. When the tool appears on the
mainland in the LH III period, the Mycenaeans had made a few modifications to the
Cretan form. Specifically the mainland versions utilized oval shaft holes rather than
round ones; the overall tool was slightly elongated; and the object’s middle width (from
top of the shaft hole to the bottom) was narrowed (Fig. 4.2; Plates 4.7-9). These
observations imply that the Mycenaean craftspersons did not wholeheartedly adopt the
traditional form of the Minoan craft implement. There are two MH double axes from
Sesklo, but they resemble Cretan versions with their thick waists and circular shaft holes,
and so are unrelated to the LH III examples.
336 Evely 1993, 54.
142

The earliest Mycenaean double ax seems to be the oval-shafted example in the
Andronianoi hoard (from eastern Euboea), which is dated to the LH II-IIIA1 period; this
chronological assessment is based on analogies of the hoard’s metal objects rather than
on firm stratigraphic or ceramic evidence. 337 The double ax has extremely broad cutting
edges, at 9.35 and 9.95 cm, with a narrower (6.6 cm) shaft-hole area (Plate 4.9). 338 Only a
few other mainland double axes (all from the Katamachi hoard in Epirus) have
commensurate dimensions to the Andronianoi tool, yet the implement does not replicate
the utilitarian Minoan double ax in any substantive manner. 339
The dearth of double axes
during the early Mycenaean period indicates that mainlanders were accustomed to a
different tool kit before widely adopting an improved double ax in the palatial era. The
inception of the palatial period Mycenaean double ax demonstrates that there were certain
disconnections in tool production between Crete and the mainland. The regional
differences are explored in more depth below.
The method for attaching the double ax blade to a handle is a defining trait of the
340
implement. The majority of Minoan double axes have round shaft holes (Plates 4.4-6).
During the Neopalatial period, grooves were added at the edges of some shaft holes,
perhaps so that small wedges or nails could be inserted. The system secured and
stabilized the ax-head onto the shaft and, most importantly, prevented the blade from
spinning around or falling off completely. 341
Making an oval shaft hole was another
means to stabilize the blade (Plates 4.7-9). Oval shaft holes occur in a few Cretan
337 Paschalidis 2007.
338 Paschalidis 2007.
339 This observation is even more important when considering that an impressive saw from the Andronianoi
hoard has its closest parallels with Cretan specimens.
340 Evely 1993, 50.
341 There are other basic ways for stabilizing a blade to a handle. Wooden wedges, perhaps slivers, could be
inserted between the handle and shaft hole, even if the blade lacked grooves. Soaking a wooden handle and
a blade in water is also effective for creating a tight fit between the tool and its haft.
143

specimens (Evely’s Type 4 lists seven examples), but they hail chiefly from the
Mycenaean period. 342 Grooves at the ends of the oval shaft holes also confirm that
elliptical hafts could be secured to the ax-heads with wedges, pins or nails. The basic
ergonomic difference between round and oval shaft holes is that the ax could twist around
the shaft in the case of a round hole, but would stay put if it were oval. 343 It is unclear
why elliptical holes were not universally adopted on Crete. Evely observes that the
Minoans either “missed or remained unmoved by the alternative solution favoured by the
Mycenaeans” and that they had a “stubborn preference for the circular shaft hole.” 344
The
oval design of shaft holes was far superior to the circular one, but the round versions
persisted on Crete for hundreds of years and were later employed on 13 th -century Cyprus,
even when the elliptical Mycenaean shaft holes were in vogue.
One of the similarities between the Cretan and mainland double axes was the
nearly identical width of the cutting edge (Fig. 4.2). The average width for Cretan axes is
5.88 cm (with a coefficient of variation of 0.13), while the mainland’s mean is 5.85 cm
(with a coefficient of variation of 0.19). The limited variation of cutting edge sizes
demonstrates that the Mycenaeans found the Minoan blade edge sufficient and effective.
Yet along with the change to the more ergonomically shaped oval shaft holes, the
Mycenaeans seem to have increased the double ax length (17.6 cm with a CV of 0.29)
and made the waist more narrow (4.05 cm with a CV of 0.14) in comparison to the
Cretan examples (length=16.6 cm with CV of 0.23; middle width =4.9 cm with a CV of
342 Evely 1993, 50.
343 Shaw 2009, 39.
344 Evely 1993, 51.
144

0.13). 345 The mainland’s longer and narrower shape makes it appear notably elongated
when viewed next to Minoan types. Since the cutting edge widths are so similar in both
regions, the differences found in the mainland examples seem intentional, and probably
an upgrade over the Cretan design. Without experimentation, it is impossible to conclude
whether shorter, thicker double axes from Crete were less efficient than mainland forms,
but the oval shaft holes were far superior to the circular ones. It would seem that the
Mycenaeans developed a more practical and functional double ax, accepting aspects of
the Minoan form while rejecting others. The improvement of the double ax by the
Mycenaeans is perhaps comparable to mainlanders devising a stronger short sword (type
B) that was far more effective than the weakly-hafted, long Minoan sword (type A). 346
D: Single, non-shafted axes and adzes
Non-shafted axes and adzes are divided into three categories in this analysis:
trunnion or lugged axes (and a few adzes); single, flat axes; and single, flat adzes. These
three categories all bear some resemblance to each other. 347
Making identification even
more complicated, they are also comparable to chisels with wide cutting edges. These
tool types all have similar sizes, meaning that they are hard to distinguish. A scatter plot
of the total length (x-axis) by the cutting edge width (y-axis) in Figure 4.3 visually
345 The EH Theban double ax, from an early hoard, partially resembles some Mycenaean double axes. The
EH Theban example has a narrow shaft-hole area in relation to its cutting edges, but the tool has a round
rather than an oval shaft-hole design. The Mycenaean version with the narrow waist is not entirely unique
on the mainland, yet the EH examples can hardly be connected to the LH III Mycenaean specimens.
346 This point was suggested to me by J.C. Wright.
347 It is worthwhile to repeat Petrie’s (1917, 5) list of differences between Egyptian axes and adzes: “The
axe has the edge parallel to the handle; the adze has it across the handle. The axe is mounted into a handle,
or a handle into it; the adze is bound on to a handle, in general. The axe is equal faced and edged; the adze
has one face longer or flatter, and is usually ground on one side. The axe is to drive into wood to split it; the
adze is to take a thin slip off a larger mass. The axe usually has a short body, and means of pulling it back
or twisting it loose from the grip of the cloven wood; the adze has a long body, and (in ancient times) only
a weak attachment to the handle, as it was never struck in deeply. The axe is thick in order to bear shock
and carry weight; the adze is thinner, strength not being required.”
145

conveys how chisels, single axes, single adzes and trunnion blades relate to each other. A
linear regression trendline is displayed for each group of data, as well as the R-squared
value of each line, with a value of 1 representing a perfect linear relationship between
length and cutting width. This chart does not include every tool from the database, but
only cases where the length and width are known. There does not appear to be a strong
linear correlation between length and cutting edge for these objects, and perhaps the
cutting edge size was more important than the tool’s length. As displayed in the graph,
the majority of chisels have cutting widths under 2 cm, but a discrete group has widths 3
cm and greater. This cluster of chisels reflects examples entirely from the Aegean, and
their size generally overlaps with the other tool data. A second scatter plot (Fig. 4.4),
excluding chisels with widths less than 3 cm, plainly shows the dimensions at which
different tools overlap.
Certain salient features may clarify the function of tools with a similar size and
shape. For instance, the existence of an adze cutting profile will imply a particular use.
Yet the identification of these objects is hardly easy, and one of the greatest challenges in
dealing with these tool types is ascertaining how they were hafted, if they were at all. The
nomenclature employed to differentiate these tools may also be a product of
uncoordinated regional studies. It is interesting, therefore, that “broad” chisels are
exclusive to the Aegean, while single/flat axes with similar cutting edges to broad chisels
are prominent in the eastern Mediterranean but rare in the Greek world. A further method
of distinguishing these implements is to examine the ratio of their overall length by their
cutting edge width. With this computation, differences among these tool types become
clearer. The mean ratio, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation for these four
146

kinds of implements are presented in Figure 4.5a. As broad chisels are generally longer,
they have a higher ratio (mean of 5.33) than the other tools. Trunnion blades and
single/flat axes have a comparable ratio (mean of 3.2 and 2.8 respectively), while single
adzes have low ratio mean of 2.3. The adze ratio is skewed and not an accurate reflection
of the tool type, since numerous single adzes in the database came from the Gelidonya
shipwreck and are fragmentary.
Despite the different ratios (as measured by the mean), there are instances of
overlap among the categories. When a tool’s ratio hovers between 3.5 and 4, it could be
classified under any four of the implements. 348 This conclusion is evident when
examining a box-and-dot plot (Figure 4.5b), showing the general range and outliers of a
tool category’s ratio (length divided by cutting width). 349 The box represents the “mid-
spread” of the data—that is the central half of the bunch; the horizontal line in the box is
the median (and not the mean) of the data. The vertical lines on either side of the box are
called “adjacent values” and represent the full extent of the dataset’s range. Small shapes,
on either side of the adjacent values, are used to designate “outliers”; outliers are defined
by their distance from the rest of the data. When the distance between the upper or lower
quartile of a mid-spread is greater than 1.5 times the mid-spread range, then those plots
are designated as outliers. 350
These ratios and box-and-dot plot demonstrate that there are undeniable
similarities in tool size and shape and that length and width measurements may point to
348
This conclusion is similar but slightly different from the 4.4 ratio that McGeehan-Liritzis used to
differentiate chisels from axes from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean; see McGeehan-
Liritzis 1996, 58-59. As a general rule of thumb, chisels will have higher L:W ratios than axes, but a gray
area certainly exists.
349
Drennan 2009, 37-41; this box-and-dot plot was made using a statistics computer program, PASW
Statistics 18.
350
Drennan 2009, 38-40.
147

functional differences. An implement with a high ratio is relatively long, and should
probably be characterized as a chisel. On the other hand, shorter blades, like axes,
typically have low ratios. Ultimately, some cutting tools defy definitive categorization
and may have been utilized in a variety of ways.
D1: Trunnion/lugged axes and adzes (Plates 4.10-4.13)
Flat ax or adze blades with a protrusion near the butt end on both sides are
classified as trunnion or lugged (Plates 4.4-13). Evely defined the trunnion ax in the
following manner: “the basic shape of this tool is a rectangular tablet of metal, divided
into two unequal parts by the trunnions or horns that may project from its sides.” 351 These
projections (variously called lugs, horns or ears) appear on either axes or adzes, making
identification difficult at times. There are 105 examples of trunnion or lugged blades in
the dataset, yet only 6 are definitely adzes. Evely and Catling categorized this tool type as
an ax, while Deshayes acknowledged the ambiguity but favored the identification of an
adze. 352 The lugs served variant purposes depending on the blade’s function, which also
dictated the method of hafting. 353 As an adze, the protrusions would enhance the
proficiency of hafting the blade onto a curved handle by means of a string or thong. As an
ax, the blade’s butt end would be inserted in a parallel fashion into a mortised haft,
allowing the protrusions “to reduce the tendency of the blade to be driven back into the
shaft under the impact of the blows.” 354
The trunnion/lugged blade could operate like a
351
Evely 1993, 58.
352
Evely 1993, 60; Catling 1964, 87; Deshayes 1960, 128.
353
For hafting issues of trunnion/lugged blades, see Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 69. 71.
354
Evely 1993, 60.
148

oad chisel if it were hafted perpendicularly into or against a wide handle; this
configuration changes the angle of attachment by 90 degrees. 355
As the trunnion/lugged blades could be hafted in a number of different ways, they
could function variably as adzes, broad chisels or axes (for the dimensions of trunnion
blades, see Fig. 4.6). Yet the ratio of the trunnion blade’s length divided by its cutting
edge width implies that it may be best understood as an ax. The trunnion/lugged ratio
best corresponds to that of the single/flat axes, which is evident by their similar mean
(and a comparable coefficient of variation) as well as their related mid-spread (Fig. 4.5a,
b).Trunnion blades are not as similar to wide chisels, though there is some overlap in the
range of their ratio values. There is one important factor, however, against the
interpretation of the trunnion/lugged blades as axes. Generally, these are flat pieces of
metal lacking the ideal thickness for a striking implement like an ax. The thicknesses of
sixteen trunnion/lugged tools are recorded in the database, and their average thickness at
the center of the blade is 0.9 cm (with a standard deviation of ±0.34 cm and CV of 0.36);
see also Plates 4.10-14.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd
millennium
Crete 5 1 2 2
Mainland 4 0 4 (1 is an adze) 0
Islands 2 0 2 0
Cyprus 8 0 8 (2 are adzes) 0
Anatolia 67 20 34 13
Syria-Palestine 12 2 8 2
Shipwrecks 7 0 7 (3 are adzes) 0
Total 105 20 64 21
Molds for trunnion/ lugged
axes (all Anatolian )
9 2 5 2
Table 4.4: Trunnion/lugged ax (and adze) distribution
355 Maxwell-Hyslop (1953, 71) suggests some of the narrower trunnion blades were chisels and that “when
used as a chisel the tool would be hafted lengthways into the shaft.”
149

The tool type is common in Anatolia (Table 4.4), where it may have originated—
possibly in the Cilicia region as suggested by Maxwell-Hyslop. 356 The Anatolian series
has parallels with Iranian examples, raising the possibility that the tool was initially
developed further east. 357 It should be noted that lugged axes in Egypt originated in the
sixth dynasty (Old Kingdom) and were common during the Middle and New Kingdoms
as well. The Egyptian versions are easily discernible for they are thicker and shorter than
the examples found in other regions and are unrelated to the types manufactured
elsewhere. 358 All but two MBA trunnion/lugged axes in the dataset are from Anatolia,
and two MBA molds from that region testify to the tool’s production there. 359 Later
molds are also reported from Anatolia, but the mold type is not encountered in other areas
under study during the second millennium. A single MBA Aegean trunnion/lugged ax
(from Mallia) is known; the ax perhaps belonged to a burial near Chrysolakkos and the
object is much smaller (L=5.5; W=2.2 cm) than Anatolian examples. Yet cultural
connections between MBA Crete and Anatolia are indicated by several artifact types. 360
Within this framework, the Mallia trunnion/lugged ax must have been imported from
central Anatolia or at least inspired by eastern examples. By the LBA, the tool was
disseminated throughout the entire study region, yet the sum of the trunnion/lugged axes
outside Anatolia still does not match the aggregate of LBA samples from Turkey.
After Anatolia, the implement is found equally in Syria-Palestine, Cyprus and the
shipwrecks. Eight trunnion/lugged blades were uncovered from the LBA Aegean,
356
Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 73; Catling 1964, 87.
357
Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 76-79.
358
Petrie 1917, 8; Davies 1987, 48-50, 53, plates 18-29; Scheel 1989, 47-48.
359
For the Anatolian trunnion/lugged ax molds, see: Müller-Karpe 1994, 199, 204, 206, 212; Erkanal 1977,
6 entry 35, plate 3.35
360
Seals and sealings are comparable between the two regions; see: Aruz 2008; Weingarten 1994. Obsidian
found at Mallia is thought to have originated in Anatolia; see Carter and Kilikoglou 2007.
150

demonstrating the presence of the Anatolian ax on Crete, the mainland and islands during
the latter half of the second millennium. The tool type, nevertheless, was not widely
accepted in the Aegean in its Anatolian form. The precise chronology of the lugged
blade’s appearance in the Aegean cannot be pinpointed, but at least six of the eight LBA
examples are dated to LBA III. 361
Given that the trunnion/lugged blades are primarily
found in the Aegean during the 14 th and 13 th -centuries, this may testify to limited contact
and exchange between Hittite and Mycenaean craftspersons.
D2: Single/flat axes (Plates 4.14-4.15)
A single ax blade is simple, lacks a shaft hole, and consists of one cutting edge
(Plates 4.14-15). Because of its plain appearance, the implement is not easily
distinguishable from flat adzes and wide chisels. 362 Consideration of the length-width
ratio, as displayed in Figures 4.5a, b, helps to differentiate the ax from similarly shaped
tools. In recognizing single axes from adzes, the statistical measurements are not very
useful because many adzes are fragmentary. Evely deems this challenge of identification
“probably impossible…[even though] adzes tend to be less robust than axes and have a
preference for a single bevel.” 363 While Deshayes avoids differentiating single axes from
adzes, Shaw interprets them as adzes, and Catling attempts to distinguish them while
acknowledging their similarity. 364
In this study, most single/flat blades are classified as
axes rather than adzes. Only when there is clear evidence of a single bevel on the cutting
edge is a tool identified as an adze. Consequently, the overall count of single axes and
adzes may be distorted in favor of the axes. Axes and adzes are difficult to distinguish by
361
The earliest appearance of the trunnion/lugged blade in the Aegean is from MM I-II Mallia, but this
single case can hardly explain the appearance of the tool during the Aegean LBA III period.
362
Evely 1993, 5.
363
Evely 1993, 75.
364
Deshayes 1960, 51ff; Shaw 1973, 47ff; Catling 1964, 86; Evely 1993, 75.
151

their size alone (Fig. 4.4), and the profile of the cutting edge is the best available—yet far
from satisfactory—method for differentiating them.
Items classified as single/flat axes are also comparable to broad chisels. The
average cutting width of the single/flat axes is 4.6 cm with a coefficient of variation of
0.27 (Fig. 4.7). Chisels usually have narrower cutting edges than single ax blades, but
both tools may have cutting widths between 3.5‒4 cm. In such cases, the tool’s length
must be considered as well, for chisels typically are longer than axes. This conclusion is
evident from the ratios representing tool length over width (Fig. 4.5a, b). There are a few
cases where single axes and broad chisels cannot be differentiated, but a general rule
seems to be that the L:W ratio of axes is notably smaller than wide chisels. Restated, axes
are more likely to have wider cutting edges and shorter overall lengths than true chisels.
As a basic cutting implement, the single/flat axe’s role was undoubtedly multi-
functional. Catling recognized the Cypriot samples as carpentry tools, but they may have
been employed for other purposes as well, perhaps for utilitarian needs or even as
weapons. 365 The terminology employed to classify some axes can also be problematic.
Evely categorizes “single-axes” differently from “flat axes/adzes,” but the former are
really shafted single axes and are listed as such in this study. 366
The terms “single ax” and
“flat ax” vary by region but are essentially utilized to describe the same basic ax type,
and are used interchangeably here.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 14 1 11 2
Mainland 18 2 13 3
Islands 8 - 7 1
Cyprus 153 123 26 4
Anatolia 30 11 16 3
Syria-Palestine 145 48 58 39
365 Catling 1964, 85.
366 Evely 1993, 55, 72.
152

Shipwrecks 2 - 2 -
Total 370 185 133 52
Table 4.5: Single/flat ax distribution
Non-shafted ax blades are very common in the Egyptian repertoire of tools, but
the standard type from that region is short and semi-circular, therefore bearing no
similarity to any single blade in the current dataset. 367 The distribution of single/flat axes
is widespread during the second millennium, yet different regional patterns are
perceptible (Table 4.5). Less than one-tenth of the extant single/flat axes are from Aegean
contexts, including only three examples from the MBA. The blade was equally sparse in
Anatolia, for the tool was most prevalent in the eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus and the
Syro-Palestinian region shared a strong preference for these simple implements. The tool
is unique in having a greater number from the MBA than the LBA. The tool was
pervasive on Cyprus during the MBA and prominent along the Syro-Palestinian coast
during the same period. The MC single/flat ax developed naturally from the EBA Cypriot
metallurgical tradition, as copper-alloy axes were produced as early as the EC I period. 368
The large number of MC single/flat axes is attributed to numerous burials along the
northern coast of the island, where highly-valued metal objects were deposited in great
quantity. Keswani explained this early MC phenomenon as the upshot of nascent,
indigenous elites procuring the island’s metal resources while promoting and confirming
their newfound wealth in the mortuary realm. 369
Of 123 MC single/flat axes, 83 were
discovered as burial goods (for example, one from Alambra, shown in Plate 4.14). A
substantial number of LC axes (26) have been recovered as well, yet this aggregate
represents one-fifth of the previous period’s count. Only six LC axes were found in
367
For an overview of the Egyptian single blade, see: Petrie 1917, 5-11, plates I-VIII; Davies 1987, 27-37,
plates 1-10; Scheel 1989, 47-48.
368
Catling 1964, 85, 87.
369
Keswani 2004; Keswani 2005.
153

mortuary contexts, thus confirming a significant social shift in mortuary behavior during
the second millennium, not to mention changing predilections in tool selection.
Considering the examples from all regions and periods, the contextual distribution for
single/flat axes, in order of greatest quantity, is as follows: settlements (118 examples),
burials (110), hoards (86), unknown or surface contexts (50), and cult or sanctuary
contexts (4).
Although the consumption of single/flat axes declined in Cyprus by the LBA, the
preference for these tools remained steady from the MBA to the LBA in Syria-Palestine
and Anatolia. The ax’s distribution in the Aegean reveals a notable increase in its
selection during the LBA. The simple design of the tool leaves little room for
embellishment or variation, making it difficult to identify regionally-specific traits. The
distinctive regional distributions of the single/flat axes imply a shared craft tradition
between Cyprus and Syria-Palestine, but the Levantine blades were usually longer (Fig.
4.7). The average length of single axes falls between 11.5 and 17 cm, while the cutting
edge width hovers around 4.6 cm (Fig. 4.7). This simple ax is not as popular in Anatolia
as it is in Cyprus or Syria-Palestine, perhaps because a similar product, the
trunnion/lugged ax, had already been adopted in Anatolia. Likewise, the propensity for
double axes in the Aegean probably precluded any need for single/flat axes.
Consequently, single/flat axes share a basic regional pattern with shaft-hole axes; they are
prominent in Syria-Palestine and Cyprus (and to some extent Anatolia) yet comparatively
rare in the Aegean. Conversely, double axes, omnipresent in the Aegean, are anomalies in
the eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia.
154

D3: Single/flat adzes (Plate 4.16)
The single/flat adze undoubtedly developed out of the single/flat ax, leading
Catling to observe that the “two forms are closely related.” 370 Yet scholars may be
reluctant to label a blade an ax or an adze. 371 The importance of adzes to carpentry is
readily apparent in the Egyptian evidence, for adze blades are well preserved and are
commonly depicted in scenes of carpentry and shipbuilding. 372 Only 29 single/flat adzes
are listed in the dataset, far less than the number of axes (Table 4.6; for an example from
Enkomi, see Plate 4.16). Some single/flat adzes are perhaps misidentified as axes,
meaning that the adze type may be more prevalent than the current data convey. Catling
recognized the rarity of single/flat adzes on Cyprus and attributed the type’s origin to
Egypt or the Near East. 373
While single/flat axes were multi-functional in their chopping
operations, adzes were probably restricted to woodworking and specifically used to pare
a surface smooth.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 3 1 2 -
Mainland 1 - 1 -
Islands 0 - - -
Cyprus 5 1 4 -
Anatolia 2 - 2 -
Syria-Palestine 0 - - -
Shipwrecks 18 - 18 -
Total 29 2 27 0
Table 4.6: Single/flat adze distribution
The consumption of single/flat adzes took place in regions where shaft-hole adzes
were unavailable: specifically Crete, the mainland and Cyprus. The existence of single-
bladed adze implements in Cyprus and the Aegean is unsurprising, since adze profiles
370 Catling 1964, 86.
371 For Petrie’s helpful distinction between axes and adzes, see footnote 347.
372 Petrie 1917, 16-18, plates XV-XVII; Scheel 1989, 49-50, figures 53-54, 57; Killen 2000, 355. For
shipbuilding scenes with adzes from Old Kingdom Egypt, see: Rodgers 1992; Steffy 1994, 30-31, Pl. 3-8.
373 Catling 1964, 87. Shaw (2009, 40) also notes that single/flat adzes are atypical on Crete.
155

were incorporated into double-ended or combination tools in those regions. The greatest
assemblage of single/flat adzes, however, came to light at the Cape Gelidonya (15
examples) and Uluburun (3) shipwrecks. Bass published numerous blade-like objects
from Gelidonya as adzes, yet some pieces are so fragmentary that an adze identification
seems ambitious (Fig. 4.8). 374 Because of the limited number of adzes and the broken
state of many of them, the L: W ratio for these implements, as previously discussed, may
be skewed. Of the trunnion blades, single axes, single adzes and broad chisels, the adzes
have the lowest L: W ratio (Fig. 4.5a, b). This ratio may be closer to the single axes and
trunnion blades if there were not so many broken Gelidonya adzes. In terms of Egyptian
tools, Petrie notes that adze blades are regularly longer than axes, but this distinction is
not so clear elsewhere. 375
For instance, the cutting widths of the single/flat adzes are 4.6
cm on average, which compares favorably to the breadth of single/flat axes.
The challenge of identifying an adze is apparent with a tool from the MM I-II
Chamaizi hoard. A blade has a distinct single bevel edge suggesting that it was an adze,
but its shape better resembles an elongated Minoan chisel with a wide cutting edge (Plate
4.17). The length (25.1 cm) over width (3.4) ratio for this tool is 7.38, which is a better
match with the wide chisel ratios than to the single adzes or axes (Fig. 4.5a, b).
Consequently, this object indicates that a cutting edge profile is not always the best gauge
for determining whether a tool was an adze.
As already mentioned, Egyptian adzes are prevalent in the archaeological record,
and there are a few examples of adzes within the current study’s assemblage that may be
attributed to Egypt. First, an important single adze, with small lug-like protrusions on its
374 Bass 1967, 97.
375 Petrie 1917, 5.
156

utt edge, came to light at Boğazköy; this implement is unquestionably Egyptian and
must have been imported. 376 It is unclear, however, if the tool came directly from Egypt
or made its way to Anatolia through Syria-Palestine. The latter option may be likely, as
the Anatolian and Syrian regions share several tool preferences, notably the shaft-hole
blades and trunnion/lugged axes. The three adzes from the Uluburun shipwreck (KW
141, 576, 4399) have “necked” butt ends, which closely resemble Egyptian prototypes. 377
The development of the necked adze in Egypt is traced from the Old until the New
Kingdoms by Petrie, and there is no doubt that the Uluburun adzes originated from Egypt
or at least were heavily inspired by that region. 378
E1: Chisels (Plates 4.19-4.28)
Chisels and chisel-like implements are the prevailing tool type not only among
carpentry/masonry implements but also within the entire assemblage of MBA and LBA
tools. Seventeen percent (899 of 5308) of the known second millennium metal
implements are chisels or socketed chisels, and the implement’s basic form consists of a
metal shaft with a cutting edge at the tip. Traditionally recognized as part of a carpenter’s
kit, chisels were also employed for work on stone, metal, ivory, and bone. 379
The basic
chisel was universally valued, judging by its distribution throughout the Aegean and
eastern Mediterranean, particularly Anatolia (Table 4.7). Anatolian chisels, however, are
frequently small and do not match the quality seen with large chisels from the Aegean.
The implement reached its zenith in the LBA, but was utilized throughout the MBA and
sporadically in the third millennium. On Crete, the earliest chisels came from EM II
376
Neve 1996, 29, figure 70; Neve 2002, 93.
377
Pulak 1988a, 14, 16-17, figures 12-13; Yalçin, Pulak and Slotta 2005, 631 entries 190-191.
378
Petrie 1917, 16-17, plate XVII.
379
Deshayes 1960, 99; Evely 1993, 2, 12, 16-18; Shaw 2009, 52.
157

Phornou Korifi, Myrtos, and Ayia Photia; the tool was also hoarded in the EBA II and III
carpenter’s caches from Kythnos, Eutresis, Petralona, and, Thebes. 380
Regional
total
MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 186 21 (4 are E-MBA) 121 44
Mainland 142 11 124 7
Islands 36 0 26 10
Cyprus 91 20 68 3
Anatolia 317 49 213 55
Syria-Palestine 50 13 27 10
Shipwrecks 18 - 18 -
Total 840 110 (4 are E-
MBA)
597 129
Table 4.7: Chisel distribution (not including socketed chisels; see next chapter section)
The cutting edge width and the shaft length of chisels fluctuate drastically,
meaning that there are multiple subtypes; a scatter plot of the chisel dimensions (526
examples with measurements) conveys the staggering range of sizes for this implement
(Fig. 4.9). The impressive array of chisel forms is certainly a result of specialized and
manifold craft needs. Evely applied this conclusion to modern chisels: “A cursory
examination of modern tool kits will reveal the broad range of specialized chisels that
have been developed: a carpenter may possess thirty or so, and a stonemason but a few
less.” 381 Some chisels are even double-sided (ten of these appear in the database), which
emphasizes their variability. There are two double-sided forms; the first is a shaft with
two chisel edges on opposite ends, and the second is more accurately termed a chisel-
drill, for it consists of a shaft with opposing chisel and drill tips. The diversity in chisels
is well discussed in previous tool studies. Evely listed 6 Minoan categories with several
sub-types, Deshayes classified 14 different versions, Branigan recognized 7 Aegean
groups (with subdivisions), and Catling proposed 3 Cypriot types. 382
Because of the
380 Branigan 1969; Fitton 1989; Evely 1993, 16
381 Evely 1993, 2, figure 1.
382 Evely 1993, 2-11; Deshayes 1960, volume ii, 36-50; Branigan 1974, 168-170; Catling 1964, 95-96.
158

extensive literature on chisels, it is unnecessary to formulate new classifications, yet a
method for analyzing the chisel data over a wide geographical area must be established to
ascertain basic functional differences. This method must be based on size, specifically the
width of the cutting edge and the length of the chisel.
In order to recognize chisel groupings, the implements were divided into
categories based upon the cutting edge width: 0.5 cm and under for Size 1; 0.6 to 1.5 cm
for Size 2; 1.6 to 2.9 cm for Size 3; 3.0 to 4.9 cm for Size 4; and 5.0 cm and greater for
Size 5. Table 4.8 details the regional distribution of these different chisel sizes. 383
A
dense concentration of chisels falls under Sizes 1 and 2, meaning that blades with cutting
edge widths 1.5 cm and under were particularly in demand. Size 1 chisels mostly occur in
Anatolia, and are better characterized as “chisel-like” or “chisel bits” as opposed to full
chisels (see Anatolian chisel scatter plot in Fig. 4.10). Some Anatolian Size 1 chisels
have a pointed tang that could be inserted into a haft (Plates 4.18-19). These implements
are so small that they resemble interchangeable bits, like modern drill bits. Size 2 chisels
are also prominent in Anatolia, but occur frequently in other regions as well. The narrow
width of these implements varies little from the cutting edge to its butt end (Plate 4.20-1).
Generally, Size 2 chisel types may be referred to as narrow chisels, a description that
could also encompass some Size 3 chisels (Plates 4.22-3). Chisel Sizes 3, 4 and 5 are less
common than either Sizes 1 or 2. When chisels have cutting widths 3.0 cm and above
(Plates 4.24-5), they may resemble single axes or adzes and trunnion/lugged blades. The
ratios of length by width can help differentiate these tool types, as previously discussed
(Fig. 4.5a, b). Chisels with cutting edges greater than 5 cm are infrequent (Plate 4.26), for
implements of that size are routinely understood as axes or adzes.
383 The cutting widths of only 584 of the 843 chisels are known.
159

Size 1
(0.5 cm or less)
Size 2
(0.6 – 1.5 cm)
Size 3
(1.6-2.9 cm)
Size 4
(3.0-4.9 cm)
Crete 13 37 11 37 4
Mainland 30 36 22 34 3
Islands 2 5 5 6 -
Cyprus 12 42 14 3 -
Anatolia 110 104 24 3 1
Syria-Palestine - 7 5 - -
Shipwrecks - 3 9 3 -
Total 167 234 90 86 8
Table 4.8: Number of chisels by cutting edge width and region
Size 5
(5.0 cm or
more)
The scatter plot display of chisels from Crete, the mainland and the islands
illustrates that two distinctive Aegean chisel types were in circulation: one series that
generally fell within the Size 2 category, and another series that coincided with the Size 4
grouping (see Fig. 4.10). These two chisel grouping seem to have been equally desirable
in the Aegean, and they may be understood as either narrow or wide/broad chisels.
Numerous hoards in the Aegean produced at least one narrow and one wide chisel,
signifying that craftspersons thought of them in pairs. As indicated in Table 4.8, Size 4 or
5 chisels are predominately from the Aegean, meaning that the broad chisel type was a
Minoan and Mycenaean tool form. A more restricted scatter plot, showing only the
Aegean wide chisels (e.g. those with cutting widths greater than 3.0 cm) reveals regional
differentiation (Fig. 4.11). Among the Cretan broad chisels, a distinctive class survives:
chisels that are relatively long (average 27.5‒35.0 cm) and taper inward from the cutting
edge to a narrow butt end (Plate 4.24). Catling calls them “heavy tools” (average weight
= 550g), and Evely classifies them as their own category (his Type 3). 384
This elongated
Minoan chisel is well-defined and only occurs in a few locations outside of Crete, such as
the Mycenae shaft graves. The impressive size of the elongated Minoan chisel is readily
apparent when compared to the chisel data from other regions. As the Cretan wide chisels
384 Catling 1964, 106; Evely 1993, 13-14.
160

are longer than mainland and island versions, different L:W ratios exist for each region.
A box-and-dot plot of these wide chisel ratios from the Aegean clearly shows
regionalism, made all the more apparent in that the percentage of the Cretan and
Mainland tools is about the same (Fig. 4.12a, b). 385
Broad chisels from Crete have the
highest ratio with the most extensive range. The wide chisel ratios (L:W) from the
mainland and islands are comparable to each other, and though both overlap with the
lower range of Cretan data, this area of correspondence is below the Cretan mid-spread.
Despite the preference for wide chisels throughout the Aegean, there are different
regional tendencies in the tool’s production.
When examining the data from Table 4.8, it is necessary to incorporate the
chisel’s length into analysis. Therefore, the L:W ratio for each size category was
calculated, and the ratio range for each grouping was placed in a box-and-dot plot (Fig.
4.13a, b). This graph illustrates an extensive range for each size of chisel, even those that
have similar cutting edges. Although the adjacent values to each mid-spread overlap to
some degree, notable differences in the L:W ratio are evident from type to type. Such
data are useful in emphasizing the morphological differentiation of narrow and wide
chisels, but it also serves as a guide for considering chisel function. Three kinds of chisels
(cold, mortise and socketed) may be compared to the chisel data that was already
organized by the cutting edge size. Cold chisels are short, wedge-like implements with
comparatively thick cutting edges (often 1.8‒2.0 cm or Size 3), ideal for breaking apart
metal (Plate 4.27).
386
Mortise chisels, on the other hand, have narrow—but thick and
sturdy—cutting edges (usually Size 2) with elongated shafts, a shape that lends itself to
385 For box-and-dot plots, see Drennan 2009, 37-41 or the discussion at the beginning of Section D.
386 Catling 1964, 96. For a cold chisel from Uluburun, see Yalçin, Pulak and Slotta 2005, 631 entry 194.
161

carving out deep mortises in wooden planks (Plate 4.28). 387
There are 17 cold chisels and
15 mortise chisels listed in the dataset; additional examples of these forms probably exist
but have not been identified. There are 59 socketed chisels (Plates 4.29-30), primarily
with Size 2 cutting edges, within the dataset, and the tool is analyzed more closely in the
following section, since the socketed chisel has particular regional patterns that warrant a
separate discussion. Only a handful of cold and mortises chisels are recognized in the
database, but the ratios of these subtypes may provide a gauge for future chisel type
identification.
The L:W ratio of the cold, mortise and socketed examples are comparable to the
other chisel data in a box-and-dot plot (Fig. 4.14a, b). The cold chisels, albeit a small
sample size, correspond most closely to the medium (Size 3) cutting edges between 1.6
and 2.9 cm. It is possible that other chisels classified in the Size 3 category were utilized
for “cold” working, like cutting metal. A less distinctive overlap between cold and wide
chisels is evident, suggesting that broader chisels could have cut metal. On the other
hand, the mid-spread of mortise chisels is comparable to those of socketed and narrow
chisels; these three chisel types differ notably from the wide and cold chisels with lower
ratios. Although socketed and mortise chisels have dissimilar morphologies, the function
of the socketed versions is probably restricted to wood-working based upon the
comparable L:W ratio with mortise chisels.
Region Length Standard deviation Cutting edge Standard deviation
and CV
width
and CV
Crete 16.6 cm (n=108) ±10.2 cm; CV=0.61 2.2 cm (n=87) ±1.58 cm; CV=0.72
Mainland 10.1 cm (n=105) ±6.27 cm; CV=0.62 1.94 cm (n=101) ± 1.41 cm; CV=0.73
Islands 12.9 cm (n=24) ±6.8 cm; CV=0.53 2.45 cm (n=21) ±1.39 cm; CV=0.57
Cyprus 11.3 cm (n=67) ±5.96 cm; CV=0.53 1.2 cm (n=66) ±0.76 cm; CV=0.63
387 Excellent examples of mortise chisels come from Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes (Deshayes 1000, plate
XII.4) and the Uluburun shipwreck (Yalçin, Pulak and Slotta 2005, 631 entry 193).
162

Anatolia 8.9 cm (n=245) ±5.74 cm; CV=0.64 0.83 cm (n=269) ±0.67 cm; CV=0.81
Syria-
Palestine
14 cm (n=19) ±5.4 cm; CV=0.39 1.4 cm (n=12) ±0.64; CV=0.46
Shipwrecks 13.55 cm (n=14) ±7.3 cm; CV=0.54 2.3 cm (n=16) ±1.1 cm; CV=0.48
Table 4.9: Chisel length and cutting edge width by region (also see Fig. 4.10)
The regionalism in chisel size is evident in a series of scatter plots (Fig. 4.10) and
Table 4.9, which gives the average, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation values
for chisel length and cutting edge width. The relative dearth of wide chisels (Sizes 4 and
5) from Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean stands in stark contrast to their
abundance in the Aegean, and explains why there is a significant disparity in tool size
between the regions. The average Anatolian chisel length and cutting width are 8.9 and
0.83 cm, respectively. For comparison, the Cretan chisel average is considerably greater,
at 16.6 cm (length) and 2.2 cm (cutting edge width), while the mainland average falls at
10.1 cm (length) and 1.94 cm (cutting edge width). The extraordinarily narrow Anatolian
chisels were impractical for major wood/stone cutting tasks, and must have been
restricted to specialized, delicate wood work, such as cabinetry. At the opposite extreme,
the large, elongated Minoan chisels are ideal for wood and stone cutting. 388
To summarize the chisel types, the Anatolian bit-size chisel (Plate 4.18-19) is the
smallest type in the dataset, and it is difficult to imagine how they were utilized in craft
work. Larger yet still narrow-sized chisels certainly cut wood, as suggested by
comparable measurements with mortise chisels (Plates 4.20-4.21). These narrow
versions—the most common chisel type cross-regionally—were equally effective in
detailed masonry work. Wider chisels (as well as axes and adzes), however, would have
been more efficient in cutting thick timber and roughly fashioning a stone block (Plates
4.24-26). Markings from chisels are regularly preserved on masonry faces in Minoan,
388 Evely 1993, 14.
163

Mycenaean and Cypriot contexts, which verify the tool’s popularity among masons. 389
Chisels aided the smoothing of a surface, but any of these tool marks would have been
eliminated in the finishing process. Yet non-visible faces of stone blocks (on the end and
back sides) may show distinctive, wide blade cuttings.
E2: Socketed chisels (Plates 4.29-4.30)
Socketed chisels represent only a small portion of the overall chisel count.
Despite the tool type’s relative scarcity, patterns of regional consumption are evident.
With only a few MBA examples, the tool belongs principally to the LBA. Over 90% of
the known cases (54 out of 59) are Anatolian or Cypriot. This kind of chisel was not
entirely restricted to these two regions, as a few examples have turned up in other areas.
Three socketed chisels appear in the Aegean, and these are probably foreign imports. The
high concentration of socketed chisels in Anatolia (and nearby Cyprus) may indicate that
the tool was manufactured there. The fact that the tool was most popular in Anatolia and
Cyprus is unexpected, for the material commonalities between these regions was limited,
especially during the LBA. Although craft links between Anatolia and Cyprus are not
definite, the two regions shared an inclination for the socketed chisel (Table 4.10).
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 1 - 1 -
Mainland 2 - 2 -
Islands 0 - - -
Cyprus 15 3 12 -
Anatolia 39 9 22 8
Syria-Palestine 1 - 1 -
Shipwrecks 1 - 1 -
Total 59 12 39 8
Table 4.10: Socketed chisel distribution
389 Shaw 2009, 52; Nelson 2001.
164

The socketed chisel’s form suggests that it was more specialized than basic types.
The socket, when attached to a shaft, provided an extension for the chisel, thereby
increasing the tool’s overall length (Plate 4.29-30). Even without a wooden shaft, the
socketed chisels were relatively long—this despite the fact that the width of their cutting
edges were consistently narrow. When socketed chisels are used for delicate work,
pressure is applied by hand or with a wooden mallet; either one of these options may
explain how the chisels were used if unhafted. Of the socketed chisels with known
measurements, 12 have a cutting edge between 1.6‒2.9 cm, 31 fall within the 0.6–1.5 cm
range, and 4 have cutting edges 0.5 cm or less. The average blade width of the Anatolian
examples is 1.01 cm, while the Cypriot tools have a 1.4 cm wide blade on average (Figs.
4.15a, b). Socketed chisels are noted for their combination of a narrow cutting edge with
a long implement. Anatolian examples average 13.9 cm in length while those from
Cyprus are 13.3 cm. The disparity between length and width is made clear when the ratio
of tool length is divided by the cutting edge width. The mean ratio for socketed chisels is
relatively high (13.08 with a coefficient of variance of 0.4) and this mean and the entire
ratio range (particularly the mid-spread) is very similar to the data from the mortise
chisels (Figs. 4.14a, b). The comparable measurements between socketed and mortise
chisels imply that socketed versions were employed for woodworking. Undoubtedly, the
hafted object was optimal for hard-to-reach areas, while the narrow cutting edges suggest
that the tools were custom made for detail work. The option to extend the tool’s reach, as
suggested by the socket, further denotes that the implement serviced small, otherwise
inaccessible, areas. Although probably effective as a carpentry tool, the socketed chisel
could have performed detailed work in masonry. Another explanation for the purpose of
165

the socket may be that a wooden shaft provided a wider butt end, more suitable for hitting
with a hammer or mallet. Under this configuration, a craftsperson could hold the metal
chisel and strike the wooden shaft to apply intense yet controlled pressure upon a small
wood or stone area.
F: Shafted, double-ended or combination tools (excluding double axes)
Double adzes, ax-adzes, double-hammers, ax-hammers, adze-hammers, and pick-
adzes are grouped together under this section since they share a basic design as shafted,
double-ended (often combination) tools. On a simple morphological level, these
implements are conceptually similar to double axes—specifically a central shaft hole and
two functional tool edges at either end of the object. As double axes are ubiquitous on
Crete, it is unsurprising that other shafted double implements were also popular on the
island. As a collective group, the shafted (non-double ax) tools are most prominent on
Crete, followed by Cyprus (Table 4.11). The tool types are rarer on the mainland,
Anatolia and Syria-Palestine. Chronologically, double-sided tools predominately belong
to the LBA, and only five are securely dated to the MBA.
Most shafted double-ended tools incorporate round shaft holes. Tools with oval-
shaped shaft holes do exist, even though circular holes were apparently preferred. 390
In
all probability, the reluctance to adopt oval shaft holes is explained by the Minoan
stubbornness to spurn the round hole. Nearly half of the shafted, double-sided tools came
to light on Crete, and so the tradition of these implements is undoubtedly Minoan,
especially if the large sum of the Minoan double axes is considered. The relative dearth
of mainland double-sided shafted tools (notwithstanding the double axes) further supports
390
Three ax-hammers and six ax-adzes employ an oval shaft hole; otherwise the shafted, double-sided tools
use circular holes.
166

the hypothesis that the Mycenaean double ax did not stem directly from Minoan types
(see sections C and D1). If the Mycenaeans had been entirely influenced by Neopalatial
tools, it is reasonable to suppose that Minoan double axes and other shafted tool types
would have arrived on the mainland as a collective tool package. Yet such a hypothesis is
not supported by the infrequency of double adzes, ax-adzes, ax-hammers, adze-hammers
and pick-adzes on the mainland.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 51 4 33 14
Mainland 9 - 5 4
Islands - - - -
Cyprus 28 1 27 -
Anatolia 4 - 3 1
Syria-Palestine 3 - 3 -
Shipwrecks 4 - 4 -
Total 99 5 75 19
Table 4.11: Shafted, combination and double ended tool distribution (excludes double axes) 391
F1: Double adzes (Plates 4.31-4.34)
The double adze is a shafted tool with a single-bevel cutting edge on either side;
Catling describes the tool as “consisting of two equally balanced cutting blades on either
side of a round socket.” 392 All known examples of the double adze (29 total) have
circular shaft holes (Plates 4.31-4). The tasks that the tool performed are debatable;
Deshayes believed the double adze was best for agriculture, operating like the modern
mattock for digging purposes. 393 Catling pointed to the “very small and light” nature of
the Cypriot examples as an indication that the tools were used by carpenters rather than
masons (for instance, see Plates 4.33-4 rather than 4.31-2). 394
Evely also implied that
they were for woodworking, though he noted that many of the Minoan double adzes were
391
NB: The numbers in Table 4.11 exclude all implements that have been classified as double axes
elsewhere. Included are implements that were converted into ax-adzes or the like from double axes.
392
Catling 1964, 89.
393
Deshayes 1960, 262.
394
Catling 1964, 89.
167

worn and battered from use; this damage perhaps is more indicative of masonry work. 395
Shaw recognized numerous possibilities for the tool including agricultural, carpentry,
quarrying, and masonry. 396 Double adze tool marks in Minoan chamber tombs, like
Katsamba (and possibly Armenoi), confirms that the implement could help fashion
underground mortuary facilities. 397 Cut marks on soft limestone ashlar blocks indicative
of “overlapping blows” suggest the tool’s usefulness in shaping architectural foundations
and facades. 398 Possible evidence for the use of the double adze on masonry is attested at
Phaistos among other Cretan sites, and potentially at Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios and
Alassa-Paliotaverna on Cyprus. 399
These marks resemble the previously-mentioned
traces of tool use in chamber tombs. The double adze may be best understood as an
implement for both carpentry and masonry work; the exact nature of a blade probably
depended upon its size and overall stability.
The distribution of double adzes, though limited quantitatively, is revealing. The
tool is not documented in the MBA, but is restricted entirely to the LBA. Furthermore,
the tool appears only in two regions: Crete and Cyprus (Table 4.12). On Crete, the tool
mainly dates to the Neopalatial period, while Catling attributed the Cypriot examples to
the 12 th century BC. It is more plausible that Cypriot double adzes belong to both the 13 th
and 12 th centuries (LC IIC-IIIA), for all but one Cypriot double adze came from hoard
395 Evely 1993, 63.
396 Shaw 2009, 41.
397 Shaw 1973a, 49, 52, figure 55.
398 Shaw 2009, 41; Evely 1993, 67.
399 Evely 1993, 67. The tool marks from Kalavassos and Alassa are not published, but I personally
inspected them. The markings on unfinished sides may be summarized as overlapping and deep blade cuts
that occur in a series or concentrated area. The repetitive blade marks were likely made by a chisel, ax or
adze; the stone was cut by a quick succession of blows to crudely fashion it. A cursory examination of
these deep and well defined blade cuttings on Late Cypriot architecture vary between 4.0 and 5.0 cm in
width although some cuts are as large as 6.0 cm. Based on the known cutting tools from Cyprus, a diverse
range of possible tools may have cut the ashlar blocks including broad chisels, adzes, axes and combination
tools (e.g. double axes, double adzes and ax-adzes). The double-sided instruments perhaps were ideal for
roughly shaping a stone block in a short amount of time.
168

contexts, many of which were tenuously dated. The Cretan and Cypriot double adze
forms normally are not identical, though an example from Meniko on Cyprus closely
resembles an example from Ayia Triadha on Crete (see Plates 4.31-2). Typically,
variations in the length and cutting edge width occur between Cretan and Cypriot double
adzes, as evident in the scatter plot of these tools (Fig. 4.16a). In general, the Minoan
double adzes are significantly longer and slightly wider than Cypriot types (Fig. 4.16a,b).
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 18 - 13 5
Mainland - - - -
Cyprus 11 - 11 -
Anatolia - - - -
Syria-Palestine - - - -
Shipwrecks - - - -
Total 29 0 24 5
Table 4.12: Double adze distribution
The restricted distribution of double adzes implies a shared craft tradition,
however minor, between Crete and Cyprus. This potential link is enhanced by additional
similarities in masonry between the regions. 400
Soft limestone and sandstone were
traditional materials for monumental architecture on both islands, and these stone types
were easily fashioned by certain tools. One such implement may have been the double
adze, at least to hew out a block’s basic dimensions; other finishing tools would have
smoothed out visible surfaces.
The fact that a tool type common to the Neopalatial period on Crete appeared
several centuries later on Cyprus is difficult to explain. Even if the Cypriot double adzes
date to the 13 th century, a chronological divide remains between the appearances of the
tool on each island. In discussing the Cypriot examples, Catling assumed that the tool
was introduced from the Aegean, specifically by Mycenaean immigrant settlers during
400 Hult 1983, 73, 89.
169

the early 12 th century: “It may be conjectured that it was adopted by the mainland from
Crete, and its form somewhat modified between its earliest Minoan appearance and its
twelfth century version in Cyprus.” 401
Catling’s hypothesis is not viable since the tool is
absent from the mainland, meaning that it is improbable that Mycenaeans were
responsible for introducing the double adze to Cyprus. One explanation for this tool
connection is that Cypriots intentionally selected and adapted certain Minoan tools, and
the double adze was one of them.
Cypriots who traveled westward in the 13 th and 12 th centuries on the copper
trading routes must have disembarked at Crete. At this time, Cypriots could have
encountered a Neopalatial-style of craftsmanship still evident on the island. When the
sea-voyaging Cypriots returned home, they may have promoted Minoan crafting and
certain tool types. While Cypriots may have taken the double adze from Crete, they
certainly did not acquire the tendency to hoard the tool from there. Only 6 of the 18
Minoan double adzes were found in hoards—all dating to the LM IA or LM IB period.
The other Cretan examples appeared in general settlement contexts and as
unprovenienced or surface finds. On Cyprus, 10 out of the 11 examples were recovered in
hoards. The inclusion of the Minoan-inspired tool in Cypriot hoards confirms its special
status among craftspersons and demonstrates that the double adze was of great value.
F2: Ax-adzes (Plates 4.35-4.36)
Ax-adzes are shafted combination implements with an ax cutting blade at one end
and an adze edge at the other. The objects are moderately sized, but smaller than double
axes and double adzes (Plates 4.35-6). The two blade variants permitted both chopping
401 Catling 1964, 89.
170

and paring, but the exact utilization of the implement is unclear. Schaeffer suggested that
the tools were for mining prospection, while Deshayes, Catling, Branigan and Evely
acknowledge the all-purpose potential of the tool but ultimately advocate for a carpentry
function, especially for small-scale jobs. 402 Likewise, Shaw asserted that the tool “no
doubt shaped planks and beams” but he does not exclude the possibility of “stonecutting
and digging.” 403
The association of the tool with woodworking seems justified, yet its
potential as a masonry implement cannot be confirmed.
The ax-adze reached its zenith during the LBA, but three Cretan examples belong
to the MBA, including a MM I-II object from Chamaizi. The tool form, in fact, occurs as
early as the EBA II period in the Kythnos (Early Cycladic II) and Eutresis (EH II)
404
carpenter hoards. During the second millennium, the implement is found in each study
region (Table 4.13), thus partially confirming Catling’s observation that “[t]he tool is
widely distributed, in a variety of forms, from the Indus valley to Central Europe; it
seems very probably to have had its origin somewhere in Mesopotamia.” 405
The
implement has been found a variety of contexts including hoards (7 examples), burials
(2), settlements (9), shipwrecks (4) a cultic/sanctuary site (1), and contexts without a
clear provenience such as surface finds (10). Though found in each region, ax-adzes are
more frequent on Crete and Cyprus than elsewhere, a pattern akin to the double adzes.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 12 3 6 3
Mainland 5 - 2 3
Cyprus 9 - 9 -
Anatolia 1 - 1 -
402
Schaeffer 1952, 44; Deshayes 1960, 289; Catling 1964, 91; Branigan 1974, 133; Evely 1993, 68.
403
Shaw 2009, 41.
404
Kythnos hoard: Renfrew 1967, Branigan 1969; Fitton 1989. Eutresis hoard: Goldman 1931, 215;
Branigan 1969.
405
Catling 1964, 91. For a full account of the distribution of the implement from Iran to the Danube, see
Deshayes 1960, 279-291.
171

Syria-Palestine 2 - 2 -
Shipwrecks 4 - 4 -
Total 33 3 24 6
Table 4.13: Ax-adze distribution
Like other double-ended shafted tools, ax-adzes typically use circular shaft holes.
There are, however, six examples with oval holes, several of which were from Crete. An
ax-adze from the Vaphio tholos tomb in Laconia (LH II) has a circular shaft hole and a
figure-of-eight motif on either side of the tool’s mid-section. 406 This example
unquestionably illustrates a Minoan or Minoan-inspired tool on the mainland. Catling
argued that the Cypriot ax-adzes were derived from the Aegean and claimed that the
implement arrived on the island with the purported early 12 th century Aegean migrants. 407
Catling’s proposition that Aegean-like implements were brought to Cyprus by
Mycenaeans is untenable because these cases demonstrate Cretan-Cypriot connections
more so than mainland-Cypriot ones. The dimensions of the ax-adze confirm that the ax
side was typically wider than the adze end; regional differences in tool size, however,
provide little guidance in demonstrating explicit trans-cultural links (Fig. 4.17). In
general, the popularity of shafted double-ended tools on Crete and Cyprus, including the
ax-adze, points to a definite craft and tool link between these islands (see Table 4.11).
F3: Double hammers, ax-hammers and adze-hammers (Plates 4.37-4.40)
Double hammers, ax-hammers and adze-hammers are grouped together for
discussion because they are shafted tools with at least one hammer-like end. While ax-
hammers and adze-hammers were possibly restricted to carpentry work, 408
double
hammers (depending on their size) could fulfill carpentry, masonry or metallurgical
406
Deshayes 1960, entry 2249; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987, 204, figures 2, 5; Tripathi 1988, 346 entry 1148.
407
Catling 1964, 92.
408
Catling 1964, 92.
172

needs. 409
Metal hammers, particularly sledgehammers, were principally smithing tools,
but are included in the count here because of their shafted and double ended nature. The
discernment of these tool categories can be challenging, particularly when adze and ax
ends are severely battered. When adze or ax ends were damaged in this manner, they may
have functioned like a hammer.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 8 - 6 2
Mainland 3 - 2 1
Cyprus 4 1 3 -
Anatolia 1 - - 1
Syria-Palestine - - - -
Shipwrecks - - - -
Total 16 1 11 4
Table 4.14: Shafted, double hammer distribution
Shafted double hammers occur chiefly in the Aegean and more sporadically in
Cyprus and Anatolia (Table 4.14). The size of these hammers varies, ranging from a
miniature double hammer in the Mycenae Poros Wall hoard (4.6 x 2.4 cm) to a large,
shafted sledgehammer from the Enkomi Foundry hoard (16.7 x 7.5 cm and 3.5
kilograms). At least nine double hammers, with two blunt hammer heads, were
intentionally cast in that form. These are typically large hammers, in all likelihood
designed for metallurgical purposes. On the other hand, seven double hammers were
initially double axes or double adzes before being converted into hammers (Plate 4.37).
This alteration of tool and function was either deliberate or a result of excessive damage
to both edges of double ax or adze. Converted double hammers are known from Enkomi,
İskilip, and a series of Minoan sites (Gournia, Praisos, Psychro, Zakros, and unknown).
Since double axes are so abundant on Crete, it is understandable that the greatest portion
409 Shaw 2009, 42.
173

of shafted double hammers is also from that island. 410
Shaft holes in double hammers are
mostly round, but oval and square or rectangular holes are also known.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 4 - 3 1
Mainland 1 - 1 -
Cyprus - - - -
Anatolia 2 - 2 -
Syria-Palestine 1 - 1 -
Shipwrecks - - - -
Total 8 0 7 1
Table 4.15: Ax-Hammer distribution
Aegean ax-hammers (not pictured) were in circulation by the end of the third
millennium in Boeotia, with examples from Thebes and Levadeia. 411 Due to the early
appearance of the tool, it is perplexing that MBA assemblages lack the implement,
though ax-hammers were also relatively rare in the LBA (Table 4.15). Most ax-hammers
were intentionally cast as such and were not converted from other tools. The shapes of
two ax-hammers (from Knossos and Megiddo) resemble a double ax, except that one side
is thick and blunt at the cutting edge; these examples were originally produced in this
manner. 412 Yet there are a few instances of modification; Neopalatial double axes from
Nirou Khani and Palaikastro functioned as ax-hammers after one side developed a blunt
cutting edge. 413 These objects are recognized as double axes and ax-hammers, since they
operated as both during their lifespan. Ax-hammer designs incorporate both round and
oval shaft holes. A miniature (only 5.2 cm long) ax-hammer from the Athens Acropolis
hoard presented a classification problem, since its basic shape looks like an ax-adze but
the would-be adze end is very blunt. 414
As the ax blade is not sharp, the tool may be a
double hammer, but its appearance resembles the form of an ax-hammer. Given the
410
Evely 1993, 101, entries 15-21; Shaw 2009, 43.
411
Branigan 1974, 165 entries 559 and 560. For the Levadeia example, also see Deshayes 1960, entry 2106.
412
For Knossos, see: Evely 1993 101 entry 11. For Megiddo, see: Deshayes 1960, entry 2110.
413
Evely 1993, 101 entry 16, figure 44.16.
414
The object is published in: Spyropoulos 1972, 73 entry 8β; drawing 138 on pg 76, plate 23β.
174

popularity of shafted double-ended tools on Cyprus, it is unexpected that ax-hammers
were absent from the Cypriot repertoire (Table 4.15). On the other hand, Cypriot
examples of the adze-hammer—a tool comparable to the ax-hammer—do exist.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 2 1 - 1
Mainland - - - -
Cyprus 4 - 4 -
Anatolia - - - -
Syria-Palestine - - - -
Shipwrecks - - - -
Total 6 1 4 1
Table 4.16: Adze-Hammer distribution
Of the double-ended hammer types, adze-hammers are very rare with only six
examples (Plates 4.38-40). Like the double adzes, adze-hammers are restricted to Crete
and Cyprus (Table 4.16). These adze-hammers, with circular shaft holes, lack any
standardization, for they were formed by manipulating ax-adzes or double adzes. The
adze-hammers two other tool types. Four adze-hammers were originally ax-adzes, while
two adze-hammers were previously double adzes. Catling believed that the tool arrived in
Cyprus in LC IIIA with the supposed migrants from the Aegean, but the Cypriot adze-
hammers were modified from existing tools and probably not imported. 415
The adze-hammer from Enkomi’s Trésor de Bronzes is disproportionally
balanced around the shaft hole, with more weight being given to the adze end (Plate
4.38). The hammer end is close to the shaft hole and its narrow, rectangular blunt surface
is clearly the result of a truncated ax end. Furthermore, the surface of the hammer end is
somewhat jagged, probably further indication that this end was intentionally cut into its
present form. The adze-hammer from the Trésor de Bronzes compares favorably to a
complete ax-adze from the same metal cache (Plate 4.39). An oddly shaped adze-hammer
415 Catling 1964, 93.
175

in the Brunnen 212 hoard was converted from a double adze (Plate 4.40). Its converted
hammer end appears to have been heated and slightly melted. Otherwise, it is hard to
imagine how the tool became so deformed and spheroid in shape. There is another
possible an implement that was modified into an adze-hammer. The pointed end of a
pick-adze from Rogdia (Crete) is blunt, prompting Evely to note that it was used as a
hammer. 416
While the tool was created as a pick-adze, it may have ended up as an adze-
hammer through constant use.
F4: Pick-adzes (Plate 4.41a, b)
Pick-adzes are a rare and unattested aside from a few examples on Crete.
Comparable to “modern mattocks, one blade is pointed, the other, intended for chopping
and digging, is flat and sharpened.” 417 As with the other shafted double-sided tools, the
pick-adze employed round shaft holes. The tool can reach a substantial size, as a 37.7 cm
long example from Ayia Triadha testifies (Plate 4.41b), but the average pick-adze length
(20.7 cm) is smaller than that of the Cretan double adze (26.1 cm). The pick-adze did not
exist in the Protopalatial period; according to Shaw, the tool belonged to the Neopalatial
and the Late Palace periods and was useful in agricultural digging and stone quarrying. 418
Deshayes suggested an agricultural interpretation for the tool, yet traces of pick marks
(recognized by Shaw) in the Ayia Irini quarry and a Knossian chamber tomb demonstrate
the tool’s versatility. 419 Other pick marks are purportedly found on Cretan masonry. 420
It
is uncertain why the tool was not adopted by other regions or was more visible on Crete.
416
Evely 1993, 71 entry 3, 72.
417
Shaw 2009, 41.
418
Shaw (2009, 41) asserts that two pick-adzes from Ayia Triadha date to the Late Palace period; these
tools were previously dated to the Neopalatial period by Evely.
419
Shaw 2009, 41-42.
420
Evely 1993, 72.
176

The pick-adze’s importance is confirmed by a votive replication made of lead, found at
Psychro. 421
The pick-adze enhances the range of shafted double-ended implements,
which collectively were more popular on Crete than elsewhere.
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 7 - 5 2
Total 7 0 5 2
Table 4.17: Pick-adze distribution
G1: Drills (solid) (Plate 4.42a, b)
The basic distinction in drills is whether they were solid or hollow. 422
Significantly larger than solid versions, tubular drills have not survived as frequently in
the archaeological record. Many scholars do not believe that metal hollow drills were
employed and argue that the actual bit was composed of an organic material, and this
topic is addressed in more detail in the following section. Solid drills are well attested
throughout the study region, though the implements are not as omnipresent as chisels or
axes. The designation of a solid drill is principally based on the shape of the tip: a pointed
diamond-like or slightly convex form (Plate 4.42a, b). 423 Small drills may closely
resemble chisels and awls, making their identification difficult. A drill’s widest point
(typically 0.7 cm and below) varies minimally. Consequently, a rotary motion could be
created simply by moving one’s fingers back and forth over the narrow shaft. The basic
drilling operation requires that both pressure and rotation be applied to the bit from the
butt end. If the drill was unhafted, a stone could be pressed down upon the butt end of the
drill. 424
Small pebbles with hollow-like depressions have been found on Crete and the
421 Evely 1993, 71.
422 Evely 1993, 77-78.
423 For a drawing of these types, see Evely 1993, figure 33.
424 This type of setup was necessary for using the drill end of double-ended implements with a drill bit on
one side and a chisel edge on the other. There are six example of this drill-chisel combination in the dataset.
177

mainland and may have aided drilling operations. 425
These accessory pebbles likely occur
in other regions as well, if only they were recognized as such. Other methods for rotating
a drill also existed; some drills were L-shaped, meaning that there was a ready-made
handle to serve as a crank, and historical drills regularly employed a T-shaped handle.
Many drills were inserted into a bone, ivory or wooden haft; with such a handle, one hand
could simultaneously rotate the implement while applying a fair amount of pressure.
The breadth of most solid drill tips is well under 1.0 cm, and so the implement
was used by different crafts that required precision, such as seal carving, bone/ivory
work, and carpentry (Figs. 4.18a, b). Evely noted the drill’s versatility and value by
stating that “the drill, in all its varieties, plays a crucial role in any craft that involved
pegging or jointing, that called for the speedy removal of quite large amounts of ‘excess’
426
material, or that had carved decoration.” Despite the adaptability of drills, the
implements are not overly abundant in the archaeological record (Table 4.18). One
explanation for the low count of metal drills is that chipped stones were effective (and
cheaper) drill bits. 427
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd millennium
Crete 26 4 19 3
Mainland 32 1 30 1
Islands 0 - - -
Cyprus 38 5 33 -
Anatolia 28 5 20 3
Syria-Palestine 6 - 4 2
Shipwrecks 2 - 2 -
Total 132 15 108 9
Table 4.18: Solid drill distribution
425 Shaw 2009, 51. On the mainland, examples are known from Tsoungiza, Tiryns (personal
communication with J. C. Wright), and Nichoria (Blitzer 1992, 728-729).
426 Evely 1993, 84.
427 Chipped stone—particularly flint—drill bits were used in seal cutting in the Mesopotamian third
millennium BC. Experimental work demonstrates that chipped stones were effective, but copper drills with
abrasives were necessary when the material to be cut was hard. See Gwinnett and Gorelick 1987, 15-16,
23-24. It is reasonable to assume that chipped stone drills were also used in the second millennium in the
Aegean and eastern Mediterranean.
178

Drills are well dispersed throughout Crete, the mainland, Cyprus, and Anatolia.
They are relatively rare on the Greek islands, Syria-Palestine, and the eastern
Mediterranean shipwrecks. Although documented in the MBA, the tool occurs in greater
concentrations during the second half of the millennium. Because of the simplicity of
solid drills, discrete regional traits are difficult to ascertain. Cypriot drills are often longer
than those from other regions, but drills generally lack explicit characteristics indicative
of trans-cultural connections. The length of a drill was not standardized, and the range
displayed in the known examples is extensive; this point is illustrated by a scatter plot of
the drills and the high coefficients of variation for each region (Figs. 4.18a, b). The width
of the Cypriot drill tips changed minimally, even as the length increased. This
phenomenon resulted in a very low R-squared value, meaning that the length and width
of Cypriot drills did not have a linear relationship. A better correlation exists between
length and width for the Anatolian and Mainland drills, judging by their comparatively
high R-squared values. These narrow implements could consistently make perforations
with diameters between 0.4‒0.7 cm. Drills with tips greater 1.0 cm are also preserved
than but they constitute less than ten percent of the total drill count.
G2: Hollow or tubular drills
Hollow or tubular drills are better documented through mortises in masonry and
the stone cores that were removed in the drilling process than by any physical specimens
of the implement. This section reviews what is known about the tubular drill, before
considering whether or not a group of metal cylinders were employed as hollow drill bits.
179

The tubular drill was first devised as a cutting device for hard stones, like granite,
in Old Kingdom Egypt during the third millennium BC. 428 Round mortises occur in
architectural masonry on Crete, the Greek mainland, and central and southeastern
Anatolia during the second millennium BC. By the LBA, circular drill holes were also
key features in some sculpted works. 429 On Crete, Shaw recognized two different types of
holes: a shallow “saucer-like” depression formed by a blunt object, and a deep cylindrical
drill cut. 430 Reed and bamboo have been proposed as the materials of drills that fashioned
the circular mortises in stone, with the help of an abrasive agent (emery or sand) and a
lubricant (water or oil). 431 The emery or sand was constantly poured onto the spot being
drilled and when the organic tubes were rotated, the abrasive elements were what actually
cut the stone. It is unclear if the circular mortise holes in hard stones were formed by
pieces of reed and bamboo drills or metal versions. Perhaps the abrasive elements ate
away the reed/bamboo faster than cutting the stone. It seems that bronze drill bits, still
aided by additive abrasive elements and lubricants, would have been more efficient at
cutting hard stone than organic materials. 432 While discussing the drill holes at Hattusha,
Neve argues that “metal pipes” were utilized. 433
A metal tubular drill would enhance
cutting speed and allow for bit reuse (an unlikely scenario for an organic drill). Since the
diameters of the mortise cuttings were often between 2.5 and 5.0 cm (and as small as 1.6
428
Petrie 1917, 44-45, plate LII; Gorelick and Gwinnett 1983, 40-41, 47.
429
Casson 1933, 25-32; Wace 1949, 62; Seeher 2005, 32-34, figures 21-24.
430
Shaw 1973a, 161.
431
Shaw 1973a, 70; Shaw 1973b; Evely 1993, 77-85.
432
See Gorelick and Gwinnett 1983, for an experiment that demonstrated that metal hollow bits using
emery, corundum or diamond were effective as drills.
433
Neve 2002, 93.
180

cm in sculpture), several different-sized drills bits must have existed. 434
Shaw believes
that variation in hole size signifies the use of an organic tubular drill, but slight variations
in size are common to some metal tools (e.g. chisels) and it is not improbable that there
was a series of metal tubular drill bits.
The basic technology for tubular drilling in the Aegean existed in the EBA with
435
the production of stone vessels. It is unlikely that the drill bits were of metal at this
early stage, and so organic materials cannot be excluded. The earliest evidence of drilled
mortises in stonework from the second millennium Aegean is found at the MMIB and
later Chrysolakkos mortuary structure, where a total of 25 circular holes appear on 15
different well-cut blocks. 436 Shaw proposes that the blocks from this funerary structure
were reused from a previous monumental structure, the construction of which required
drill holes. 437 Despite the early application of this drilling technology, the tubular drill is
not ubiquitous in Minoan architecture, prompting us to turn to drilling operations from
other regions for comparison. Rounded drill holes occur at the 18 th century palace of
Alalakh (Tell Atchana) in the Amuq Valley. 438 Despite this possible later parallel, it
remains unclear whether a technological link in masonry work existed between Crete and
northern Syria during the MBA, although contact between the two regions is well
documented. In addition to Chrysolakkos, Minoan circular mortises are known at Mallia
from thresholds in House Za (entrance to room 21), House E and the Agora. 439
The
drilled threshold (containing six holes) from House Za is intriguing since it is made of
434
A sampling of 31 drill holes from limestone foundations in the Great temple at Hattusha have diameters
ranging from 3.8 to 4.4 cm. Seeher (2005, 30) asserts that a standard range for a diameter drill was between
3.7-3.9 cm.
435
Warren 1969, 158-165; Sakellarakis 1976, 174-175; Bevan 2007.
436
Shaw 1973b, 322.
437
Shaw 1973b, 328-329.
438
Neve 2002, 94.
439
Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953; Shaw 1973a, 70, Figures 61-63, 192, 194.
181

siderópetra (hard limestone known locally as iron stone) and dates to the Neopalatial era.
The Cretan tubular drill was not very common, at least for masonry, at this time. The
drill, however, was used to produce seal stones and stone vessels throughout the Bronze
Age, but its connection with masonry practices is unclear. Several column bases from
Phaistos have drill holes, but these bases are not in situ and, significantly in light of the
Chrysolakkos examples, most are dated to the Protopalatial period. 440 Shaw mentioned
the possibility of drilled mortises on blocks from Knossos and Zakros, but their
identification and date are far from certain. 441 Since the application of the tubular drill in
the Neopalatial period is debatable, it is possible that House Za’s block was reused from
Chrysolakkos or elsewhere. 442
There is no reason for continuity in drill use between Protopalatial Crete and the
Mycenaean or Hittite periods. Therefore, the Cretan tubular drill that was employed
during the early second millennium probably did not influence the adoption of the tubular
drill on the Greek mainland and Anatolia during the LBA. Drilled circular holes in
masonry first appeared on the mainland at LH IIIA1-2 Tiryns (in the throne room), and
the technique was used in the citadels of Tiryns and Mycenae throughout the LH IIIB
443
period. The tubular drill was most ubiquitous in central Anatolia during the Hittite
empire period. Drill holes are prevalent at Boğazköy, particularly within the Great
Temple and Unterstadt, where about 1000 drill holes are recorded on foundation blocks,
thresholds, and door sills. 444
Tubular drill usage is also conspicuous at other Hittite sites
440
Shaw 1973a, 121, figures 137, 139, 141a, 141b, 145.
441
Shaw 2009.
442
Parallels between the threshold block from House Za and the Chrysolakkos drilled blocks include
similar hole dimensions and the observation that the drilled holes occur roughly 9-11 cm from the edge of
the block.
443
Küpper 1996, 9-14.Drilled holes do not occur at the Palace of Nestor at Pylos: Nelson 2001, 86.
444
Naumann 1971, 111-114; Seeher 2005, 27-35; Seeher 2009, 139-141.
182

such as Alaca Höyük, Kuşaklı-Sarissa, and Kayalıpınar. 445 Wooden or metal dowels were
inserted into the mortises to attach a wood or stone superstructure, which would have had
corresponding mortise holes. 446 Traces of tubular drill usage are documented on LBA
architectural sculpture from Mycenae (on the Lion Gate relief and the Treasury of Atreus
façade) and from Hittite sculpture (e.g. Hattusha’s Lion and Sphinx Gates, the lion heads
from Hattusha’s Temple 2 and 3, Eflatun Pınar, and the Derbent relief). 447 In addition to
actual drill holes, stone cores, displaced during the cutting operation, were recovered at
Tiryns, Boğazköy (including an impressive cache of 600 stone cores found in the
northern entrance of Yerkapı) and Kuşaklı. 448 Both Mycenaean and Anatolian drill holes
vary in diameter size, suggesting that useful tool kits held multiple drill bits. Sufficient
information exists for a plausible reconstruction of the tubular drill, which is currently on
display in the Çorum Museum. 449 In addition to drilling holes in masonry and sculpture,
hollow drills were essential for stone vessel production as well as working stone seals,
ivory/bone and wood. 450
Despite the high quantity of drill holes on Crete, the mainland and Anatolia, the
number of possible tubular drills is vanishingly small. In fact, this type of drill is
445
For Alaca Höyük: Koşay and Akok 1966, plate 82. For Kuşaklı-Sarissa: Müller-Karpe 1995, figure 15;
Müller-Karpe et al. 1999, figure 9. For Kayalıpınar: two drill holes (3.1 cm in diameter) occur on the top of
an orthostat-like block with a sculpted relief of a seated divinity. See: Müller-Karpe 2006, 218-221, figures
5-6. Kayalıpınar is located near the Kızılırmak River, northwest of Kuşaklı.
446
In most cases, the mortise holes were for wooden dowels and a wooden superstructure, but two bronze
dowels (with 3.9 and 4.1 cm diameter) are still preserved between different masonry courses of the King’s
Gate; see Seeher 2005, 29 figures 12-13.
447
For Mycenae: Casson 1933, 27-31; For Hattusha: Seeher 2005, 32-34, figures 21-24, Neve 1987 397
plate 17 (temple 3); For Eflatun Pınar: Bachmann and Özenir 2004, 96 and note 94, figure 14 (for a
picture of the mountain deities) and figure 15 (for a detail photograph of the drill holes); For Derbent:
Neve 1988, 263-264, figures 2-4.
448
For Tiryns: Rahmstorf 2008. For Boğazköy: Neve 2001, plate 10d; Seeher 2005, 30. For Kuşaklı:
drill cores are on display in the Sivas Archaeology Museum. Rectangular mortise holes also occur at Masat
Höyük.
449
For other reconstructions and experimental work regarding this tool, see: Schwandner 1991, 219 figure
5d; Seeher 2005, 20-26, figures 4-5, 8.
450
Evely 1993, 84; Bevan 2007, 47, 51.
183

egularly considered to be absent from the archaeological record. 451 Evely noted two
Cretan examples that are conceivable as tubular drills, but these designations are hardly
assured. The first came to light in the Protopalatial (MM II) seal workshop at Quartier
Mu, where a “tubular bronze drill was found;” 452 Poursat’s preliminary publication
merely referenced the tool as a “forets tubulaires en métal” without any significant details
or a photograph. 453 This tubular drill is “small” and Catling understands it as part of the
seal workshop “for making the string-hole and for engraving.” 454 Another case for a
preserved tubular drill is a hollow cone-like object recovered from the Zakros palace. 455
Although the circular opening of the Zakros cone is ideal for a tubular drill bit, the object
tapers inward to a pointed end, meaning that any drilling operation would have been
shallow and ineffective for making a deep mortise.
Although publications offer no definitive example of a tubular drill, a number of
candidates in the form of hollow cylinders warrant further consideration. Including the
specimens mentioned above, there are 18 hollow, cylinder-like metal objects that may be
tubular drill bits (Fig. 4.19). Ten examples are from Crete, five are from the mainland and
three are from Anatolia. It is not likely that every single one of these examples was a
tubular drill, but collectively this list demands reconsideration. Some metal tubes appear
at sites where there is good evidence for drilling in architectural blocks (e.g. Hattusha,
Tiryns, and Mallia). Mortised drill holes in masonry vary considerably in size (1.5 to 6.4
cm for Minoan holes, 2.5 to 5.0 cm for Mycenaean, and 4.0 to 6.0 cm for Anatolian
451 Bevan 2007, 57; Thaler 2007, 297; Evely 1993, 77.
452 Catling 1977-1978, 63; Evely 1993, 78 entry 24.
453 Poursat 1978, 834.
454 Catling 1977-1978, 63.
455 HM 3134; Evely 1993, 78 entry 25 figure 35.2.
456 Shaw 2009, 51; Wright 2006, 33; Neve 2002, 93.
456
),
184

and the metal tube diameters fall within the same broad range. The metal cylinders from
Crete are described by Evely as “short bronze cylindrical sleeves.” 457 The diameter of
these objects (mostly reported as 3.5 cm and 4.5 cm) correspond to the dimensions of
drilled mortises found in masonry (e.g. at Chrysolakkos). 458
The length of the preserved
cylinders varies from 8 to 10 cm, which would suffice for a drill, as the depths of
mortised holes in stonework typically reach 3.5 cm. It is reasonable to consider these
cylinders as potential tubular drill bits, but this hypothesis is difficult to confirm since
there are no definite metal tubular drills with which to compare them.
The tubes have been previously interpreted as casings for handles, specifically of
saws: “these [the bronze sleeves] imply a straight handle of circular section, presumably
of wood, which were once joined to the blade by rivets and onto which were slotted the
459
bronze cylinders.” This interpretation seems to be bolstered by two hollow cylinders
found with three saws in the Knossos South House hoard. 460 It was presumed that the
hollow tubes belonged to the saws themselves. This interpretation is problematic for a
number of reasons. First of all, the Knossos South Hoard contained a wide range of tools
(saws, double axes, an ax-hammer, and razors), so another tool type (like a hollow drill)
would not be out of place in the tool kit. If the metal tubes were actually saw sleeves,
there should be an equal number of saws and metal tubes. 461
A metal saw handle seems
like an unnecessary use of valuable material. Although a metal sleeve could fasten
457
Evely 1993, 36, entries 1-7 (two from Knossos, three from Gournia, one from Ayia Triadha, one from
Zakros).
458
Shaw 1973b, 323, figure 2. Shaw (1973a, 161) also notes that the average diameter of round dowel holes
is between 3 and 4 cm.
459
Evely 1993, 36 figures 12, 16.
460
Evans 1928, 629-30, figure 393.b, c. I attempted to examine these metal cylinders from this hoard but
was not able to locate these objects in the Heraklion Museum in 2009. Evely (2003, 190) found one of the
cylinders in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford (#1910.180).
461
Evely (2003, 190) notes that the saw handle interpretation is not definite: “The cylinders are believed to
be sheaths for the wooden saw-handles, but direct proof is lacking on this point.”
185

together two sides of a handle, a few nails would have been equally effective.
Notwithstanding the cylinders from the Knossos hoard, many metal tubes are found
independent of saws. For instance, two hollow cylinders came to light in Prosymna Tomb
14, but there were no saws from that burial.
Another problem for interpreting the metal cylinders as handle casings is that the
size and shape of saw handles are unknown. The concept of a tubular handle for a saw is
based solely on metal casings, as Evely relates: “The best candidates to date must be the
short bronze cylindrical sleeves: these imply a straight handle of circular section,
presumably of wood, which was once joined to the blade by rivets and onto which were
slotted the bronze cylinders.” 462
While a circular wooden handle offers a natural grip,
such a configuration was not essential. Perhaps a rectangular handle was favored,
especially if less work was required for its manufacture.
The tubular drill and its usage in different regions may indicate inter-cultural craft
connections. Protopalatial Minoans likely adopted this method of drilling from Old
463
Kingdom Egypt for the production of stone vessels. Likewise, there appears to have
been a link between the Hittites and Mycenaeans in their use of the tubular drill in
masonry and sculpture. 464
H: Saws (Plates 4.43-4.50)
Metal saws were hammered into shape rather than cast, and were valuable tools of
carpenters and masons. In Egypt, the metal saw is attested throughout the third
millennium BC with preserved examples and depictions in tomb paintings, and the
462 Evely 1993, 36, figures 12 and 16.
463 Warren 1969, 161-164; Sakellarakis 1976, 174-177; Bevan 2007.
464 Wright 2006, 33; Thaler 2007, 295-297.
186

implement probably developed morphologically from the knife. 465 Egyptian
representations of saws in carpentry and shipbuilding are found throughout the Bronze
Age, but the tool is also thought to have cut stone masonry. 466 Timber and refined pieces
of wood could be cut or shaped easily with a saw, and the implement may be considered
foremost a carpentry object. Serrated saws, especially the larger Minoan types, were
likely used to “cut wooden beams for timber framework, ceiling and roof structures” as
well as large logs. 467 As saws vary in size and form, so might their function. Shaw
envisioned a set of small Minoan saws (between 5 and 14 cm long) “in the minor arts for
making artifacts of stone, gold and ivory.” 468 While these smaller saws are impractical in
masonry, there is no reason why they would be ineffective in cutting wood and bone. An
appropriately sized saw is also capable of cutting stone blocks, especially soft materials
like sandstone and poros limestone, which were repeatedly used on Crete and Cyprus.
According to traditional interpretations, thin toothless saws were “used for cutting hard
stone” with the aid of sand and emery abrasives as cutting agents. 469 Shaw cautions,
however, that the role of the Cretan saw in fashioning ashlar masonry and orthostate
facades was more limited than previously believed: “contrary to what has been assumed
in the past, there is no definite evidence to indicate that large, squared wall blocks were
cut by this method [sawing]; instead, they seem to have been chiseled smooth.” 470
Despite this important warning, traces of saw cuts are discernible on masonry from Crete,
Cyprus, the mainland and Anatolia. Even if the saw was not a regular masonry
465
Petrie 1917, 43, plates XLVIII, L, LI; Scheel 1989, 50-51, figure 55; Killen 2000, 355, figure 15.18;
466
For shipbuilding scenes with saws from the Fifth dynasty mastaba of Ti, see Rodgers 1992; Steffy 1994,
30, figures 3.7; for discussion on the Old Kingdom Egyptian stone cutting saw, see Moores 1991. For more
general stone cutting with Egyptian saws, see Petrie 1917, 44, plate LII.
467
Shaw 2009, 46.
468
Shaw 2009, 44.
469
Shaw 2009, 44.
470
Shaw 2009, 46.
187

implement, it was employed from time to time in stone work, especially for hard stones,
such as microcrystalline limestone and conglomerate. Before considering the saws in the
catalogue, it is necessary to discuss a specialized stone-cutting saw, which is interpreted
from tool marks alone. 471
Strong cutting devices were required to fashion and cut hard rocks like
conglomerate, hard limestone, basalt, and gabbro. Preserved saw marks from Mycenaean
and Hittite masonry bear witness to the LBA existence and use of a large machine-like
pendulum saw and possibly a convex-shaped hand saw. In Mycenaean architecture,
harder stones—especially conglomerate—were selected and cut for critical locations
472
including “antae, column bases, thresholds, jambs, and lintels.” Visible saw marks on
anta blocks at Tiryns were initially thought to be made by a sawing knife (Messersäge)
because of their long, arcing cuts. 473 Küpper, who followed Schwandner’s earlier
hypothesis, meticulously examined the Tiryns marks and deduced a massive machine
whereby a large curved saw blade swung back and forth in a pendulum-like motion. The
radii of this apparatus’ pendulum blade are as large as 7.5 meters in some
reconstructions. 474 In order for the blade to swing, it had to be suspended, possibly from
a wooden A-frame. This grandiose implement would have been impressive to behold, and
though several reconstructions of the device exist, its exact form is unknown. 475 Wright
recognized the pendulum saw as “probably the most technologically advanced device
used in architecture during the second millennium.” 476
The saw’s cutting motion was
471
Stone-cutting saws are attested in Egypt. See Moores 1991 for the Old Kingdom drag saw.
472
Wright 2006, 17, 33.
473
Dörpfeld 1885, 263-24; Müller 1930, 183-185; Seeher 2007, 30-31.
474
Küpper 1996, 16-25; Schwandner 1991, 219-223.
475
Schwandner 1991, 220-221, figures 6-8; Küpper 1996, 217 figure 142, 286 plate 12.2.
476
Wright 2006, 34.
188

aided by an abrasive such as sand or emery, but the primary advantage of the pendulum
saw over handheld implements was the length of the saw cut as well as the applied and
consistent pressure created by the swinging motion of the blade.
Traces of pendulum saw operations have been identified on anta blocks,
thresholds, posts and lintels at Tiryns, Mycenae (within the citadel itself and the Atreus
and Klytemnestra tholoi), and Gla. 477 The pendulum saw was originally purported to
have fashioned a large block from Boğazköy-Hattusha in the Great Temple’s
northeastern adyton, thereby providing a technological link between the Mycenaean and
Hittite worlds. 478 A reinvestigation of the Boğazköy tool marks by Seeher concluded that
a pendulum saw, like the one reconstructed by Küpper for the Mycenaean world, was not
utilized by the Hittites. Experimental cutting operations suggested that a short, handheld
convex saw created the tool marks on the adyton block. 479
To date, there are no known
physical specimens of this reconstructed curved saw, and it remains to be seen whether
Seeher’s analysis will be fully accepted by other scholars. The pendulum and convex
saws are hypothetical and based entirely upon the curvature of the impressions left on the
masonry blocks. Clearly the full range of saw types that were available to 13 th -century
craftspersons has not been recovered in the archaeological record.
The number of extant saws from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean is meager
in comparison to the chisel and ax series. The tool is sporadic during the MBA, but more
prominent during the latter half of the second millennium. As with double axes, Crete
produced the greatest assemblage of metal saws—and the highest quality—with nearly
477
Küpper 1996, 22-25. The marks on threshold blocks at Gla are debatable as to whether they were cut by
a pendulum saw.
478
Schwandner 1991, 220-223 figures 9-10; Neve 2002, 93-94; Wright 2006, 33-34.
479
Seeher 2007; Seeher 2008a; 2009, 141-144.
189

70 percent of the catalogue (79 out of 113 examples). The basic sawing implement
probably originated as a small, hand-held, serrated blade made of stone. The Aegean has
several third millennium metal saws, and the saw’s impressive history on Crete begins in
the EM II period at Priniatikos Pyrgos. 480
Other early saws are known from EM II- MM
II Koumasa and Chamaizi.
As the Near East produced earlier versions of the saw, the implement’s origin
481
cannot be traced to Crete. Yet the saw’s popularity in the Aegean, specifically Crete,
seems to have been memorialized in Greek myth during the historical period. According
to Greek tradition, Talos was the first to invent the saw while living in Attica. The
mythical craftsman initially cut a piece of wood with a snake’s jawbone, and when the
implement form proved successful it was copied in metal. 482 Fearing that Talos’
craftsmanship was superior to his own, Daidalos killed Talos, was subsequently
convicted for the murder and then fled to Crete. Although the myth does not explicitly
state that Daidalos brought the saw technology to Crete, this may have been assumed.
While the tale does not convey the real origin of the tool, it portrays the reputation that
Aegean, perhaps Minoan, craftspersons had attained. The regional dispersal of the tool
verifies its preference in Crete (Table 4.19), leading Shaw to observe: “the Minoan saws
are usually larger, better preserved and more numerous than those found elsewhere.” 483
Regional differences in saw measurements substantiate this claim (Fig. 4.20).
Regional total MBA LBA General 2 nd
millennium
Crete 79 13 (+2 EBA-MBA) 58 6
Mainland 14 1 13 0
480 Branigan 1974, entries 705 (Priniatikos Pyrgos – EM II), 706 (Naxos – Early Cycladic), 707
(Chalandriani – Early Cycladic II), 711 (Poliochni – EBA 2).
481 Deshayes 1960, 362.
482 Talos and Daidalos are described in Diodorus of Sicily 4.76 and Apollodorus’ The Library 3.15.8.
483 Shaw 2009, 44.
190

Islands 2 0 1 1
Cyprus 9 2 7 -
Anatolia 3 2 1 0
Syria-Palestine 5 3 1 1
Shipwrecks 1 0 1 0
Total 113 21 (+2 EBA-MBA) 82 8
Table 4.19: Saw distribution
Saws are diverse with an array of shapes and sizes, and several in the dataset are
fragmentary. A set of rivet holes may occur at one end of a blade; these enabled the
attachment of a wooden handle and indicate that the tool was used by one person.
Extremely large Cretan versions have two sets of rivet holes on either end thereby
requiring two people to operate. The presence or absence of teeth on a cutting blade is
another defining feature of a saw. Dentations were created by cutting out triangular
recesses along an edge with chisels or punches. These triangular points could be bent
outwards in alternating directions to increase the saw’s cutting width and decrease the
blade being pinched during cutting. Six distinctive categories of saws, taken from the
catalogue, are listed below; these groupings do not include the pendulum and convex
types already discussed. The purpose of categorizing the saws in this way is to highlight
their diversity and discuss the saws that characterize a particular region. Therefore, these
classifications are not a traditional typology, for there is no attempt to devise a
chronological development of the saws.
1. Saws whose blade narrows; often widest at the butt, while others widen
towards the middle and then contract to a point at the tip end. (Plate 4.43;
there are 20 examples in the catalogue).
2. Large saws with a relatively straight blade top and a curving cutting edge
(Plates 4.44-5; there are 18 examples in the catalogue).
191

3. Saws with a straight blade top and a straight cutting edge. The width of these
blades changes minimally over the length of the implement (Plate 4.46-47;
there are 14 examples in the catalogue).
4. Band saws. Often much smaller than other types, especially in terms of the
blade width (Plates 4.48-50; there are 26 examples in the catalogue).
5. Double-edged saws. Small saws with two serrated cutting edges (Plate 4.51;
there are 4 examples in the catalogue).
6. Miscellaneous or unknown: 4 saws have a miscellaneous shape, and there are
an additional 27 examples in the catalogue whose type/shape is unknown.
Simply shaped Type 1 saws are common to each region but particularly on
Cyprus. A regional origin for the form, however, is difficult to ascertain. Types 2 and 3
are large saws and conspicuously Cretan. They constitute the impressive, often well-
preserved, saws for which the Minoans were renowned. Both saw forms regularly have a
dentate cutting edge, but there are toothless examples as well. Easily recognizable, the
saws periodically appear in regions besides Crete. Examples of Type 2 came to light at
Akrotiri (LBA I), 484 the Euboean Andronianoi hoard (LH II‒LH IIIA1; Plate 4.45), 485
and maybe Troy (level II-V, thus possibly from the MBA). 486 An impressive Type 3
Minoan saw was found far from Crete at Boğazköy-Hattusha (Plate 4.47). 487
On the other
hand, Cypriot saws bear little resemblance to Minoan versions. The absence of Minoan-
type saws on Cyprus is surprising given the Cypriot similarities with other Minoan tools.
Band saws (Type 4) or fragments thereof are well represented in the dataset and
the form characterizes the mainland examples. Although most are fragmentary and small,
two substantial band saws come from a chamber tomb at Evangelistria, Nauplion (LH
484 Doumas 1997, 161 plate 87d, 88a-b.
485 Paschalidis 2007. Athens National Museum #10797.
486 Branigan 1974, 168 entry 710; Deshayes 1960, entry 2881.
487 Boehmer 1979, 33 plate XLII, 77/146-K/20, #3420D; Neve 1989.
192

IIIA-B) 488 and from Kalapodi (LH IIIC late – EPG). 489 Küpper provided an excellent
reconstruction of the Kalapodi band saw, which is based on analogy with the modern
hand, band saw (Plate 4.48a, b); the blade was attached on either end to a wooden frame
to provide a firm grip for a craftsperson during the cutting process. The width of the
Kalapodi band saw is only 1.8 cm. Other small, band-like fragments with serrated or
slightly jagged edges are recognized here as fragments of band saws based on
comparable blade widths. Several saw fragments either have a 1.3 or a 1.8 cm width, but
pieces of this type can defy identification if the serrated edges are not well-preserved.
Two band-like fragments from the Orchomenos hoard are potentially from a band saw
(Plates 4.49-50), for the width of both pieces (1.7‒1.9 cm) recalls the Kalapodi example.
The fragments, however, were not originally published as saw pieces, for they were
considered scrap metal. 490
The exact width of the Evangelistria blade is unknown, but a
measurement between 1.3 and 1.8 cm is hypothesized here based on comparisons to other
band saws. Small band-like saw fragments are also attested on Crete, but whether these
were hand-held implements or comparable to the reconstruction of the Kalapodi saw is
unknown. Exclusive to Crete (three examples) and Cyprus (one case), the double-edged
saw (Type 5) was not a standard subtype, even in those regions.
I: Files and rasps (Plate 4.52, 4.53)
The rasp is a useful carpentry tool, yet extremely rare in the Bronze Age.
only rasp in the dataset came from LM I Mochlos, which has a file-like shaft and a
488 The Evangelistria saw is on display in the Nauplion Museum, but not fully published. The Evangelistria
chamber tomb cemetery was discussed by C. Piteros in a paper titled “Mycenaean Nauplia” at a conference
on titled: “Mycenaeans Up to Date: The Archaeology of the NE Peloponnese – Current Concepts and New
Directions, 10th-14th November 2010, Athens.”
489 For the Kalapodi saw, see: Felsch 1996, 382 entry 2236,plate 63; Küpper 1996, 15, figure 128 middle.
490 For a brief and preliminary publication of the Orchomenos hoard, see: Spyropoulos 1970.
491 Petrie (1917, 44) discusses the file and rasp but does not list any examples from the Bronze Age.
491
The
193

ounded tip end with teeth (Plate 4.52). Shaw envisioned it being used “for careful
finishing of framing or furniture wood.” 492 The dual nature of the tool, with its filing and
sawing capabilities, was ideal for detail work in the finishing stages of carpentry projects.
An imperfect comparison for the Mochlos rasp is a short Knossian saw, which
incorporated dentations on a rounded tip (Plate 4.51). 493
The file-like part of the rasp
acted like modern sandpaper in refining a wood finish or perfecting a particular joint.
The metal file, traditionally thought of as a metallurgical utensil, somewhat
resembles the unique Mochlos rasp. An elongated bronze file with a rough surface,
created by a series of triangular indentions, was deposited in the LH IIIB/C Athens
494
Acropolis hoard (Plate 4.53). Although the file might be used to sharpen and refine
metal cutting edges, perhaps it is more reasonable for it to have worked wood. The
Athens file is the only extant metal example, yet three stone molds from MBA Kültepe
preserve designs indicating that rough-surfaced files were produced. 495
The existence of
the Mochlos rasp, Athenian file, and Kültepe molds implies that a metal rasp or file was
helpful to carpenters but not essential to their kit. The rasp and file have a slightly curved
tip that would have been very useful for rounding interior edges in woodwork.
II. Carpentry/masonry tool consumption by site
This section investigates the carpentry/masonry tool types and quantities by site
within a particular area and time period. 496
Analysis of the site-by-site distribution
enhances the overall picture of tool selection, for localized tool tendencies regularly exist
492 Shaw 2009, 52.
493 See Evely 1993, entry 57; Object stored in the Knossos Stratigraphic Museum in Box 1877.
494 Spyropoulos 1972, 74 entry 9; drawing 139 on pg 76, plate 23γ.
495 Müller-Karpe 1994, 205 plates 35.1, 2, and 4.
496 It must be recognized that many of these sites have numerous other tools, but the tables in this chapter
section only count the wood- and stone-working implements. For a complete list of all tools from a site, see
the general catalogue, presented in Appendix 4.
194

within a region. Whenever possible, the LBA implements are classified chronologically
by early LBA (1600-1400 BC), peak LBA (1400-1200 BC), and late LBA (1200-1050
BC). It should be noted that the early LBA includes the transitional phases that
awkwardly fall across the traditional divide of the MBA from the LBA (see chronological
table on page xxiii). Therefore, tools from Neopalatial (MMIII-LMI), Shaft Grave era
(MHIII-LHI), and Old Hittite kingdom (1650-1500BC) contexts are included in the
“early LBA” grouping. Unfortunately many tools that are published lack chronological
precision and are broadly attributed to the LBA. A tool’s exact date often may be
questioned; this is especially true for hoard implements, whose contexts may be poorly
understood. Numerous hoards date to the transitional period of LH III B-C on the
mainland or the equivalent LC IIC-IIIA on Cyprus, and, as is the case of the Tiryns
hoard, can contain much earlier material in them. 497
When broadly dated to the transition
from the 13 th to the 12 th century, tools are placed in the “peak LBA” rather than the “late
LBA” group.
The total count of carpentry and masonry tools at each site is impacted by the
scope of excavations and their publication. Despite this important caveat, several regions
include one mega-site as judged by the level of carpentry/masonry tool consumption. For
example, Mycenae, Enkomi, Boğazköy and Ugarit (and Byblos) each yielded a
disproportionally high count of wood- and stone-working tools within their respective
Mycenaean, Cypriot, Anatolian, and Syro-Palestinian tool assemblages. Crete is the
exception, as numerous palatial sites yielded comparable quantities of carpentry/masonry
tools. Excavations at Knossos and Zakros have provided a similar number of these
implements, even though one may have expected Knossos to have been the primary tool
497 For the Tiryns hoard, see Maran 2006, 141.
195

consumer. Cretan carpentry/masonry implements, in fact, are relatively well distributed
across the island. Minoan consumption patterns imply that more tools were in circulation
and that implements were generally easier to acquire. Alternatively, the tool distributions
may imply that craftspersons were more widely dispersed and not concentrated at
particular centers; such a pattern may be expected in a peer-polity arrangement, like the
one on Neopalatial Crete. The tool distributions outside Crete are significantly more
restricted. For instance, Cypriot tools seem to have been stockpiled chiefly at one site:
Enkomi. Such patterns may result from differing levels archaeological investigation and
preservation from site-to-site. On the other hand, genuine social and craft arrangements
may have governed each site’s selection of tools.
Sites from the Cretan MBA:
Middle Minoan carpentry/masonry tools are divided among eight sites (Table
4.20). These implements are best represented by findings at Mallia and Palaikastro, even
though very little of Protopalatial Palaikastro has been exposed. These two settlements
are situated on the island’s coast, which facilitated the acquisition of early imported
metals and subsequent metallurgical activity such as tool production. 498 Recent lead
isotope analysis of metal objects from Mallia, including fragments of raw materials,
shows that copper at Quartier Mu came from a number of different sources, specifically
Anatolia, Cyprus and an unknown Near Eastern source. 499
The impressive quantity (and
diversity) of the MM Mallia tools is attributed to the site’s well- preserved Protopalatial
structures and contexts, but also to the fact that Mallia was a center of construction
activity as indicated by the sophisticated buildings at the site. The supposition of skilled
498
Metal tool production occurred at Quartier Mu: Poursat and Olivier 1996, 53-56, entry C23, plate 52d.
499
Poursat and Loubet 2005, 118-120.
196

masons and carpenters at Mallia is bolstered by the earliest monumental structure on the
island at Chrysolakkos, with its orthostate facades and drilled circular mortises, and
confirmed by the advanced level of masonry and carpentry of the Hypostyle Crypt and
Quartier Mu buildings. The workshops at Quartier Mu further demonstrate the
concentration of craft activity at Protopalatial Mallia. The site yielded several saw
fragments, yet this tool form is not found at other MM sites. Double axes are widely
distributed in the Protopalatial period, as they are found at each of the listed sites except
for Palaikastro. The shaft-hole axes from Palaikastro seem to be an eastern Mediterranean
or Anatolian tradition, and the tool does not occur elsewhere in the MM period. Outside
of Mallia, wood- and stone-working tools have not been found in abundance. This is
particularly true of the other Protopalatial palaces, namely Phaistos and Knossos.
MM site Total carpentry
- masonry tools
Tool types
Mallia 32 13 saws; 8 chisels; 3 solid drills; 2 double axes; 1 trunnion/
lugged ax; 1 single/flat ax; 1 single/flat adze; 1 adzehammer,
1 ax-adze; 1 hollow cylinder (drill?)
Palaikastro 12 11 shaft-hole axes; 1 ax-adze
Chamaizi 4 2 double axes; 1 ax-adze; 1 single/flat adze
Samba 4 3 chisels; 1 double ax
Phaistos 4 3 double axes; 1 chisel
Ayia Triadha 2 2 double axes
Kamilari 2 1 double ax; 1 drill or borer
Knossos 1 1 double ax
Table 4.20: MM carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site (sites with one tool are excluded unless
they are major palatial or urban sites)
Sites from the Cretan LBA:
Late Minoan wood- and stone-working implements are evenly distributed across
the island, but they are heavily concentrated at palatial sites and large urban towns (Table
4.21). No site is the principal consumer of Minoan carpentry/masonry tools, as is the case
elsewhere. There are a comparable number of carpentry and masonry tools from Zakros
197

and Knossos, seemingly reflecting the peer-polity nature of the island during the LBA. 500
Mallia is the only site that had an equivalent number of implements from MM and LM
contexts. The quantity of Mochlos carpentry/masonry implements may relate to or even
surpass those from Zakros and Knossos, yet so far only a sampling of the Mochlos
examples are published or described in preliminary reports. The Mochlos tool sum will
be enhanced when the next excavation volume is published. 501
Not surprisingly, the
majority of the LM tools date to the Neopalatial period. Only a few implements are
securely dated to the 14 th through 12 th centuries. Double axes, chisels and saws comprise
the conventional and preferred triad of Minoan carpentry/masonry implements (not
necessarily found together) at most sites, especially within the urban centers.
LM site
502
Total
LBA
tools
Early
LBA
1600-
1400
Peak
LBA
1400-
1200
Late
LBA
1200-
1050
Tool types
Zakros 55 55 - - 16 saws; 13 double axes; 13 chisels; 2
pick-adzes; 2 hollow cylinders (tubular
drills?); 2 drills; 3 single/flat axes; 1
Knossos
+14 unknown
single/flat adze
47 42 1 - 18 chisels; 9 saws; 9 double axes; 2
drills; 2 hollow cylinders (tubular
drills?); 1 ax-hammer
32 27 1 - 18 double axes; 11 chisels; 3 saws
Mallia
+1 unknown
Gournia 31 24 - - 10 chisels; 9 saws; 6 double axes; 3
+4 unknown
hollow cylinders (tubular drills?); 2 solid
drills; 1 single/flat ax
Mochlos 26 26 - - 13 double axes; 9 chisels; 2 ax-adzes; 1
saw; 1 double adze
Palaikastro 28 21 - - 13 double axes; 9 chisels; 2 solid drills;
+1 unknown
1 saw; 1 socketed chisel; 1 single/flat
adze
500 Renfrew and Cherry 1986;
501 The next Mochlos volume is already under preparation. While visiting the INSTAP study center in East
Crete in Spring 2009, Tom Brogan graciously showed me the bronze tools recovered by the Mochlos
excavations over the past two decades. I was not able to include these implements—specifically those that
have not been reported in early publications—in the current dataset, but soon they will be published by the
excavation team.
502 The tool counts for this table and each subsequent LBA table in this section include implements that
have firm LBA dates. Numerous tools are dated generally to the second millennium, and these are
excluded from the LBA counts. The sum of the unknown examples from each site, however, is indicated.
198

Ayia Triadha
+6 unknown
22 8 - - 7 chisels; 6 double axes; 3 saws; 2
double adzes; 2 pick-adzes; 1 hollow
Phaistos 21 17 - -
cylinder (tubular drill?)
10 double axes; 8 chisels; 2 drills; 1 ax-
+2 unknown
adze
Kommos 11 4 6 - 7 chisels; 3 saw-like blades; 1 double ax
Kalami 8 - 8 - 6 chisels; 2 drills
Psychro 8 1 - 1 3 chisels; 3 double axes; 1 double
hammer; 1 saw
Karphi 6 - - 6 2 chisels; 2 saws; 1 trunnion/ lugged ax;
1 drill
Olonte/Olous 6 - - 6 5 single/flat axes; 1 chisel
Pseira
+2 unknown
6 3 - - 3 double axes; 2 chisels; 1 saw
Tourloti
+3 unknown
5 - - - 5 double axes
Tylissos 4 1 - - 3 chisels; 1 saw
Vavari 4 4 - - 4 chisels
Zafer Papoura 3 - 3 - 2 chisels; 1 saw
Mouliana 3 - - 3 3 saws
Armenoi 2 - 2 - 1 double ax; 1 saw
Table 4.21: LM carpentry/masonry tool distribution by sites (sites with 1 tool are excluded)
Sites from the MH mainland cultural sphere:
Chisels, axes (both single and double forms) and a saw are the wood- and stone-
working tools from the MH period, although they are relatively scarce. Seven different
MH sites (including one from an Ionian island) have yielded carpentry/masonry tools,
and only Lefkas and Sesklo produced two or more kinds (Table 4.22). The Lefkas objects
come from a cemetery and some are suggestive of Cretan imports. Two distinctive
Minoan-like implements included an elongated chisel with a wide cutting edge and a
broad saw. 503
The meager MH distribution is starkly contrasted by the proliferation of
sites and their tools during the LBA.
MH site
Total carpentry/
masonry tools
Tool types
Lefkas 7 5 chisels; 1 drill or chisel; 1 saw
Sesklo 3 2 double axes; 1 chisel
Lerna 2 2 chisels
Malthi 1 1 chisel
Mitrou 1 1 single/flat ax
503 For the chisel, see: Deshayes 1960, entry 749; Tripathi 1988, 264 entry 266. For the saw, see: Deshayes,
1960, entry 2906; Branigan 1974, entry 708; Tripathi 1988 263 entry 250.
199

Ayia Marina 1 1 chisel
Gona (Macedonia) 1 1 single/flat ax
Table 4.22: Middle Helladic carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site
Sites from the LH mainland cultural sphere:
The diversity of tool types, the sum of the implements, and the count of sites with
tools from the LH period is beyond comparison to the MH data. The spike in
carpentry/masonry tools occurred primarily during the Mycenaean palatial period (LH
IIIA1‒IIIB). There are only 22 wood- and stone-working specimens, mainly chisels and
drills, attributed to the early Mycenaean period (MMIII‒LH II). 504
Generally, the
prominent LBA mainland tools are chisels, double axes and drills. While the mainland
and Crete both favored the double ax as their preeminent tool, Mycenaean saws do not
match Minoan samples in quantity or size. Mainland double axes are regularly found in
hoards and all but two are dated to the LH III period.
The majority of double axes were excavated at Mycenae, which coincides with
the site’s high retention of tools in relation to other localities (Table 4.23). The tool count
from Mycenae illustrates that wood- and stone-working implements were more accessible
there than at any other mainland site. The second highest yield of implements came from
Tiryns, but this quantity equates to less than half of the Mycenae specimens. This
disproportional allotment contradicts the more evenly dispersed Minoan tools. Only eight
wood- and stone-working tools were found at the Palace of Nestor, thereby accentuating
the disparity in tool counts among the Mycenaean palatial sites. The tools that helped
construct the megaron and surrounding complex at Pylos were obviously removed from
the site prior to its destruction. The Mycenae and Tiryns tools constitute the densest
504
Additional tools may be assigned to this period, but this low number represents only those cases that are
definitively dated to this phase.
200

concentration of regional wood- and stone-working implements on the mainland. The
following list ranks the mainland regions according to the total LBA carpentry/masonry
tools recovered: Argolid (141 examples), Boeotia (33), Epirus (29), Messenia (28), Attica
(27), Achaea (12), Aetolia-Acarnania and the Ionian islands (10), Laconia (9), Euboea
(6), Thessaly (3), East Lokris (3), Phocis (2), Arcadia (1) and Macedonia (1).
LH site Total
LBA
tools
Early
LBA
1600-1400
Peak LBA
1400-1200
Late LBA
1200-1050
Tool types
Mycenae 77 7 68 - 41 double axes; 29 chisels; 5 drills;
1 ax-adze; 1 socketed ax or wedge
Tiryns 36 - 7 11 27 chisels; 6 drills; 2 hollow
cylinders (tubular drills?); 1
double ax
Athens 24 - 24 - 13 double axes; 8 chisels; 1 double
hammer; 1 ax-hammer; 1
single/flat ax
Orchomenos 20 - 20 - 9 chisels; 7 double axes; 2 saws; 1
drill; 1 adze
Midea 12 - 4 - 7 drills; 4 chisels; 1 saw
Nichoria 12 5 5 - 5 chisels; 6 drills; 1 double ax
Stephani 10 - 10 - 10 double axes
Pylos 8 - 8 - 8 chisels
Thebes 7 - 6 1 4 chisels; 3 double axes
Anthedon 6 - 6 - 4 double axes; 1 chisel; 1 trunnion
adze
Katamachi 6 - 6 - 5 double axes; 1 socketed chisel
Menelaion 6 - 6 - 3 chisels, 2 drills, 1 saw
Argive 5 - 4 - 5 chisels
Herion
Prosymna 5 2 2 - 3 hollow cylinders (tubular
drills?); 1 chisel; 1 saw
Kalydon 4 - 4 - 2 double axes; 2 chisels
Lefkandi -
Xeropolis
4 - - 4 2 saws; 1 chisel; 1 drill
Rodotopi 4 - - - 4 shaft hole axes
Terovo 3 - 2 - 2 double axes; 1 shaft hole ax
Kierion- 3 - - 3 2 double axes; 1 chisel
Kardista
Dodona 3 - 1 - 2 double axes; 1 trunnion/lugged
ax
Perati 3 - - 3 3 chisels
Evangelistria 3 - 3 - 2 chisels; 1 saw
Kynos 3 - - 3 2 single/ flat axes; 1 chisel
Malthi 3 - 1 - 2 saws; 1 double ax
Paralimni 3 - 1 1 2 single/ flat axes; 1 trunnion/
Teichos
Volimidhia,
Vorias
3 3 - -
lugged ax
2 chisels; 1 drill
201

Ithaka-Polis 3 - 3 - 1 single/flat ax; 1 chisel; 1
& general
socketed chisel
Kephalonia 2 - 1 1 1 chisel; 1 single/flat ax
Kalapodi 2 - - 2 1 chisel; 1 saw
Andronianoi 2 - 2 - 1 double ax; 1 saw
Vrysarion 2 - 2 - 2 single/flat axes
Vaphio 2 2 - - 1 ax-adze; 1 ceremonial,
fenestrated ax
Chalandritsa 2 - 2 - 1 double ax; 1 single/flat ax
(A. Vasilios)
Table 4.23: Late Helladic carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site (sites with one tool are excluded
unless they are major palatial or urban sites)
Sites from the Greek islands:
Only two carpentry/masonry tools—double axes from Phylakopi and from the
Megalochori quarry at Thera—are known on the Greek islands during the MBA period.
Wood- and stone-working implements are infrequent despite their appearance on the
islands in the EBA metal hoards. Based upon a publication photograph, the MBA Theran
double ax resembles a Minoan double ax type but this identification is not confirmed. 505
LBA carpentry/masonry tools (Table 4.24) are still relatively rare on the islands but are
more abundant than the MBA examples. Chisels are the typical LBA island tool though
various axes and a saw are also known.
Although Iaylsos (Rhodes) produced the most specimens, no single island site had
an overwhelming number of wood- and stone-working tools. Given the level of
preservation at Akrotiri, one may have expected to find such implements in abundance,
but there is a general absence of metal artifacts at the site. Only three LBA
carpentry/masonry implements are from Akrotiri, and the tools (a saw and two chisels)
are undoubtedly Minoan in origin or at least Cretan inspired. Many other wood- and
stone-working tools must have existed at Akrotiri, yet these were either carried away by
the inhabitants prior to the eruption or still await discovery. Tool marks are better
505 Doumas, Marthari and Televantou 2000, 10 entry 11, figure 11.
202

preserved at Akrotiri than actual implements. Over 80 mason’s marks have been
documented on Thera—the largest collection outside of Crete. Although the Akrotiri
marks display local motifs and designs, the tradition was Cretan and Palyvou concludes
that “their presence at Akrotiri speaks of a direct and privileged connection between
Thera and the palace of Knossos.” 506 Such mason’s marks add to the number of Cretan
architectural traits that appear on the Cycladic Island. 507 Ashlar masonry was common at
Akrotiri, particularly within the so-called “Xeste” houses, a term meaning “cut” that
Marinatos borrowed from Homeric vocabulary to convey dressed stones. 508 Considering
the preservation of the Akrotiri houses with well-cut masonry, the study of implements
that were used at the site is better indicated through its markings than actual tools. The
Cycladic site utilized both malleable and hard volcanic rocks (e.g. ignimbrite, andesite,
and tuff) for ashlar blocks and other needs. 509 Palyvou indicates that two different types
of markings exist: cuttings on visible façades suggest that exposed surfaces were finished
with a fine chisel, while hidden ends and back sides were roughly carved by tools with
broader blades like wide chisels, axes, adzes or gouges. 510
The early LBA represents the period of greater Cretan (Neopalatial) influence on
the islands, while the peak LBA period may reflect a Mycenaean presence. Taking this
assumption into consideration, there are more Mycenaean-period tools (Peak and Late
LBA) on the islands than Minoan types. Given the presence of Minoans and later
Mycenaeans at both Phylakopi (Melos) and Ayia Irini (Keos), it is perplexing that
carpentry/masonry tools were not more common at either site. In fact, no specimens at all
506
Palyvou 2005, 181.
507
Palyvou 2005, 180-181; McEnroe 2010, 114-116.
508
Palyvou 2005, 54.
509
Palyvou 2005, 113.
510
Palyvou 2005, 117, figure 160 (for a detail photograph of an ashlar with chisel marks).
203

are reported from Ayia Irini, although there is evidence of saw use at the site. At the
entrance to House A, there is an abandoned limestone block with a deep, unfinished saw
cut. 511
Given the popularity of the saw on Crete and the construction of Building A in the
early part of the LBA, the employment of the saw at Ayia Irini was likely inspired or
undertaken by Cretan craftspersons.
LBA site
Total
LBA
tools
Early
LBA
1600-1400
Peak
LBA
1400-
1200
Late LBA
1200-
1050
Tool types
Ialysos, Rhodes 12 - 10 or 12? 2? 11 chisels; 1 double ax
Melos:
Phylakopi
6 3 2 - 5 chisels; 1 double axe
Kos: "Seraglio" 4 - 1 - 2 double axes; 1 single/flat ax; 1
trunnion/lugged ax
Thera: Akrotiri,
+2 unknown
3 3 - - 2 chisels; 1 saw
Astypalaia:
Syngairos
3 3 3 chisels
Rhodes: Lindos 3 - 3 - 2 single/flat axes; 1
trunnion/lugged ax
Salamis-
Kanakia
2 - - 2 2 chisels
Kos:
Asklepieion
area
2 2 1 chisel; 1 single/flat ax
Kos: Eleona
and Langada
2 2 1 chisel; 1 single/flat ax
Cape
Staphylos,
Skopelos
2 2 - - 1 double ax; 1 single/flat ax
Kea: Ayia Irini 1 1 1 chisel, fragment
Koukounaries,
Paros
1 - - 1 1 double ax
Astypalaia:
Armenochori
1 1 1 single/flat ax
Rhodes:
Trianda
1 ? ? - 1 double ax
Naxos general 1 - 1 - 1 double ax
Table 4.24: LBA islands: carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site
Sites from the Cypriot MBA:
The overwhelming percentage of Middle Cypriot implements were found at two
sites: Lapithos and Pera (Table 4.25). The Lapithos implements were deposited as burial
511 Cummer 1980, 6.
204

gifts, while the Pera tools formed a metal hoard. The validity of the Pera cache as a
legitimate hoard has been questioned; perhaps the collection’s implements were gathered
together from a series of burials before being sold a complete set. 512
The dominant MC
tool type is the single/flat ax, which was found at almost every site. Chisels, shaft-hole
axes, socketed chisels, and saws are also represented during this period. The MC sites are
concentrated in the northern part of the island as well as in the Troodos foothills. Very
few implements from the southern and eastern coastal regions are known, a pattern that
shifts by the LBA. The changes in tool selection by the LC period are apparent just by the
different sites; only one site (Toumba tou Skourou) had carpentry/masonry tools from the
MBA and LBA. Burials and hoards are the depositional context of choice in the MC
period, while tools are scarce in LC burials.
MC site
Total carpentry/
masonry tools
Tool types
Lapithos 78 67 single/flat axes; 10 chisels; 1 single/flat adze;
Pera 25 15 single/flat axes; 5 chisels; 2 shaft hole axes; 1 drill;
1 saw; 1 socketed chisel
Politiko Lambertis 7 3 single/flat axes; 3 drills; 1 chisel
Alambra 6 5 single/ flat axes; 1 shaft hole ax
Makarska 6 2 single/flat axes; 2 shaft hole axes; 2 socketed chisels
Karpass region 6 3 single/flat axes; 1 shaft hole ax; 1 chisel; 1 saw
Ayia Paraskevi 5 3 single/flat axes; 2 shaft hole axes
Pyrgos 4 2 single/flat axes; 2 chisels
Arpera Mosphilos 2 2 single/flat axes
Kalavasos – Panayia
church
2 2 single/flat axes
Toumba tou Skourou 2 2 single/flat axes
Vasilia Alonia 2 2 single/flat axes
Table 4.25: Middle Cypriot carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site (sites with one tool are
excluded)
Sites from the Cypriot LBA:
Tool consumption in the Cypriot LBA shifted to an entirely new set of sites.
Despite this dramatic change, 80 percent of the tool types from the LBA were evident on
512 Catling 1964, 278 note 1; Åström 1977-78.
205

the island in the MBA. The distribution of the Late Cypriot carpentry/masonry tools is
extraordinarily unbalanced, with Enkomi having over half of the period’s tool assemblage
(Table 4.26). The specimens from Enkomi occur in all three LBA groupings, including
the greatest concentration of wood- and stone-working tools from any site in the 12 th
century. The repertoire of Enkomi tools is extremely diverse, leading one to consider the
possibility that Enkomi controlled access to craft tools and even certain craft industries.
The scarcity or total absence of wood- and stone-working tools at most major urban LC
IIC sites like Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Hala Sultan Tekke, Kition, Maroni-Vournes,
Alassa-Paliotaverna and Kouklia-Palaepaphos is hard to explain. The apparent
restriction of carpentry/masonry tools stands in complete contrast to the plentiful
evidence from Enkomi.
The novel set of implements on LBA Cyprus included shafted double-ended
(occasionally combination) tools and single/flat adzes. The best parallels for the shafted
implements are from the Cretan Neopalatial period, and they are clearly not inspired by
indigenous Cypriot, Anatolian or Near Eastern versions. These new tool types on Cyprus
only appear at Enkomi and Mathiati. The foreign, or at least foreign-inspired, implements
were habitually hoarded, suggesting that they were highly valued and unavailable to most
individuals. The disparity in the number of implements by site suggests differing levels of
tool accessibility at each LC urban locality, thus replicating the distribution of tools
among Mycenaean sites.
LC site All LBA
tools
Early
LBA
1600-
1400
Peak
LBA
1400-
1200
Late
LBA
1200-
1050
Tool types
Enkomi 94 1 28 41 36 chisels; 26 drills; 7 double adzes;
6 single/flat axes; 4 socketed
chisels; 4 trunnion/lugged axes
(including 1 adze); 4 ax-adzes; 3
206

Kalavasos-Ayios 11 ? ? -
adze-hammers; 3 single/ flat adzes;
2 double axes; 2 saws
8 chisels; 2 single/flat axes; 1
Dhimitrios
socketed chisel
Mathiati 11 - 11 - 3 double adzes; 3 single/flat axes; 2
double axes; 1 chisel; 1 adzehammer;
1 ax-adze
Episkopi –
Bamboula
6 - 5 - 3 socketed chisels; 2 chisels; 1 saw
Hala Sultan
Tekke
5 - 2 - 5 chisels
Toumba tou 5 5 - - 2 single/flat axes; 2 socketed
Skourou
chisels; 1 chisel
Pyla –
5 - 5 - 3 drills; 1 ax-adze; 1
Kokkinokremnos
trunnion/lugged adze
Maa –
Palaekastro
5 - 5 - 3 chisels; 2 drills
Athienou 4 - - - 4 chisels
Ayia Paraskevi 3 1 - - 3 single/flat axes
Apliki - 3 - 3 - 3 chisels (2 of which are drills and
Karamallos
chisels)
Arsos 2 2 - - 2 single/flat axes
Katydata 2 ? ? ? 1 single/flat ax; 1 saw
Ayios Iakovos 2 2 - - 1 single/flat ax; 1 trunnion/lugged
ax
Lapithos 2 - 2 - 1 single/flat ax; 1 chisel
Kition 1 - - - 1 saw
Table 4.26: Late Cypriot carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site (sites with one tool are excluded
unless they are major palatial or urban sites)
Sites from the Anatolian MBA:
Carpentry/masonry tools were scattered throughout Anatolia during the early
second millennium, and one site did not act as the principal consumer of the implements.
Troy, Kültepe, Alishar Höyük, and Alaca Höyük represent the chief centers with wood-
and stone-working utensils (Table 4.27). The dominant Anatolian MBA tools consist of
chisels, socketed chisels, trunnion/lugged axes, and shaft-hole axes. Saws are unattested
in Anatolia other than two at Troy; these Trojan specimens conformed to an Aegean
cultural sphere more so than to an Anatolian one. There are few changes in Anatolian tool
preferences from the MBA to the LBA. The popular tool forms remained the same, and
many MBA Anatolian sites continued to utilize carpentry/masonry implements in the
subsequent period.
207

MBA site Total carpentry
- masonry tools
Tool types
Troy 23 17 chisels; 3 single/flat axes; 2 saws; 1 gouge
Kültepe 18 7 shaft hole axes; 6 trunnion/lugged axes; 1 single/flat ax; 2
chisels; 1 socketed chisel; 1 double ax
Alishar Höyük 14 9 chisels; 2 socketed chisels; 1 drill (socketed); 1 shaft hole
ax; 1 single/flat ax
Beycesultan 11 4 trunnion/lugged axes; 1 single/flat ax; 5 chisels; 1 socketed
chisel
Alaca Höyük 11 6 chisels; 3 socketed chisels; 1 single/flat ax; 1 drill
Acemhöyük 6 4 shaft hole axes; 1 trunnion/lugged ax; 1 socketed chisel
Boğazköy,
Hattusha
4 2 chisels; 1 drill; 1 shaft hole adze
Kusura 5 4 chisels; 1 single/flat ax
Tarsus 5 1 chisel; 1 shaft hole ax; 1 trunnion/lugged ax; 1 single/flat
ax; 1 drill (socketed)
Mersin 4 3 chisels; 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Dündartepe
(Samsun)
3 1 shaft hole ax; 1 trunnion/lugged ax; 1 socketed chisel
Kayseri 3 3 trunnion/lugged axes
Sakçagözü 3 3 shaft hole axes
Alalakh 2 2 single/flat axes
Karahöyük 1 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Table 4.27: MBA Anatolia: carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site (sites with one tool are
excluded unless they are major palatial or urban sites)
Sites from the Anatolian LBA:
There is a notable increase in the number of Anatolian carpentry/masonry tools
from the MBA to the LBA. The most striking pattern, however, is the overwhelming
quantity of tools from Boğazköy in comparison to other Anatolian centers (Table 4.28).
Chisel and chisel-like implements constitute the majority (231 of 330) of Anatolian
carpentry/masonry tools from this period. The LBA Anatolian chisel series includes tools
with extremely small cutting edges (0.5 cm and under), which are distinctive in Anatolia
and rare elsewhere. Trunnion/lugged axes and socketed chisels are MBA tools that
became more popular in the LBA, while shaft-hole axes/adzes appear just as frequently in
MBA and LBA contexts. The distribution of solid drills is restricted to Boğazköy. It is
unclear if problems in tool identification caused this unusual pattern or if solid drills were
unknown outside the Hittite capital. Although circular mortises are found in masonry
208

from numerous Hittite sites, only three Anatolian metal hollow cylinders (potential
tubular drill bits) are known—all from Hattusha. Nine double axes exist from LBA
Turkey, but eight are from Troy and Şarköy; these sites are better linked to Aegean
cultural spheres than Hittite ones. Only one double ax came from the rest of Anatolia
(Tarsus), confirming that the Aegean predilection for the double ax was never shared by
Hittite craftspersons. With the popularity of the trunnion/lugged axes and the shaft-hole
axes in Anatolia, the double ax perhaps was deemed an unnecessary implement. An
indisputable Aegean implement, a Minoan-like saw, was uncovered at Boğazköy. 513
Conceivably more surprising than the presence of this foreign tool in central Anatolia is
the otherwise total absence of saws from this region during the LBA. Regardless of the
rarity of actual Hittite saws, tool marks on architectural foundations at Boğazköy and
other sites (like Eflatun Pınar) confirm that Hittites used the saw in stone cutting. 514
The uneven distribution of tools in central Anatolia may largely result from the
extensive excavation and publication at Boğazköy. Nevertheless, tools must have been
easier to acquire within the capital city given the site’s numerous metallurgical
515
workshops.
Even so, the dearth of carpentry/masonry implements at other major Hittite
sites (e.g. Maşat Höyük, Ortaköy-Şapinuwa, and Kuşaklı) is unexpected, given the vast
quantity of tools at Hattusha. Some sites like Ortaköy-Şapinuwa and Kuşaklı are known
through preliminarily publications, so greater numbers of tools may survive than what is
513 Neve 1989.
514 Seeher 2007.
515 Metallurgical workshops are known from the Old Hittite and empire periods at Boğazköy. For Old
Hittite: see, Müller-Karpe 1994, 72-73, figures 46, 47, plates 4.3, 5.2, 5.5; Yildirim and Gates 2007, 296.
For metallurgical activity at Boğazköy from the Hittite empire period, especially within the Oberstadt, see
Müller-Karpe 1994, 73-74, 82-84, figures 49 and 57; Neve 1999, 112, 123-124, 127-132, 137-143, figures
60, 66, 67.
209

eported here. Despite this caveat, the dispersal of Hittite implements resembles Cypriot
and Mycenaean patterns whereby one urbanized site yielded a high portion of the
region’s tools, and conforms to what one might expect at an imperial center. These
observations raise questions as to whether craftspersons or regional craft industries were
controlled by a single locality. The concentrated and specific tool distributions in these
regions are very different from the peer-polity similarities witnessed on Crete.
LBA site Total
LBA
Boğazköy,
Hattusha
+1 unknown
Alishar
Höyük
+2 unknown
Alalakh
+4 unknown
Alaca Höyük
+8 unknown
Tarsus
+1 unknown
Troy
+1 unknown
tools
Early
LBA
1600-1400
Peak
LBA
1400-1200
Late LBA
1200-1050
Tool types
200 2 34 8 151 chisels; 20 drills; 10 trunnion
axes; 7 socketed chisels; 7 shaft
hole axes; 5 single/flat axes; 3
hollow cylinders; 2 single/flat
adzes; 1 saw; 1 shaft hole adze
25 - 25 - 6 trunnion/lugged axes; 18 chisels;
1 socketed chisel
17 2 10 9 chisels; 3 shaft hole adzes; 2
single/flat ax; 2 socketed chisels; 1
shaft hole ax;
16 - 8 - 8 chisels; 5 trunnion/lugged axes;
3 socketed chisels
17 12 5 - 7 chisels; 5 single/flat axes; 2
trunnion/ lugged axes; 2 socketed
chisels; 1 double ax
13 - - 3 5 double axes; 2 single/flat axes; 2
chisels; 1 shaft hole ax; 1 ax-adze;
1 ax-hammer; 1 socketed chisel
Beycesultan 7 4 3 - 4 chisels, 1 socketed chisel, 2
+2 unknown
trunnion/lugged axes
Korucutepe 7 - - - 5 chisels; 2 socketed chisels
Şarköy 6 - - 6 3 double axes; 2 trunnion/lugged
axes; 1 shaft hole ax or wedge
Maşat Höyük 5 - 4 - 3 chisels; 1 single/flat ax; 1
trunnion/ lugged ax
Kusura 4 - 1 - 3 chisels; 1 single/flat ax
Ortaköy- 3 - 3 - 2 trunnion/lugged axes; 1 socketed
Şapinuwa
chisel
Mersin 2 - 1 - 2 chisels
+1 unknown
Fıraktin 2 - 2 - 1 shaft hole ax; 1 ax-hammer
Yazılıkaya 2 - 2 - 1 trunnion/lugged ax; 1 chisel
Bitik 2 - 1 - 1 shaft hole ax; 1 trunnion ax
Kuşaklı 1 - 1 - 1 socketed chisel
Table 4.28: LBA Anatolia: carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site (sites with one tool are excluded
unless they are major palatial or urban sites)
210

Sites from the Syro-Palestinian MBA:
Although the tool data from Syria-Palestine in this study is more representative
than exhaustive, certain patterns are still discernible. In the MBA, single/flat axes are the
preeminent carpentry/masonry implement, while shaft-hole axes and chisels are also
favored. Byblos is the major consumer of wood- and stone-working tools at this time,
followed by Megiddo (Table 4.29). Located on the Lebanese coast, Byblos was primarily
connected to Egypt and Syria-Mesopotamia, but it was also in contact with Cyprus. Both
Cyprus and Syria-Palestine share a strong preference for the single/flat ax in the early
second millennium, particularly at Lapithos (a cemetery) and Byblos (a settlement).
Contact between Lapithos and Byblos may have caused this inter-regional
preference for the single ax. If that is the case, Lapithites probably emulated the
consumption practices of Byblites. The single/flat ax is found in Early Cypriot contexts,
so it is unlikely that Cyprus adopted it directly from the east during the MBA. It is
possible, however, that the Cypriots observed the popularity of the tool at Byblos and
subsequently replicated its level of production and consumption. This hypothesis would
strengthen Keswani’s interpretation of the MC burials as a way for nascent Cypriot elites
to form their identity through the utilization of the island’s copper resources. 516
If the
burial goods were viewed as imitations of foreign implements or even perceived as
Byblos exports, the MC axes would acquire an even greater social value than previously
believed. The connotation of Near Eastern-inspired tools in Cypriot burials would have
increased the prestige of those individuals interred with the axes. The desire for the single
ax in MBA Cyprus and Syria-Palestine highlights a shared trait between the regions.
516 Keswani 2004; 2005.
211

MBA site Total carpentry
- masonry tools
Tool types
Byblos 47 35 single/flat axes; 8 chisels; 3 saws; 1 gouge
Megiddo 18 7 single/flat axes; 6 shaft-hole axes; 4 chisels; 1 double ax
Ras Shamra,
Ugarit
11 8 shaft-hole axes; 2 single/flat axes; 1 chisel
Jericho 3 3 single/flat axes
Gezer 2 1 single/flat ax; 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Tell Siyannou 1 1 shaft-hole ax (crescent shaped and fenestrated)
Tell el Ajjul 1 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Table 4.29: MBA Syro-Palestinian carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site
Sites from the Syro-Palestinian LBA:
While the demand for single/flat axes declined on Cyprus by the LBA, the
implement remained the preferred carpentry/masonry tool among LBA Syro-Palestinians.
Ras Shamra (Ugarit) produced the overwhelming majority of wood- and stone-working
implements from the region, similar to the disproportion of tools found at Mycenae,
Enkomi, and Boğazköy (Table 4.30). Given the socio-political organization of the Levant
in the LBA, one would expect a more evenly scattered distribution of tools reflective of a
peer-polity arrangement, akin to what is seen on Neopalatial Crete. Perhaps the restricted
tool pattern in Syria-Palestine may be attributed to the thorough excavation and
publication of Ugarit. The tools from LBA Ugarit included single/flat axes, chisels, shaft-
hole axes/adzes, drills, and trunnion/lugged axes; this selection recalls implement types
from MBA Syria-Palestine and generally from Anatolia. On the other hand, there are
hardly any signs of tool similarities between Ugarit and the Aegean. Comparison of the
Cypriot and Ugaritic carpentry/masonry tools indicates a few similarities, the best being
the continued use of the single/flat ax into the LBA. Several shafted double-sided
implements from LBA Megiddo (double axes, ax-adzes, and ax-hammers) are logical
possibilities of Aegean imports or inspirations. In summary, the LBA Syro-Palestinian
212

tools changed minimally from the previous period, and any foreign traits in the tool
assemblages find their closest parallels in Anatolia or Cyprus.
LBA site Total
LBA
Ras Shamra,
Ugarit
tools
Early
LBA
1600-1400
Peak
LBA
1400-1200
Late LBA
1200-1050
Tool types
80 3 70 - 50 single/flat axes; 9 chisels; 9
shaft hole adzes; 6 shaft hole
axes; 4 drills; 1 socketed chisel; 1
trunnion/lugged ax
Megiddo 26 6 8 6 14 chisels; 6 single/flat axes; 2
double axes; 2 ax-adzes; 1 axhammer;
1 shaft hole ax
Beth Shan 3 - 3 - 1 shaft hole ax; 1 trunnion/lugged
ax; 1 single/flat ax
Gezer 4 1 - 1 1 single/flat ax; 2
Minet el-Beida
Ugarit
2 - 1 -
trunnion/lugged axes; 1 saw
2 chisels
Kibbutz
Hahotrim
(shipwreck?)
2 - 2 - 2 chisels
Nahariya 1 1 - - 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Baisan 1 - 1 - 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Beth
Shemesh
(Ain Shems)
1 - 1 - 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Byblos (dates 59 - - - 39 single/flat axes; 10 chisels; 4
unknown)
shaft hole axes; 2 drills; 2
Egyptian axes; 1 trunnion/lugged
ax; 1 saw
Qatna (date
unknown)
1 - - - 1 trunnion/lugged ax
Table 4.30: LBA Syro-Palestinian carpentry/masonry tool distribution by site
III: Summary of the broad regional carpentry/masonry tool preferences
Crete (Fig. 4.21):
Cretan carpentry/masonry tools are by and large distinctive and easily
differentiated from implements in other regions. There are no substantial changes in the
repertoire of tools from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial/Final palatial periods, though
the quantity of each tool changed over time. The three primary Minoan
carpentry/masonry tools are double axes, chisels, and saws (see C, E1, and H in Fig.
213

4.21). Minoan double axes and saws far outnumber similar tools from other areas. A few
different kinds of saws are apparent on Crete, and they are regularly longer and thicker
than examples found elsewhere. On average, the earlier Cretan double axes are shorter
overall and wider at the shaft hole (from its top to bottom) in comparison to mainland
examples. Standard Cretan double axes incorporate rounded shaft holes as part of the
hafting system. Chisels occur in every region, yet large elongated chisels with wide
cutting edges are uniquely Minoan. Such chisels were recovered outside Crete at Akrotiri,
the Mycenae shaft graves, and the Lefkas graves, but the implement’s form was not
adopted in other areas.
In addition to the Minoan high regard for the double ax, other shafted and
double-ended (often combination) tools are a defining characteristic of the Cretan
repertoire (see F1-F4 in Fig. 4.21). These implements consist of double adzes, ax-adzes,
double hammers, ax-hammers, adze-hammers and pick-adzes. As with the double axes,
these shafted tools usually have a round shaft hole. Crete also has produced a substantial
number of hollow metallic cylinders (far more than elsewhere; G2 in Fig. 4.21); these
tubes have been interpreted in the past as metal sleeves for tubular wooden saw handles.
This identification is questionable, and the possibility exists that the metal cylinders were
tubular drill bits. Circular mortise holes are recognized on Crete (mostly from Mallia),
but these holes do not equal the larger number found at Hattusha, Tiryns, and Mycenae.
Greek Mainland (Fig. 4.22):
Carpentry/masonry tools dramatically increase from the MH to the LH eras. The
three typical mainland wood- and stone-working implements are double axes, chisels and
drills (see C, E1, G1 in Fig. 4.22). The popularity of the double axes on Crete and the
214

mainland would seem to convey that the tool was adopted directly from the island.
Surprisingly, the development of the Mycenaean double ax was more complex than such
a lineage. Although two double axes are attested from MH Sesklo (both with round shaft
holes), double axes are absent from the Mycenae Shaft Graves. In fact, only six
carpentry/masonry tools—all chisels—were recovered from the grave circles. The
absence of the double ax in these burials is unanticipated for two reasons. First, there
were several other Minoan traits in the shaft graves, and second, the double ax was
eventually popular on the mainland. The Mycenaean version came about only by the LH
III period. Consequently, there is a chronological divide between the Neopalatial period,
when the double ax reached its zenith on Crete, and the beginning of the palatial period
on the mainland, when the Mycenaean double ax was introduced.
Several tools, unknown in MH contexts, first appeared on the mainland during the
LH period, including saws, ax-adzes, drills, socketed chisels, shaft-hole axes, and
trunnion/ lugged axes (see H, F2, G1, E2, A, D1 in Fig. 4.22). These tools convey
varying levels of influence from Crete and Anatolia. The saws and ax-adzes typify Cretan
tools, while socketed chisels, shaft-hole axes, and trunnion/lugged axes are at home in
Anatolia. Mainland and Cretan double axes have comparable cutting edge widths, but
there are important differences that show that the Mycenaeans did not fully adopt the
Minoan double ax.
Hollow metal cylinders from the Argolid (G2 in Fig. 4.22), like examples from
Crete, warrant reconsideration as tubular drill bits. The use of reed or bamboo drill bits
seems dubious, not least because the circular dowel holes occur in hard limestone and
conglomerate in the palatial period. Many of the largest drill holes at Tiryns (several
215

diameters are 5 cm and greater) must have been made by a bronze rather than reed
drill. 517
Surely, the most conspicuous Mycenaean implement was the pendulum saw, but
the tool is only accounted for by hypothetical reconstructions based on traces of masonry
saw cuttings. Of the meager assemblage of mainland saws, only the Andronianoi saw is
large (55.7 cm in length), and it perhaps was imported from Crete. Many fragments of
mainland saws are band-like, with widths ranging between 1.3 and 1.8 cm, and so the
band saw may have been a distinctive type of the mainland. Another definitive trait of
mainland tools occurs in chisel selections, whereby two basic types are evenly consumed:
narrow and broad/wide chisels; this pattern is evident by and large for the entire Aegean.
The correlation of narrow and broad chisels is especially apparent in metal hoards, where
smaller and wider chisels were collectively stockpiled (see Chapter 5). The equal
preservation of these chisel types reveals that the two sizes were considered a set, and so
were collected and used in pairs.
Greek islands (Fig. 4.23):
There are relatively few wood- and stone-working tools from the Greek islands in
the second millennium, particularly in the MBA, despite several EBA carpenter’s hoards.
By the LBA, a small collection of carpentry/masonry tools appear in the region, mostly
chisels. These implements are concentrated for the most part on Rhodes, Kos, and Melos
(Phylakopi). Not surprisingly, the tool types recovered reveal a mix of Cretan, mainland,
and Anatolian characteristics. For example, double axes, large Minoan-like chisels, and
saws are inspired by Crete or the mainland. On the other hand, the socketed chisel,
single/flat ax and trunnion/lugged ax typify Anatolian and eastern Mediterranean tools.
517 Küpper 1996, 12-13.
216

Although a handful of distinctive Minoan tools appear at Akrotiri, it is disappointing that
there is not a greater presence of unquestionable Cretan or mainland implements on the
islands, given the cultural expansions to this region. Tool marks are a better gauge of the
carpentry and masonry tools that were used on the islands. Stone-work from Akrotiri and
Ayia Irini bear traces of chisel, ax, and saw usage. The Mycenaean presence in the
Cyclades during LH III is not reflected very well from the carpentry/masonry tool
distributions.
Cyprus (Fig. 4.24):
Other than the Greek mainland, no region witnessed a more drastic change in tool
selections from the MBA to LBA than Cyprus. During the Middle Cypriot period,
single/flat axes, shaft-hole axes, and socketed chisels occur on the island, and fit into an
Anatolian and eastern Mediterranean tool tradition (see D2, A, E2 in Fig. 4.24). The
single/flat axes are, in fact, the implement par excellence on Cyprus during the MBA.
They continued to be produced in the LBA, but their popularity declined markedly. Even
single/flat adzes, a relatively rare implement during the second millennium, are found in
the Cypriot MBA and LBA. During the Late Cypriot period, there is an influx of new tool
types, mostly represented by shafted double-ended implements. Despite these novel tool
forms, 80% of the LC tools consist of implement types that already existed on the island
during the MC period. Of the MC tools, only shaft-hole axes fail to survive into the LC
period. The LC tool repertoire can be summarized by indigenous Cypriot tools types, a
few Anatolian-inspired implements, and shafted double-ended tools that reflect an
Aegean tool tradition. These Aegean-like tools parallel, perhaps surprisingly, Minoan
craft tools rather than Mycenaean examples. All Cypriot shafted tools have round sockets
217

(like Minoan types) as opposed to the oval shafts typical for the mainland double axes.
Carpentry/masonry tool connections between Cyprus and the Greek mainland are rather
non-existent. Trunnion/lugged axes and socketed chisels on Cyprus date mostly to the
LC, and these are prominent in Anatolia but scarce in the Aegean. Although solid drills
were discovered in every region, they are especially frequent in LBA Cypriot contexts.
While the Cypriot tool repertoire reveals some commonalities with Minoan
implements, the Cretan tool industry was hardly adopted in full by Cyprus. Preeminent
Minoan tools, like large curving saws and elongated chisels with broad cutting edges, are
absent on Cyprus. Furthermore, the double ax, so prominent on Crete and the mainland,
is surprisingly rare on Cyprus (only four examples) and even then the Cypriot double
axes show differences from Minoan-type specimens. On the other hand, certain tools like
the double adze and the adze-hammer occur exclusively on Crete and Cyprus, albeit in
limited quantities.
The potential tool links between Crete and Cyprus are hindered by a lack of
chronological compatibility, since the 13 th and 12 th century Cypriot tools compare best to
the 17 th –15 th century Neopalatial implements. It is unclear how select Minoan elements
ended up on Cyprus near the end LBA. Catling envisioned Mycenaeans bringing
“Aegean” and Minoan features with their supposed migratory movements to Cyprus. 518
This historical reconstruction is doubted by many but remains a matter of debate. 519
It is
sufficient for the current discussion to note the overall dissimilarity between Mycenaean
and Cypriot tool assemblages. Perhaps Cypriots traveled throughout the Aegean,
observed Neopalatial craft traditions still in practice during the LM III period, and
518 Catling 1964.
519 Voskos and Knapp 2008.
218

selectively brought back Minoan crafts and tools to Cyprus. 520 Cypriot merchants must
have traveled west, if the distribution of Cypriot copper oxhide ingots in the Aegean and
central Mediterranean is any gauge. 521
Anatolia (Fig. 4.25):
The distinctive Anatolian carpentry and masonry tools vary from the preferred
tools of the Aegean (see A, D1, E1, and E2 in Fig. 4.25). Trunnion/lugged axes (and
adzes) and socketed chisels are more frequent in Anatolia than in other regions by a large
margin. Shaft-hole axes and adzes, well attested in Syria-Palestine, are Anatolian
implements foremost and rare in the Aegean. The series of Anatolian chisels is
quantitatively impressive, yet Anatolian chisels typically have very narrow cutting edges;
the majority of Anatolian specimens have cutting widths less than 1.5 cm and many are
even smaller than 0.5 cm. Most Anatolian chisels appear better designed for detail and
delicate work than for large scale carpentry and masonry activity. Even the socketed
chisels, so prominent in central Turkey, have narrow cutting edges. Important tools in the
repertoire of Hittite craftspersons, but not preserved in the Anatolian record, are the
tubular drill and the massive pendulum and the alternative handheld convex saw. As with
some Cretan and mainland examples, there are three metal cylinders from Hattusha that
warrant reconsideration as potential tubular drill bits. The evidence for tubular drilling is
ubiquitous throughout Hittite architecture and sculpture, especially at Hattusha, and it
seems comparable and contemporary with the appearance of some stone-cutting methods
at Mycenaean sites.
520 The potential 13 th and 12 th century links between Cyprus and Crete is bolstered by the number of tripod
and metal stands on both islands at this time; see Papasavvas 2001. There is also casting evidence from LM
III Palaikastro for the production of a tripod or stand similar to Cypriot types; see Hemingway 1996.
521 For an updated discussion of oxhide ingots in the Aegean, see Muhly 2009. For the central
Mediterranean, see the entire volume by Schiavo, Muhly, Maddin and Giumlia-Mair 2009.
219

Although traces of Anatolian or Anatolian-inspired tools exist in the Aegean (e.g.
trunnion/lugged axes, socketed chisels), there are few Minoan or Mycenaean tools that
made their way to Anatolia. An impressive saw fragment (half preserved) from Hattusha
is Minoan in origin. 522 Saws were exceedingly rare in Anatolia; other than this example,
only two were recovered in the region, and they both date to the MBA. Evidently, the
popularity of Minoan saws was not adopted by Anatolia, and the Minoan saw at Hattusha
may be an anomaly rather than an indication of regularly imported Aegean tools. The
absence of physical Hittite saws is surprising considering saw markings found on Hittite
stone masonry. Neve interprets certain tool marks on blocks at Hattusha as the result of
bronze pick hammers. 523 Like the tubular drill and pendulum/convex saw, metal pick
hammers are not documented in the preserved Anatolian tool series. Perhaps it is more
reasonable to understand such hammer dressing as the result of using stone hammers—as
on the Greek mainland. 524
Syria-Palestine (Fig. 4.26):
Of the regions under consideration, the data from Syria-Palestine is the least
exhaustive. Despite this analytical limitation, there are certain tool tendencies that reflect
craft preferences. Shaft-hole axes and socketed adzes are at home in the Syro-Palestinian
tool tradition (see A, B in Fig. 4.26). Shaft-hole axes occur frequently in Anatolia, but the
narrow bladed and fenestrated versions are distinctive of the Levant; besides that region,
they are documented in Egypt and Cyprus. 525
The single/flat ax was just as popular in
Syria-Palestine as on Cyprus. While the tool’s consumption decreased between the MC
522 Neve 1989.
523 Neve 2002, 93
524 For the use of stone hammers on Mycenaean architecture, see: Mylonas 1966, 16-18; Wright 1978, 159,
189, 202, 217, 258 note 307, Figs. 88, 89, 92, 120; Iakovidis 1983, 6, 12, 29, 34.
525 Philip 1989, 42-44, 58-59.
220

and LC period, the Levantine versions remained just as desirable in the LBA as the
previous period (see D2 in Fig. 4.26). Chisels are regularly found in Syro-Palestinian
assemblages, and they are neither as small as the Anatolian types nor as large as some
Minoan chisels. The range of carpentry/masonry implements from Syria-Palestine is
diverse and reflects tool types common to other regional assemblages, though the Syro-
Palestinian examples are sparser. Consequently, the eastern Mediterranean coast seems to
have been loosely tied to or at least cognizant of neighboring craft traditions.
Shipwrecks (Fig. 4.27):
There is a diverse range of carpentry and masonry tools from the Uluburun and
Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks, dated to the end of the 14 th and 13 th centuries BC
respectively. Variation occurs not only in different tool types but also sub-types; the latter
diversity is best seen with the different chisel forms on both shipwrecks (e.g. cold,
mortise, socketed, narrow, and broad). The range of the wood- and stone-working
implements indicates the presence of a deliberately grouped tool kit on each ship. As for
the different tool types, there are similarities with every region under study, thus
emphasizing the international character of these vessels.
The following observations do not assign a regional origin to the shipwreck tools
(as is often done for other materials on the vessels), but merely highlight the regions
where the shipwreck tool types are most concentrated. With this caveat in mind, a shaft-
hole ax, socketed chisel, and trunnion/lugged blades from the wrecks find their best
parallels in Anatolia. The ships’ double axes (and broad chisels) are remarkably popular
Aegean items, though a handful of examples occur in the eastern Mediterranean. Ax-
adzes, from the Gelidonya ship, occur in every area under study but are particularly
221

common to Crete and Cyprus. The single/flat axes from the ships reflect a preferred
implement of the Levant and Cyprus. The Uluburun saw adds to a small sample of such
implements from the LBA eastern Mediterranean, yet the tool type is prevalent in the
Aegean. A few Uluburun tools are similar to implements from outside the study area; for
instance, three necked adzes from the Uluburun ship best resemble a type of Egyptian
adze. Generally the repertoire of shipwreck tools reflects the eclectic nature of the objects
aboard and emphasizes each ship’s interregional connections.
IV: Conclusion for carpentry/masonry implements (Figs. 4.28‒4.29)
The regional distributions of the wood- and stone-working tools are visually
summarized by two distribution maps, one for the MBA (2000‒1600 BC) and the other
for the LBA (1600‒1050 BC). These maps illustrate the salient differences between the
chronological periods: the changing quantity and variety of carpentry/masonry tools over
time. There are considerably more LBA implements than MBA examples in every region,
except Cyprus which had a comparable number in each phase. By the LBA, the range of
tools also became more diverse. The most observable change in a region’s tool selection
occurs in the Aegean (Figs. 4.28-29). Although Middle Minoan tools were relatively
abundant and diverse, there is an overwhelming increase of tools on LBA Crete. While
the mainland and islands hardly utilized carpentry/masonry implements during the MBA,
this picture was radically altered by the LBA.
As evident in the MBA distribution map (Fig. 4.28), the largest collection of
carpentry/masonry tools in the early second millennium came from Cyprus. MBA Syria-
Palestine, Anatolia and Crete also produced a respectable quantity. Although the MBA
carpentry/masonry implements occur in comparatively limited numbers, the variety
222

within each region is notable. Single/flat axes are the prevalent MBA tool, because they
are extremely abundant in Cyprus and Syria-Palestine, yet chisels are probably the most
common implement cross-regionally. Shaft-hole axes are typical of Anatolia and Syria-
Palestine but also attested on Cyprus and Crete. Trunnion/lugged blades and socketed
chisels are principally restricted to Anatolia at this time, while double axes are primarily
Cretan. The high production of tools on Crete, especially in relation to the rest of the
Aegean, demonstrates that Protopalatial Crete had access to foreign metal resources,
specifically from Cyprus and Anatolia. 526
The degree to which metal was available in the
MBA surely accounts for the disproportion of metal tools from Cyprus, Anatolia and
Syria-Palestine in comparison to the Aegean.
Certain MBA tool preferences continue during the LBA (Fig. 4.29). Double axes,
chisels and saws define tool assemblages from the Cretan LBA, and these implements
were already widely utilized in the MBA. Late Helladic craftspersons regularly
incorporated double axes, chisels, and drills into their repertoire, while implements that
characterize other regions (e.g. saws, combination tools, socketed chisels,
trunnion/lugged blades, and single axes or adzes) were not plentiful on the mainland. The
count of double axes from Crete and the mainland would suggest a correlation, yet this
connection is not a direct evolution, for important distinctions exist between the
Mycenaean and Minoan versions. Shafted double-ended tools (excluding double axes)
are idiosyncratic of Cretan and Cypriot tool assemblages, but scarce elsewhere. This is an
unusual pattern because there is a chronological gap between the use of the implements
first on Crete and later on Cyprus. These double-sided tools are rare on the mainland; this
observation, combined with the low numbers of Mycenaean saws and the different
526 Poursat and Loubet 2005.
223

double ax forms, implies that the carpentry/masonry tool connections between Crete and
the mainland were not as strong as scholars have assumed.
Aegean implements are not readily found in Anatolia or the eastern
Mediterranean, as the number of double axes, saws and broad chisels are sporadic in the
east. Preferred on Crete, shafted combination tools are rare in Anatolia and Syria-
Palestine, but extant on Cyprus. Shaft-hole axes, single/flat axes, trunnion/lugged blades,
socketed chisels are tool categories that define choices made in Anatolia, Syria-Palestine
and Cyprus. Chisels occur in each of these regions as well, particularly in Anatolia,
which included an idiosyncratic series of miniature, chisel-like implements with cutting
edges less than 0.5 cm. Collectively, the tool repertoires of Anatolia, Syria-Palestine and
Cyprus bear a greater resemblance to each other than with those in the Aegean. Tools
from Crete and the mainland must be treated separately, for the assemblages in these
regions are not identical. Both areas, however, shared a propensity to employ narrow and
broad chisels. Finally, it is not surprising that the implements aboard the Uluburun and
Gelidonya shipwrecks (Fig. 4.27, and Fig. 4.29) consisted of types that were distinctive to
various regions, for each area was partially tied into the international shipping and trading
routes.
224

Chapter 5: Carpentry/masonry implements: variety and tool kits
I. The importance of tool kits
The metal tools used by prehistoric craftspersons were certainly valuable, for
ethnographic parallels demonstrate that craft tools were worthy enough to be retained and
passed along to the next generation (see Chapter 3). From ethnographic documents we
know that when tools were given to apprentices as gifts they were presented as kits. 527
This practice recognized that individual implements alone were of far less use than a
coherent set designed to cover the range of tasks required to accomplish a job. With tool
kits, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Each industry, such as metallurgy,
carpentry, masonry, wall painting, and leather working, has its own specific assortment of
tools. Within those crafts, the tools varied according to the craftsperson’s level of skill
and the type of material being worked (e.g. different masonry tools were employed for
soft sandstone and hard conglomerate). Variation is a defining element of a craft set, and
it can take the guise of either different kinds of implements or sub-forms of a type. A tool
kit can be defined as a collection of two or more implements grouped together
intentionally for the sake of carrying out affiliated yet distinctive tasks—in other words,
“groups of tools commonly and consistently used together.” 528
Metal tool kits are under discussed in scholarship, probably because they have
been difficult to identify, though this is not the case for implement sets within lithic
529
assemblages.
The purpose of this chapter is to consider how the find contexts of
527 According to an apprenticeship wage agreement on the island of Syros in 1827, a set of tools were given
to the apprentice after four years of service. Polyzoi 2009, 159.
528 Cahen, Keeley and Van Noten 1979, 662.
529 The literature on stone tool kits is large, and a small selection of useful studies is suggested here:
Binford and Binford 1966, 238-240, 263, 287, 292; Cahen, Keeley and Van Noten 1979, 662, 671; Morrow
1996.
225

carpentry/masonry tools contribute to their analysis, and to identify from the
archaeological record any examples of metal tool kits (some with an occasional stone
implement like a whetstone) that were associated with the carpentry and/or masonry
industries. Tools that were deliberately grouped together are found throughout the
Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, but have rarely been identified as tool kits of a
specific craft. Implements appear in metal caches more often and more plentifully than
other hoard objects, such as weapons, vessels, scrap, and slag. This chapter asserts that in
contrast to the assertion that metal hoards consist largely of metal scrap, they contained
meaningful assemblages, of which tool kits are an important constitutive element. The
identification of craft-related implement sets, however, has proven more elusive in
contexts other than hoards and shipwrecks.
Interregional craft links and shared technology cannot be fully assessed without
considering craft-related tool sets. Self-contained kits are better indicators of far-reaching
similarities in craft work than are sporadic distributions of individual tools. Congruities in
the composition of tool kits from different sites may indicate that implement sets were
standardized. If similarities among kits were found in locales far from one another, the
mobility of craftspersons could be more easily ascertained. Tool sets common to different
areas would indicate shared technologies and methods of craft work. Although tool kits
may aid the evaluation of cross-regional connections, this potential insight has, in the
past, proven difficult to access since kits are hard to identify and therefore analyze.
This chapter presents a detailed review of Mediterranean hoards and argues that
their compositions reveal repetitive patterns indicative of a style of hoarding not widely
acknowledged: one governed by deliberate choices of certain objects, particularly tools.
226

Hoards are thought of, for the most part, as haphazard assemblages of scrap metal waiting
to be melted down. Any variety therein is not considered to be by structure or design, but
a result of the miscellaneous nature of any used materials that retained some degree of
metallurgical value. I believe that hoard content was created much more deliberately, by
conscious and informed selection of groups of objects such as tool sets. The tendency of
choosing and depositing tool kits was an important (though not the only) factor dictating
the formation of a hoard.
A singular, definitive explanation of the function of a hoard is difficult to
pinpoint, though scholars have sought to do so, as discussed later in this chapter. The
multi-purpose nature of Mediterranean hoards has not been adequately recognized in the
past. Most of these caches should be understood as metal assemblages that were being
held in storage and which could be added to or subtracted from freely. Thus it may be
more useful to consider these groupings as shifting accumulations of metal items
collected over time, while recognizing that hoards themselves could be formed by a
single deposition. In the creation of a hoard, numerous factors dictated what was
included, thereby accounting for the diverse range of objects in any given hoard. One set
of items that were regularly and intentionally included within metal caches were tool kits.
In this way, tool kits provided some structure to hoards since they were a consistent
element in the fluid process of depositing and extracting metal items.
In a discussion of European metal hoarding, Needham cites tool kits, among other
things, as an organizing agent: “Associated objects can also sometimes be united by their
context of use, for example, the tool-kit or adornment of a single person, or the trophies
won…certain combinations might throw light on the way that production was
227

organized.” 530
My assertion regarding the importance of tool kits in Mediterranean
caches is based on evidence discussed throughout this chapter, which shows that metal
tools were diverse and by far the most common hoard component (also see the listing of
hoards in Appendix 3). The variation of tool types (from the same functional category) in
a cache is the primary indication of an implement set. A broad range of tool choices is a
sign that implements were hoarded because of their particular role in a craft industry and
not just according to their material value. In this way, hoards take on the structured
character of the tool kits therein. Scholarship on the nature of hoards is expounded upon
later in this chapter, but it suffices to say here that a hoard’s components are more
purposeful in their assembly than previously conceived.
II. Methodology for identifying prospective tool kits
Modern day tool kits may differ from one another in sweeping or subtle ways,
depending on the job in mind. The compulsory tool set for repairing a car consists of a
series of sockets that differ as little as one millimeter in diameter; likewise, professional
drill sets (e.g. for carpentry or sheet metal work) include specially-designed drill bits, the
sizes of which vary by small increments. Every piece serves a specific task, and the
assemblage would be incomplete without each item. Prehistoric tool kits were formed
according to the same guidelines and variation, resulting in a compilation of diverse and
deliberately selected objects. It is also important to recognize that kits may contain tools
made of different materials. Take, for instance, the tools needed for producing thread by
hand. Needles, distaffs and spindles could be made of metal or bone, but the essential
530 Needham 1999, 44.
228

weights—whorls—were typically ceramic. 531
Each craft set was thus highly dependent
on the tasks that were required.
Assortments of woodworking tools are depicted on funerary reliefs from the
Roman period, clearly displaying the possessions of a craftsperson. The prevailing theme
of these depictions and similar examples is the mixture of tool forms. A relief from the
cemetery of Isola Sacra in Ostia (AD second century) showed a double-sided ax, an ax-
pick (or ax-adze), various chisel types, an adze-plane, a cleaver, pruning blades and
532
knives. Similar representations appear on other funerary reliefs, further highlighting
the range of tools within a Roman kit. 533 Actual tool sets from this time are preserved in
the archaeological record and contain a similar level of variance. For example a
craftsperson’s set of accessories was found in Roman Augst (Germany), where
“discovery of a cache of tools…unearthed a collection of twenty-two woodworking tools,
including hammers, adzes, a rare rasp, plane blades and chisels.” 534
The diversity of these
implements is a classic trait of a tool kit, in this case almost certainly belonging to a
carpenter. The distinctiveness of these Roman implements resembles the assemblages of
second millennium BC utensils, which likewise may be sets related to craft work.
Two kinds of variation point to the existence of a tool kit. The first is a tool
assemblage within a functional category (e.g. carpentry/masonry tools) that comprises
different implements like axes, adzes, saws, chisels, and drills. A grouping with several
of these implements provides evidence of a deliberate craft set; such combinations of
tools are consistently included in metal hoards throughout the MBA and LBA. The other
531
For an example from pre-Columbian South America, see the collection of spinning tools in the
photograph from Crockett 1977, 11.
532
Ulrich 2007, 17, figure 3.5.
533
Ulrich 2007, 32, figure 3.20; 55, figure 3.45.
534
Ulrich 2007, 14.
229

type of diversity that may mark a tool kit is multiple versions of one kind of object. Each
implement form has an array of subtypes that convey related but distinctive tasks. For
example, there are numerous subdivisions of adzes, including: single adzes, double adzes,
ax-adzes, hammer-adzes and pick-adzes. The variation of adze types is particularly
apparent in Cypriot contexts. Subtypes in a tool’s morphology are formed on a regular
basis by changing an implement’s size to fulfill specialized tasks. 535
Chisels also provide
a good example, since they can be identified by the measurement of their cutting edges,
which range from extremely narrow to very wide.
Tool kits are omnipresent in third millennium BC Aegean carpenter hoards.
Branigan noticed similarities in tool selections among the Petralona, Kythnos, Eutresis,
and Thebes hoards: “The four hoards reveal, therefore, a similar, but not identical,
composition to one another, and in particular all the hoards contained at least one
example of three types of tool, viz. narrow-bladed chisel, broad-bladed flat axe, and a
shaft-hole axe of one form or another.” 537
These tools were those of a carpenter,
indicating that EBA hoards contained wood-working tool kits.
In this study, integrated sets of implements are each thought to be associated with
a specific industry (e.g. carpentry/masonry, metallurgy, agriculture). In some instances,
multiple kits are evident in the same context. The Enkomi Foundry hoard from Cyprus is
such an example, for it included a full smith kit and a complete carpentry/masonry kit,
resulting in a mix of tools that are not usually found together. Attempts to delineate
535 For ethnographic examples of tool variation from Crete, see the different double axes (or other
combination tools), chisels, hammers, picks, wedges, crowbars displayed in the Museum of Cretan
Ethnography under Architecture section, specifically the “Quarrying tools” and “House Building.”
Photographs of these tools with their diverse range are found on the museum’s website:
http://www.cretanethnologymuseum.gr/imke/html/en/4201.html
536 Branigan 1969.
537 Branigan 1969, 10; for a more recent discussion on the Petralona hoard, see Tzachili 2008a, 15-19.
536
230

structured tool groupings must acknowledge overlaps in tool categories and the potential
complexities within a kit. In this project, knives are listed as utilitarian items and awls are
identified as objects intended for small craft. Both utensils, however, appear repeatedly
with wood- or stone-working implements, and, in some instances, were incorporated into
either a carpentry or a masonry tool set.
In determining whether a group of tools constitutes a set, one should explore the
differences among the kinds of implements and subtypes, with particular attention paid to
tool size. Groups of tools with greater diversity (within a functional category) are
excellent candidates for being a kit. Often, hoards contain both whole and fragmentary
tools. Usually broken tools, having been considered functionally worthless, are not taken
into account when determining if there is a unifying purpose to a metal assemblage. Such
disqualifications make it difficult to say with conviction that hoards containing
fragmentary pieces constitute tool kits. Herein is the problem with previous hoard
interpretations: fragmentary implements are deemed incapable of effective use. Chapman
has shown, in a review of the prehistoric evidence from Southeastern Europe, that
fragmented objects may be intentionally included in structured depositions. 538 He reviews
numerous categories of objects that provide evidence of intentional fragmentation (for the
purpose of enchained relationships) including but not limited to ceramics, figurines,
flaked stones, and spondylus shells. 539 Chapman also lists copper tools as a category of
fragmented objects that may have been deliberately made so, though the object class is
not as frequent as other fragmentary items. 540
Citing the fact that half-preserved tools are
often found without their counterparts, Chapman suggests that there were “special kinds
538 Chapman 2000, 49-54.
539 Chapman 2000, 49, 65-104.
540 Chapman 2000, 101-103.
231

of fragmentation practices restricted to users of axe-adzes in the Romanian Copper
Age.” 541
The insight on broken items and their potential value is something to keep in
mind when evaluating the implements from the current study region. Complete and
broken—yet often still operative—implements coexisted in craftsperson’s tool kits, for
they are regularly found together in metal assemblages in the Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean. Repetitive patterns of analogous tool groupings may even signify
standardized tool kits. It is asserted here that fragmentary tools, when their functionality
(however limited that may be) is considered, can shed light on a hoard and the potential
existence of kits.
III. Ascertaining tool kits within different contexts
The distribution of tools according to context suggests where implement kits are
more likely to occur. Craft sets are infrequent in cult or sanctuary locales, and surface or
unknown proveniences; this conclusion is implied by the quantity of tools that were
recovered with at least one other utensil from the same context (Table 5.1). Since
workshops, burials, hoards, and shipwrecks habitually yielded multiple tools, these
contexts require probing in the search for implement kits. It is worth pointing out that
hoards are regularly found in settlements, and in these cases, the tools therein are
classified as “hoards” rather than “settlements.” Thus settlements may technically
produce metal implement sets, but usually only as a collective and well-defined hoard.
# of carpentry/masonry tools # of examples found with other tools
Total 2257 726
Settlements 1001 54
Cult locale or 52 3
sanctuary
Surface or unknown 361 0
Burials 309 171
541 Chapman 2000, 103.
232

Workshops 33 24
Hoards 427 400
Shipwrecks 75 75
Table 5.1: Carpentry/masonry tools by context and number of examples found with other tools
A craft-related tool kit is more complex than a simple grouping of implements,
and every collection of tools is not necessarily a kit. The structured assemblage of a kit
reflects intentional selections that were made by a craftsperson. In order to recognize a
tool collection as a plausible set, there needs to be a sufficient range of variation in terms
of tool type and/or subtypes (e.g. such diversity may be evident in size and/or form).
These criteria are necessarily subjective, but provide basic guidelines for identifying tool
kits in the archaeological record. There are many tool groupings that fit one of these
conditions and are probable kits. Tool groups that lack diversity may be more incidental
in their deposition. The boundaries of these distinctions are full of ambiguous examples,
but this rule-of-thumb is a helpful means for recognizing deliberate tool kits.
More than half of the carpentry/masonry tools found in burials were deposited
with at least one other utensil, but indisputable tool sets are rare in mortuary contexts.
Only a few second millennium burials have produced adequate variation in their
implement types to qualify as craft-related sets. One such tool group came to light in an
Early to Middle Bronze Age burial in Pyrgos, Cyprus (Tomb 21) and was interpreted by
its excavator, Belgiorno, as belonging to a coppersmith. 542
The grave contained a copper
ax, a bronze ax, two copper chisels, a copper awl, two copper knives, two copper
tweezers, five whetstones, and four stone mace heads (which might also be considered
sledge-hammers). Bolstered in part by archaeometallurgical evidence at the site,
Belgiorno argued that the tools belonged to a smith (not a carpenter) and were for “the
542 Belgiorno 1997.
233

final stage of the metal working: the hammering, cleaning and polishing of the
objects.” 543 Another smith’s tool kit, made up of two pairs of tongs and a cold chisel, was
deposited in a burial from LB II Megiddo (Tomb 912B). 544
Notwithstanding these
examples, the deposition of tool sets into graves was the exception rather than the rule.
Even if burials contained several carpentry/masonry instruments, the objects may not
constitute a tool kit. This observation pertains to several burials from the MBA and LBA
(Table 5.2), which yielded exclusive, and sometimes excessive, examples of one
carpentry/masonry implement type. The lack of diversity in these graves shows that
integrated tool kits were atypical of mortuary tool groupings.
Tomb
Date and Region Carpentry/masonry tools
Byblos, Tomb II MBA, Syria-Palestine 4 single, flat axes
Megiddo, Tomb 911D MBA, Syria-Palestine 2 shaft hole axes
Ras Shamra, Ugarit, Tomb LVI MBA, Syria-Palestine 3 shaft hole axes
Lapithos, Tomb 8 MBA, Cyprus 3 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 15 MBA, Cyprus 2 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 18 MBA, Cyprus 3 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 50 MBA, Cyprus 12 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 51 MBA, Cyprus 2 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 203 MBA, Cyprus 2 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 313A MBA, Cyprus 3 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 313B MBA, Cyprus 2 single, flat axes
Lapithos, Tomb 804 MBA, Cyprus 4 single, flat axes
Kalavasos-Panayia Church, tomb 37 MBA, Cyprus 2 single, flat axes
Kalami, Tomb 4 LBA, Crete 4 chisels
Mouliana, Tholos A LBA, Crete 3 saws
Mycenae, Tomb of the Tripods LBA, Greek mainland 20 double axes
Toumba tou Skourou, Tomb I LBA, Cyprus 2 socketed chisels
Yeni Hayat Koyu Date unknown, Anatolia 3 chisels
Table 5.2: Tombs with multiple carpentry/masonry tools of the same type
Occasionally mortuary contexts have different kinds of carpentry/masonry
utensils, but even in these cases, craft kits are always apparent. When multiple wood- and
stone-working tools appear in the same grave, the variety usually does not extend beyond
two implement types. Such restrictive levels of variation make poor cases for tool sets.
543 Belgiorno 1997, 141.
544 Guy 1938, 69-70; Deshayes 1960, inventory numbers: 3055, 3056; Catling 1964, 96, 99.
234

Tombs that produced different carpentry/masonry tools are listed in Table 5.3. Though
tool kits are infrequent in mortuary contexts, a few possible examples are highlighted in
bold. These burials have a narrow range of carpentry/masonry implements, though other
tools, like knives, are occasionally found with them.
Period and region Tomb Carpentry/masonry tools found
MBA, Cyprus Lapithos, Tomb 322A 8 single, flat axes; 3 chisels
MBA, Cyprus Lapithos, Tomb 315 4 single, flat axes; 1 chisel
LBA, Cyprus Lapithos, Ayia Anastasia Tomb 2 1 single flat ax, 1 chisel
LBA, Crete Zafer Papoura, Tomb 33
(the “carpenter’s tomb”)
1 chisel, 1 saw
LBA, Crete Kalami, Tomb 2/3 2 chisels, 1 drill
LBA, Crete Olonte or Olous, Tomb 36 5 single, flat axes, 1 chisel
LBA, Islands Cape Staphylos,
Skopelos, “chieftain’s grave”
1 double ax; 1 single, flat ax
MBA, Greek mainland Lefkas, Tomb S, G4 1 narrow chisel; 1 broad chisel; 1
area
long, Minoan-like chisel; 1 saw
MBA, Greek mainland
area
Lefkas, Tomb S, G8 1 chisel, 1 drill or chisel
LBA, Greek Mainland Evangelistria, Chamber Tomb k 1 saw, 1 narrow chisel, 1 broad chisel
LBA, Greek Mainland Mycenae, Chamber Tomb 82 1 double ax, 1 ax-adze
LBA, Greek Mainland Mycenae, Shaft Grave IV, Grave 2 chisels of different size, 1 possible
Circle A
drill
LBA, Greek Mainland Prosymna, Tomb 33 1 chisel, 1 saw
LBA, Greek Mainland Vaphio, tholos, in a cist 1 ax-adze, 1 ceremonial shaft hole ax
(knives and poker also from the cist)
LBA, Greek Mainland Volimidhia, Vorias, Chamber
Tomb 6, pit 5
1 chisel, 1 drill
Date unknown, Calicakoyu, (collection thought 1 chisel; 1 single, flat ax; 1 shaft-hole
Anatolia
to be from a tomb)
ax
Table 5.3: Tombs with multiple carpentry/masonry tools of different types
The Lefkas, Evangelistria and Calicakoyu graves, bolded in Table 5.3, have promising
examples of a carpentry or masonry tool kit in a funerary context. These tombs contained
at least three kinds of implements with different purposes. Mycenae’s Shaft Grave IV in
Grave Circle A also produced a potential implement set of multiple chisel types and a
drill. Likewise, Tomb 33 at Zafer Papoura (near Knossos) provided a set of tools
determined by Evans to belong to a carpenter: a large saw, a broad chisel, and a leaf-
235

shaped razor. 545 A similar collection of tools came to light in Prosymna Tomb 33 (LH
IIIA–B), with a saw and a narrow chisel. 546 The saw-chisel combination at Zafer Papoura
and Prosymna may point toward an incomplete and very small tool set; a diverse kit
would comprise additional tool types. The implements from the Vaphio tholos tomb are
probably cultic in nature rather than acting as craft-associated tools. This interpretation
coincides with the elite character of the burial, whose grave goods generally reflect
status, prestige, and military power. 547
Since the number of implement sets in graves is nominal, complex tool groupings
are uncharacteristic of second millennium burials. When several tools appear in a grave,
they are typically of the same type. If multiple tool forms are present in a burial, no more
than two kinds are usually found. This limited diversity stands out from the extensive
selection of carpentry/masonry implements in other contexts, specifically hoards and
shipwrecks. Although craft-related implements accompanied the deceased on occasion,
the mortuary realm seldom yielded distinctive tool kits.
Workshops are an ideal context for discovering a kit. Work spaces, especially
those of carpenters and masons, are difficult if not impossible to recognize from the
imperfect archaeological record, especially for masons, who conduct their work outdoors.
Therefore, only a few wood- and stone-working implements are listed under the context
heading of a workshop. Several carpentry/masonry tools—a mix of fragmentary and
complete examples—came to light at a metallurgical workshop in the LM II Unexplored
Mansion at Knossos. This assemblage contained four saws, two drills, two double axes,
seven chisels (different types), two chisel-like implements, and a possible drawing
545 Evans 1906, 50.
546 Blegen 1937, 346-347.
547 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987, 207-11, figure 9.
236

compass. In addition to these carpentry/masonry items, other utensils from the site
include thirteen awls/points/punches, four knives and a pair of tongs or tweezers. The
assortment of these implements came from the second floor of the building. Together
with metallurgical debris and scrap pieces, the tools confirm the existence of a bronze
smith’s shop. This work area “was solely concerned with making finished goods from
supplies of copper and/or bronze, or as scrap metal which it recycled.” 548
Thus the
carpentry/masonry tools were, oddly, considered components of a smith’s kit:
…heavy chisels [were] for breaking up scrap metal, drills, punches and awls for working
sheet metal, tiny tracers for decorating sheet metal, small points and little chisels for
working over the wax cartoons used in cire perdue casting. The pincers/tweezers could
have been used to handle the very small crucibles or for manipulating hot charcoal in an
549
annealing furnace.
This interpretation fails to account for the drills, saws, double axes, and drawing compass
from the site. Numerous carpentry/masonry implements are broken, seemingly part of a
heap of scrap to be recycled, but complete tools are also preserved, including one drill
and one double ax. The probability of the Unexplored Mansion’s metal assemblage
constituting a tool kit is perhaps best substantiated by its series of chisels. At least four
different types are recognizable, including a massive elongated chisel (42 cm long) with a
broad cutting edge, mortise chisels, a short broad chisel, and short narrow chisels.
Unquestionably, a range of diverse tasks warranted these specialized subtypes, and the
occurrence of the chisel types in one context is indicative of a tool set. It is unclear if this
kit belonged to a carpenter/mason and was accidentally placed in a smith’s workshop or
if it was really the kit of a smith, as suggested by Catling and Catling. The findings from
the Unexplored Mansion reveal workshops as a useful context for yielding tool kits. If
548 Catling and Catling 1984, 207.
549 Catling and Catling 1984, 205-206.
237

workshops were easier to identify in the archaeological record, metal tool kits might be
recognized more often.
As conveyed in Table 5.1, when a tool occurs in a metal hoard or shipwreck, it is
found normally with another tool. These utensils are more frequent and diverse than those
in other contexts. Deliberately formed implement sets are easy to detect in small hoards.
For instance, the EBA Aegean metal caches exhibit sufficient differences in their tools to
be considered kits. 550 In the MBA, two Cretan collections of implements from
Protopalatial Mallia (Quartier Mu) are interpreted by Poursat as the tool kits of a
carpenter. 551 The hoard from Building A (I9) in Quartier Mu consisted of an ax-adze, a
saw, a drill, and a knife. A similar combination from Building B (IV4) was made up of a
double ax, a saw, a socketed adze, and a mortise chisel. Although several different
workshops were excavated in Quartier Mu, Poursat denied that the existence of these
craft implements in Buildings A and B—separate structures from the workshops—
substantiated a carpentry or masonry workshop at the site, proposing instead that the tools
were compiled and collectively stored on behalf of a craftsperson. 552
The carpenter
hoards from the EBA Aegean and MBA Mallia are readily discernible as tool kits
because the caches are not mixed with unrelated objects. Although many LBA hoards
are decidedly more complex, the basic elements of an implement kit are distinguishable
in those cases. Consequently, an intensive review of tool consumption in hoards and
analogous shipwreck assemblages forms the rest of this chapter.
550 Branigan 1969.
551 Poursat 1985, 119-122.
552 Poursat 1985, 124-125.
238

IV. Hoarding and tool kits
IV.A: Hoarding practices and chronological/historical interpretive issues
The geographically limited sources of raw copper and tin sources—as well as the
burdensome nature of mining, smelting, casting, and distributing metals—made tin-
bronze and copper-based objects valuable items to be stockpiled and safeguarded. The
practice of hoarding metals was an interregional and diachronic phenomenon (see hoard
list in Appendix 3). 553
Although numerous social, economic and historical factors have
been cited to explain depositional practices, hoarding is foremost a method to collect and
group together one’s possessions. The reasons for this practice, however, are manifold
and very often unknown.
The term “hoard” is occasionally interchanged with “treasure”, yet the latter is
better reserved for metal assemblages with precious items like gold, silver and jewelry.
Laffineur notes that the terminology of treasure has been problematic and misused.
554 A
hoard represents a collection of stockpiled items that were concealed. Harding offers the
description of “collective finds of whole or fragmentary bronze implements or pieces of
waste and un-cast metal,” but qualifies it by saying that “strictly speaking, any collection
of more than one object that was found together other than in a funerary or domestic
situation can be called a hoard find.” 555
Harding’s definition warrants a slight revision,
for domestic settings are a viable context for the deposition of hoards. Needham’s
553 Harding (2000, 365) in fact concludes that “hoarding was thus the most characteristic Bronze Age
activity in much of Europe.” See Bradley 1990, 17-20, for an account of Samuel Pepys’ diary from 1667.
Pepys buried his money in the ground to safeguard his wealth during the aftermath of the Great Fire of
London. The account is intriguing as Pepys describes his trouble locating the very treasure that he buried.
The story demonstrates the tendency to hoard objects as well as the difficulty in retrieving such deposits.
554 Laffineur 2006, 37-38.
555 Harding 2000, 352; Harding (2000, 353) also states: “hoard finds are those that are demonstrably not
grave-goods and not the in situ residue of a destroyed industrial or domestic site.”
239

definition of a hoard as “a group of objects, which was deliberately concealed on a single
occasion” is also unsuitable. 556
The evaluation of a hoard relies on four vital characteristics: find context,
composition, various purposes, and date. Chance discoveries and excavations in the late
19 th and early 20 th centuries have hindered our comprehension of hoards, for contextual
information is either lacking or not well published.
The latter explanation is problematic in that it excludes
the possibility of accumulating metal assemblages over time, i.e. ‘hoarding’ as a
continuous practice, even akin to ‘storing’.
557
Incomplete details regarding these
find spots have led to speculation about the purpose, method of assembly, and
chronological placement of certain caches. When interpretations of a hoard seek a
singular explanation, an assemblage’s intricate composition is often undervalued. For
this reason, tool kits have not been recognized in large, complex hoards.
The retrievability of a hoard plays a major role in its interpretation. Many hoards
were concealed between walls or under floors, which aided their preservation in the
archaeological record. Oftentimes it is unclear whether or not the individuals who
deposited such caches planned to reclaim them at a later point. Bradley notes that this
question of repossession is the most fundamental distinction in hoarding practices.
Hoards deposited in rivers, bogs, springs, deep pits and wells were difficult or impossible
to recover. Some retrievable hoards preserved traces of linen, indicating that the metal
contents were secured in a bag. Bits of fabric were reported from the Mochlos merchant
556 Needham 1999, 43.
557 See Harding 2000, 353 ff, for contextual problems with European hoards.
558 Bradley 1990, 5; Needham 1999, 43.
558
240

hoard on Crete and the Katamachi hoard from Epirus. 559 The practice of storing items in
cloth was obviously employed with the Mesopotamian Kutalla hoard, the items of which
were “tightly packed together” and “deliberately wrapped” since the “fabric is folded
over edges.” 560
In general, cloth casings both protected objects and facilitated recovery.
Studies of hoarding in prehistoric Europe, where thousands of metal assemblages
were created and deposited, provide a background for analyzing Mediterranean hoards.
European caches are ubiquitous and typically appear in river or swamp contexts. 562 These
unusual proveniences and the irretrievable nature of such caches are thought to reflect a
social, often religious and dedicatory, phenomenon. 563 Harding emphasizes the
“enormous quantity of metalwork” in European hoards, which has resulted in one of the
“most discussed, though least understood, aspects of the Bronze Age.” 564 The count of
hoards and sum of objects per assemblage in European contexts is staggering in
comparison to the Mediterranean. 565 The largest Greek LBA hoards are the Tsountas
collection from Mycenae and the Orchomenos cache, each yielding around 100 objects.
For comparison, six Transylvanian hoards yielded 10,000 items collectively, or 1660 on
average. 566
More than 300 LBA hoards from Brittany account for 30,000+ bronzes axes;
559
Mochlos hoard: Soles 2008; Andreadaki-Vlazaki, Rethemiotakis, and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2008,
85. Katamachi hoard: Vocotopoulou 1972. Hoards are often buried in some sort of capsule; for instance,
Samuel Pepys stashed away his gold and coins in a container (Bradley 1990, 18-19).
560
Moorey 1971, 63-64.
561
See Bradley 1990, 44-73 for a discussion on Neolithic deposits of stone axes in Southern Brittany,
Southern Scandinavia and the British Isles. For a catalog of hoards from Bronze Age Europe, see Hä nsel
and Hä nsel. 1997, 101-232.
562
Hansen 1997.
563
Bradley 1982; Bradley 1985a; Bradley 1985b; Bradley 1990; Harding 2000, 352-368. Taylor 1993;
Needham 2001; Hä nsel 1997; Hansen 1997; Schwenzer 1997.
564
Harding 2000, 352. Also see Hä nsel and Hänsel. 1997, 101-232.
565
Generally, for hoarding in European prehistory, see: Harding 2000, 352-368; Eogan 1983, 3ff; Taylor
1993, 3ff; Hä nsel and Hänsel. 1997.
566
Harding 2000, 356.
561
241

some hoards contained thousands of objects, often carefully arranged. 567 In Northern
Europe, prehistoric hoards have been found in Britain, 568 Germany, Hungary, Poland,
Scandinavia, 569 northern Croatia, Bulgaria/Romania, 570
and Slovenia. Clearly, hoarding
was a regular and significant practice in the European Bronze Age.
Hoarding is understudied and undervalued in the Bronze Age Mediterranean,
perhaps on account of Mediterranean assemblages not measuring up to their prehistoric
counterparts in Europe. Harding perceived Greece, with its “extraordinarily low
representation of metal deposition,” as a region of relatively minor impact when it comes
to hoarding, thus reflecting a “startling mismatch” for a palatial society with a developed
571
metallurgical industry. Despite this observation, numerous Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean caches are worthy of a detailed investigation. Within these regions, metal
assemblages are known from palatial citadels (Mycenae, Athens), palatial storage areas
(Thebes hoard within Arsenal area), 572
urban town centers with a vibrant metallurgical
industry (Enkomi), wells (Orchomenos, Enkomi Brunnen 212), domestic settings
(Mochlos merchant hoard), sanctuaries (Kition, possibly Anthedon), and as stray
collective finds (Andronianoi, Katamachi, Kalydon-Psorolithi). Although Bass; Catling;
Spyropoulos; Branigan; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus; Knapp; Knapp et al.; and
Borgna have discussed many of these hoards at length, re-examination of their
567
Muhly 2003, 292.
568
Taylor 1993; Needham 2001; Bradley 1990.
569
Levy 1982.
570
Chapman 2000, 112-121.
571
Harding 2000, 365.
572
This hoard was recently excavated at the street corner of Pelopidou and Zengini in modern Thebes. The
location is near the so-called Arsenal, and two new areas were excavated in 2005 and 2006 by the 9 th
Ephoria of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Thebes. Although this hoard is unpublished and relatively
new, Dr. Vasilis Arravantinos graciously invited me to examine the hoard in the Thebes Museum. I visited
the museum on 18-vii-2008 and, with the help of Yannis Fappas, had the privilege to view and handle the
hoard. I am indebted to both scholars for their hospitality and cooperation in allowing me to view the
unpublished material.
242

composition is necessary because the importance of tools and craft kits within the caches
has not been appreciated. 573
Personal collections, merchants’ goods, smiths’ materials, or ritual/ceremonial
paraphernalia are all potential unifying themes for a hoard. Two broad classifications
regarding purpose have developed in scholarship: utilitarian (non-ceremonial and usually
574
recoverable) and non-utilitarian (often ritualistic and non-retrievable). Examples of
utilitarian, non-ritual hoards include personal, craftsperson, merchant, and foundry
caches. These accumulations, especially the foundry caches, customarily have numerous
tools in addition to signs of metallurgical activity, such as fragmentary copper ingots,
scrap metal, and slag (but no crucibles and tuyères). 575
Hoards that were meant to be inaccessible would qualify as non-utilitarian, a
576
description that includes ritual, votive, and foundation deposits. The deliberate
placement of objects within or under a structure’s foundations served “to ensure
protection, benefaction, fertility, legitimacy or longevity for a particular structure.” 577
Votive collections, which are deposited for deities as thank offerings, occur in various
contexts. 578 Bradley’s criteria for non-utilitarian ritual hoards include specialized
locations, a restricted group of items, and well-preserved objects. 579
573
Bass 1967; Catling 1964; Branigan 1969; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986; Knapp 1988;
Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988; Borgna 1995.
574
Bradley 1990, 10-14; Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 236.
575
Bradley 1990, 14, Table 1.
576
Ellis 1968; Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988; Bradley 1990; Harding 2000. The importance of
repossession is made clear by Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly (1988, 241), who state: “intentionality of
deposition is not the key issue…it is the intention to retrieve the material that distinguished between
various types of deposits.”
577
Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 237. For discussion about Mesopotamian foundation deposits, see Ellis
1968.
578
For instance, see Hä nsel and Hänsel 1997.
579
Bradley 1990, 14, Table 1.
243

Discerning founders’ hoards from votive ones can be challenging, for
differentiating utilitarian from non-utilitarian hoards is not always straightforward. An
Early Urnfield Period hoard from northeast France has traditionally been considered a
“founder’s hoard par excellence” with an abundant number of broken tools and objects,
yet the assemblage was reinterpreted as having signs of ritual violence. 580 The dichotomy
of utilitarian and non-utilitarian hoards originated in discourses on European assemblages
and was subsequently applied to Mediterranean examples. 581
The majority of Mediterranean hoards are utilitarian, but a few votive deposits are
known. The well-preserved Ras Shamra hoard from the high priest’s house is a
582
foundation deposit, votive in nature, placed under a threshold. Several socketed adzes
from the hoard were inscribed in Ugaritic with a dedication to the city’s high priest. 583 On
Cyprus, the Enkomi miniature hoard, the Enkomi Maison des Bronzes, and the Kition
hoard (Floor III of Temple 4) are considered foundation and votive deposits. 584 Matthäus
and Schumacher-Matthäus interpreted all Cypriot hoards as votive (gifts to the deities),
thus emphasizing the connection between metallurgy and religion on the island. 585 The
cultic interpretation of the Cypriot hoards stems from a long tradition of German
scholarship on Central European hoarding, as Harding states “…in recent years German
scholars have led the way in propounding a votive explanation for almost all hoards,
including many of those that might on the face of it appear utilitarian.” 586
Levy’s
580
Nebelsick 2000, 160.
581
Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 238-244.
582
Schaeffer 1956, 251-279.
583
Schaeffer 1956, 264-269.
584
Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 246. Two Kition hoard objects are castings, further contributing to the
hoard’s special nature.
585
Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986; cf. Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988.
586
Harding 2000, 361; also see Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 258. On votive scholarship, see: Harding
2000, 361-365; Hä nsel 1997; Hansen 1997; Schwenzer 1997.
244

examination of metal caches from Bronze Age Denmark explored the ritual nature of
those hoards. 587 His example and others illustrate that, given their more unusual find
contexts, ceremonial assemblages are easier to identify in Central and Northern Europe
than in the Mediterranean, since the latter area’s hoards are typically found in domestic
contexts. By and large, ritual deposits occur in non-domestic localities (e.g. rivers) and
consist of a narrower range of objects than do utilitarian hoards. 588
Conventional explanations of metal assemblages correlate hoarding behavior with
period specific characteristics, especially in the Mediterranean. Most scholars believe that
the supply of metal has impacted hoarding activities, although there is some dispute
concerning the role it played. Hence Muhly claims that “[s]cholars cannot agree upon the
relationship between intensification of hoarding and the amount of metal in circulation.
Some argue that hoards represent exactly that, the hoarding of metal in times of scarcity,”
while others envision that hoards represent an “abundance of metal in circulation, not
589
scarcity.” Religious considerations, in addition to the already implied economic
factors, are consistently addressed in discussions of hoarding. It is thus easy to seek
singular, causative explanations for stockpiling metal while overlooking an assemblage’s
complex makeup. Catling, Spyropoulos, and Knapp et al. understand most Aegean and
eastern Mediterranean metal collections simply as objects intended to be recycled—thus
characterized as founders’ hoards. 590
Foundry caches on Cyprus coincide with the
prominence of the metallurgical industry on the island, yet it is erroneous to assume that
587
Levy 1982.
588
Bradley 1990, 10; for instance, see Schwenzer 1997.
589
Muhly 2003, 292.
590
Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 243, table 3.
245

most assemblages were destined for the furnace. Harding’s description of a foundry
hoard may prove helpful in understanding the fluid nature of these assemblages:
Traditionally, founders’ hoards [are] those that contained broken or miscast objects not
capable of functional use...They are often extremely large and heavy; hoards of hundreds
of objects are not uncommon, and some run into thousands…In this model, when the
smith came on his rounds to a village where he had hidden a stock of metal, he would go
to it to recover what he needed, reburying what was left over at the end of the
operation. 591
Although most Aegean and Cypriot hoards contain metal scrap and debris, one need not
assume that all fragmentary objects were useless or non-functional. Knapp et al. argued
that founders’ hoards imply that objects were collected for “their value as metal, not for
the intrinsic value of the original objects…all items lacking special significance and all
592
being reduced to their lowest common, metal denominator.”
Such specialized and
interpretative nomenclature (e.g. a founder’s hoard) fails to consider the diverse
functionality within an assemblage and does not allow for a multidimensional
interpretation.
Needham recently challenged the binary categorization of hoards (retrievable
utilitarian versus irretrievable non-utilitarian, the latter which is often ceremonial). He
proposed that the character of hoards is intricate and complex, and asserted that some
ceremonial assemblages may be recovered. This proposal acknowledged that a hoard’s
nature can change because of the “flexibility of intention at and after deposition.”
notion of hoard adaptability (its function changing over time) is intriguing, yet
contradicts the established nomenclature given to a cache based on its purpose. 594
593 The
591 Harding 2000, 354-355.
592 Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 237.
593 Needham 2001, 275.
594 Harding (2000, 354) observes: “What is less certain is whether such categorization actually assists in
understanding the phenomenon. It is of course based on a modern, ‘economic’ view of the past, on a
‘common-sense’ interpretation of what past finds might have meant to their makers and owners.”
246

Although hoard findings may reflect social behavior, it is too simplistic to assign a
unified purpose to most caches. 595 Attempts should be made to identify the sundry social
practices behind hoarding, as implied by Knapp et al.: “the attempt to isolate a single
behavioral pattern…is misleading, if not spurious.” 596
A hoard’s array of items (tools,
weapons, ornaments, vessel fragments, scrap metal, slag, etc.) has been considered
unrelated, thus leading to the conclusion that metallic value was the only connective
element within an assemblage. When scholars identify a single reason for the structure of
a hoard, the relationship among a cache’s components is overlooked.
Prehistoric hoards from southern Britain “could fulfill a variety of functions,” and
the same could be said for the LBA assemblages in the Mediterranean.
597 Consideration
of a hoard’s multi-functional nature enables archaeologists to analyze a hoard’s
composition, variation, and how it relates to other hoards rather than forcing an
overarching interpretation on the entire assemblage. Harding echoes this sentiment: “it is
likely that no single explanation [for hoards] will account for more than a proportion of
the finds.” 598 He recognizes the “internal diversity” of hoards, the fruitless nature of all-
encompassing interpretations, and how caches in Europe provide “good evidence for the
existence of structuring principles in the process of deposition.” 599
Harding’s emphasis
on the organization and deliberate composition of European hoards serves as a
constructive guideline for the Mediterranean examples.
Questions relating to the formation of Mediterranean assemblages have generally
been overlooked. Yet patterns within hoard compositions reveal that metal items were
595 Chapman 2000, 46.
596 Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 240.
597 Taylor 1993, 104.
598 Harding 2000, 352.
599 Harding 2000, 354, 368.
247

often selected according to certain principles and were not arbitrarily amassed. Random
accumulation would result in a motley assemblage during a metal shortage or when
objects were hastily deposited preceding imminent danger. Although hoards could be
created haphazardly on occasion, the recurrence of specific tool types in metal
assemblages may signify a structural principle. This formative property need not define a
hoard’s entire composition, but it could explain why some objects were repeatedly
selected for inclusion. One organizational element of several Mediterranean hoards was
that of a tool kit, the evidence for which is presented under Section 4e of this chapter.
The exact depositional date of the LBA Mediterranean caches is problematic
since a hoard’s contextual information from this era is often scanty. Despite this issue,
Catling and Spyropoulos have dated nearly all Cypriot and Greek hoards to around 1200
BC. 600 The inadequate details regarding the context of numerous caches necessitates
reliance upon typological comparisons (using individual objects), and perpetuates the
assumption that hoarding practices were caused solely by period-specific, socio-
economic turmoil. Even when hoards are properly excavated, they are not always
published in detail. Knapp et al. complained about the dating for some Enkomi hoards
(12 th century, LC IIIA), arguing that there was too “little stratigraphic or ceramic
evidence” by which to arrive at that date. 601
The chronological assignment of many
assemblages is circumstantial and inadequate and the interpretation of LBA
Mediterranean hoards has unfortunately been influenced greatly by socio-economic and
cultural factors. The seemingly sudden proliferation of hoarding at the end of the Bronze
Age is striking, for it appears to coincide with historical and political unrest. The collapse
600 Catling 1964, 278-298; Spyropoulos 1972.
601 Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 246.
248

of the Mycenaean palatial system in the Aegean and the destruction and/or abandonment
of Anatolian, Cypriot and Syro-Palestinian sites are difficult to explain. Yet historical,
economic and social events may not have caused the proliferation of hoards at the
conclusion of the LBA.
Customary arguments assert that Aegean and eastern Mediterranean hoards were
deposited by individuals who stockpiled metal fragments as a means of hoarding wealth
when instability prevailed. The employment of any political-economic scenario as the
primary means for interpreting hoards is simplistic and hard to accept, especially for
those caches with insufficient contextual details. Such approaches ostensibly corroborate
perceptions of social turmoil. This methodology, however, is widely championed and was
most recently applied by Soles to Neopalatial caches on Crete: “In times of conflict
people often bury their most valuable possessions below ground, and these [Mochlos]
hoards indicate just such a time of conflict, when their owners made a quick get away,
expecting to return, but were unable ever to do so.” 602 This political-historical approach
must be used with caution, as Harding implies: “The assumption that political unrest led
to the practice of burying metal in the ground might be thought to derive support from the
fact that hoards concentrate in particular periods…[such as] examples from Hungary,
Germany…In other areas such connections are tenuous.” 603
Unstable social conditions
prevent the recovery of a hoard rather than causing its deposition. In other words, turmoil
in a society ensures a hoard’s preservation in the archaeological record but is not
necessarily the reason for the hoard’s formation. The usefulness of the historical-
602 Soles 2008, 156.
603 Harding 2000, 355.
249

economic approach to hoarding must be reevaluated to avoid mistakenly forcing socio-
economic interpretations onto the archaeological material.
Several hoards are dated to the late 13 th or early12 th century BC by a single tripod
stand fragment, meaning that the production date of bronze stands and tripods plays an
important role in categorizing some hoards. 604 Consequently, the tenuous chronology of
Aegean and eastern Mediterranean caches is particularly perceptible in a debate about
metallurgical material from Palaikastro, Crete that included a tripod leg mold. At this site,
a pit deposit contained more than one hundred pieces of metallurgical industrial waste
including tuyères, crucibles, and clay mold fragments. Hemingway dated the deposit to
the LM IIIB period (13 th century BC, but Catling dates the pit’s ceramics to LM IIIA2)
and argued that a few clay pieces of the investment fragments belonged to a Cypriot
tripod leg mold, 605 despite the fact that bronze stands and tripods are understood as a
product of the Cypriot late 13 th century BC. 606 For this reason, Catling doubted that the
ceramics and metallurgical debris were placed in the pit at the same time, claiming that
Hemmingway’s “conclusions about the significance of the contents of the deposit are so
radical.” 607
Hemingway’s assertion that a Minoan workshop manufactured Cypriot-type
stands/tripods prior to the late 13 th century creates a degree of chronological uncertainty
for any hoard that relies upon said tripod fragments. Regardless of how one interprets the
tripod mold fragments from Palaikastro, the debate over them highlights the
precariousness of using an individual object to date an entire hoard.
604
For chronological interpretations of hoards based on tripod fragments, see: Catling 1964, 297; Knapp,
Muhly and Muhly 1988, 248
605
Hemingway 1996, 215; Catling 1997, 53-55.
606
Catling 1997, 58.
607
Catling 1997, 52.
250

Metal assemblages generally cluster around periods of transition: the closing
stages of the Aegean EBA, the conclusion of the Neopalatial period on Crete, and the end
of the LBA on the Greek mainland and Cyprus (see Appendix 3). Sporadic hoarding is
evident in non-transitional periods, demonstrating that the practice of stockpiling
occurred at other times as well. Hoarding is prevalent throughout all phases of Bronze
Age Europe and well documented in the Aegean EBA. By the Mediterranean LBA, the
practice of stockpiling metal is attested on the Greek mainland, Crete, Cyprus, Syria,
Albania, the Italic peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia. The relationship between a turbulent
time period and hoarding is a correlation, not a cause. The social unrest during the late
13 th and early 12 th century BC was not the impetus for creating so many hoards in the
Mediterranean. The proliferation of these caches in the archaeological record, however,
does confirm the period’s instability. Bradley summarizes this stance:
Material may have been hidden or stored in the ground during many or most periods of
prehistory but only when circumstances prevented its recovery would it have stayed in
the archaeological record…peaks in the frequency of such deposits tell us most about the
conditions under which these collections were lost…we have less idea of why they were
hidden in the first place. 608
Hoards undoubtedly appear more regularly during troublesome periods. Yet it is
presumptuous to conclude that societal turmoil brought about hoarding practices. A more
nuanced approach must view hoarding as a natural tendency with the possibility of
occurring in any era or location.
IV.B: An overview of hoard compositions in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean
The full range of contents in a metal assemblage must be considered when
interpreting hoarding practices; this point becomes even more important when a cache
608 Bradley 1990, 20-21; Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly1988, 240-241.
251

lacks contextual information or chronological clarity. Scholarship has treated the notions
of hoard construction and the reasons for deposition interchangeably. An assumption
persists that the desire for metal—regardless of an object’s size, shape, function or
quality of preservation—served as the sole factor in the establishment of a hoard. 609
As
was previously argued, singular explanations as to why assemblages were placed
underground are misguided. More focus should be placed upon evaluating the
configuration of the various hoard components. The compositional intricacy of some
hoards suggests that they were deliberately structured and multi-functional and not
haphazardly formed as some believe.
Metal hoards are characterized by some combination of complete and fragmentary
tools, weapons, vessels, copper ingots, castings, weights, balance pans or scales,
statuettes, and scrap/miscellaneous metal. Tools are the preeminent item (815 examples)
in hoards from the regions under study, easily representing the majority of the
accumulated objects. Although weapons are common in mortuary contexts, they are not
stockpiled in caches with the same regularity as tools.
610
Other non-tools add to the
diversity within LBA hoards including complete and fragmentary vessels, scrap pieces,
balance pans, weights, castings, stands, tripods, and tables.
The composition of metal hoards from the Aegean EBA and transitional EBA–
MBA were dictated by wood- and stone-working tools (axes, adzes and chisels). These
implements represent 97.7% of the objects in the early assemblages, which is why the
appellation of a “carpenter’s hoard” is applicable. The absence of smithing utensils,
agricultural tools and weapons in these early copper-based assemblages is conspicuous,
609 Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 233.
610 Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988, 247 table 4; also the hoard catalogue (Appendix 3) in this study.
252

and the exclusivity of carpentry tools was probably intentional. The EBA–MBA hoards
typically contained fewer than ten objects, but the level of variation therein was notable,
each hoard producing at least three different tool forms on average.
In comparison to the EBA–MBA caches, LBA hoards are collectively defined by
a greater range of tools, implement subtypes, and a wider selection of non-tool objects.
Although agricultural and metallurgical instruments were included in second millennium
BC hoards, more than half of the stockpiled implements were for wood- and stone-
working. By and large, carpentry and masonry implements are more common in
Mycenaean and Minoan hoards, while Cypriot assemblages, though they contain these
implements, have a fuller range of tools for agriculture and metalworking. These regional
differences in hoarding behavior reflect localized preferences in the selection of tools.
The presence of metallurgical implements in Cypriot assemblages is a reflection
of the widespread metallurgical activity on the island. Metallurgical tools are rare in
Aegean hoards, but common in Cypriot ones. Tongs, charcoal shovels, furnace spatulas,
hammers (sledgehammers and/or mallets), metal molds, and other smith tools are found
in the Cypriot hoards at Sinda, Pyla-Kokkinokremnos, Mathiati, and Enkomi (the Gunnis
hoard and the Foundry hoard). Secondary metalworking activity is also ascertained by
finishing tools (whetstones) and mercantile equipment for trading metals (weights and
balance pans). The evidence (admittedly limited) for smith activity within Aegean hoards
is attested by a sword casting (Mycenae Tsountas hoard); a pyramidal sledgehammer,
dagger casting and file (Athens Acropolis hoard); and fragmentary ingots and scrap metal
(various hoards). The metal merchant hoard from Mochlos is unusual in that it has both
tongs and balance pans, two items otherwise absent from Aegean caches. This collection
253

of objects from Mochlos also produced metal tools that have been tentatively identified
as ingot breakers. 611
An unusual series of metal attachments repeatedly turn up within LBA hoards:
tripod and stand legs, vessel handles, and model wheels. The fragmentary nature of these
items leads scholars to classify them as recyclable scrap material, but perhaps they were
included for a different reason. Tripod stand and tripod cauldron leg fragments are
attested in the Schliemann, Tiryns, Anthedon, Orchomenos, Kalydon, Enkomi Foundry,
Enkomi Miniature, and Enkomi Point 783 hoards. These collections for the most part
612
yielded a tripod leg without a corresponding vessel, stand or other leg fragments.
cache was a random aggregate of recyclable metal, additional fragments of a tripod
would be expected, and the repetition of a single leg fragment would not occur so
consistently. The appearance of isolated tripod legs in Aegean and Cypriot hoards most
likely signifies deliberate selection, which is inconsistent with the explanation of scrap
collection. Perhaps these fragments were stored as spare parts for repairing tripods, but
this does not explain why hoards repeatedly contained a single tripod leg. Alternatively,
the pieces could have served as instructive models to fashion molds for future casting
operations.
Bronze handles resemble tripod legs in that both forms are additive pieces riveted
to larger metal objects. As with the collection of tripod legs, several hoards contained
metal handles but no corresponding vessels. These assemblages come from Mycenae
(Poros Wall), Anthedon, Orchomenos, Ithaka-Polis, Mochlos (artisan), and Enkomi
If the
611 Soles 2008, 151.
612 Complete tripods in assemblages are known from the Tiryns treasure, Enkomi Foundry hoard, the Ugarit
priest house hoard, and the Santa Maria hoard in Paulis, Sardinia. In Crete, cauldrons, supported by three
legs, occur in two Knossian hoards.
254

(Trésor de bronzes, Stylianou, and Point 1458). Such iteration is improbable through the
haphazard stockpiling of scrap. The handles were, in all likelihood, purposefully
collected to serve as prototypes for future fabrication of molds or for making repairs to
vessels. Two examples of ceramic molds for bronze handles were found in the Artisan
Quarter (Building A) at Mochlos—though not within the hoard from that area. 613
The
creation of such molds must have been aided by already existing samples of the finished
product; this supposition explains why single metal handles are repeatedly saved in
assemblages.
Miniature bronze wheels were often attached either to wagon/chariot models
(such as the Brunnen 212 and Athienou examples) or to elaborate (typically Cypriot)
bronze stands. Model wheels, without any accompanying equipment, are therefore
oddities within the Mycenae Schliemann, Thebes (non-Arsenal), Enkomi Foundry,
Enkomi Stylianou, and Sinda hoards. The frequent retention of a wheel or two without
affiliated or related items seems to challenge the theory of scrap accumulation. Maybe the
metal wheels fit into the same category as the tripod legs and handles—that is, as objects
saved to make molds for reproducing attachments.
When hoards with tools are small and homogenous, like the EBA Aegean hoards,
a tool kit’s identity is unmistakable. The implements in these early caches show the
functional variability of coherent tool sets. Three factors explain why scholars have
overlooked the possibility of tool kits in second millennium BC hoards: 1) the
fragmentary nature of many hoard implements; 2) the collection of diverse, seemingly
613
Soles 2003, 19-22, fig. 12, plate 9c; Andreadaki-Vlazaki, Rethemiotakis and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki
2008, 94.
255

unrelated objects; and 3) the traditional interpretations about hoarding practices that rely
on historical or chronological arguments.
Tools from EBA hoards are whole and lack substantial damage, but those from
MBA and LBA hoards are often fragmentary and considered scrap. If a hoard is thought
to be destined for a foundry, the potential functionality of its tools—complete or
fragmentary—is disregarded. Consequently, patterns of tool variability and structured
hoarding practices are overlooked. Hoarded tools from the second millennium are not
always broken, and the fragmentary ones may have been usable. 614
Well-preserved
utensils are intermixed with so-called scrap pieces in many hoards.
Implements are undeniably prominent in the MBA and LBA assemblages, yet
they coexist with weapons, scrap metal, fragmentary copper ingots, and miscellaneous
metal objects. Therefore tool groupings within larger metal assemblages have previously
been considered random accumulations instead of implement sets. The complexity of
these compositions emphasizes the multi-functional nature for most hoards, and the
reluctance to consider several explanations in hoarding formations has prevented tool kits
from being identified.
The historical connotation for many assemblages is a third reason for the
oversight of hoarded tool kits. Traditional analyses have cited socio-economic concerns
as the cause for hoard depositions, with the understanding that assemblages were meant
to be safeguarded and eventually retrieved. This interpretation, bolstered by broken and
hodgepodge collections of objects, purports a single socio-economic reason for the
genesis of an entire assemblage, leaving no room for evaluation of tool types. As argued
earlier with respect to the study of hoards in Europe, periods of transition and social
614 For a discussion about the value and intentionality of broken objects, see Chapman 2000.
256

turmoil enable hoard preservation in the archaeological record, but do not necessarily
cause metals to be deposited.
IV.C: Tools in hoards: frequencies, preferences and statistics
The recurrence of specific tools in hoards signifies that they were intentionally
selected. As previously mentioned, tools are the primary component of Mediterranean
hoards. Of the 13 MBA and LBA Cretan hoards, tools makeup 66% of the contents on
average. Implements are regular components of hoards from the Greek mainland (61% in
18 hoards) and Cyprus (44% in 20 hoards). Figures 5.1‒5.4 present the prevalence of
metal implements as well as the tools types within the Mediterranean caches. In the
following pages, an overview of the hoarded tools by region highlights their prominence
and tendencies of occurrence. Subsequently, the data from the hoard tools are explored
statistically to ascertain whether there are meaningful patterns of tool selection in hoards,
both regionally and cross-culturally.
Tools in Cretan hoards (Fig. 5.1): Tools represent the highest proportion of
contents in Cretan hoards, assemblages which are typically small. The bulk of Cretan
examples belong to the LM I period, placing them at least two hundred years prior to
most Cypriot and Mycenaean hoards and well after the EBA‒MBA examples.
Minoan hoards best resemble the EBA‒MBA Aegean metal collections in terms
of their compositional size and preference for wood- and stone-working implements. Not
every carpentry and masonry implement was stockpiled on a regular basis. For example,
only six Cretan saws were recovered in caches, despite the ubiquity of the implement in
other MM and LM contexts. Other tool types are even less common. Agricultural tools
are conspicuously absent from Minoan hoards, and metallurgical implements are almost
257

as rare. Only two Cretan hoards contained a series of metalworking utensils, and both
came from Mochlos (House C.3’s metal merchant and northeast corner collections). 615
The repertoire of tools (nine double axes, seven broad chisels, and eight knives)
from the Mochlos merchant hoard represents types that were commonly selected in other
616
Minoan caches.
At least two of these implement types (but particularly double axes)
appear time and again in Cretan hoards. Chisels, though recurrent in Minoan caches, are
neither as prevalent nor as diverse as in mainland contexts. Utilitarian objects like knives
occur in Cretan hoards but not with the same regularity as on the mainland. The
coexistence of double axes, chisels and knives in Minoan assemblages reflects a tool
grouping that becomes a standardized set by the Mycenaean period. The array of adze
variations (e.g. single adzes, socketed adzes, double adzes, ax-adzes, adze-hammers) and
the occasional smith tool in Minoan hoards corresponds to some Cypriot caches.
Tools in Greek mainland hoards (Fig. 5.2): The proportion of implements in
mainland hoards is slightly less than that in Cretan caches. The mainland assemblages,
however, are larger and incorporate a wider range of tools than the Minoan hoards.
Agricultural, metallurgical, utilitarian, and carpentry/masonry tools constitute mainland
assemblages, with each functional category occurring in differing ratios from hoard to
hoard. The carpentry/masonry and utilitarian examples are more plentiful than the
agricultural or metallurgical ones, and the wood- and stone-working tools are the only
category with notable variation. The restricted nature of the agricultural tool types on the
mainland (chiefly sickles except for a few plowshares) contrasts with the diversity and
615
Whetstones were also found in two of the Knossos hoards, but these are not certain metallurgical
implements.
616
Soles 2008, 148-151.
258

profusion of the same category in the eastern Mediterranean hoards. Likewise, smith
tools are relatively rare in mainland hoards in comparison to Cypriot assemblages.
Three types of wood- and stone-working implements stand out within the
mainland hoards: double axes, broad chisels and narrow chisels. Knives and, on occasion,
razors (both classified as utilitarian implements) are also emblematic of Aegean hoards.
The inclusion of a double ax, chisel (of any type), and knife characterize eight mainland
hoards. A combination of at least two of the three types is found in 15 mainland
assemblages. The persistent grouping of these particular implements is an argument
against the theory that hoards are random accumulations. Rather, these tools were
consciously grouped together as a meaningful unit, probably as a craft-related tool kit.
Other carpentry/masonry implements like drills, saws, adzes and double-ended or
combination tools are sporadic in mainland hoards. The tool preferences within each
hoard are fairly comparable throughout the mainland, yet the quantity of implements
fluctuates greatly from cache to cache. This variability is especially detectable in the
number of double axes, chisels and knives per hoard, the most plentiful collections being
the Mycenae Tsountas and Athens Acropolis assemblages.
Tools in Cypriot hoards (Fig. 5.3): Tools remain the primary objects (44%) in
Cypriot hoards, but non-tools are hoarded more regularly on Cyprus than elsewhere.
Consequently, carpentry/masonry implements are not as common in Cypriot hoards as
they are in Aegean collections. The standard tools in Aegean caches (double axes, broad
chisels, and knives) also occur in Cypriot hoards but not with the same regularity. Cypriot
assemblages collectively yielded 4 double axes, 3 broad chisels and 37 knives. 617
By way
617
The Pera bronzes distort the knife quantities. If they are excluded, only six knives come from Cypriot
hoards.
259

of comparison, there are 87 double axes, 46 broad chisels and 78 knives from Aegean
hoards. These numbers reflect considerable regional differences and the distinctive
preferences of craftspersons. Cypriot assemblages have a wider range of metallurgical
and agricultural tools than elsewhere, a trend that coincides with two well-recognized
Cypriot activities: metallurgy and farming. 618
Smithing tools like hammers, tongs,
charcoal shovels, furnace spatulas, other spatula-like tools, metal molds, weights, and
balance scales are all hoarded items. The agricultural tools recovered from Cypriot
hoards—sickles, plowshares, pruning hooks, picks, large shovels, and a plow scraper—
are just as diverse as the smithing implements.
The count of carpentry/masonry tools from Cypriot assemblages is inflated by the
collection of Pera bronzes, whose authenticity as a hoard is doubted by some scholars.
Fourteen out of the twenty Cypriot hoards incorporated at least one wood- and stone-
working tool, though many of these assemblages integrated a greater mix of this tool
category. The Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes, for instance, contained seven distinct
carpentry/masonry tools. Such a range of implements, like that of most Cypriot hoards,
exists because of the absence of a dominant, pan-island implement (e.g. something akin
to the double ax on Crete or the mainland). The collective range of the Cypriot tools
points to organized stockpiling and presumable tool kits. The penchant for implement
diversity in Cypriot hoards is accentuated by the selection of adze tools (double adzes,
ax-adzes, hammer-adzes, and flat adzes). Combination adzes were also stockpiled in
618 Hadjisavvas has argued that the metallurgical and agricultural industries are the most important
industries of the LC IIC urban centers. His argument is based upon the evidence at Alassa-Paliotaverna;
see Hadjisavvas 1996.
619 Åström 1977-78.
619
260

Minoan assemblages and the eastern Mediterranean shipwrecks, but they are absent from
Mycenaean hoards. Flat adzes likewise only appear sporadically in the Aegean.
Statistical analysis of hoarded tools: There are 54 metal hoards listed in Figures
5.1-5.4, coming from Crete, the mainland, Cyprus, Anatolia, and Ugarit. The popularity
of tools in metal assemblages is unmistakable from the data presented in these tables.
Some regional tool preferences are apparent, but a statistical analysis of hoards may help
to delineate the similarities and differences in implement selections, both within a
localized area and trans-regionally. Therefore, the data of all 54 hoards were entered into
a statistical computer program, specifically PASW Statistics 18, in order to conduct
cluster analysis.
There are several methods for analyzing a multivariate dataset such as the
collection of tools within hoards. Cluster analysis was chosen for its ability to show
similarity groupings within a dataset—specifically it was desirable to see which hoards
shared the closest affinities to one another in terms of their array of tool types. As the
number of contents in a hoard, and particularly the tools therein, fluctuates from one
assemblage to the other, the tool data within each hoard was coded in the statistical
program as either “present” or “absent.” Within each hoard, there were 12 possible tool
variables considered here: 1) Double ax; 2) Broad chisel; 3): Narrow chisel; 4) Drill; 5)
Saw; 6) Combination tools; 7) Single/flat axes; 8) Shaft-hole axes; 9) Knife or Razor; 10)
Awls or Engravers; 11) Agricultural tools; and 12) Smith tools. The presence or absence
of each of these tool categories were noted for each of the 54 hoards. In other words, if
one or more implements from a category were included in a hoard, the presence of that
tool was marked with a “1,” whereas absence of a tool was indicated by a “0.” With the
261

data coded in this manner, it became possible to assess the level of similarity—in terms
of the tool selections—between each hoard.
When presence/absence variables are compared between two hoards, there are
four possible combinations for each variable being compared: present – present (a);
absent – present (b); present – absent (c); absent – absent (d). 620 Since it was unimportant
if a variable was missing in two hoards, I decided to exclude the absent – absent
scenarios in my analysis. Therefore, I used Jaccard’s Coefficient formula to determine a
similarity coefficient (based on the 12 tool variables) for every possible hoard pairing. 621
Drennen defines Jaccard’s Coefficient as:
It is the [total] number of present – present matches divided by the [total] number of

of hoards in Figure 5.5, but a quick summary helps to decipher this information: hoards 1
through 13 are from Crete; 14 through 31 are from the mainland; 32 through 51 are from
Cyprus; and 52 through 54 are from Anatolia or Ugarit.
The dendrogram showing all hoards is linked by their similarity coefficients,
which is based on the degree of common tool selections. Within the dendrogram, there
are four distinctive clusters that are recognizable (Fig. 5.8). Cluster 1 consists of hoards
entirely from Cyprus with one exception. Cluster 2 is the smallest grouping, comprising
examples from Cyprus and the mainland. Cluster 3 is rather large, and primarily
represented by Cretan and mainland hoards. Cluster 4 is also distinctive and shows
similarities between Cypriot and Cretan examples. Finally, a few hoards are considered
outliers for they do not have strong links.
Within Cluster 1, there is a tight grouping of three hoards, specifically the Enkomi
Point 438 hoard (#40), the Enkomi sanctuary of the horned god hoard (#51), and the
Tiryns hoard (#19). These caches contained only one implement type, agricultural tools,
which is why their coefficient similarity is so high. The presence of agricultural tools is
the key factor that links all nine hoards from Cluster 1 together, and it is significant that
all but the Tiryns hoard came from Cyprus. Many of the assemblages within this cluster
are small and only contain a few tools. Other implements were occasionally integrated in
these hoards, but not on a regular basis. Four of the nine hoards have smith tools; two
have flat axes; and two have combination tools. It is apparent that the inclusion of
agricultural tools was important in Cypriot hoards, even if other implements were
excluded.
263

The similarity of the Tiryns hoard with Cluster 1 and not with the Greek mainland
grouping is noteworthy. This pattern is explained by the general lack of tools in the
Tiryns cache and perhaps it should be considered an outlier. Yet one cannot help but
recognize that the Tiryns hoard, dated to the LH IIIC period, was very different from the
other mainland hoards, most of which date to LH IIIB/C. 624 The statistical inclusion of
the Tiryns hoard with a collection of Cypriot hoards may be significant, however, for
several objects within the hoard display Cypriot characteristics, including a bronze tripod
stand and three gold pendants shaped as bull’s heads. 625
As iron was more common
during the 12 th century on Cyprus than the Greek mainland, an iron sickle in the Tiryns
assemblage perhaps is indicative of a Cypriot tool. A Tiryns‒Cypriot link is documented
by other objects including the Cypriot wall-brackets at the post-palatial center.
Cluster 2 comprises only six hoards, and four of these can be dated to the 13 th or
12 th centuries while the other two are also from the LBA. Two hoards come from the
mainland (Katamachi and Stephani, both from Epirus), and four are from Cyprus (Kition,
Pyla, Athienou, and Enkomi miniature). These assemblages are related by the presence of
smith objects, in addition to a limited number of other tool variables. Three of the six
hoards have narrow chisels, two have doubles axes, and two have drills. Because of the
small cluster and the low number of variables in these hoards, Cluster 2 does not seem as
significant as Clusters 1, 3 and 4.
Cluster 3 contains 23 hoards principally from Crete and the mainland, though two
are from Cyprus (#32 and 37). Several sub-clusters form this much larger grouping and
two of those sub-clusters appear to be meaningful. The first sub-cluster consists of three
624 This point is emphasized by Maran 2006, 130.
625 Maran 2006, 134-137.
264

hoards from Crete, each dated to the LM I period (#6, 7 from Mochlos and 10 from
Knossos); these assemblages are noted for their diverse range of tool types. The second
sub-cluster has nine hoards chiefly from the mainland except for one Cypriot example
(#32, the Enkomi Foundry hoard). This tight cluster is extremely significant as these
mainland hoards (16: Mylonas; 18: Tsountas; 20: Athens; 17: Poros Wall; 23: Thebes;
26: Kalydon; 22: Anthedon; 24: Orchomenos) were found relatively close to each other
and dated to the LH IIIB or C period.
It is possible to compare the coefficient similarities of Cluster 3 hoards by tool
variables. In other words, the hoard data from this grouping can be clustered by
“variable” (tool types) instead of by “case” (hoards). 626
A similarity chart, using the
Jaccard’s Coefficient was thus created for the tool variables of Cluster 3 (Fig. 5.9). These
similarities were then plotted on a dendrogram using average linkage (between groups)
cluster analysis (Fig. 5.11). There are several relationships among tool types that are
readily discernible from this statistical distribution. Within the metal assemblages in
Cluster 3, double axes and broad chisels show the strongest link for being hoarded
together. Knives or razors have a strong correlation with agricultural tools, and both
implement types are subsequently linked with narrow chisels. The set of knives/razors,
agricultural tools, and narrow chisels are then clustered with double axes and broad
chisels. Collectively, these five implements form a distinct grouping, and this array of
implements may indicate a typical tool set. The data from these hoards show that
combination tools and smith implements also cluster together, as do saws, single/flat
626 Note that the similarity coefficient for all 54 hoards was based upon comparing each “case” or hoard. In
this instance, it the “variable” or tool type that is the basis for the creation of a similarity matrix. For a
discussion on clustering by variables instead of cases, see Drennan 2009, 316-320.
265

axes, and drills. Awls/engravers and shaft-hole axes are insignificant tools from the
Cluster 3 hoards.
The final notable hoard group is Cluster 4. Ten caches form this cluster: five from
Cyprus, four from Crete, and one assemblage from Ugarit. This cluster differs from the
earlier Cypriot grouping (Cluster 1) by a greater presence of carpentry/masonry
implements and by the infrequency of agricultural tools. As was done for Cluster 3, the
hoard information from Cluster 4 was also grouped by variables. The Jaccard’s
Coefficient similarity for the tool types of the Cluster 4 hoards are listed in a proximity
matrix in Figure 5.10. A dendrogram visually conveys the similarities of these tool types
through average linkage cluster analysis (Fig. 5.12). The implement similarities from
Cluster 4 are not as tight as the patterns in Cluster 3, yet there are some distinctive tool
links. Narrow chisels show a close relationship to single/flat axes, while both tools
display a looser connection to shaft-hole axes. Drills and knives/razors have a correlation
within Cluster 4, as do combination tools and smith tools. All four of these implements
are linked by a secondary grouping, which is loosely tied to saws. The exact significance
of the Cluster 4 tools is difficult to gauge, as the hoards are well distributed over time in
the second millennium. The earliest is from the MM I-II period and the latest dates to the
late 13 th or early 12 th century, but there are few MBA-LBA transitional hoards in this
cluster as well. Therefore, it is difficult statistically to recognize tool kits within these
hoards. Perhaps the most significant observation is that there is no relation between
double axes and broad chisels in Cluster 4, thus contrasting the pattern in Cluster 3.
Evidently, the pairing of double axes and broad chisels was atypical in Cypriot and early
266

Cretan assemblages. An unexpected link between combination and smith tools is hard to
explain, but the grouping is also attested in Cluster 3.
The statistical consideration of these hoard tools has helped to distinguish
regional patterns and to suggest typical tool groupings. Cypriot hoards fall under two
categories: one characterized by limited tool diversity and the presence of agricultural
tools, and the second by similarities with Cretan hoards that contain various
carpentry/masonry tools. Other than the rather insignificant grouping of Cluster 2,
Cypriot hoards are not regularly grouped with mainland assemblages. Mainland hoards
have demonstrable similarities with Cretan assemblages in Cluster 3, and the tool types in
these caches seem to show important connections that point toward probable tool kits.
The sub-grouping of mainland caches within Cluster 3 exhibits the strongest statistical
relationship. One reason for the similarity of these LH III mainland hoards is the repeated
deposition of tool kits, a point that is explained thoroughly in section IV.E. First,
however, it is necessary to consider the role of broken implements in a hoard, for the
question of tool preservation was not taken into account in the statistical analysis.
IV.D: Deconstructing foundry caches: modification and functionality of hoard tools
In the following pages, the prevalence of foundry hoards is questioned, for many
seem misidentified. To prove that broken implements perhaps retained functional value
for secondary purposes, 627
evidence for the intentional manipulation and alteration of
hoarded tools is presented. A functional worth of fragmentary tools is suggested by their
inclusion with well-preserved implements in what I consider to be purposefully designed
hoards. The level of preservation for a hoard’s tools has often corresponded to the
627 Chapman 2000, 49-104.
267

functional interpretation of that assemblage. Interpretive analyses have followed an
overly simplistic rule of thumb that equates fragmentary tools with foundry materials and
better preserved examples with merchant collections.
Tools from the Katamachi cache (Plate 5.1) are intact, leading Vocotopoulou to
claim that these implements were newly minted and part of a merchant’s stock. 628 Yet
two Katamachi double axes (#4979 and 4980), a socketed chisel (#4985) and a pyramidal
anvil (#4984) have discernible signs of wear. 629
The selection of these tools, which were
clearly used, implies the existence of a craftsperson’s kit rather than a merchant’s stock-
in-trade. The Mycenae Mylonas cache likewise is designated a merchant hoard due to the
remarkably good condition of its objects, yet some of the knives, double axes, and chisels
therein display signs of wear. Despite their interpretation as merchant goods, the
Katamachi and Mylonas hoard tools were undoubtedly utilized prior to their deposition,
making the interpretation of the hoards as belonging to merchants unlikely. Evidently,
preservation alone is a poor index for evaluating the purpose of tools that were hoarded.
So-called foundry hoards consist of sundry objects considered to be scrap.
Examples from the Greek mainland include the Schliemann, Poros Wall and Tsountas
hoards from Mycenae, as well as caches from Anthedon, Kalydon, Orchomenos and the
630
Athenian Acropolis. From Mochlos on Crete, the following hoards are interpreted in
the same manner: Artisan, House C.3 and House C.7. 631
On Cyprus, Enkomi yielded the
Foundry, Gunnis, Stylianou, Brunnen 212, Point 1458, Point 438, and Point 783 hoards,
628
Vocotopoulou 1972.
629
I am grateful to the Ioannina Museum (Epirus, Greece) and specifically to Christos Kleitsas for allowing
me to examine these tools. For a more comprehensive examination of these implements as well as a full
discussion of metallurgy in LBA Epirus, see the work of Christos Kleitsas, who is studying this material for
his PhD dissertation.
630
Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 248.
631
Soles 2008.
268

all of which were supposedly destined for the furnace. Other alleged foundry
assemblages from Cyprus include the Mathiati, Sinda, and Pyla-Kokkinokremnos
hoards. 632
The understanding that these hoards were primarily metallurgical in nature is
based on several factors. There are bits of unrecognizable metal pieces that indeed
deserve a “scrap” or “miscellaneous” designation, while the presence of processed copper
(oxhide ingots or fragments thereof) in hoards is taken to imply that future melting and
casting activities were intended. The hoarding of broken objects further substantiates the
image of a founder’s assemblage. The tools, weapons, and vessels from foundry caches
are interpreted as a collective whole, rather than affording the individual pieces the kind
of focused consideration that might lead to a different conclusion. The mere presence of
oxhide ingot fragments in hoards does not confirm metallurgical activity, for ingots were
valuable commodities in exchange networks and regularly broken up for distribution.
Although incomplete implements give the impression of being ready to be melted down,
archaeometallurgical evidence is largely absent in hoards. Molds, crucibles and tuyères
might be expected in assemblages that truly belonged to smiths. Moreover, the
preservation level of objects is overemphasized in some hoard interpretations. For
example, only three objects from the Kalydon-Psorolithi hoard (Plate 5.2) are
significantly damaged, yet the whole assemblage was deemed to be a foundry hoard.
Whetstones, files, weights, balance scales/pans, and other miscellaneous items
like swage blocks and anvils were occasionally integrated into assemblages. The
capability of sharpening implements with whetstones or file-like instruments conveys the
importance of implement maintenance, repair and reuse. Tools for cold working enabled
basic repairs and alterations, as opposed to the more laborious operations of melting and
632 Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988, 254.
269

e-casting metal, which required hot-working tools. The assertion that damaged materials
were easily melted and recast does not fully appreciate the time, fuel, energy, resources,
and technological knowhow required in metallurgical activities; it additionally
undervalues the possibility of cold metallurgical work.
The fact that hoards contain both complete and fragmentary objects, especially
tools, has been ignored. Many incomplete tools preserved at least one cutting edge,
meaning that fragmented pieces retained a limited functional capability. Fragmentary
utensils need not be scrap metal, especially if broken pieces could take on secondary
functions. A cursory examination of foundry hoard tools, particularly those from
Orchomenos, highlights two points: the practice of tool modification and the coexistence
of complete and partial implements.
Evidence of tool alteration in the Orchomenos hoard 633
The intentional alteration of some hoarded tools suggests that they were
deliberately stockpiled because of their functional capabilities. The modification of
implements is detectable in several LBA hoards, yet it is remarkably perceptible in the
large Orchomenos metal assemblage (106 objects)—now on display in the renovated
634
Chaironeia Museum (MX).
This cache exemplifies an archetypal founder’s hoard with
tools, weapons, vessel/stand fragments, scrap, slag, and miscellaneous bronze pieces.
Overwhelmingly made up of broken implements, the Orchomenos cache also features a
cluster of intact tools.
633 The Orchomenos hoard was never published in detail and only a brief description of its context and
composition were published in Spyropoulos 1970. The entire hoard is now prominently displayed in the
recently renovated Chaironeia Museum. I am thankful to Dr. Vasilis Aravantinos who granted me
permission to examine these objects and to Yannis Fappas for facilitating my study at the museum.
634 Every instance of tool modification, however, is not reported here.
270

A complete double ax and four halves of double axes come from the Orchomenos
cache. Each fragment was intentionally altered as such, yet no half has a corresponding
match, meaning that each piece came from a different ax. One double ax half (MX 502)
retained a damaged blade edge still capable of making simple cuts (Plate 5.3). Severed at
its shaft-hole area, the object’s two sidewalls are slightly bent in one direction. This
distortion did not result from typical usage. The original double ax may have incurred
damage to its shaft hole through use, but the object must have been cut in two
intentionally. This process involved cracking the tool at the shaft-hole area, then bending
the opposite blade ends of the double ax back toward each other, probably aided by
pounding with a hammer. Distorting the object in this way facilitated the severing
process, which was ultimately accomplished with a cutting implement like a chisel.
Another double ax fragment, also cut at the shaft hole (MX 503, Plate 5.4),
reveals unmistakable proof of deliberate manipulation. Roughly one-third of a shaft-hole
sidewall remains and is turned outward. On the opposite side, a short stub is the remnant
of the other sidewall. Along the broken edge of this stub, there is a small, yet distinct,
rectangular groove, perhaps a cut mark from a narrow chisel. A second gap along the
break seems to indicate another cut, further confirming that this piece’s present shape was
intentionally made. Despite its fragmentary nature after being bent and cut, this double ax
piece preserved a serviceable cutting edge, meaning that the tool possibly retained a
functional purpose, perhaps that of a wedge.
A third fragmentary double ax (MX 509, Plate 5.5) was also broken on purpose.
One sidewall of the shaft-hole faces outward; this deformation is the result of bending the
opposite tool ends together, probably by using a hammer. A fourth double ax half (MX
271

524) has shaft-hole sidewalls of different lengths, with one side being a mere stub, similar
to the sidewall of fragment MX 503 (Plate 5.6). Normally, damage to a double ax occurs
at the middle of the shaft-hole, where the metal is the least thick. Thus, it is improbable
that a sidewall was naturally broken at its stub. Not coincidently, the broken implement
edges of MX 524 are jagged, likely a result of having been cut.
Fragment MX 541 in the Orchomenos hoard represents the tip of an ax blade
(Plate 5.7). The broken end is jagged, and these grooves could be traces of cutting. A
series of small oval-like indentions appear on either side of the fragment’s surface near
the break point. Are these markings a sign that the object was intentionally cut? Perhaps
the grooves are the result of strikes made by another tool. Despite the uncertainty of the
indentions, each mark appears near the blade’s broken edge. This occurrence indicates
that the depressions played a role, albeit an unclear one, in breaking the blade tip from the
rest of the tool. Despite its imperfect condition, the implement could have been re-used as
a hand-held razor or blade.
The warped tip of a blade fragment (MX 515; Plate 5.8) constitutes one-third of a
broad chisel. The broken end is smooth on one of its edges, perhaps from being severed
by a saw-like implement. The bowed blade tip and the nature of its broken edge suggest
that numerous efforts were undertaken to remove this section from the original tool.
Another fragmentary chisel tip from the Orchomenos hoard (MX 516; Plate 5.9) provides
evidence for intentional tool modification. There are faint rectangular depressions on the
chisel’s surface near its severed edge. These marks were probably made by some other
tool that repeatedly struck the chisel in attempts to crack it apart. The broken edge is
272

jagged with some grooves, conceivably made by a cutting tool. The object’s modification
was undoubtedly calculated, though the purpose of the altered tool is uncertain.
A similar Orchomenos chisel fragment (MX 517; Plate 5.10) preserves its blade
tip. A consistently smooth surface at the broken end suggests modification, possibly the
work of a saw. Comparable breaks are noticed on other chisel remains from the hoard
(Plate 5.11a-d). These four fragments are similar in their size, form and absence of a tip.
These repetitive chisel pieces have distinct broken edges, probably from being cut (see
details photographs in Plates 5.12–5.15). At least two of these chisel fragments have
irregular grooves on their broken edges, being in all likelihood tool marks.
The Orchomenos hoard pieces discussed above verify that metal items were
manipulated, but this was not restricted to tools. A fragment of a metal vessel was
changed into an arrowhead-like item, with a sharp, triangular point serving as its tip
(Plate 5.16). One side of the object has a distinct edge between two partial rivet holes;
this break is rugged, possibly reflecting cut marks. Further proof of the vessel’s
modification is evident by a bumpy surface (designated in the photograph by an arrow),
which was beaten by an implement when breaking apart the original vessel. This metal
fragment seems to have been deliberately made so, perhaps for serving a specific purpose
as a pointed object. At the very least, the object draws attention to the functionality of
fragmentary metal pieces.
Complete and broken tools in foundry hoards and other signs of deliberate object
manipulation
The combination of well-preserved and fragmentary implements in foundry
hoards was not arbitrary. The assortment of Orchomenos objects reveals that broken tools
273

were consciously formed and likely reused; this observation is detectable in other hoards
as well. The value of stockpiled tools, regardless of their preservation, is thus
underappreciated. The functional worth of all hoarded implements demonstrates, in part,
the multi-dimensional makeup and intricacy of metal assemblages.
Two foundry hoards from Mycenae warrant discussion here. The Mycenae Poros
Wall collection is envisioned as a foundry hoard because of its numerous oxhide ingot
fragments and several misshaped objects (three knives, a sword, not shown, and a broad
chisel—all bent to some degree; Plate 5.17). 635 The whole implements (two chisels, one
drill, a small hammer and a double ax) were undeniably functional, despite their physical
association with the scrap-like material. Interpretations of the hoard thus must account for
the coexistence of well-preserved and damaged objects. Categorizing the Mycenae
Tsountas hoard as belonging to a foundry is also dubious, at least with regard to its series
of implements showing minor signs of wear (Plate 5.18). 636
Of nine double axes, only
one is cracked along its shaft-hole sidewall. The others are whole but not pristine, having
been utilized prior to their deposition. The collection of broad chisels from this hoard
consisted of a few broken pieces and whole implements, many of which were worn down
from use. Some of these broad chisels display annealing marks on their tips, indicating
that the blade edges were repaired or reformed at one time (Plate 5.18).
Most implements from the Athens Acropolis hoard are whole, but a few examples
have notable damage (Plate 5.19).
637
Two halves of a double ax, each from a different
object, denote intentional manipulation, as the remnant shaft-hole walls are slightly bent
635
Poros wall hoard references: Wace 1953, Stubbings 1954, Catling 1964, 295-296; Spyropoulos 1972,
46-51.
636
Tsountas hoard references: Catling 1964, 294-295; Spyropoulos 1972, 8-45.
637
Athens Acropolis hoard references: Catling 1964, 296; Spyropoulos 1972, 63-78.
274

(Plates 5.19; 5.20a, b). The collective series of wood- and stone-working tools from this
hoard is hardly devoid of functionality, and as such, the hoarded Athenian tools are poor
candidates for the furnace. The ax fragments from the Athenian hoard resemble a double
ax from the Kalydon cache (Plate 5.21), which is broken at the shaft hole and sharp at the
blade edge. 638
The stub of one shaft-hole side bends slightly backwards. This bowed
sidewall is atypical and is the result of a conscious alteration of the tool. The blade
fragment could have been utilized secondarily as a wedge.
Both deficient and intact tools make up the repertoire of the Anthedon hoard
639
(Plate 5.22). Knives—14 complete and fragmentary examples—are the prevalent
implement of the assemblage. 640 Intentional manipulation is plausible for the two double
ax halves from Anthedon, for they bear jagged marks on their broken sidewalls,
particularly clear on one double ax (NM 18180; Plate 5.23). The recently discovered
Thebes Arsenal hoard consisted of small pieces of scrap, a few objects partially melted
together, and a mixture of complete and fragmentary implements. 641
Nearly all of these
tools were still serviceable, even the broken ones, making them unlikely to be sent to the
furnace despite the scrap with which they were found.
named.
Of all the Mediterranean hoards, the Enkomi Foundry cache seems most aptly
642
Signs of metallurgical activity included a plethora of smith tools, ingot
fragments, scrap metal, and objects partially melted together. Yet this metalworking
material should not affect the functional interpretation of the fragmentary (narrow chisels,
638
Kalydon hoard references: Mastrokostas 1965, 343-344; Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988.
639
Anthedon hoard references: Rolfe 1890; Catling 1964, 296-297; Spyropoulos 1972, 57-62.
640
For a photograph of the Anthedon knives with the entire hoard, see Spyropoulos 1972, plate 17.
641
For the Thebes Arsenal hoard: see comments in footnote 572.
642
For Enkomi Foundry hoard references: Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
275

saws, ax-adzes, a broad chisel, double hammer) and complete (double ax, knives,
sledgehammer) carpentry/masonry and utilitarian implements. 643
Tool modification in the
hoard is recognized with the double hammer, which in all likelihood was previously a
double adze (Plate 5.24). The shape of both hammer heads is uncharacteristically
rectangular, and the end widths (3.6 and 4 cm) are comparable to the breadths of several
Cypriot double adze blades. The adaptation of this tool further demonstrates the
intentional manipulation and secondary usage of hoarded items.
The Brunnen 212 hoard from Enkomi yielded a plethora of metal-working
remains including balance pans, weights, ingot fragments, and more than three kilograms
644
of scrap metal. Yet both broken and whole tools coexist within the hoard. Partial
implements consist of an unidentified tool with a folded socket, two hammer-adzes, and
two chisel (or ax) fragments. The adze-hammers were modified from a double adze and
an ax-adze, emphasizing the adaptability of the double-sided implements (Plate 4.40). A
similar hammer-adze, or more accurately a truncated ax-adze, surfaced in Enkomi’s
Trésor de Bronzes (Plates 4.38-9). 645
The metallurgical traits of the Brunnen 212 hoard
should not be overlooked or discounted, but surely the hoard’s tools were not intended to
be scrap, judging by the modifications made in creating the hammer-adzes.
The Enkomi Gunnis hoard contained indisputable evidence for metalworking: a
metal mold for a plowshare, a charcoal shovel, and scrap in the form of unusable (?)
broken picks.
646
All wood- and stone-working tools, however, were well preserved and
643
For photographs of some of these objects, see the hoard listing in Catling 1964, 278-281.
644
For Brunnen 212 references: Lagarce, 1971; Hundt 1971; Matthäus 1985, 363ff; Matthäus and
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
645
For Trésor de Bronzes references: Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87.
646
For Gunnis hoard references: Catling 1964, 281-282; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174.
276

ear little sign of being furnace-bound objects. 647
One double adze (L39) has a thin,
distorted blade end (made so by annealing) thus illustrating how tools were repaired and
reused (Plate 5.25). A second Gunnis double adze (L 37) is disproportional, with one end
noticeably longer than the other; the tool also probably incurred damage from annealing
(Plate 5.26). Moreover, the implement has an unusual use-wear pattern that bespeaks of a
secondary, non-traditional operation. A semi-circular series of incisions appear on one
shaft-hole sidewall (Plate 5.27). This sequence of marks resulted from a rotating
operation, but such a motion is inconsistent with normal adze usage. The patterned marks
imply that the tool was held horizontally and rotated for an unspecified purpose, maybe
as a crowbar or lever. These conspicuous markings signify that this double adze was
multi-functional, illustrating the tool’s adaptability and heightened value.
The Enkomi Stylianou hoard yielded a cone-shaped bronze object that is the pour
648
cup of a casting operation. Despite this obvious link to metallurgical activity, the
contents of the entire assemblage were not necessarily raw material for a bronze smith.
The majority of Stylianou tools are intact, including the hoard’s only wood- and stone-
working implements: three flat axes. 649
The array of other implements in the cache
(whole plowshares, sickles, picks, a shovel, a spatula, and a shepherd’s crook) was also
serviceable – not scrap material.
The Mathiati hoard is similar to other metal foundry hoards, but reanalysis of the
assemblage is difficult since many objects from the cache are now missing.
647
An ax-adze in the hoard has a crack on one sidewall, but it is uncertain whether this damage resulted
from post-excavation activity or if the tool was already damaged prior to deposition.
648
Catling (1964, 285-86) suggests that the bronze pour cup came from a two piece mould; an alternative
explanation is that the cup was formed during the lost wax casting procedure.
649
For Stylianou hoard references: Catling 1964, 285; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174.
650
For Mathiati hoard references: Catling 1964, 282, figure 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-
Matthäus 1986, 176.
650
Numerous
277

oxhide ingot fragments and metallurgical objects (a metal mold for a pruning hook, a
plowshare casting, and a broken sledgehammer) imply that a smith assembled the hoard.
Intact agricultural and carpentry/masonry tools, however, were incorporated into the
assemblage. These items were functional and not raw materials for a smith. Even
fragmentary tools in the hoard like the double adze, double ax, and ax-adze remained
valuable for basic utilitarian needs. 651
At least one cutting edge of each fragmentary tool
was retained, making each piece somewhat useful. The extremely short hammer-adze
was, in all likelihood, transformed from an ax-adze, providing even more evidence of tool
modification and secondary usage.
***
Although intentional tool manipulation is evident in several hoards, the purpose of
these transformations is uncertain and probably multifaceted. Were tools purposely
divided into manageable pieces for a furnace? Under that scenario, there should be
corresponding broken tool parts within hoards, but this is not the case. The practice of
altering tools is most noticeable in the Orchomenos hoard and with the Cypriot hammer-
adzes in the Enkomi Brunnen 212, Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes, and Mathiati hoards.
Intact serviceable implements were habitually mixed with fragmentary items in metal
assemblages. Any tool fragment that retained a cutting edge plausibly had a secondary
practical purpose. Recognizing the importance of hoarded implements, regardless of their
level of preservation, may help reshape our understanding of the caches. Tools were
valued for their functionality by craftspersons and played a significant role in the
formation of a hoard; this point has been previously underappreciated.
651 For photographs of these objects, see Catling 1964 plates 52-53.
278

IV.E: Tool kits as an organizing agent in the formation of a metal hoard
The variety of implements and the recurrence of tools from assemblage to
assemblage indicate that tool sets were stockpiled on a regular basis. When the
interpretation of hoard compositions is oversimplified, tool kits are not recognized.
Previous understandings of hoarding have asserted that tools were stockpiled with strictly
market-based objectives, i.e. for their metallurgical value alone without any consideration
for the functional role they might play in a set. 652
It is asserted here that hoard
implements retained functional worth and that metal assemblages were formed for a
multitude of reasons.
The second millennium hoards from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean
represent collections of objects that were stored away (at least for the caches that were
utilitarian in nature). Hoards were probably formed over time and not necessarily through
a single act of deposition, though that was also plausible. The formation of a hoard while
in storage would have been through gradual accumulation, whereby the hoard owner
added to—or took from—the assemblage at any time. The wide-ranging assortment of
metal items in hoards may be accounted for under this scenario. Tool kits were stockpiled
in the metal assemblages, and were a primary reason for the prominence of implements in
hoards. One must keep in mind, however, that other criteria were also at play.
Incidences of craft-related tool kits within Mediterranean hoards are presented
below. In the Aegean, a standard tool set is represented by double axes, knives and two
distinct chisel forms: broad and narrow. The repetition of these chisel pairs, indicative of
subtypes, is a strong indicator of tool kits. Cypriot assemblages are characterized by a
wider selection of wood- and stone-working implements and greater quantities of
652 Catling 1964; Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988.
279

metallurgical and agricultural tools. The assortment of carpentry/masonry tools in
Cypriot caches suggests that kits were also present. The importance of tool sets, their
functional worth, and their relation to craftspersons has not been fully recognized. Tool
kits unequivocally are one defining trait of LBA hoards, and a cursory overview of
caches from Crete, the Greek mainland, and eastern Mediterranean substantiates this
observation.
Tool kits in Cretan hoards (See Fig. 5.1 and Appendix 3): Two Protopalatial
hoards from Quartier Mu (Mallia) constitute credible carpenter/mason tool kits. The first,
from Building A (room I9), consisted of an ax-adze, a saw, a drill, and a knife. The
second, from Building B (room IV4), contained a double ax, a saw, a socketed adze, and
a mortise chisel. Poursat recognized both hoards as carpenter tool kits. 653
The variety of
utensils in these small groupings is the primary indication that they constitute a repertoire
of tools used by a craftsperson.
Five metal assemblages from Neopalatial Crete comprise plausible tool kits: two
from Knossos and three from Mochlos. The Knossos South House hoard contained ten
objects, all tools with several cases of repetition: three saws, two double axes, two knives,
654
an ax-hammer, and what appear to be two tubular drills. The Knossos Northwest hoard
included five double adzes, three double axes, and a long chisel. 655
Collectively the tools
from this hoard form a coherent set, although the high quantity of double adzes is unusual
and not attested elsewhere.
653
Poursat 1985.
654
Evans 1928, 629-630. I recognize two hollow metal cylinders as tubular drills.
655
Evans 1928, 627-629.
280

An implement-rich cache from Mochlos’ House C.3 (Room 2.2) was interpreted
as that of a metal merchant. 656 Two tongs and two other tools believed to be ingot
breakers also provide an aspect of metalworking to the hoard. 657
Nine double axes, eight
knives, six broad chisels, one wedge-like chisel (probably a “cold chisel”), and one
double adze also comprise part of the assemblage. The abundance of these tools hint at a
structured grouping, and the repetition of certain implements may imply several smaller
tool sets.
A comparable array of hoarded tools was recovered from the northeast corner of
Mochlos’ House C.3. More than twelve kilograms of oxhide ingot fragments and a pair
of tongs are touted as signs of a foundry hoard. Despite the large amount of raw copper,
the hoard’s tools were not scrap. Two double axes, two broad chisels (of different sizes),
two knives, a broken saw, a rasp, a “ceremonial” double ax fragment, and an awl serve as
658
a plausible tool kit. The choice of double axes, chisels and knives replicates a tool set
characteristic of mainland hoards. From the Mochlos House C.7 hoard, two double axes
and two knives may constitute a partial implement kit. Previously, this cache was
ascribed a foundry purpose because of two oxhide ingot fragments. 659
Tool kits in Greek mainland hoards (See Fig. 5.2; Appendix 3): Implement sets
are identifiable within the LH metal assemblages, and double axes, chisels (normally two
distinct sizes) and knives are the tools incorporated most often. There are at least eleven
different mainland hoards from the 13 th through 12 th -century that contain potential craft
sets, including the Mylonas (Mycenae), Poros Wall (Mycenae), Schliemann (Mycenae),
656 Soles 2008, 148-151.
657 Soles 2008, 148-151.
658 Soles and Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147.
659 Soles and Davaras 1996, 201; Soles 2008, 147.
281

Tsountas (Mycenae), Kalydon-Psorolithi, Anthedon, Thebes Arsenal, Orchomenos,
Athens Acropolis, Kierion-Karditsa, and Salamis assemblages.
Of the four Mycenae caches, the Mylonas and Poros Wall examples each have
distinct tool kits, while the Schliemann and Tsountas hoards produced reduced versions
of the standard set. The tools common to the Mylonas and Poros Wall hoards were
double axes, chisels and knives. The hoarded Mylonas tools are a well-defined collection,
enviable in its diversity as a functional craft kit: four double axes, one broad chisel, one
narrow chisel, two knives, and two awls (Plate 5.28). 660 The sizes of the knives, awls, and
double axes vary slightly, while greater disparities are seen among the chisel forms. 661
The Poros Wall hoard contained numerous oxhide ingot fragments and broken or
distorted objects, leading to its interpretation as a foundry assemblage. 662
Yet the hoard’s
utensils imply a coherent kit: one double ax, one broad chisel, three narrow chisels (of
different sizes), one drill, three bent knives and one small hammer (Plate 5.17). The broad
chisel is malformed, but it could have been functional on some level. A small broken tip,
devoid of any utilitarian capability, is all that remains of one narrow chisel (not pictured).
The bent and deformed knives were also unusable, but the other tools are intact and
improbable as metallic scrap.
The tools from the Schliemann and Tsountas hoards are notably different from the
other Mycenae assemblages. The Schliemann hoard yielded four double axes and five
knives, collectively representing nearly half of that assemblage.
663
Other tools like chisels
are absent, meaning that the Schliemann items constituted a partial tool kit. The Tsountas
660 Mylonas 1962, 406-408.
661 The cutting width of the four double axes varies slightly between 5.35 and 6.15 cm while the object
length falls within the range of 19.7 and 21.6 cm.
662 Wace 1953; Stubbings 1954.
663 Schliemann 1878, 74-75; 111; Calder and Traill 1986, 149, 206 n. 36.
282

hoard is overwhelmingly made up of implements; its carpentry/masonry tools numbered
9 double axes, 13 knives, 14 broad chisels, 6 narrow chisels and 9 awls (Plate 5.18). 664
This collection has been interpreted as a merchant assemblage, yet the strong preference
for certain objects may reflect a series of tool kits. There are slight variations in the
length and cutting widths of the chisels and double axes, which may also signify a craft
set. The predilection for groups of double axes, chisels and knives is attested in other LH
hoards, supporting the notion that the Tsountas tools were envisioned either as a large kit
with multiple copies of the same tools, or a series of smaller, standardized craft sets.
Despite its many fragmentary items, the Orchomenos hoard was formed in part by
a kit remarkable in its range of complete tools: one double ax, one broad chisel, one
narrow chisel, one drill and one knife (Plate 5.29). These five distinct items are the only
intact implements from the hoard, though fragmentary examples of each type also came
to light.
Implements are the chief object within the Kalydon-Psorolithi hoard from Aitolia.
Included are two double axes, two broad chisels, one knife, and six sickles that closely
resemble knives (Plate 5.2). The unbroken, broad chisels differ only minimally in size
(13.1 versus 14.8 cm in length; 4.1 versus 4.8 cm in cutting width) thus lacking the
typical chisel diversity found in most Aegean hoards. Notwithstanding the absence of
narrow chisels, the customary stock of Aegean tools is present in the Kalydon hoard.
665
This excellent preservation and representative assortment of tools make a
strong case for a deliberately compiled kit. Evidently, the Orchomenos hoard owner
acquired at least one wood- and stone-working tool kit and the fragmentary remains of
others.
664 Catling 1964, 294; Spyropoulos 1972, 8-45.
665 Spyropoulos 1970.
283

Carpentry or masonry utensils represent more than two-thirds of the Athens
Acropolis hoard. 666
Thirteen double axes (whole and incomplete), seven broad chisels,
one narrow chisel, one knife, one double hammer or ax-hammer, and one file make up
what could reasonably be called a kit. Aside from four half-pieces from different double
axes, these hoarded implements are intact, albeit slightly damaged (Plate 5.19, only
showing two of the four fragmented pieces). The disproportionate number of double axes
gives the impression of haphazard stockpiling, yet all components of a typical mainland
tool set are found in this group. This prospective tool kit further demonstrates that
complete and broken tools jointly represent the range of utensils used by a craftsperson.
The stock of implements from Anthedon consists of four double axes (two
complete and two fragmentary), one narrow chisel, one trunnion/lugged adze (or ax), at
least two complete knives, and one awl (Plate 5.22).
The recently excavated metal hoard found near the Arsenal in Thebes offers an
additional illustration of a purposefully-organized implement group.
667
This group of utensils constitutes
a wood- and stone-working tool kit. The lengths of the intact double axes vary
considerably, implying slightly different requirements within the same basic craft. The
presence of double axes, chisels and knives together is not coincidental. The trunnion/
lugged adze may have been a substitute for a broad chisel, thereby providing this stock
with the usual blend of narrow and wide chisel types.
666 Catling 1964, 296; Spyropoulos 1972, 63-78, 92-97, 202-203.
667 See Spyropoulos 1972, plate 17 for a published photograph of the entire hoard.
668 This Thebes hoard was found in 2006; see comments under footnote 572.
668
A customary LH
tool kit with three double axes (one broken), two broad chisels (one fragmentary), a
narrow chisel, and three knives (one intentionally bent) was recovered with several other
metal objects. Different double ax sizes are perceptible, which must have corresponded to
284

different wood- or stone-working tasks. The pairing of broad and narrow chisels
epitomizes the Greek hoards, and its occurrence at Thebes further exemplifies the
conscious arrangement of hoarded implements.
Two metal hoards from the LH IIIC period may contain partial implement sets.
The Kierion-Karditsa cache had two double axes and one broad chisel, missing only a
knife in what would otherwise be a full set. 669 A hoard from Salamis-Kanakia only
contained a narrow and a broad chisel, but a knife was found nearby. 670 The consumption
of two chisel forms at Salamis adheres to a long-held Aegean tradition of purposefully
collecting multiple subtypes of a tool. Both hoards date to the 12 th century, when certain
metal objects are thought to have been in short supply; perhaps it was not possible to
possess a complete craft kit at that time. 671
Cypriot hoard tool kits (Fig. 5.3; Appendix 3): The customary utensils in Aegean
hoards (e.g. double axes, chisels, and knives) are not as common in the eastern
Mediterranean. Characterized by greater diversity than the Aegean examples, Cypriot
assemblages contained deliberate tool kits, which are discernible in the following hoards:
the Pera bronzes, Makarska, Sinda, Mathiati, Brunnen 212 (Enkomi), Trésor de Bronzes
(Enkomi), Gunnis (Enkomi) and Foundry (Enkomi).
It is unclear whether the MC III–LC I Pera bronzes represent an authentic hoard
or looted grave goods compiled together by an antiquities dealer.
669
Kilian 1975, 13, 18, plate 95b.
670
Lolos 2003, 83-93.
671
See Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988 with references for a discussion.
672
Åström 1977-1978.
672
Despite the absence
of any contextual information (other than coming from Pera), the wide variety of the Pera
implements cannot be overlooked, as this element defines a tool kit. The many wood- or
285

stone-working tools included sixteen flat axes, two shaft-hole axes, one saw, one
socketed chisel, five narrow chisels, and one drill. Moreover, thirty-one knives and eight
awls make up the utilitarian implements. The collection of these tool types parallels the
selection in other kits, though the quantity of the Pera implements is significantly greater
than other hoards.
The Makarska hoard, tentatively dated to the MC II–III period, is as problematic
as the Pera bronzes. The objects are either from Makarska, Croatia or from the modern
Cypriot village, Makrasyka, in the Mesaoria valley. Although the hoard is traditionally
attributed to Croatia, Catling asserted that Makarska was a misspelling of the Cypriot
Makrasyka. 673
The objects indeed resemble Cypriot prototypes, lending credence to
Catling’s hypothesis, even though the general lack of contextual details regarding the
assemblage is troublesome. Despite the multiple problems presented by this metal
collection, the owner’s preference for tools is evident. Two single/flat axes, two shaft-
hole axes (one bent and deformed), two socketed chisels (of different lengths) and one
socketed hammer comprise seven of the nine hoard objects. The diversified tool types
and repetition in the assemblage qualifies it as a tool kit.
The Mathiati hoard produced 28 ingot fragments and other bits of scrap metal,
thus conveying the impression of a foundry assemblage. Yet the published photograph in
Catling’s 1964 monograph depicts a probable wood- and stone-working kit of eleven
implements, the whereabouts of which are currently unknown (Plate 5.30).
674
This set
consisted of two double axes, three double adzes, one ax-adze, one hammer-adze, three
673 Vagnetti 1971, 214-216; Åström 1977-1978, 40.
674 Catling 1964, pate 52. These objects could not be located in the Nicosia Museum during my visits in
April and October 2008. Furthermore, there was no record within the museum of the present location of
these implements.
286

flat axes, and one narrow chisel. Of this collection, only one double ax, two double adzes,
the flat axes, and the narrow chisel are entirely preserved. A fragmentary double ax has a
wider blade than the complete version, meaning that there were two different double ax
forms in the same hoard. Likewise, two well-preserved double adzes vary significantly in
size. The hammer-adze, judging from the photograph, was originally an ax-adze before it
was modified. The fragmentary double adze is broken near its shaft hole on one side,
raising the possibility that it, too, was altered and used as a hammer-adze. 675 The range of
broken and intact Mathiati tools supports the assertion that a full kit was formed by a
conscious selection of tools—both complete and fragmentary. 676
There is plenty of evidence for metalworking within the Brunnen 212 hoard (e.g.
scales, weights, ingot fragments, lots of scrap, etc), but the few carpentry/masonry
implements from the cache are unlikely to have served any metallurgical purpose. Two
modified hammer-adzes, one drill, and two chisel (or ax) fragments were found in the
assemblage.
The Sinda bronze hoard lacked wood- and stone-working tools but contained
those of a metal smith. The assembly of a charcoal shovel, a pair of tongs, a socketed
spatula, and a socketed pick may constitute the tool kit of a smith. Although metallurgical
implements were occasionally stockpiled, particularly on Cyprus, it is striking and highly
unusual that every tool within the Sinda hoard was for metalworking. These utensils
epitomize the fuller range of tools found within Cypriot caches, especially when
compared to Aegean contexts.
677
The hammer-adzes are of different shapes, adapted from two kinds of
675 The modification of a Mathiati double adze into a hammer-adze has a parallel in the Brunnen 212 hoard.
676 Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.46; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176.
677 The chisel (or ax) fragments are not catalogued by Lagarce 1971, but two fragmentary chisels (or axes)
are illustrated in Lagarce 1971, 424 figure 25.a, top left.
287

tools. One has a wide, deformed hammer end, likely formed by altering a double adze
(Plate 4.40). The other hammer-adze resembles a manipulated ax-adze, similar to
examples from the Trésor de Bronzes and Mathiati hoard. 678
The Brunnen 212 hammer-
adzes confirm the ability of craftspersons to alter and adapt tools for new purposes. The
fact that two different tools were deliberately re-shaped and gathered into the same cache
highlights their functional value and the likelihood that they were components of a set.
The wood- and stone-working utensils from the Enkomi Foundry hoard are
mostly fragmentary and only form a minor portion of the hoard. Various tool types,
however, indicate the prospect of a limited implement set among a miscellaneous
sampling of metal objects (Plate. 5.31). Conceivable as a tool kit, the hoard’s
carpentry/masonry implements include one complete double ax, one broken trunnion/
lugged ax fragment, two ax-adze fragments, one section of a narrow chisel, two saw
pieces, two knives, and one double hammer (which, in all likelihood, was a double adze
before it was converted into a hammer). The broken ax-adzes are of dissimilar sizes, and
only the ax side of each remains. The preservation of two different ax ends, each lacking
its adze counterpart, suggests that they were purposefully included in the hoard. Even in
their broken state, the ax-adzes retained some functionality; their ends could be used in a
wedge-like fashion. Despite the scrap-like nature of several utensils, the mixture of these
accumulated carpentry/masonry implements is analogous to other Cypriot hoards. A
series of metallurgical implements (one sledgehammer, one pair of tongs, three charcoal
shovels, and two furnace spatula) is perhaps the kit of a smith (akin to the Sinda hoard).
Regardless of the metalworking evidence (smith tools, oxhide ingot pieces, and scrap
678 For an illustration of the ax-adze turned hammer-adze, see Lagarce 1971, figure 17.4 and figure 21a, b.
288

metal) within the Foundry hoard, the intact and broken carpentry/masonry tools were not
materials to be recycled.
The Enkomi Gunnis hoard is formed entirely by metallurgical, agricultural and
carpentry/masonry implements. One-third of the assemblage is represented by the last
category, specifically four double-adzes, one ax-adze and one flat ax. 679
These six
implements bear distinct traces of usage and damage, yet they are all complete (e.g.
Plates 5.25-7). As there is no prototype for a standardized Cypriot carpentry/masonry tool
kit, the collection in the Gunnis hoard may very well represent an example of one.
The wood- and stone-working tools from the Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes
encompass just under one-third of the hoard. The careful selection of implements makes
this example one of the strongest for arguing that hoard components were chosen and
arranged with a structural principle in mind. The carpentry/masonry tools from the hoard
are one double adze, one hammer-adze, one ax-adze, three drills, one flat adze, one broad
(cold?) chisel/wedge, and one narrow (mortise) chisel (Plate 5.32).
680
These tools are all
whole, and the hoard yielded only one fragmentary implement: a knife broken at its mid-
section. There are signs of use on several objects, and it is conceivable that the hammer-
adze was modified from an ax-adze. The hammer-adze in fact bears resemblance to the
intact ax-adze from the same hoard (Plates 5.32; 4.39). On the manipulated tool, the side
that was formerly an ax end was truncated to create a hammer head, which is slightly
jagged after being severed. The deliberate arrangement of the set is evident from the fact
that numerous tool types are represented with a single copy (similar to the Orchomenos
679 The ax-adze has a crack on one side wall, but it is uncertain whether this damage resulted from postexcavation
activity or the tool was damaged when deposited in the hoard. The published photographs and
drawings fail to indicate this crack.
680 The broad chisel/wedge, two drills and knife are not picture in my photograph. For the publication
drawings of these tools, see Schaeffer 1952, 40 -2, figure 1 and 3.
289

tool kit). Diversity is a hallmark of a craftsperson’s tool kit, whereby different
implements for similar jobs are needed. Such variation is detectable with the adzes
(double adze, hammer-adze, ax-adze, flat adze) and chisels (wide versus narrow). The
purpose of the other hoard objects is uncertain, but this well-defined set of tools is
unquestionably that of a carpenter or mason.
The Trésor de Bronzes carpentry/masonry tools are the best case for a Cypriot
craft-related implement set, yet several other hoards from the island also yielded practical
tool groupings. Also, two Cypriot metal smith kits are known from the Sinda and Enkomi
Foundry hoards. Generally, Cypriot hoard tools are more diverse than tools from other
regions, but the consistency of the Aegean sets is not found on Cyprus. The lack of strict
homogeneity in Cypriot hoards is accounted for by the island’s penchant for hoarding
metallurgical and agricultural tools in addition to carpentry/masonry types.
Potential tool kits from hoards in other regions (Fig. 5.4): Ugarit’s Priest House
hoard, dated to the 14 th century, is an indisputable votive assemblage. 681
Located under
the threshold of the high priest’s house, the hoard served as a foundation deposit; its
votive nature and dedication to the high priest is confirmed by an Ugaritic inscription on
the surface of several of the objects. Despite its ceremonial nature, this Ugaritic
composite of metals recalls most utilitarian hoards, for the implements (primarily
carpentry/masonry types) make up about two-thirds of the assemblage. Twenty-seven flat
axes, nine socketed adzes, three chisels and two drills form the assortment of wood- and
stone-working tools. It is unclear why these specific objects were dedicated to the high
priest, but the assemblage is unlikely to have been gathered haphazardly. The compilation
of flat axes, socketed adzes, chisels and drills may reflect a tool kit or two of Ugaritic
681 Schaeffer 1956, 251-275.
290

craftspersons, and maybe even the kinds of tools that were necessary to construct the
house of the high priest. This hoard reveals that tool kits may be placed in unlikely
contexts, such as dedicatory, non-utilitarian assemblages.
The Şarköy hoard from northwestern Turkey (İğdebağları village, north of the Sea
of Marmara) dates to the 12 th –11 th century BC and is principally composed of sickles (45
examples). 682
682 Harmankaya 1995.
A small collection of wood- and stone-working tools from the Şarköy
cache may reflect a simple carpentry/masonry tool kit: three double axes, two
trunnion/lugged axes and one wedge-like device. Whether or not these objects were a
craftsperson’s tool grouping, the selection of different implements seems meaningful.
***
Given the preceding summary, the preference for implements—particularly those
needed by carpenters and masons—in hoards is indisputable. The traditional view that
tools in hoards are scrap metal is doubted here because of recurring patterns in
stockpiling. Standardized craftsperson kits are frequently distinguishable in Aegean
assemblages. The diversity of implement types and the existence of subtypes within
hoards indicate deliberate organization. Assemblages with a single example of several
different tool types (e.g. the Orchomenos hoard and Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes) are
instantly recognizable as implement sets. Evidently, purposefully-arranged tool groupings
were one, but not the only, structural agent in compiling a stock of metal. This conclusion
is at variance with the normal interpretation of hoards belonging either to a founder or a
merchant.
291

V. The metal objects from shipwrecks and detectable tool kits
The collection of metal objects from the LBA shipwrecks recalls the metal hoards
discussed above; this likeness is particularly obvious in the selection of tools from both
contexts. 683 Three shipwrecks from the 14 th (Uluburun) and the 13 th (Gelidonya and Cape
Iria) centuries BC have been excavated in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
Seventeen oxhide copper ingots found off the coast of Kyme, Euboea, and a single ingot
found underwater near Antalya led Demakopoulou to hypothesize that two other
unexcavated shipwrecks, dating to the 16 th –15 th century BC, also exist. 684 The Uluburun
and Gelidonya wrecks, both found off the Lycian coast, are well known for their cargo
filled with raw metals (copper and tin). Both vessels produced notable quantities of other
metallic objects, principally implements. From the Gelidonya wreck, Bass cataloged
more than 250 bronze objects; intact and fragmentary tools (smith, agricultural, utilitarian
and wood- and stone-working) constitute 177 of those items. 685 Preliminary Uluburun
publications have reported the prominence of implements from that vessel as well, but
many utensils await complete conservation and final publication. 686 Initial excavation
reports have mentioned 65+ total metal implements from Uluburun. 687
Despite the partial
nature of the current Uluburun data, the published tools represent a larger share of
utensils than what is found in most hoards. The Point Iria shipwreck was found off the
north coast of the Argolid Gulf and differs greatly from the other wrecks. While the
amount of raw copper and bronze objects on the eastern Mediterranean ships is
683
Catling (1964, 278) noted the similarities between land hoards and the Gelidonya metal tools.
684
Demakopoulou 1999, 37.
685
Bass 1967, 84-117; Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly1988, 242, Table 2.
686
Pulak 1988, 19 reports “No less than a dozen long and slender bronze tools of square and circular
sections have been found, most still covered by encrustation.” C. Pulak, through personal communication,
informed me about the current state of the Uluburun tools.
687
Bass 1986; Pulak 1988; Bass et al. 1989; Pulak 1992; Pulak 1993; Pulak 1994; Yalçin, Pulak, and Slotta
2005.
292

staggering, the Point Iria site failed to produce a single metal artifact. 688 Despite careful,
systematic excavation, only ballast stones, stone anchors, and Cypriot, Cretan and
Mycenaean ceramics were recovered. 689
Interpreting shipwreck tools is a formidable task because of the wide range of
identities they may have had: personal possessions of individuals on board, commodities
for exchange, deck tools for the ship’s upkeep, or merely scrap metal. Many whole
bronze tools (chisels, razor, punch, spatula, needle and socketed tool) were found
together in the Gelidonya cabin area, which led Bass to propose, “the strong possibility
that some of these unbroken pieces were personal possessions of the crew and were not
690
cargo; most could have been used on board a ship.”
Catling notes that the Gelidonya assemblage is closely reminiscent of Cypriot
land-hoards, yet this claim has not been scrutinized.
The broken implements from
Gelidonya, on the other hand, are envisaged as scrap metal for recycling and recasting.
The evaluation of the shipwreck tools requires a comparison between the Uluburun and
Gelidonya evidence, which is outlined below. Moreover, these consumption patterns
must be evaluated against the general hoarding practices in the LBA.
688
Agouridis 1999, 30.
689
Vichos 1999, 83, 86.
690
Bass 1967, 117.
691
Catling 1986, 68.
691
Similarities in tools from
shipwrecks and hoards from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean suggest that
functional tool kits were on board the vessels. In spite of the incomplete Uluburun data
and the century separating the shipwrecks, the implements from both ships evince
distinctive commonalities. The breakdown of each ship’s tools by functional category is
listed below (Table 5.4).
293

Tool or object Uluburun (total 65+) Cape Gelidonya (total 174+)
Wood- and stoneworking
tools
At least 26, probably 38+ total 34 total
Double axes 2 (KW:213) 4 (B101-104)
Single, flat adzes 3 single, necked adzes (KW:141,
576, 4399)
15 (B106, 111-124)
Single, flat ax - 1 (B105)
Ax-adzes - 4 (B125-128)
Shaft-hole ax 1 (KW:3176) -
Lugged/trunnion ax or adze 1 trunnion/lugged adze (KW:2413); 2 trunnion/lugged adzes (B108,
2 trunnion/lugged axes (KW:218, 110);
587)
2 trunnion/lugged axes (B107, 109)
Broad chisels 3 (KW:264, 376, 423) -
Narrow chisels 3 (KW:7, 566, 706) 1 (B130)
Mortise chisels 3 (KW:276, 307, 536) 1 (B131)
Cold chisels 3 (KW:748, 3577, 3618) 1 (B129)
Other chisel 1 (KW:4560 – chisel bit) 1 socketed chisel (B132); 2 chisel
tip fragments (B133-134)
Drill 2 (KW:381, 579) -
Saw 1 (KW:3172) -
Plumb bob 1 (KW:267) -
Long slender implement 12 -
Utilitarian tools 13+ total 28+ total
Knives 3 knives (KW:800, 2896, 4452); 17 (B148-161 + three other
3 knives/daggers (KW:1, 621, examples found after the original
4517)
publication)
Razors 3 (KW:188, 344, 749) 1 (B167)
Awls/engravers At least 1, probably more 9 (B137-145)
Whetstones 3: (KW:226, 701, Gr.-Nr. L 1769) 1 (S9); 7 possible whetstones/
rubbers/ polishers (S 10-16)
Agricultural tools 8 total 102 total
Sickles 7 (KW:236) 1
Picks - 47 (complete and fragmentary)
Hoes/ plowshares 1 (KW:839) 49 (typically socketed)
Mattock - 1 (B97)
Pruning hooks - 2 (B98-99)
Shovel - 1 (B96)
Smith/metallurgical
tools
2 total 5+ total
Hammer or anvil - 1 (B135)
Tongs 1 (KW:378) -
Swage block - 1 (B136)
Hollow punch? - 1 (B146)
Spatula (crucible scraper?) - 1 (B168)
Weights Yes Yes – 60-62 stone and metal
Other tools/evidence 4 total 5 total
Fishhooks 4 -
Socketed tool - -
Unfinished castings - 5 (B219-224)
Table 5.4: Tool data from the Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks
294

The shipwreck tools are divided into categories according to function. The
quantity of wood- and stone-working and utilitarian tools is commensurate between the
wrecks, yet there are significant differences in the selection of agricultural and
metallurgical examples. There are 34 wood- and stone-working tools from Gelidonya and
at least 26 from Uluburun. The actual Uluburun number may be more than 38, since “no
less than a dozen long and slender bronze tools of square and circular sections” have not
been completely conserved or published. 692
The description of these still-encrusted
objects implies that they may be chisels or drills. Each shipwreck has an accumulation of
knives, razors, awls, and whetstones, but the exact number of Uluburun awls is not
reported. Most land hoards have considerably fewer implements than what is found on
these two shipwrecks. The largest caches have a comparably high number of
carpentry/masonry implements, including the Mycenae Tsountas hoard (51
carpentry/masonry tools), the Athens Acropolis hoard (25), the Anthedon hoard (21), the
Orchomenos hoard (28-29), and the Ugarit priest house hoard (41). The matching
preference for tools, mainly carpentry/masonry ones, in land hoards and metal collections
from shipwrecks indicates parallels between the two contexts. The high percentage of
carpentry/masonry implements in either context is explained by the presence of tool kits.
The recognizable trait of the shipwrecks’ wood- and stone-working utensils is the
degree of variation. The Uluburun tools comprise a wide range of types, including double
axes, single/flat axes, shaft-hole axes, lugged/trunnion axes and adzes, several different
chisel types, drills, a saw, and even a plumb bob (Table 5.4).
692 Pulak 1988, 19.
693 Pulak 1988, 17-19; Yalçin, Pulak, and Slotta 2005, 631.
693
The division of the
chisels into four distinct categories (broad, narrow, mortise and cold) and their equal
295

occurrence is a definite sign of a tool kit. Compared to the Gelidonya carpentry/masonry
tools, the Uluburun implements lack only single/flat axes and ax-adzes. The Gelidonya
wood- and stone-working utensils (Table 5.4) consist of double axes, single/flat adzes,
single/flat axes, ax-adzes, lugged/trunnion axes and adzes, and four chisel types (narrow,
mortise, cold and socketed). The shaft-hole ax, broad chisel, drill, saw, and plumb bob,
all represented at Uluburun, are absent from Gelidonya. The Gelidonya tools are not as
diverse as the Uluburun repertoire, yet the different Gelidonya chisel types implies a tool
set. The Gelidonya carpentry/masonry tools are a mix of complete and fragmentary
pieces, like many tool accumulations in land hoards. Notwithstanding the incomplete
implements (two double axes, fourteen single/flat adzes and two chisel tips), the
Gelidonya carpentry/masonry tools resemble the older Uluburun assemblage, indicating a
comparable tool kit on both ships.
The existence of knives, razors, awls/engravers, and whetstones on each
shipwreck suggests that other objects were also integrated into the tool kits. These
implements, particularly knives, were common in land hoards, and the surplus of
Gelidonya knives (17 examples) coincides with the quantity of knife blades in several
Aegean hoards like the Anthedon (14), Tsountas (10) and Orchomenos (10) assemblages.
Utilitarian implements were also recovered from Uluburun, though not in the same
quantities as at Gelidonya. The comparison of metal from both wrecks demonstrates that
their carpentry/masonry and utilitarian utensils were virtually identical; only a few items
existed on one ship but not the other.
The similarity of the implements on board two ships—from different centuries—
is not by coincidence; there must have been a common social practice or experience that
296

affected the collection of tools. Craft activities such as cutting (with axes, chisels, knives,
saw, or razors), paring (with adzes or chisels), boring or piercing (with drills or awls),
and preparatory work (with whetstones and a plumb bob) were all possible with the given
inventory of shipwreck tools. The functional variation of these tools signifies that there
were craft kits on board the vessels. The assortment of chisel forms echoes patterns found
in hoards, where several chisel subtypes are often evident. The semblance of tool types
from Uluburun and Gelidonya indicate that the model carpenter/mason’s kit changed
minimally during the course of the LBA. The commonality of the shipwreck tool sets is
bolstered by parallels with land hoards, which is explored in greater detail below.
Four Gelidonya and two Uluburun double axes bring to mind the tendencies of
land hoards, for that tool form was frequently selected in Cretan and mainland caches but
rarely in Cyprus. 694 Consequently, the Gelidonya and Uluburun double axes coincide
with components of Aegean tool kits. In discussing the Uluburun double axes, Pulak
recognized the dominance of the Aegean double ax, but also pointed out Levantine
examples (from contexts other than hoards). 695
Several other tool types from the
shipwrecks were also found in hoards, as discussed below.
Single, flat adzes have turned up at both shipwreck sites, but are extremely rare,
with only three examples, in hoard assemblages. The single, flat ax from Gelidonya, on
the other hand, is more common in hoards, particularly on Cyprus and at Ugarit. It is
plausible that Gelidonya’s single, flat adzes and axes came from the eastern
Mediterranean, as those tools were rare in the Aegean. Ax-adzes are predominantly
known from Crete and within the eastern Mediterranean, but the largest cluster of these
694 For instance, there are 4 double axes from Cypriot hoards and 115 from Aegean ones.
695 Pulak 1998, 208-209; Bass 1967, 94-95.
297

implements in one context comes from Gelidonya with four examples. Ax-adzes were
regularly hoarded; Cypriot examples are attested in the Mathiati hoard and the Trésor de
Bronzes, Foundry and Gunnis hoards from Enkomi.
Shaft-hole axes are quintessential implements of Anatolia and the eastern
Mediterranean, and occur occasionally as hoard items. The Uluburun example of this tool
likely originated from one of those regions. The trunnion or lugged axes and adzes are
atypical implements for metal hoards, but were rather prevalent in Anatolia, followed by
Cyprus and Syria-Palestine. They were relatively rare in the Aegean. The choice of
trunnion/lugged axes and adzes on both vessels reveals their appeal to craftspersons.
Although drills and saws are essential carpentry/masonry implements, they were
infrequently hoarded and unusual in tool kits. Perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that
drills and saws were missing at Gelidonya. Yet both tool types came to light at Uluburun,
demonstrating the ship’s impressive range of carpentry/masonry tools.
An unmistakable parallel between shipwrecks and hoards is the array of chisel
types. The diversity of chisel forms is a trademark of Aegean assemblages. The existence
of at least four different kinds of chisels on both shipwrecks verifies the existence of craft
sets (Table 5.4). This observation is strengthened by the equal representation of chisel
types within each assemblage. For instance, there are three broad, three narrow, three
mortise, and three cold chisels from Uluburun. Likewise, Gelidonya’s assemblage
produced one narrow, one mortise, one cold, and one socketed chisel. The Uluburun and
Gelidonya carpenter/mason tool kits resemble Aegean hoards (with the double axes,
knives, and chisel variation), blended with some Cypriot preferences (the ax-adze) and
298

other implements prevalent in Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean (single/flat axes
and adzes, shaft-hole axes, and trunnion/lugged adzes or axes).
There is a significant disparity in the types and numbers of agricultural and
metallurgical implements from Uluburun and Gelidonya. There are 102 agricultural tools
from Gelidonya and only 8 from Uluburun. Of the impressive Gelidonya assortment of
sickles, picks, hoes/plowshares, a mattock and pruning hooks, all were common to
Cypriot hoards except for the mattock. Sickles were consistently hoarded in the Aegean,
but agricultural implements, in general, were more prominent in the eastern
Mediterranean. The Gelidonya examples (chiefly 47 picks and 49 hoes/plowshares)
include fragmented and supposedly unusable items, which are thought to have been
valued as scrap by an itinerant bronze smith on the vessel. 696
The purpose of the intact
shipwreck agricultural utensils (or any fragment that was still functional) is obscure. Bass
asserted that complete Gelidonya pieces were serviceable for scavenging activities on
land whenever the ship came to harbor.
When the scrap-like agricultural tools are considered with the metallurgical tools
on board, Bass’ interpretation of a traveling metal smith appears reasonable.
697 Other
evidence for metalworking at Gelidonya consists of unfinished castings, casting waste,
unidentifiable scrap metal, and numerous stone balance weights, not to mention the
oxhide ingots. Although the Uluburun vessel held nearly ten times as many ingots,
indisputable metallurgical evidence from that ship is lacking aside from a pair of tongs
and metal or stone weights. 698
Tongs were part of the smith kits from the Enkomi
696
Bass 1967.
697
Bass 1967, 163.
698
Pulak (1988, 20) notes that the Uluburun tongs have broad shoulders, which are also found in Cyprus,
Syria-Palestine, Sardinia and Iran.
299

Foundry and Sinda hoards, but otherwise they are unusual in metal caches. 699
When
tongs were included in sets, the implication is that metalworking activities were intended.
Although the Uluburun tongs may have belonged to a smith, the existence of a
metallurgical tool kit on the ship is not supported by the other metal objects.
The Gelidonya metalworking tools constituted a smith’s tool assemblage by
including a hammer or anvil, a swage block, a hollow punch, a spatula, and metal/stone
weights. Furthermore, a shovel, identified as an agricultural implement, may have
functioned in the same manner as the Cypriot charcoal shovel.
699 Karageorghis 1973, 74-77.
700 Catling (1964, 100-101) lists numerous examples of charcoal shovels.
700
The swage block and
hollow punch were serviceable tools for cold bronze working. Hammers and anvils were
valuable components in any smith’s repertoire for manipulating hot or cold metals. The
spatula is perhaps part of the smith tool kit, the case for which is made by comparison to
a Pyla-Kokkinokremos (Cyprus) spatula, which I classify as a crucible scraper.
The Pyla spatula is broken at the butt end, has several Cypro-Minoan marks on its
top surface, and possesses a slight scoop-like profile (Plate 5.33). The underside of the
tool is rather bumpy and uneven, probably from hardened slag. The detailed profile
photograph in Plate 5.33 illustrates the spot where the slag and the implement meet. This
tool seems to have functioned as a crucible scraper. After the contents of a crucible were
poured, remnants of molten metal or slag would have adhered to the vessel’s interior
surface. In order for the crucible to be reused, the impure slag had to be removed. A
crucible or furnace may be cleaned by forcefully tapping it against the ground in hopes
that the slag will fall out, but a small-scooped spatula or scraper would have been
extremely useful in removing slag, qualifying it as a tool in the smith’s repertoire.
300

The purpose of spatulas is poorly understood, and Catling recognized at least two
Cypriot types: “furnace” and “socketed.” 701 Two furnace spatulas recovered in the
Foundry hoard were used to maneuver coal in a forge, according to Catling. 702
Spatulas
are found in numerous Cypriot hoards that contain additional evidence of metalworking
such as the Sinda hoard, the Mathiati hoard, and Enkomi’s Foundry, Stylianou, and
Trésor de Bronzes hoards. A spatula, unaccompanied by other metalworking tools, is also
attested in the Pera bronzes. The recognition of some spatulas as crucible scrapers is not
unreasonable; socketed examples enabled the tool’s length to be extended for working
with extreme heat.
At least three tool-kits are discerned among the shipwreck data: one
carpenter/mason and one metal smith kit from Gelidonya, and one carpenter/mason tool
set from Uluburun. The implement groupings represent an unusual mix of tools, not
entirely consistent with any regional hoarding practice; indeed these shipwrecks comprise
a blend of Cypriot and Aegean tool preferences. The composition of the two
carpentry/masonry kits has both Aegean and eastern Mediterranean traits, while the
Gelidonya smithing implements and affiliated materials bear a resemblance to Cypriot
hoards. Each shipwreck tool assemblage generally recalls the selections found in land
hoards. Pulak argues that the majority of Uluburun implements are consistent with Near
703
Eastern or eastern Mediterranean types, while the Gelidonya tools have Cypriot and
Near Eastern characteristics with “almost nothing point[ing] to an Aegean origin.” 704
Yet
701
Catling 1964, 101 (furnace spatulas), 105-106 (socketed spatulas) and 85 (plow scraper). Karageorghis
(1973, 77) notes accepts Catling’s identification of spatulas as plow scrapers since the “edges of the [Sinda
spatula] blade are not sharp and that the blade seems to have been considerably worn by use.”
702
Catling 1964, 101-102.
703
Pulak 1998, 208; Pulak 1988, 16-18.
704
Bass 1967, 117.
301

tool distribution patterns in hoards and shipwrecks demonstrate a correspondence
between Aegean tool kits and the accumulated Uluburun and Gelidonya metals.
The accumulation of metal objects at either shipwreck was not concentrated in
one spot, thereby casting doubt on whether the tools were conceptualized as a collective
group. Bass notes that many complete Gelidonya bronzes came from the cabin space of
Area G and M, perhaps indicating a difference between personal crew possessions and
cargo. 705 The Uluburun tools were “found on various parts of the wreck” with the highest
concentration of objects from L-11, M-11, N-11 and K-14. 706 Pulak notes that the
majority of the wood- and stone-working tools came from the same general area in “what
is believed to have been the after section of the ship,” but that they were not all found
together as in a hoard. 707
The dispersed tools from the wrecks could have been a distinct
grouping before they were separated underwater during the sinking of the ship.
Rarely interpreted as commodities for exchange, shipwreck tools are traditionally
considered as either belonging to the ship’s owner for maintenance or as the personal
possessions of the crew. The array of craft implements from Uluburun and Gelidonya
indicates that they constituted a typical kit of a craftsperson. It is not beyond the realm of
possibility that itinerant craftspersons traveled with personal tools on the ship, while
incorporating foreign implements into their repertoire. This possibility is substantiated by
Bass’ basic interpretation of the Gelidonya metals: “All of the elements necessary for
bronze-making were on board – pure copper, pure tin, and bronze scraps and ingots for
being recast…All that was missing from a traveling smith’s complement of material were
705 Bass 1967, 117.
706 Pulak 1998, 208; Pulak 1988.
707 Pulak 1998, 208.
302

molds.” 708 The traveling Gelidonya bronze smith is thought to have performed
“hammering, sharpening and polishing” on board, while quickly constructing stone and
clay furnaces at ports of call. 709 Cyprus was one of the last stops for the Gelidonya
bronze smith; he acquired most of the scrap-like agricultural equipment there, which was
necessary for small-scale metalworking operations. Logic dictates that mobile
craftspersons had to take advantage of available transportation, such as international
merchant ships. It is hardly conceivable that they would have ventured into the unknown
by themselves with limited seafaring skill; rather, they must have depended upon expert
merchants who were already familiar with the sea. This concept of mobility and metal
smiths has been explored in other ways as well. For instance, Catling proposed that the
Cypriot Mathiati hoard was deposited by an itinerant craftsperson who established a
temporary space at the site. 710 Bass likewise argued that the Mycenaean metal industry
relied either on imported foreign scrap metal or traveling artisans for bronze objects. 711
Further discussion on the mobility of craftspersons and their relation to hoarded metals
from shipwrecks and land is provided in the concluding chapter.
VI. Conclusions about tool kits
Despite a gap in scholarship pertaining to metal tool kits, distinctive implement
groupings in the second millennium seem, on the basis of the preceding analysis, a
reality. By and large, these deliberate tool series appear in hoards and shipwrecks and
708 Bass 1967, 163-164.
709 Bass 1967, 163-164.
710 Catling (1964, 302) asserts that the Mathiati tools reflect craft mobility: “The Mathiati hoard suggests an
itinerant craftsman who set up a temporary foundry and smithy at the settlements he visited, rather than a
local industry.”
711 Bass 1967, 121: “Most of the objects found at Gelidonya and in Greek hoards, on the other hand, were
broken, and there is nothing to suggest that Mycenaean Greece imported complete bronze implements in
any quantity. It seems, rather, that Greece preferred to buy only raw materials and scrap metal for their own
smiths or for itinerant craftsmen who would cast objects to suit Mycenaean tastes.”
303

only sporadically in burials and workshops. The most important criterion of a structured
tool set is variation. This diversity has three forms: different kinds of tools, multiple
subtypes of a utensil, and variations in size (including minimal and incremental
variation). To identify prospective tool kits, broken and complete utensils from the same
assemblage must be evaluated conjointly. Some partial tools were intentionally altered,
raising the possibility that hoarded, incomplete pieces retained a functional and secondary
purpose. This assertion is a key element in recognizing tool kits in metal accumulations.
The implement kits in hoards were not readily detected in the past because of
explanations that imposed a single theory on an entire assemblage. Tools are the
predominant item in Mediterranean caches, yet they have been undervalued in hoarding
studies.
No single interpretation explains why hoards were deposited. For the most part,
Mediterranean hoards (especially those classified as utilitarian) are collections of metal
objects stored away. Hoards vary greatly in size, probably because their compositions
were formed through gradual accumulation, meaning that objects were added to or
subtracted from an assemblage at any time. Hoarding and storing are natural tendencies
prevalent in all societies, even in our complex modern world. Therefore caution is
warranted when social, economic and historical explanations are applied to metal
depositions. These factors often contributed to a hoard never being recovered, rather than
being the primary reason for their formation.
When contextual information about a deposit is known and well published,
scholars have the opportunity to interpret the distinctive functions of the hoard, both
according to the whole and individual components. Rather than the overreaching theories
304

explicating hoarding behavior, a multi-dimensional approach should be taken. The
composition of each hoard and the repetitive selections from cache to cache illustrate that
accumulations were not haphazard; certain structural principles were at play in a hoard’s
formation. One organizational trait from the third and second millennium hoards was tool
kits, suggested by repeated patterns and variability within the implement data. The EBA
Aegean caches are termed carpentry hoards because they consist solely of wood- and
stone-working implements. In the LBA hoards, the tool kits exist as part of a larger mix
of metal objects. Clearly, the needs of craftspersons represented an important, albeit far
from the only, characteristic behind hoarding behaviors.
Similarities in tool kits from multiple regions are minimal. Cretan and Greek
mainland examples share certain affinities that show standardized implement selections,
such as double axes, at least two chisel types (broad versus narrow), and knives. Saws,
drills and other implements were also part of some compositions, but the grouping of
double axes, chisels and knives is the most consistent, especially in mainland hoards.
Cypriot caches are not as standardized as Aegean examples, but the wider range of
Cypriot carpentry/masonry tools are also indicative of tool kits. Moreover, two cases of a
metal smith’s set of utensils are known from Cypriot hoards (e.g. Sinda and Enkomi
Foundry).
Tool kits may provide an ideal method for analyzing cross-regional tendencies in
craftsmanship. My analysis of tool kits, however, is incomplete since a multitude of
implement sets from Anatolia or Syria-Palestine has not been detected. Consequently, I
am left to compare Aegean and Cypriot kits, which have restricted parallels. Cretan (but
not Mainland) and Cypriot hoards share an affinity for certain craft tools, specifically
305

combination adze forms (double adzes, ax-adzes, hammer-adzes, pick-adzes, etc.). This
correlation indicates a prospective craft affiliation between Crete and Cyprus, which is
explored more in the next chapter. Rather than demonstrating clear-cut affinities, the
identified tool kits from Crete, the Greek mainland, and Cyprus illustrate regionally-
specific craft preferences. This observation is further bolstered by the shipwreck tool kits
that uniquely blend tools and hoarding preferences from several different areas.
306

Chapter 6: Summary of the tool distributions and their implications for
Craftsmanship
I. The study of metal tools: contextualizing the current investigation
This investigation evaluated the second millennium BC metal tools from the
Aegean, eastern Mediterranean, and Anatolia. To varying degrees, these regions were in
contact with each other over the course of the MBA and LBA periods. Consequently, it is
natural to question the level of craft interaction among these areas. This scope shaped the
framework of my project in that a long duration of time and an expansive geographical
area were considered, and was addressed by evaluating the distribution and consumption
tendencies of metal tools. Previous tool studies were instrumental in the assembly of my
implement database, and these works are briefly reviewed to contextualize the approach
of the current study.
One of the earliest publications about metal implements was Petrie’s on Egyptian
tools and weapons. 712 The work’s coverage was not restricted to Egypt and Petrie
considered objects spanning the Mediterranean and Europe and from all periods of
antiquity. Petrie’s inclusion of tools and weapons in a single volume is an approach
adopted by many later publications. Several decades after Petrie’s monograph, tool (and
weapon) studies became more narrowly focused, tracking the occurrence of an individual
object type over time and space. For example, Maxwell-Hyslop considered shaft-hole
axes and trunnion/lugged axes in two different articles—each documenting the tool’s
Near Eastern and Levantine distribution and origin. 713
Likewise, Sandars published
articles on the single-edged knives and the series of Aegean swords, while Buchholz
712 Petrie 1917.
713 Maxwell-Hyslop 1949; 1953.
307

produced a monograph specifically on Cretan double axes. 714 Deshayes’ extensive
coverage of prehistoric metal tools—from the earliest examples in the fourth millennium
until the end of the Bronze Age and covering a vast geographical space between the
Indus Valley and the Danube River—was thus a truly herculean undertaking. 715
Following Deshayes’ monograph, tool studies rarely received their own investigation and
were evaluated with other, often regionally focused, metal work. In Catling’s
fundamental study on Cypriot bronzes, tools constitute just a portion of the material
examined and are primarily compared to Aegean examples. 716 Balthazar’s examination of
Early and Middle Cypriot metal work updates Catling’s book to some extent, but only for
the early periods of the Bronze Age. 717 Balthazar’s extremely useful monograph focuses
principally on early indigenous Cypriot developments; less attention is given to
contextualizing the implements within the broader eastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
The tools from the Late Cypriot period are thus examined collectively here for the first
time since Catling’s monograph. His conclusion regarding the impact of Mycenaean tool
types on Cyprus after 1200 BC, supposedly in conjunction with new Aegean settlers on
the island, is no longer tenable. 718
There are very few similarities between Mycenaean
and Cypriot tools, and the Aegean-like tools on the island bear a resemblance to Cretan
types rather than mainland ones. This observation is significant for understanding how
Cyprus interacted with the Aegean world in the 13 th and 12 th centuries, especially in
terms of craft work.
714
Sandars 1955; 1961; 1963; Buchholz 1959.
715
Deshayes 1960. Also see reviews of Deshayes’ work by: Maxwell-Hyslop 1963; Mellink 1963;
Garašanin 1964.
716
Catling 1964.
717
Balthazar 1990.
718
Catling 1964, 76-77; 108-109.
308

Branigan’s impressive investigation of EBA and MBA metalwork incorporates
materials from the entire Aegean world, including the Troad. 719 Other publications on the
Aegean tool series are more regionally based. Cretan metal tools are compiled in two
major works by Shaw and Evely on Minoan crafts. 720 These studies (especially Evely’s)
comprehensively describe the Minoan tool series, yet rarely consider cross-regional
comparisons with the Minoan data. In comparison, tools from the Greek mainland have
received less attention. Tripathi examined the implements, alongside other metalwork
like weapons, from the MH and early Mycenaean contexts. 721 Although Tripathi’s study
repeatedly analyzed the mainland’s metal industry in relation to Crete, it did not compare
the mainland with areas further to the east. Although they were included in Deshayes’
monograph, Mycenaean metal tools have not received their own specialized study up to
this point. Previously, the best overview of these implements may have been Iakovidis’
general account of the Mycenaean metal industry or Spyropoulos’ presentation of LH
hoards, most of which contained implements. 722 A quantitative overview of the
mainland’s tools—but not an investigation of the implements themselves—is given by
Kayafa, who compares the tool counts to other metal categories. 723 Harding and Downey
each published a short summary article on Mycenaean tools, but generally this collection
of data is severely understudied and has not received a systematic investigation. 724
Therefore, the current study has compiled the most thorough assembly of Mycenaean
metal tools to date. Two Greek dissertations on various aspects of Mycenaean metal tools
719
Branigan 1974.
720
Shaw 1973a; 2009; Evely 1999; 2000. Also see Hakulin 2004.
721
Tripathi 1988.
722
Iakovidis 1982; Spyropoulos 1972.
723
Kayafa 2008.
724
Harding 1975; Downey 2001.
309

are currently in progress and will also enhance the otherwise limited scholarship on this
subject. Elena Maragoudaki of the National Center of Scientific Research “Dimokritos”
in Athens is working on Mycenaean implements utilized in shipbuilding—thus those
tools restricted to my category of carpentry/masonry types. Christos Kleitsas of the
University of Ioannina (and archaeologist for the 12th Ephorate of Prehistoric and
Classical Antiquities in Ioannina) is evaluating the metal industry and bronzes (including
the tools) from the LBA in Epirus.
For the Anatolian implements, Erkanal’s study on axes from the second
millennium also includes a brief consideration of various weapon types. 725 Müller-
Karpe’s monograph on the metalwork of Anatolia pulls together an immense collection
of information, especially for tools. 726 Despite the great value of Müller-Karpe’s work,
the Anatolian tool series is not compared to the implements from the Aegean or Cyprus.
For Syria-Palestine, the assemblage of tools has not been compiled and evaluated in a
comprehensive study outside of Deshayes’ work. Philip brought together a thorough
assemblage of EBA and MBA weapons from the region, and some of these objects,
specifically the axes, may be considered tools in addition to weapons. 727 Finally, the
abundant number of tools on LBA shipwrecks, as published in the final (Gelidonya) and
preliminary (Uluburun) reports, is an important component to the collection of tool
studies summarized here. 728
My examination of the MBA and LBA tools in Crete, the Greek mainland, the
Greek islands, Cyprus, Anatolia, Syria-Palestine, and the shipwrecks best follows
725 Erkanal 1977.
726 Müller-Karpe 1994.
727 Philip 1989.
728 Bass 1967; Bass 1986; Bass et al. 1989; Pulak 1988a; Yalçin, Pulak and Slotta 2005.
310

Deshayes’ extensive and comprehensive model. Like Deshayes, I have excluded a
systematic consideration of Egyptian tools from this study, primarily for reasons of
feasibility but also because most Egyptian types are markedly different from other
regions. 729
In many ways, the current project updates Deshayes’ work for certain
geographical areas. There are 3137 items in Deshayes’ catalogue, spanning three
millennia from the core of the Near East and the Mediterranean as well as their peripheral
areas. For comparison, there are over 5300 objects listed in the current dataset from a
much smaller area and time frame. Much of Deshayes’ inquiries focus on the
development and movement of metallurgical traditions; he emphasizes the importance of
metallurgy in Iran, where innovation of several tool types first occurred. Deshayes argues
that the Levant, Aegean and even Eastern Europe owe some of their traditions to Iran; the
scattering of these tools to the west can be tracked through the materials found in Trans-
Caucasia and Anatolia. The extensive dispersal of metal tools and technologies was
attributed to the movement of Indo-European peoples, who were thought to have moved
in two waves: one to Anatolia/the Aegean and the other to the Caucasus region between
the Black and Caspian Seas.
The research questions that Deshayes addressed were principally concerned with
the beginnings and early stages of metallurgy over an extremely wide area. Although he
includes material from the second millennium, he is not that concerned with the level of
craft interaction among the Aegean, eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia at this time.
Deshayes highlights the variety of tool types in the Aegean and argues that they reflect
729
Mellink (1963, 306) notes that regarding tool types, Egypt “behaves rather independently during most of
the Bronze Age.”
311

thriving metallurgical and craft industries. 730 His analysis neither separates the Aegean
into different cultural spheres nor adequately compares the Aegean’s tool patterns to the
eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia. 731
While Deshayes’ monograph was used as a
springboard for the current study, there are significant differences between the two. My
analysis focuses on the tool distributions and regional tendencies from the MBA and
LBA periods within a more restricted, yet still expansive, area. As such, this investigation
presents the most up-to-date distribution of metal tools from the Aegean regions, the
eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia, and provides a comprehensive analysis of the level
of craft interaction among these areas.
In light of the previous work on metal tools, there are four notable contributions
of this project: 1) for the first time, there is a comprehensive overview and discussion of
Mycenaean metal tools—with a full list of the region’s implements in the catalogue; 2)
the evaluation of the Late Cypriot implements and their connections to other regions is
updated, thus presenting a general picture that has not been discussed comprehensively
since Catling’s 1964 monograph; 3) the operative value of broken tools is re-considered;
and finally 4) deliberate tool kits are recognized, particularly within hoard and shipwreck
contexts. The first two points have been emphasized in the preceding paragraphs, while
the latter two issues have been overlooked by previous scholarship. Metal tools are
regularly found as damaged or broken, yet earlier studies have undervalued the worth that
these fragments may have retained. Pieces of tools are commonly understood as scrap
metal meant to be recycled through melting and recasting. Although this procedure must
have occurred, it is a mistake to assume that all broken implements are devoid of any
730 Deshayes 1960, 401.
731 Deshayes does compare Mycenaean tools to the Balkans; this is an important point that was not
developed in the current study because it was outside the geographical limits established for the project.
312

functional worth. The issue of broken tools is often taken up in hoard discussions and
their interpretations but otherwise the subject is not regularly broached. 732
It has been
argued here that fragmentary tools could retain functional purposes, and evidence exists
that tools were intentionally modified and/or broken from time to time. My analysis of
hoarded tools provides a fresh look at these materials with the result that our
understanding of hoards must also be re-evaluated—a point made throughout Chapter 5.
Hoards often include a diverse collection of tools that may constitute a kit. As such,
deliberate implement groupings seem to be an important, though not the only, component
governing the formation of a hoard. Metal objects from shipwrecks compare favorably to
the collections within hoards, for tool kits are also detectable on these vessels.
II. Summary of the regional tool distributions and metallurgical centers
Middle Bronze Age (2000 – 1600 BC)
Copper-alloy tools are distributed throughout the entire study region during the
MBA, and occur in greater concentrations in the eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia than
in the Aegean. The Greek mainland and islands are particularly lacking in the number of
wood- and stone-working implements. These patterns are plainly seen in the distribution
of all tools (Fig. 3.1a, b) as well as the pattern of carpentry/masonry implements (Fig.
4.28). As a general rule of thumb, metal agricultural equipment from this period is
extremely unusual, suggesting that smiths were selective in how they utilized metal
resources for the production of tools.
Given the rich copper sources on Cyprus, it is unsurprising that metal implements
are attested on the island throughout the second millennium BC. The remarkable number
732 For broken tools in hoards, see Spyropoulos 1972; Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988; Soles 2008.
313

of Middle Cypriot tools, however, is staggering and unmatched by the sum of MBA
examples from other regions. Knives and single-bladed, flat axes characterize the Middle
Cypriot tools, which principally occur in burials from Lapithos. The early dominance of
metal tools on Cyprus reflects a social and mortuary phenomenon, whereby indigenous
elites started exploiting the island’s copper resources and subsequently promoted their
own prestige by collecting and depositing metal items. The abundance of MC tools thus
reflects the island’s rich copper resources and the skilled metallurgical activity that took
place there.
Although implements for metalworking are scarce on early Cyprus, evidence for
MBA metallurgy is found at Ambelikou-Aletri, Alambra-Mouttes, Kalavasos-Laroumena
Pyrgos-Mavroraki, Politiko-Troullia, and Katydata. 733 By the beginning of the LC I
period, metallurgical activities become more sophisticated with two major industrial sites
on the island: the “fortress” at Enkomi and Politiko-Phorades. 734 These sites employ
tuyères for the first time and were efficient in smelting copper. 735 Kassianidou purports
that the MC metal industry was not as regressive as previously thought. 736
The industry
was developed enough to satisfy the high demand for local metal consumption (seen in
the tools and weapons) as well as for producing a surplus for export. Cypriot copper
seems to have been sent to Crete during the MC-LC I period (at MM IIB Mallia and LM
733
For Ambelikou: Merrillees 1984, 7, 11; Kassianidou 2008, 251-252. Alambra: Coleman 1985, 135;
Coleman et al. 1996, 129-137. Kalavasos-Laroumena: Todd 1988, 140; Todd 1993, 85, 93. Pyrgos-
Mavroraki: Belgiorno 1999; Belgiorno 2004, 30-31, 52-57; Knapp 2008, 77; Kassianidou 2008, 254-255.
Politiko-Troullia: Falconer et al. 2005; Falconer 2009. Katydata: Kassianidou 2008, 256, figure 2.
734
Enkomi: Dikaios 1969, 56-62; Dikaios 1971, 500, 505; Kassianidou 2008, 258; Knapp 2008, 217 figure
42. Politiko-Phorades: Knapp, Kassianidou, and Donnelly 1999, 138-139; Kassianidou 2008, 262-264.
735
Kassianidou 2008, 266.
736
Kassianidou 2008, 256.
314

IB Mochlos and Gournia), 737 and Alashiyan copper was imported to Mari, according to
textual records, during the 18 th century BC. 738
Metallurgical activity is documented throughout the course of the Anatolian
second millennium, and especially in the early centuries. Anatolian sites with remnants of
metalworking dating the MBA are scattered along the Aegean coast (Troy, Cesme-
Baglararasi), the Mediterranean coast (Tarsus, Açana), and central Anatolia (Kültepe,
739
pre-Hittite Boğazköy, Alaca Höyük, Acemhöyük). A dense concentration of
workshops appears at Kültepe-Kanish, where more than ten areas in the Karum (levels II
and IB) and the Palace of Warshama revealed traces of metallurgical operations. 740
The
plentiful remains of metalworking from MBA Anatolia correspond to an equally high
number of tools (though less than the Cypriot sum). Carpentry/masonry and metallurgical
implements represent the preferred types of the region. The objects for metalworking,
consisting mostly of molds, are frequent, at least in comparison to other regions (Fig.
3.10). The area’s MBA carpentry/masonry tools are diverse, highlighted by chisels, shaft-
hole axes and trunnion/lugged axes (Fig. 4.28).
The quantity of MBA tools in Syria-Palestine does not match those of Cyprus or
Anatolia, but compares to what has been recovered in Crete and the Greek mainland. The
Syro-Palestinian data are incomplete and a more exhaustive collection of Levantine tools
would perhaps surpass the Aegean tool counts. Metallurgical installations have not been
excavated in Syria-Palestine, at least during the MBA. Of the types in this region, wood-
and stone-working tools constitute the overwhelming majority (over 80%); a smaller
737 Kassianidou 2008; Soles 2008.
738 Heltzer 1989; Knapp 2008, 76.
739 Müller-Karpe 1994, 49-98.
740 Müller-Karpe 1994, 49-65.
315

number of utilitarian and small craft tools are also known. The carpentry/masonry
implements are diverse, but flat/single axes and shaft-hole axes typify the selections (Fig.
4.28). The single/flat axes are similar to those from Cyprus, while the shaft-hole axes
have parallels in Anatolia and Cyprus.
Although tool similarities are evident among the MBA repertoires from Cyprus,
the Levant and Anatolia, Aegean tool traditions differ from the eastern
Mediterranean/Anatolia during the early stages of the second millennium. Crete lacks
natural metal resources, yet the island was connected to an international metal market,
acquiring sources from Cyprus, Anatolia and another Near Eastern source. This
conclusion is based on recent analyses of copper found at Quartier Mu, Mallia. 741 The
island’s metallurgical industry—documented in the EBA with the specialized smelting
site at Chrysokamino—was thriving in the early second millennium, if the metal tools
and architectural developments are any gauge. For example, the large limestone
orthostates at Protopalatial Phaistos clearly were worked with bronze chisels. 742 Yet only
a few sites can testify to metalworking from this period. Slag from MM Mochlos implies
an early metallurgical operation, 743 while Poros-Katsambas yielded a large MMIIB
crucible with residue lining its interior surface, a result from copper melting. 744 A
Protopalatial metal workshop existed at Quartier Mu, Mallia, and one product was tools,
as indicated by molds. 745
The organization of craft activity in this complex and the
evidence of copper-alloy objects at the site indicate the advanced nature of metalworking
and other industries on Crete.
741 Poursat and Loubet 2005.
742 Shaw 2009, 52, figures 62e, 86, 88.
743 Brogan 2008, 165.
744 Dimopoulou 1997, 434; Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2004; Hakulin 2004, 42, appendix I.5.
745 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 53-56, entry C23, plate 52d.
316

The implements from Protopalatial Crete are varied. Although carpentry/masonry
types constitute about half of the collection, metallurgical, utilitarian and small craft
implements were also utilized. The metalworking tools coincide with other traces of
metallurgical activity on the island, and the occurrence of such implements on Crete is
surpassed only by Anatolia. Although an indisputable MBA tool connection between
Crete and its eastern neighbors does not exist, 746 the array of Protopalatial
carpentry/masonry tools is comparable to the tool repertoires in the east (Fig. 4.28).
Double axes and chisels are the predominant Cretan tools, followed by saws and shaft-
hole axes. The Minoan preference for the saw, which is palpable in the LBA, is already
seen in the MBA. While shaft-hole axes are typical of Syria-Palestine and Anatolia, the
Cretan versions, mostly dated to the MBA, are notably smaller (and have different
forms). It is unclear if the Cretan shaft-hole axes were inspired from the east. The
implement type is well attested in the MBA at Kültepe and perhaps the inspiration for the
Cretan examples came through Anatolia, especially in light of the connections between
the two regions in the early second millennium BC. This hypothesis should be probed in
greater detail in future studies, in spite of Evely’s suggestion that the MBA shaft-hole
axes on Crete originated in the EBA rather than being influenced from elsewhere. 747
MBA metallurgy on the Greek mainland is relatively humble; in comparison to
Crete, Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean, the number and diversity of MH tools is
rather unimpressive. Knives constitute nearly half of the implements from this region,
while a handful of tools used in small crafts and carpentry/masonry projects are known.
Of the wood- and stone-working tools, chisels are the most common but their quantity is
746
On page 150, I hypothesized that a small trunnion/lugged blade from Protopalatial Mallia was imported
from Anatolia.
747
Evely 1993, 58.
317

extremely limited in comparison to other regions (Fig. 4.28). Tool production on the MH
mainland lagged behind Crete and the eastern regions, probably because copper was not
widely circulated on the mainland.
Despite the presumed backwardness of MH metallurgy, some
archaeometallurgical evidence on the mainland is dated to the MBA. 748 MH foundries are
attested at Lerna, Malthi, and Nichoria while remains at Sesklo also suggest production
activity. 749 This evidence has led Tripathi to conclude that “Middle Helladic
metallurgical skill was not so undistinguished or in such a rudimentary state as is often
supposed.” 750 Tripathi interprets the MH metallurgical industry as preserving an EH
tradition with a hint of Anatolian inspiration, thus envisioning smiths as both sedentary
and itinerant. 751 The evidence for MH production centers led Iakovidis to assert that there
was “an indigenous and widespread [early second millennium] metal industry, operating
from Thessaly to the Peloponnese and practiced by local smiths working on their own
and for their small communities.” 752 Kayafa is less impressed with the industry and
recognizes a “recession” in metallurgical activity from EH III to MH II, due to a change
in the supply and demand of metal. 753
Metallurgy is even rarer on the islands during the Middle Cycladic period than on
the mainland. The absence of metalworking sites for smelting, melting and/or casting is
reinforced by an insignificant yield of tools. There are only four metal implements (two
double axes and two knives) in the catalogue from this phase and region. Island
748
Kayafa 2008, 211.
749
Lerna: Caskey 1955, 42, plate 14f; Caskey 1957, 159; Banks 1984 (1967), 223, 227. Malthi: Valmin
1938, 8, 102, 157, 412-413, appendix 1. Nichoria: McDonald 1975, 109-110; Cooke and Nielsen 1978,
182-183, 211; Howell 1992, 26-27. Sesklo: Tsountas 1908, 333, 335, 349; Tripathi 1988, 115.
750
Tripathi 1988, 115.
751
Tripathi 1988, 119-120; Iakovidis 1982, 213.
752
Iakovidis 1982, 213.
753
Kayafa 2008, 214.
318

metallurgy is better attested during the third millennium when it was more prevalent
throughout the northern and southern Aegean. 754 The Kythnos hoard of metal tools
testifies to the quality of metalwork produced and/or consumed in the Cyclades at the end
of the EBA. 755
Thus it is surprising that metal tools are uncommon during the MBA, but
this infrequency corresponds to the MH pattern.
The overall count of MBA tools and the signs for metalworking on the Greek
mainland and islands is severely low. On the other hand, Crete, Cyprus, Anatolia, and
Syria-Palestine had better access to metal resources and were more advanced in tool
industries and craftsmanship—not only in metallurgy but also in carpentry and masonry.
The inconsequential number of wood- and stone-working tools on the mainland and
islands corresponds to an absence of palatial or elite public edifices; the simple
construction methods on the MBA mainland and islands did not match the sophistication
evident on Crete, Anatolia or the Levant.
Late Bronze Age (1600 – 1050 BC)
There are nearly three times as many tools dated to the LBA in comparison to the
previous period (Fig. 3.1a, b; Fig. 4.29). The implements are dispersed throughout the
entire study region, and only Cyprus produced fewer tools in the LBA than the MBA.
The three Aegean regions collectively yielded more tools than the sum from Cyprus,
Anatolia and Syria-Palestine—a significant shift from the MBA pattern.
Carpentry/masonry and utilitarian tools remain the primary implement categories in the
LBA, while metal agricultural tools were manufactured in notable quantities for the first
time (more so in the eastern Mediterranean than the Aegean). As one might expect,
754 Day and Doonan 2007.
755 Branigan 1969; Fitton 1989.
319

metallurgical operations are plentiful and scattered during the LBA, though the Greek
mainland is an odd exception. Within most regions, a single site acts as the primary
consumer of tools, suggesting that there were strict systems of control in how implements
were distributed. Mycenae, Hattusha, Enkomi, and Ugarit are the principal tool-yielding
sites within their respective regions. Tools are evenly dispersed among the Cretan sites—
not only the palaces but also smaller towns like Mochlos—reflecting the ubiquity and
availability of certain craft tools. On the Greek islands, one would anticipate a greater
assemblage of implements from key settlements like Akrotiri, Phylakopi and Ayia Irini,
but there are only a handful of examples.
As the densest concentration of LBA tools is from the Aegean, the period’s
overview begins with evidence from those regions before turning to the east. By the
Neopalatial and Final Palatial periods on Crete, metallurgy became pervasive on the
island, particularly within the eastern and central sections. LBA Cretan metallurgy
consisted of both large-scale palatial operations and provincial industries that served local
needs, with examples known from Zakros, Palaikastro, Papadiokampos, Mochlos,
Gournia, Mallia, Ayia Triadha, Phaistos, Kommos, Tylissos, Knossos (Unexplored
Mansion), Poros-Katsambas, and Chania—to name the most obvious. 756
The increase of
LM sites with traces of metallurgical activity parallels a dramatic rise in tool quantities on
Crete. There are over four times as many LM tools as MM examples, and the
intensification of metal working sites and tools seems strongly correlated.
Despite the prominent archaeometallurgical evidence from the LM period,
metallurgical tools, including molds, are not as frequent on the island as in the MM
phase. Yet the LM proportion for metalworking tools is on par with that of Anatolia and
756 For a general overview of LM metalworking, see Hakulin 2004; Hakulin 2008.
320

Cyprus. Agricultural tools are comparatively rare on LBA Crete, with 19 examples (only
3% of the island’s repertoire) from several different sites including Zakros, Gournia,
Mallia, Knossos, Kommos, Ayia Triadha, and Phaistos. The infrequency of Cretan metal
agricultural tools indicates that the island’s farming activities utilized stone implements
in addition to metal versions. Utilitarian and “small craft” implements are represented by
a consistently low percentage during the LM phase. Far more utilitarian tools were found
on the Greek mainland and surrounding islands. Crete’s most ubiquitous tool category is
that of carpentry/masonry. Such tools represent about 50% of the Cretan implements, a
percentage that varies minimally from the MBA to LBA. The popularity of
carpentry/masonry tools coincides with the number of architectural projects that
incorporate well-cut masonry during the Neopalatial (and Protopalatial) period. Of the
LM carpentry/masonry implements (Fig. 4.29), four kinds of tools are most common:
double axes, chisels, saws, and shafted double-sided tools (besides double axes). Saws
and double-ended implements occur sporadically on the mainland, and there are
differences in the double ax and chisel types from Crete and its northern neighbor. These
observations suggest that Mycenaean craftspersons did not wholeheartedly adopt Minoan
craft traditions and tools.
One of the more perplexing observations of this study is the sparse evidence for
metalworking on the Greek mainland during the LBA. Insignificant remnants of LBA
metallurgy have come to light at Nichoria, the Menelaion, and Kynos. 757
A few other
sites have yielded hints of metalworking, but archaeometallurgical material is generally
757 Nichoria: McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 398; Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 623-624; Tripathi 1988,
370-372; Menelaion: Catling 1976-1977, 31; Catling 1997, 54; Kynos: Dakoronia 1993, 224; Dakoronia
2003, 38; Kramer-Hajos 2008, 39, note 4.
321

absent. 758
The Linear B tablets at Pylos document over 400 smiths working in Messenia,
so it is likely that Mycenaean metallurgical sites exist and have not yet been excavated.
Metal hoards are touted as foundry materials reflective of metallurgical activity, but most
caches do not contain the physical evidence, such as molds and tuyères, that prove
melting and casting took place. Therefore metal hoards should not be taken as evidence
for Mycenaean metalworking. Despite the limited traces of metallurgy, there are more
LBA implements on the mainland than any other region, reflecting a dramatic change in
tool consumption from the MH to LH period. This shift probably also indicates the social
value and uses of metal tools since many are found in tombs, much in contrast to
Protopalatial and Neopalatial customs on Crete. The juxtaposition of copious Mycenaean
tools with the lack of production sites raises the possibility that metal implements were
manufactured off the mainland and imported.
As with Crete and the islands, agricultural tools are not abundant on the Greek
mainland, except for sickles which are often found in LH hoards. Metallurgical
implements are even less common on the mainland than agricultural tools. The
infrequency of objects for metalworking correlates to the scarce number of Mycenaean
sites with archaeometallurgical remains. The dominant implement from the mainland is
the utilitarian category, and their popularity remained consistent from the MBA to LBA.
As anticipated, the distribution of LH carpentry/masonry tools increased from the
MBA, representing about 30% of the region’s assemblage, a percentage comparable to
758 There is an astonishing lack of archaeometallurgical remains from Mycenae. Despite the great quantity
of metal objects from the site, a metal workshop has not been excavated. A LH IIIB mold for a winged ax
came from a burnt layer in room 4 of the House of the Oil Merchant, and the object seems to have arrived
by means of a traveling smith from Italy (Wace 1953, 15; Stubbings 1954b, 297-298). Muhly (1976, 93)
argues that a smelting furnace existed at Mycenae based upon a bun ingot and copper-iron-sulfide (matte)
in the Poros Wall hoard, and believes that the matte originally lined the interior of a furnace.
322

Cyprus and the shipwrecks (Figs. 3.25a, b). The mainland’s preferred carpentry/masonry
tools were double axes, chisels, and drills (Fig. 4.29). The Mycenaean double ax was
extremely popular, but mainlanders made several changes to the Neopalatial form before
adopting it in the LH III period—a phase much later than the tool’s period of use on
Crete. Mainland chisels were produced in several different sizes, and at least two types
(one with a wide cutting edge and another with a narrow one) were consistently
stockpiled together in metal hoards. Standardized tool kits—including a double ax,
chisels of variable sizes and the knife—are distinguishable within many mainland caches.
Metal tools appear more regularly on the LBA islands than at the beginning of the
second millennium, but the region’s collection is far less than any other area. As in the
MBA, very few archaeometallurgical remains have turned up to document substantial
metallurgical operations on the islands during the LBA. Three metallurgical tools,
however, indicate sporadic metalworking, specifically the ability to cast metal. These
objects include a pair of tongs from Kos, a mold for chisels or axes from Phylakopi, and a
mold from Ayia Irini for a knife and chisel. There are additional hints of metallurgy
(crucibles and slag) from Building A at Ayia Irini. Although six sickles came to light at
Akrotiri, agricultural tools are infrequent on the islands, a pattern consistent with the
other Aegean areas. Implements used for small crafts are equally as rare. The
overwhelming majority of island tools are utilitarian types, just as on the mainland.
Carpentry/ masonry tools are also documented, albeit with a lower proportion than the
utilitarian ones. The wood- and stone-working tools on the Aegean islands seem to
exhibit characteristics borrowed from surrounding areas.
323

The Cypriot copper industry reached its peak during the LBA in terms of
organization, production, and quantity of exports. This assertion is confirmed by the
volume of copper exported throughout the eastern and central Mediterranean, reflected in
the distribution of copper oxhide ingots. 759 Contemporary textual records from Amarna,
Ugarit and Hattusha also record massive amounts of exported Alashiyan (understood as
Cypriot) copper. 760
As already mentioned, two key metallurgical centers were in
existence by the LC I period at Enkomi and Politiko-Phorades. By the LC II and III
periods, metalworking traces are ubiquitous throughout the island, occurring at almost
every site. This evidence indicates that copper smelting/refining, metal melting, and
casting all took place on Cyprus.
Despite the noticeable increase in metallurgical activity and production on the
island, the sum of Cypriot tools uniquely declined from the MBA to the LBA (Fig. 3.1a,
b). With just one example from the MBA, agricultural tools became an important
component of the LBA Cypriot tool repertoire. The number of LC metallurgical tools is
comparable to Anatolia and Crete—areas with strong metallurgical traditions. In spite of
the decrease in tools by the LC era, utilitarian implements retained their popularity on
Cyprus. Small crafting implements are found with some regularity in LC contexts, at a
proportion similar to that in Anatolia. As for the carpentry/masonry implements, there is
only a slight increase from the MC to LC periods. This pattern is somewhat surprising
given Cyprus’ numerous construction projects in the 13 th and 12 th centuries. The majority
(80%) of LC carpentry/masonry tool types already existed on the island during the MBA,
meaning that Cyprus’ tool industry was not completely overhauled when elite public
759 Lo Schiavo et al. 2009; Muhly 2009.
760 Beckman 1996a; Beckman 1996b; Wells 1996; Knapp 2008, 307-313.
324

edifices were constructed in the 13 th and 12 th centuries. The LC wood- and stone-working
implements are diverse; chisels, single/flat axes and drills comprise the characteristic
types (Fig. 4.29). Of the new tool forms introduced in the LC period, shafted, double-
sided implements represent the bulk, which were either imported from Crete or inspired
from prototypes found there.
Numerous LBA Anatolian sites have produced remnants of metallurgical activity,
concentrated in central Anatolia (Boğazköy, Ortaköy-Şapinuwa, Alaca Höyük, Gavur-
Kalesi, and Kuşaklı-Sarissa) and in Cilicia/Amuq (Tarsus, Kinet-Höyük, and Açana). 761
The practice of casting metal is also documented in the Troad (Troy) while melting,
casting and possibly smelting occurred in the Black Sea region (Kınık-Kastamonu)
judging by the recovery of slag, a crucible, and potential furnaces. 762
Given the dense
concentration of metallurgical work areas at Boğazköy, the Hittite capital must have been
the chief producer of metal in central Anatolia. The plentiful remains of Anatolian
metalworking correspond to a vast selection of metal tools—nearly three times as many
as from the MBA (Fig. 3.1a, b).
Anatolian agricultural tools (56 examples) are more common than those on Crete
or the mainland, yet their frequency fails to match the Cypriot and Syro-Palestinian
predilection for such equipment. Metalworking tools are not as prominent in Anatolia
during the LBA as in the earlier period, but are found just as often as on Crete and
Cyprus. Anatolian utilitarian implements are not ubiquitous like Aegean or Cypriot
examples, yet their infrequency is comparable to Syria-Palestine. Carpentry/masonry
761 Müller-Karpe 1994, 72-98.
762 For Kınık-Kastamonu , see: Gates 1997: 258; Greaves and Helwing 2001:498-499.
325

implements comprise 45% of the region’s tool repertoire, meaning that this category
remained the preferred one in Anatolia.
Diversity characterizes the Anatolian wood- and stone-working tools, and chisel
and chisel-like implements represent the typical type (Fig. 4.29). Anatolian chisels
normally have narrow cutting edges, and a unique subtype from central Anatolia is bit-
sized. Such tiny chisel forms (with cutting edges less than 0.5 cm wide) vary slightly in
size, possibly reflecting interchangeable chisel bits. Other prominent carpentry/masonry
tools from LBA Anatolia include trunnion/lugged axes, shaft-hole axes, and socketed
chisels. Saws are not preserved from Anatolia—other than an impressive Minoan-like
example from Hattusha—despite evidence of saw cuttings in Hittite masonry. Solid drills
have turned up in the archaeological record, but tubular drill bits are absent. Nevertheless,
the tubular drill was a key implement of Hittite masons and artisans, as indicated by 1)
drill cores and 2) the hundreds of drill holes visible on architectural foundations and on a
select number of sculpted animals.
LBA metallurgical installations from the Levant are not as abundant as those from
Anatolia, Cyprus or Crete, yet examples are known at Ras Ibn Hani, Ugarit, and Kamid
el-Loz (Lebanon). 763
As in other regions, the LBA Syro-Palestinian tools more than
doubles the MBA count, but the Levant’s total assemblage is meager in relation to other
regions. This is a result of the incomplete nature of the Syro-Palestinian data in the
763 Ugarit: Schaeffer 1949, 204-205, figure 84 (14); Bounni, Lagarce, and Lagarce 1998, 39-47 figure 4;
Chanut and Dardaillon 2000, 222. Kamid el-Loz: Frisch, Mansfeld, and Thiele 1985, 73-78, 156. The best
known metallurgical site in Israel is Timna in the southern Negev desert. This copper production site was
originally dated to the LBA and associated with Egyptian New Kingdom metallurgical practices. Recent
research now dates Timna to the 11 th through 9 th century BC. Two papers at the 2010 ASOR Annual
Meeting presented evidence for re-dating this important metalworking site. See, Ben-Yosef et al. 2010 and
Avner 2010.
326

catalogue because a comprehensive examination was not possible for this study.
Although the region’s tools are under-represented, certain tendencies in tool selection are
still recognizable.
The percentage of LBA agricultural implements in the Syro-Palestinian tool
repertoire recalls the tool type’s frequency on Cyprus. Although agricultural tools are
found elsewhere, they are not as regular as in Syria-Palestine and Cyprus. Metallurgical
tools are unusual in the Levant, likely reflecting the limited activity in metal production
in the area. Similar to the Anatolian evidence, utilitarian implements are irregular in
Syria-Palestine—a pattern very different from Aegean tool preferences. As in the MBA,
the majority of LBA Levantine tools are carpentry/masonry implements. This preference
perhaps coincides with the architectural developments of the region. The selection of
carpentry/masonry tools in Syria-Palestine varies, but single-bladed, flat axes and chisels
are most typical (Fig. 4.29). Shaft-hole axes and shaft-hole adzes are not as frequent but
are also distinctive to the region. Like Cyprus, the Syro-Palestinian tools bear little
resemblance to Mycenaean types. Rather, the Levant shows closer ties to Cyprus and
Anatolia with regard to tool types.
The distribution of metal tools in the LBA must also take into account the 239+
examples from the Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks (Fig. 4.27). The selection
of implements aboard these vessels is comparable to the tool assemblages found on land.
There was an extraordinarily large cache of agricultural equipment on the Gelidonya ship
but the bulk of this collection is fragmentary and understood as scrap metal.
Metalworking implements also have been recovered on each wreck. The selection of
wood- and stone-working tools on the ships, in addition to the utilitarian ones, replicates
327

the preferences commonly found within land hoards. As in many caches, tool kits were
probably included on the ships; this supposition is best supported by the diverse range of
chisels on both vessels. Regarding the origin of the shipwreck tools, the selected
implements reflect certain tool preferences of each region under study. Given the ships’
international character, the cultural mix of tool types is hardly surprising.
III. Interpreting how tool distributions relate to craftspersons
The extensive distribution of metal tools naturally produces patterns that reflect
the regional choices and preferences for certain implements. These tendencies also
indicate the manner in which metal was consumed from region to region. For instance,
the eastern Mediterranean utilized copious amounts of bronze to manufacture agricultural
equipment but metal resources were not employed in this manner within the Aegean. At
the most basic level, tool quantities signify how regions used copper and tin resources—
often in different ways. Tool concentrations can be compared to areas of metallurgical
activity to give a better sense of the correlation between production and consumption. In
most regions during the second millennium—though the LH mainland is an exception—
there is a strong connection between a region’s capability (and scale of production) in
metalworking and its quantity of tools.
Understanding how these tool patterns relate to the people who used them is more
difficult to ascertain. Tool distributions reveal the preferences of the consumer at the
local, regional and cross-cultural levels, but the identity of the consumer is normally ill-
defined. Therefore tool patterns, on their own, cannot confirm the exact activities of
craftspersons, since the tools themselves are one level removed from the individuals who
used them. The ability to associate a collection of tools with a craftsperson relies on the
328

archaeological context. For instance, tools found within a workshop may be associated
with the craft that took place there, but workshops are difficult to recognize in
archaeological remains. This is particularly true for carpentry and masonry work areas.
Hypothetically, if a set of appropriate tools were recovered near a partially worked
architectural block, those items surely would have belonged to a mason, but such explicit
evidence is usually absent. Metallurgical workshops are easier to discern, but even then,
all tools found within that context may not have been employed in metalworking—take
for instance the carpentry/masonry tools recovered in the metallurgical workshop at the
Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. The wood- and stone-working implements from this
site have been interpreted as belonging to the tool kit of a smith, but this explanation is
unsatisfactory and ignores the likelihood that they were intended for carpentry and/or
masonry tasks. 764
The purpose of such tools in a metal workshop is unclear, and a
metallurgical interpretation based solely on their appearance at the site is a bold claim.
The identification of tool kits is another method for relating implements to
craftspersons. In this study, carpentry/masonry tool kits have been recognized within
metal hoards and aboard the Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks. Tool variety and
repetitive implement choices from context to context indicate the deliberate compilation
of specific tools. These preferences probably best reflect the choices made by
craftspersons. Yet one cannot definitively say that hoarded tools, even those that appear
to be kits, belonged to a craftsperson. A cache often includes material besides tools, and
implements, though a common hoard object, are only one factor behind an assemblage’s
formation. Although a carpenter or mason may have been the owner of a hoard, it is also
764 Catling and Catling 1984, 205-207.
329

possible that merchants, metal smiths, or even an administrative authority stockpiled the
material and were the consumers of the tools rather than the craftspersons. 765
The material recovered from Uluburun and Gelidonya is perhaps the closest one
can come to relating a set of tools to craftspersons, for tool kits were undoubtedly
included on these ships. Did the set belong to mobile craftspersons on board or to the
ship’s crew, who would have utilized the implements in the maintenance of the vessel?
The implements do not seem to be cargo, for tools are not envisioned as everyday
commodities and, normally, were not valued by elites. It is reasonable for artisans, if they
were mobile, to have taken advantage of the fastest mode of travel at that time:
international sea-voyaging vessels. The Uluburun and Gelidonya evidence provide a
strong argument for craft mobility. By being on board merchant vessels, craftspersons
would have taken advantage of an easy and perhaps regular mode of transportation
between their homeland and many ports of call.
Having acknowledged that tool distributions are not directly indicative of
craftspersons, is it possible to glean any information about craft activities from these
patterns? In the following sections, I identify inter-regional tool connections and possible
cross-cultural links in craft industries based upon the dispersal of metal implements.
Foreign or foreign-inspired tools are found throughout the study regions, but how should
one interpret their significance to craft operations? Do they indicate that craftspersons
operated far from home or were they objects traded indirectly? Foreign tools reveal some
connection, even indirect, between neighboring and remote areas, but the exact nature of
765 th
The Kutalla hoard from 18 century BC Mesopotamia is an example of a state-owned hoard and tool
collection; see, Moorey 1971.
330

this relationship is hard to pinpoint. On the other hand, the absence of non-local tools
does not necessarily mean that distant craft links were non-existent.
IV. Using metal tools to determine interregional contact and craft links
Commonalities among crafted products (luxury goods, ceramics, wall paintings,
architecture, etc.) are traditionally used to assess interregional artistic connections. 766
Alternatively, this study has used metal tools to determine such links, and this section
highlights probable connections. Some tool categories, however, are very poor indicators
of interregional relations. For instance, tools used in small crafting reveal shifts in their
consumption from the MBA to the LBA, but the distribution of these implements (Fig.
3.21a, b) fails to illustrate well-defined spatial patterning or cross-cultural relationships.
Likewise, the distribution of utilitarian implements is not helpful for discerning tool links.
One exception may be the shared popularity of these all-purpose tools on the Greek
mainland and islands throughout the second millennium (Fig. 3.15a, b). These
implements generally demonstrate localized preferences rather than interregional ones.
For instance, knives and other utilitarian items are prominent in Middle Cypriot contexts,
chiefly burials, and this phenomenon resulted from the inception of copper exploitation
on the island. The quantity of MC utilitarian tools is remarkably greater than any other
region—including Crete and Syria-Palestine, both of which were in contact with Cyprus
in the MBA. The infrequency of such tools outside Cyprus illustrates that their
exceptionally high number in MC contexts was the consequence of indigenous customs.
Agricultural, metallurgical and carpentry/masonry implements provide better
evidence for interregional tool links. A shared affinity for agricultural tools in Cyprus and
766 Feldman 2006.
331

Syria-Palestine is not accidental, for these two eastern Mediterranean areas were in
regular contact as we know from the distribution of high value commodities including
luxury items along with textual references to exchanges between the rulers of Alashiya
and Ugarit and relations between Alashiya and Kizzuwatna (and other Hittite vassals). 767
Based on the number of metallurgical tools from MBA Anatolia and Crete, a
technological metalworking link between those two regions may have existed. This
proposition is not unreasonable, for substantial signs of interaction are well documented
between Protopalatial Crete and Anatolia. 768
Cretan metallurgical operations are known
from the third millennium BC, so MM smiths undoubtedly adhered to an indigenous
tradition, open, however, to external influences as evident in the production of tin-bronze.
Thus Cretan smiths perhaps became aware of or were influenced by Anatolian practices
at the beginning of the second millennium BC, if not before. In terms of the
carpentry/masonry tools (Fig. 3.26a, b), Crete, Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria-Palestine took
the lead during the MBA, while the Greek mainland and islands lagged behind—
predictably enough, given their comparative lack of urbanization, construction and
industrial production. During the LBA, carpentry/masonry tools are most popular on
Crete and Syria-Palestine (based on regional percentages rather than total numbers).
These implements are also highly common to the Greek mainland, Cyprus and the eastern
Mediterranean shipwrecks. It must be kept in mind that commensurate proportions of tool
categories cannot confirm trans-cultural dealings in craft work, yet hints of interregional
links are discernible.
767 Beckman 1996a; Beckman 1996b; Wells 1996.
768 E.g. Carter and Kilikoglou 2007; Aruz 2008, 86-87, 101-122; Weingarten 1994.
332

The distribution of implements as presented in this study does not show wholesale
tool similarities among multiple regions. The overall scattering of utensils reveals that
local preferences were the primary factors in the acquisition of craft implements and the
assembly of tool kits or hoards. When similar tool traditions occur in multiple regions,
those areas typically are neighbors, though there are hints at more distant relations.
Instances of non-local or foreign-inspired tools, suggestive of craft connections, are
discussed below. The infrequency of these examples suggests that multi-cultural craft
relations were the exception rather than the rule. The strongest cases for cross-regional
tool links appear to be 1) Anatolia and Syria-Palestine with shaft-hole axes and
trunnion/lugged axes; 2) Syria-Palestine and Cyprus with single/flat axes, shaft-hole axes,
and agricultural tools; 3) Crete and Cyprus with combination and double-sided tools; 4)
Crete and the Greek mainland with double axes, chisels, drills and utilitarian tools; 769
and
5) the Greek mainland and Anatolia with tubular drills and pendulum/convex saws (and a
few Anatolian trunnion/lugged axes in the Aegean).
Minoan Tools Found Outside Crete, Not Including the Mainland
Tool example Type of interregional similarity; comments
Elongated chisel mold from
Kültepe, Karum IB (MBA)
Large Minoan saw from Boğazköy-
Hattusha
Saw and elongated chisel from
Akrotiri (LBI)
The chisel shape within the mold (29 cm long with a cutting edge
width of 3.3 cm) does not resemble Anatolian chisels but rather
those from MBA Crete.
Wide saw blade with a straight cutting edge, clearly akin to
Neopalatial Cretan examples.
Both tools are Minoan in form and were at least inspired from
Neopalatial examples if not imported from Crete.
Combination tools on Cyprus, The 13 th and 12 th century combination tools found in Cypriot
769 It has already been pointed out throughout this study that the double axes and chisels on Crete and the
Greek mainland display notable differences. Although these two tools were popular in both regions, there
are morphological differences that demonstrate a disconnection in tool production and use between the
regions.
333

specifically adze variations (e.g.
double adzes, ax-adzes, hammeradzes,
etc.)
hoards have their closest parallels to Neopalatial tools from Crete
Minoan carpentry/masonry tools are not restricted to Crete and appear in various
foreign contexts, raising the possibility that Minoan craftspersons operated away from
their homeland. Minoan implements in the Cyclades are not unexpected, especially on
Akrotiri, where a Cretan saw and elongated chisel were found. Metal saws come to light
in every study region, though Crete claims nearly 70% of the examples. The easy
discernment of Minoan saws makes them conspicuous when they appear outside of Crete.
The well-known evidence for Minoan settlements or enclaves in the Aegean at this time
(e.g. Akrotiri, Ayia Irini, Phylakopi, Trianda, and Miletus) permits the conclusion that
Minoan craftspersons worked at these outposts. 770 Therefore it is surprising that more
Minoan implements have not turned up at these localities. 771 Two Anatolian objects also
have links to Minoan utensils: a chisel mold from MBA Kültepe and a partial saw from
the Hittite empire period at Boğazköy-Hattusha. The shape of the chisel matrix bears a
stronger resemblance to Minoan elongated chisels than to Anatolian types. The mold is
not indisputably Cretan, but it may represent a vestige of an Anatolian-Minoan craft
connection. A more obvious link between these regions is the large, partial saw (half
preserved) found in the lower city of Boğazköy-Hattusha. Only two other saws (from
MBA Troy) have been recovered in Anatolia, and the Boğazköy-Hattusha example
parallels Minoan types, as Neve has convincingly argued. 772
The existence of a solitary
Cretan tool at Hattusha cannot substantiate the notion of Minoan artisans working at the
770 Architectural traits at Thera closely replicate example from Crete, as discussed in Palyvou 2005. For
Miletus, see Niemeier and Niemeier 1999.
771 For standard works on the interaction and contact between Crete and the Cyclades in the LBA, see
Davis 1979; Schofield 1982; Broodbank 2004.
772 Neve 1989, 402-405.
334

Hittite capital. Yet the object implies the ability of Hittites to acquire tools and possibly
technology from foreign areas, if not also craftspersons, and it calls to mind the half-cut
block before the entrance to House A at Ayia Irini, Keos, which has been taken to be a
piece abandoned by a possible itinerant Minoan mason, who was unfamiliar with the hard
limestone of the islands. 773
Until more evidence is forthcoming, the question of a Hittite-
Cretan craft association either directly or circuitously, remains to be demonstrated.
Shafted, doubled-ended and/or combination tools (double adzes, double axes, ax-
adzes, double-hammers, ax-hammers, adze-hammers and pick-adzes) resemble one
another in their concept and basic form. Excluding the double axes, the tools are
primarily LBA types, and occur consistently on Crete and Cyprus. Other cases have
turned up on the Greek mainland, Anatolia and Syria-Palestine, but not with the same
frequency as on the two islands. The Cypriot shafted double-ended tools first appear
during the 13 th and 12 th centuries and are not indigenous to the island. These implements
were regularly stockpiled in hoards as components of eclectic tool kits, and are
conceptually Minoan in form. The combination tools on Crete and Cyprus are prime
candidates for gauging interregional connections because, excluding the double axes,
they are principally restricted to those two areas. Yet the probable interregional link with
these tools is perplexing for the implements were utilized at different periods on each
island: the Neopalatial era on Crete and roughly two centuries later on Cyprus.
One might expect 13 th -century Cypriot tool connections with the Aegean to
resemble Mycenaean rather than Minoan traits. Parallels between tool preferences on
Cyprus and the Greek mainland, however, are lacking. The employment of pendulum
saws and tubular drills, evident in Mycenaean masonry, is unattested on Cyprus—in all
773 Cummer 1980.
335

likelihood, these implements were unnecessary given the island’s soft limestone and
sandstone materials. The Aegean-like tools on Cyprus clearly recall Cretan versions
rather than anything used by the Mycenaeans. In like manner Cypriot ashlar masonry has
little in common with the Mycenaean world; it is linked most closely to Ugarit and
Crete. 774
Orthostates, pillars, stepped capitals, gypsum veneering, and horns of
consecration are some traits that occur in LC stone working that recall Minoan practices.
The carpentry/masonry tool preferences revealed in this study implore us to reconsider a
Cretan-Cypriot technological link.
Despite the possible connection between Cyprus and Crete, it is difficult to
envision the particular mechanisms of interaction. Minoan craftspersons may have
journeyed to Cyprus after the fall of Knossos (LM IIIA1/2—c. 1375 BC), but a
significant temporal break occurs before the onset of the LC IIC-IIIA ashlar constructions
in the 13 th and 12 th centuries. Furthermore, the Minoan-like carpentry/masonry tools on
Cyprus are limited in number, informing us that the Cypriot tool industry was hardly
overrun with foreign implements by the end of the second millennium. Yet the
appearance of new Cypriot types, probably Cretan inspired, illustrates that Cyprus
blended indigenous carpentry/masonry preferences with some foreign elements. Traces of
a Minoan construction tradition on Cyprus may be detectable through a close study of
tool marks and architectural observations, while the probability of Ugaritic influence and
indigenous Cypriot developments in craftsmanship cannot be overlooked.
The Cypriot double-sided tools are not exact copies of their Neopalatial
prototypes, as slight variations exist between the Minoan and Cypriot versions. Yet it is
reasonable to postulate that the latter were inspired and/or adapted from the former.
774 Hult 1983, 89.
336

Perhaps a transfer of technology and craft tradition occurred when Cypriots traveled
west. Cypriots who participated in mercantile sea-going ventures would have regularly
stopped on Crete, judging by the distribution of Cypriot oxhide ingots on the Aegean
island. The prospect of Cypriot craftspersons working on Crete is suggested by a LM III
Palaikastro metallurgical deposit including potential tripod mold fragments. Hemingway
interpreted the evidence as reflecting the activity of a Minoan smith who produced a
Cypriot tripod, while Catling rejected this interpretation out of hand because the date of
the Palaikastro context was too early to match that from the larger corpus of tripods on
Cyprus. 775 An additional case of Cypriots in the central Mediterranean includes the
assertion that bronze smiths from Cyprus regularly traveled to and seasonally worked on
Sardinia. 776 Given such examples of Cypriots in the west, carpenters and masons from
Cyprus perhaps became acquainted with Crete through trading expeditions, at which time
they observed and adapted some traditional Minoan craft practices and tool types.
Contact between Cyprus and Crete seems to go back to the early years of the MBA when
Cretans first acquired copper from the east. The restricted yet clear tool connection
between the two islands should be counted along with Cypro-Minoan as a sign of the
legacy of the Cretan-Cypriot relationship during the second millennium, a connection that
is also evident during the Iron Age. 777
Tool Similarities between Crete and the Mainland Cultural Sphere
Tool example Type of interregional similarity; comments
Elongated chisel from Lefkas Tomb
S, G4 (MH IIA)
775 Hemingway 1996, 249-250; Catling 1997, 58.
776 Lo Schiavo 2001.
777 Coldstream 2000, 463-464, 468-469.
The exaggerated elongation of the chisel identifies it as either
originating in or inspired by Crete.
337

Two elongated chisels from
Mycenae Grave Circle A, Shaft IV
and V (LH I)
Double ax from Achaea or Patras
general area, dated to LH I‒III
Ax-adze (LH IIB) from Vaphio
(Laconia)
Saw from the LH II−LH IIIA1
Andronianoi hoard (Euboea)
The Minoan versus the Mycenaean
double ax form
Mycenaean-style double ax from
Mallia, Quartier Nu (LM III)
Tomb of the Double Axes at
Isopata, Knossos (LM III)
As above, this chisel type in the Shaft Graves resembles the large
Minoan chisels.
With a circular shaft hole and a wide central area, this double ax
has a typical Minoan form and may be a Neopalatial import.
This tool type is most common to Crete. This specific ax-adze has
a Minoan figure-of-eight shield design on two of its sides.
The size and form resembles Minoan examples. There are no
worthy parallels from the Greek mainland.
The Mycenaean double ax does not appear with regularity until
the LH III period. Once they were developed, the Mycenaean
version had been improved ergonomically in comparison to the
Minoan types.
The tool’s general shape and oval shaft hole resemble Mycenaean
double axes. The LM III date coincides with the proliferation of
the form throughout the mainland.
A Mycenaean-style double ax occurs in this LM III tomb.
Furthermore, a cist in the tomb was cut in the shape of a
Mycenaean double ax.
Ever since the discovery of the Shaft Graves and their publication, scholars have
speculated about the level of interaction between Crete and Mycenae. 778 This discussion
is especially pertinent for assessing the craft links of these areas. Dickinson, for instance,
proposed a “special relationship” between Mycenae and a Minoan palace, likely Knossos,
whereby the mainland employed craftspersons from Crete. 779
By and large, Minoan
carpentry/masonry implements do not appear in the Mycenae Shaft Graves. Double axes,
other double-sided implements, and saws—all common in the Neopalatial repertoire—are
unattested in the Shaft Graves. Only two elongated chisels from the Grave Circles
represent evidence for imported Minoan wood- and stone-working tools. As the Shaft
778 Vermeule 1975; Bloedow 1997, 442-446.
779 Dickinson 1977, 55; Dickinson 1983. This type of connection is perhaps best seen in the metal vessels
from the mainland and Crete; see: Matthäus 1980a, 339-341; Matthäus 1980b, 39-42.
338

Graves portray warrior images more so than that of craftspersons, the early Mycenaeans
apparently were not interested in memorializing craft activities in the mortuary realm.
Thus the nature of craftspersons and their relationship to the elites at early Mycenae is
very inconclusive. Other Minoan or Cretan-inspired implements are found on MBA
Lefkas (elongated chisel), LH IIB Vaphio (ax-adze with figure-of-eight shield motif), LH
II-IIIA1 Andronianoi (saw) and the general area of Patras (double ax). In terms of the
overall carpentry/masonry tool types, there is not explicit evidence for regular interaction
between Minoan and Mycenaean craftspersons. Although the double ax became
prominent in the LH III period on the mainland, it exhibits important changes from the
earlier Minoan version. Despite these conclusions, craft interactions between Cretans and
Mainlanders must have taken place. Recent analysis of the Palace of Nestor at Pylos
concluded that the building’s original form contained certain Cretan architectural
traits. 780 A Minoan craft presence in Messenia thus remains a distinct possibility, despite
the absence of Minoan carpentry/masonry implements at Pylos, and has long been
suspected due to the mason’s marks on the LH IIA Peristeria tholos. 781
Double axes are peculiar to the Aegean and chiefly found on Crete and the Greek
mainland. Pieces have sporadically turned up in other areas, but the sheer quantity of
double axes from the Aegean is unmatched. Minoan and Mycenaean double ax forms are
easily distinguishable in their form and date. The Mycenaean double ax was developed
only by the Late Helladic III period, meaning that the tool is absent from the mainland
during the early Mycenaean period, even though the tool had reached its zenith of
popularity on Crete at that time. The mainland versions had an oval shaft hole with
780 Nelson 2001, 190.
781 Wright 1978, 147; Palyvou 2005, 181.
339

cutting edges wider than the object’s mid-section—a design enabling better stability and
efficiency in comparison to the Minoan type. With this in mind, there are potential signs
of Mycenaean craftspersons on Crete during the Final Palatial period. A Mycenaean-style
double ax, with an oval shaft and narrow mid-section, dates to the late 14 th century at
Quartier Nu, Mallia. Likewise, a Mycenaean double ax also comes from the LM III
Tomb of the Double Axes at Isopata, Knossos. Within this tomb, a cist was carved in the
shape of a Mycenaean-style double ax, intentionally alluding to the Mycenaean element
and character of the tomb. Two non-functional double axes were also found in the tomb,
and these cult items typify examples found at Minoan shrines. The combination of the
two double ax types (functional Mycenaean and ceremonial Minoan) is further indication
of the syncretism of cultures, noted in other materials in the tomb. 782
The Mallia and
Isopata double axes may demonstrate that the Mycenaean tool form arrived on Crete
during the LM III period by means of mainland craftspersons.
Near Eastern Tools in the Aegean and Mycenaean – Hittite Tool Connections
Tool example Type of interregional similarity; comments
Near Eastern tools in the Aegean
Nine trunnion/lugged axes from the
Aegean; four from the mainland and
five from Crete. Most date to LBA
III.
Three LBA socketed chisels from
the Aegean
Crescent shaft-hole ax from Vaphio
(LH IIA)
782 Evans 1914; Alberti 2009.
The general trunnion/lugged ax form is undoubtedly Anatolian in
origin. An example from a LH III burial at Paralimni Teichos
Dymaion (Achaea) closely echoes Anatolian examples.
Socketed chisels are rare in Greece (examples come from
Palaikastro, Ithaka, and Katamachi) but common in Anatolia and
Cyprus.
Crescent axes occur chiefly in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine. The
objects may be ceremonial or prestigious rather than functional.
They are found from the MBA down in elite burials and often
340

Mycenaean and Hittite tool connections
Tubular drill traces in Mycenaean
and Hittite masonry
Tubular drill traces in Mycenaean
and Hittite sculpture
Pendulum saw usage at Mycenae,
Tiryns, Gla and possibly Boğazköy;
Minoan-style saw found at
Boğazköy
manufactured of gold.
The origin of tubular drill use in these regions is unknown, but
circular holes are plentiful in Hittite and Mycenaean citadels,
including a 17cm drill hole in the jamb of the Steintor at Tiryns.
More evidence for this device exists in Hittite sculpture; the Lion
Gate relief and the Treasury of Atreus are the Mycenaean
examples.
It is unclear if pendulum saws were restricted to Greece. Saw
cuts at Boğazköy may indicate a convex saw. How a Minoan saw
ended up in Anatolia is a mystery—perhaps through contact with
the Mycenaeans.
Three prominent Near Eastern (Anatolian and Syro-Palestinian) tool types exist in
Aegean assemblages. Crescent and/or fenestrated axes have a very long ancestry and are
scattered throughout Syria-Palestine and Anatolia. Examples made of gold come from
Byblos, indicating that the implement could be used in ceremonies and rituals. The
presence of a bronze shafted, crescent ax in the LH IIA Vaphio tholos is unique within
the Aegean, but the tool type is also known from the iconography of Minoan seals. While
the object was probably imported from the east, it seems to have been a ritual item of
Aegean priests. This conclusion is reached from the depictions on seals (from Crete and
Vaphio) that portray long-robbed males holding similar axes. 783
Only three socketed
chisels have been found in the Aegean, implying that they were inspired or came from the
east, either Anatolia or Cyprus. The trunnion/lugged ax, is principally an Anatolian
implement and is found in smaller numbers in Syria-Palestine, Cyprus and the
shipwrecks. All trunnion/ lugged ax molds are Anatolian, confirming the tool’s
production in this area. The tool also appears in the Aegean, though only nine examples
783 Evans 1935, 413-414, figure 343; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987, 204 figures 7 and 8 (#225).
341

are collectively known from Crete and the mainland. When found in Greece, these
Anatolian axes principally date to the LBA III period, though a trunnion/lugged blade
turned up at Protopalatial Mallia. With established links between Anatolia and Crete in
the MBA, this early Mallian tool was probably imported from Anatolia.
Evidence for technological and craft exchange between the Hittites and
Mycenaeans previously has been cited with the cut marks of tubular drills and pendulum
saws. A monumental saw that swung back and forth was suggested by Schwandner and
reconstructed in detail from careful measurement by M. Küpper of cuttings on stone
blocks from the Mycenae citadel, some of the Mycenae tholoi tombs, Tiryns, and Gla. 784
Similar markings were observed in the adyton of the Great Temple at Boğazköy-
Hattusha. 785 Seeher recently discredited this theory by experiment, and proposed that the
Hittite blocks were fashioned with a handheld convex saw. 786 It remains to be seen
whether Seeher’s analysis will be accepted by other scholars. Despite the contention over
the saw form that Hittite masons utilized, it is indisputable that a Minoan saw was found
at Boğazköy and Seeher’s argument needs to be weighed against the detailed and
abundant evidence collected by Küpper. 787
Given the use of either the pendulum or a
convex saw in Mycenaean and Hittite masonry, it is somewhat surprising that saws are
infrequent on the Greek mainland and Anatolia, but this may be related to the hard
construction materials (e.g. micro-crystalline limestone, conglomerate, and gabbro) used
in these regions.
784 Schwandner 1991, 219-223; Küpper 1996, 16-25.
785 Schwandner 1991, 220-223; Seeher 2007, 31-35.
786 Seeher 2007, 35-41.
787 For the Minoan saw at Hattusha, see Neve 1989.
342

There are, of course, other architectural techniques that bear comparison between
Hittite and Mycenaean building practices. One of the most interesting is the use of the
tubular drill on stonework, in both masonry and architectural sculpture. Physical tubular
drill bits are conventionally thought to be non-existent, but hollow metal cylinders,
previously understood as sleeve handles of saws, deserve reconsideration as tubular drill
bits. Circular mortises are ubiquitous in masonry at the major Hittite citadels and occur at
Tiryns and Mycenae in the Argolid. Large mortise holes, made by wide tubular drills,
occur in the west jamb of the Steintor of the Tiryns Oberburg (17 cm) and in the jambs of
the Lion and Postern Gates at Mycenae (between 12‒12.5 cm); the purpose of these large
holes was to hold the bar or beam that locked the gate’s doors shut. 788 Tubular drills were
also utilized in manufacturing the Lion Gate relief at Mycenae. 789 Hittite sculptors
employed the specialized drill to form the mouths and eye sockets on the Lion and
Sphinx gates as well as other sculpted lion fragments (from Temples 2 and 3) at
Boğazköy. 790 Additional tubular drill holes in Hittite sculpture are found at Derbent and
Eflatun Pınar. 791
The greater quantity of drill holes in Hittite masonry and sculpture in
comparison to Mycenaean examples, suggests that an Anatolian genesis for the LBA
tubular drill is most likely. Regardless of the tubular drill’s origin, craft links seem
apparent between the Greek mainland and central Anatolia. Such observations enhance
our understanding of Mycenaean and Hittite relations.
Tool Connections within the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean
Tool example Type of interregional similarity; comments
788
Müller 1930, 70-71; Casson 1933, 210-211; Küpper 1996, 11 note 113, plate 1.3.
789
Casson 1933, 24-34, 209-213, figure 9.
790
Seeher 2005.
791
Neve 1988; Bachmann and Özenir 2004.
343

The distribution of shaft-hole axes Shaft-hole axes are rare in the Aegean, but common to Anatolia
and Syria-Palestine. They occur with some regularity in MBA
Cyprus, and were likely imported to the island at that time.
Fenestrated ax molds at Kültepe There are at least two crescent-shaped, fenestrated ax molds from
Kültepe. The objects and their production are more at home in
the Levant, specifically at Byblos.
Socketed chisels in Anatolia and
Cyprus
Anatolia and Cyprus shared the strongest ties for the socketed
chisel, though the tool is found in other regions as well.
Single/flat axes These implements are common in Syria-Palestine and Cyprus,
particularly in the MBA but also in the LBA.
Adze from Boğazköy-Hattusha Identified as an Egyptian adze, found in the Boğazköy-Hattusha
citadel.
Gelidonya and Uluburun
carpentry/masonry tools
Eclectic combination of carpentry/masonry tool types, reflective
of models prevalent in Cyprus, Syria-Palestine, Anatolia and the
Aegean.
The distribution of shaft-hole axes, socketed chisels, and single/flat axes in the Near
East and eastern Mediterranean implies cross-regional tool connections. A preference for
shaft-hole axes characterizes the acquisition of Anatolian and Syro-Palestinian
implements. The tool’s appearance in the Cypriot MBA shows the island’s connection to
these areas, specifically Syria. 792 Shaft-hole axes are unusual in the Aegean, as their
realm of production was in Anatolia— judging by the numerous molds recovered there—
and the Levant. There are at least two crescent-shaped, fenestrated ax molds from
Kültepe, yet the production and consumption of these axes is better documented in the
Levant. 793
Therefore, the presence of such molds in central Anatolia indicates contact
with and influence from Syro-Palestinian craftspersons; it is even possible that a
Levantine smith had traveled to and worked at Kültepe. Socketed chisels also have clear-
cut regional tendencies, dominated by Anatolian and Cypriot examples. The shared
792 Philip 1989, 44.
793 Philip 1989. For the Kültepe molds, see Müller-Karpe 1994, 211 plates 48.5-6.
344

affinity of the tool types in Anatolia and Cyprus may allude to common craft work
between the regions. Single/flat axes appear in each area of study, yet are particularly
abundant in Cyprus and Syria-Palestine. This pattern is palpable in the MBA and remains
detectable in the LBA, thereby providing another example for cultural interaction
between these regions. The spatial patterning of the carpentry/masonry tools generally
indicates similar craft traditions between the eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia.
An Egyptian adze was recovered at Hattusha, and its presence in the Hittite
capital was likely not accidental given the well documented exchanges between Egypt
and Hatti. 794
Could the object reflect an Egyptian artisan laboring in central Anatolia—
supporting Near Eastern textual records’ suggestion of state-level exchange of
specialists—or a Hittite artisan who having been sent to Egypt returned with an Egyptian
tool in his kit? That conclusion is tempting for identifying instances of the movement of
craftspersons, but a single Egyptian adze in Hattusha cannot be used to support the notion
of Egyptian workmen living at Boğazköy.
Finally, the mix of carpentry/masonry tools on the Uluburun and Gelidonya ships
illustrates different tool preferences from Cyprus, the Levant, Anatolia, and the Aegean.
This tool mixing is perhaps the best indication of interregional craft exchanges, as well as
the strongest evidence for traveling craftspersons, a topic explored below.
V. Traveling craftspersons
Clear-cut examples of mobile craftsmen are hard to come by from tool
distributions alone. In addition to the Egyptian adze at Hattusha mentioned above, an
obvious case is a LH IIIB mold for a winged ax that was found at Mycenae. Since axes of
794 Neve 1996, 29, figure 70; Neve 2002, 93; Moran 1992.
345

this form are unknown in the Aegean and common to Italy, the mold probably arrived in
Mycenae by means of a “traveling smith.” 795 Yet tool kits (see Chapter 5) represent a
better method for tracking cross-cultural relations and craft mobility, because groups of
selected implements reflect craft similarities more so than isolated items. 796 Yet for
regions that boast tool kits, each has its own version that does not appear elsewhere. If
regionally-specific tool kits were ever discovered in multiple areas, those implement sets
would demonstrate the mobility of craftspersons. Mobile artisans, according to
ethnographic and textual sources, travel in small numbers and typically return to their
place of origin following the completion of a commission. 797
For this reason, foreign
implements are unlikely to be present in tool assemblages, making it difficult to
recognize the movement of craftspersons.
The notion of MBA and LBA traveling craftspersons—particularly metal smiths,
carpenters, masons, and painters—is often proposed by scholars to explain craft
similarities in different regions. Yet this sector of society defies recognition in the
798
Aegean due to the region’s limited textual records. In spite of this difficulty, “the
concept of the traveling or migrant craftsperson is embedded in the archaeology of the
Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Greece.” 799
This statement is particularly true when
considering the influence and extent of Minoan masons and carpenters in the Cyclades,
Greek mainland, and eastern Mediterranean.
795
Stubbings 1954b, 298.
796
For the importance of assemblages rather than individual items acting as social markers, see Childe
1956, 121-3; Dabney 1989, 139-150.
797
Helms 1993, 33-34.
798
On the possibility of traveling craftsmen in the Aegean, Cline (1995, 266) observed: “although there are
quite a lot of very well known data which can be used in the attempt to identify expatriate Minoans and
Mycenaeans, it has proven rather difficult to actually document this elusive class of people.” The issue is an
old one in scholarship, and is discussed by Persson (1942, 148-149), though this work is by no means the
earliest to address the topic.
799
Muhly 2005, 685.
346

As previously mentioned, Minoan craftspersons worked in the Cyclades during
the early LBA—this is best seen by the architecture and handful of metal tools at Akrotiri
as well as the unfinished saw-cut in a block outside Building A at Ayia Irini. 800 It stands
to reason that Minoan craftspersons also traveled to Trianda on Rhodes, Miletus in
western Anatolia, and Phylakopi on Melos, as each of these LBA I settlements have
distinctive Minoan elements. 801
This supposition, however, is not strengthened by the
distribution of tools or any implement markings.
Minoan masons are also thought to have traveled to and worked on the Greek
mainland during the early Mycenaean period in both Messenia and the Argolid. Located
in the southwest Peloponnese, the LH IIA Peristeria tholos has two incised mason’s
marks—a double ax and a branch—on the tomb’s outer façade, and these marks were in
802
all likelihood carved by a Minoan artisan. Also in Messenia, the earliest foundations of
the Palace of Nestor during the early Mycenaean period have been re-interpreted by
Nelson as the probable work of Minoan masons. 803 Likewise, in the Argolid, Minoan
stonemasons are suspected to have introduced ashlar masonry to that region in the LH II
period. 804
Of course, the issue of whether Minoan craftspersons operated on the mainland
is most often discussed in terms of the materials from the Mycenae Shaft Graves.
Minoan elements are documented by various objects from the Grave Circles,
leading to speculation about their place of manufacture.
800
Palyvou 2005, 114, 120, 180-181; Cummer 1980.
801
Broodbank 2004.
802
Wright 1978, 147, 272; Palyvou 2005, 181.
803
Nelson 2001, 187-191.
804
Wright 1978, 273.
805
Vermeule 1975, 27ff; Matthäus 1980a, 339-341; Matthäus 1980b, 39-42; Dickinson 1997; Bloedow
1997, 439.
805
Are Shaft Grave objects
products of Cretans (either invited or captured) working on the mainland or Mycenaean
347

artisans trained in a Minoan style? A distinct relationship between Mycenae and Knossos
existed during the Shaft Grave era, according to Dickinson, yet the mechanics of craft
production and exchange at this time are unclear. 806 Muhly notes that “the most
contentious situation involving immigrant craftsmen is certainly the assumed Minoan
influence on the magnificent array of [Shaft Grave] artifacts,” and he concludes that the
patronage of Minoan craftspersons at Mycenae is inconclusive without textual sources. 807
Nevertheless, Bloedow interprets the Minoan-like objects in the Shaft Graves as
reflecting “itinerant craftsmen (chiefly Minoan), working especially at Mycenae, but also
at other centers of the Greek mainland.” 808 On the other hand, Tripathi proposed that the
Shaft Grave metals were produced by roughly a dozen smiths, who fashioned the objects
locally but were trained in Crete or the Cyclades. 809 The distinct Cretan traits in the Shaft
Graves and their uncertain place of manufacture highlight the challenge of recognizing
mobile craftspersons in the Aegean Bronze Age. 810
Discussions about the prospect of craftspersons traveling between the Aegean and
eastern Mediterranean focuses upon fresco plasters and painters through study of related
811
painting styles and techniques.
Excavations at several LBA sites in Syria-Palestine and
Egypt have produced fragments of wall paintings that bear a resemblance to Aegean
workmanship, leading to the suggestion that Aegean craftspersons traveled to the eastern
806
Dickinson 1977, 55; Dickinson 1983; Schofield 1982, 13-14; Bloedow 1997, 442-446.
807
Muhly 2005, 690. After reviewing the materials from the Grave Circles, Laffineur (1990-1991, 287-288)
notes that the evidence “as far as foreign contacts are concerned is rather paradoxical and disappointing.”
This statement is more concerned with the relations of Mycenae with the Near East, and he acknowledges
(289-290) a connection between Crete and Mycenae, though he does not comment on the exact nature of
this relationship.
808
Bloedow 1997, 440.
809
Tripathi 1988, 213.
810
Persson (1942, 148-149) recognizes the probability of craft mobility in the Aegean Bronze Age, but
emphasizes the indigenous nature of workshops that produced the Shaft Grave materials. Also see,
Vermeule 1975, 27-34.
811
Boulotis 2000; Bloedow 1997 (439) states, “these developments [Minoan style frescoes in the east]
increase the possibility that they may have been itinerant craftsmen in a number of other spheres as well.”
348

Mediterranean, or conversely that this artistic technology originated in the east and
moved west. 812 “Minoan style” frescoes have turned up at Tell el-Dab`a (Avaris, Egypt),
Tell Kabri (Israel) and Alalakh VII (Tell Atchana, Turkey). 813 The painting technique,
style, color, and themes of these fresco fragments are the same as or similar to those of
Cretan works. 814 For instance, the well-known bull-leaping scene from Tell el-Dab`a
imitates the theme and style of the Knossosian bull leaper. 815 The conventional portrayal
of gender (red skin for men and white for women) in Minoan painting is evident in the
Tell el-Dab`a figures. Other Near Eastern paintings with potential Aegean connections
are found at Qatna (Syria), Malkata and Amarna (Egypt); the cultural associations of
works from Mari and Nuzi (Mesopotamia) to the Aegean are less clear. 816
The precise nature of the Aegean-style paintings in Egypt and Syria-Palestine is
far from understood, and some scholars have been reluctant to attribute the works to
817
Minoan artists despite similarities in motifs and the fresco technique. Yet most
scholars assume that there was some sort of artistic exchange among regions, possibly
enhanced by movement of the artisans themselves. The direction of artistic influence
between the east and west is debated. 818
Brysbaert advocates that the technological
812 This debate is summarized by: Brysbaert 2008, 24, 147-185.
813 Regarding the Tell el-Dab`a frescoes, Hankey 1993 (27) states that they “came from a palace built
towards the end of Dynasty XV (Hyksos), and were destroyed between years 11 and 15 of Ahmose (first
king of Dynasty XVIII). Fragments were scattered over a garden used after the destruction.” For other wall
paintings, see: Niemeier 1995; Cline 1995, 266-270; Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, 792-793; Cline and
Yasur-Landau 2007; Aruz, J. et al. 2008.
814 Hankey 1993 (27-28) notes the similarities with Minoan works: “Subjects [of the eastern Mediterranean
frescoes] include papyrus, feline beasts, trees, flowers, a labyrinth with a border, rocky landscapes, all with
affinities with Cycladic and Minoan paintings.”
815 Bietak, Marinatos, and Palivou 2007.
816 Gates 1984, 75-78; Cline 1995, 270; Feldman 2006, 83-85; Aruz et al. 2008.
817 See Hankey 1993, 28. While discussing the Tell el-Dab`a paintings, Shaw (1997, 502-503) questions
whether the craftsmanship was the work of Minoans: “their [the frescoes] thematic repertoire is thoroughly
Aegean, but in my view their execution, at least in the case of the bull-leaping scenes shows departures
from Minoan representational conventions and style.”
818 Brysbaert 2008, 24ff.
349

transfer of painted plaster moved from the west to the east, opposing the more common
understanding that the eastern Mediterranean influenced the Aegean. 819
The uncertainties
regarding the production of the eastern Mediterranean frescos and the debate about the
direction of technological transfer highlight the challenge of identifying how prehistoric
craftspersons moved about within the Mediterranean world.
Other evidence for the mobility of craftspersons in the LBA is found in the similar
construction techniques of the Mycenaeans and Hittites. The strongest architectural
parallels between these cultures include the corbelled vaulted galleries at Boğazköy and
Tiryns, and the Anatolian tradition of using a timber frame to shape wall sections, a
technique employed in the Mycenaean palaces. Nelson demonstrated that the walls in the
palace of Nestor (LH IIIB) were constructed by timber frames that were used as molds.
A finished wall section consisted of a series of pillars, each of which was formed by a
rubble and mortar mix poured inside a timber molding. After this mixture dried and
cemented, the timber molding was removed, leaving vertical gaps in the wall. These
chases were subsequently filled with lime mortar, although the timber mold was
occasionally left in place. This technique, according to Wright, is found at other
Mycenaean centers (Tiryns and Mycenae) and likely owes its origin to central Anatolia,
where wooden chases are recognized within MBA and LBA mudbrick monumental
buildings (e.g. Beycesultan, Acemhöyük, Kültepe, Boğazköy, Tarsus, and Maşat
Höyük). 821
It is with this connection in mind that the similarities of the tubular drill and
the pendulum/convex saw add to the likelihood of a Hittite and Mycenaean craft link.
819 Brysbaert 2008, 24, 165ff; Brecoulaki 2010.
820 Nelson 2001, 73-98.
821 Wright 2006, 28-33.
820
350

The Cycladic and Greek mainland cases of traveling Minoan craftspersons
suggest a different socio-economic situation in place than that for the Hittite-Mycenaean
connection. While a state-level society existed on Neopalatial Crete, it appears as a peer-
polity system and a comparable level of social organization is not documented in the
Cyclades or the mainland at that time. Again, the exact mechanisms of interaction in the
early Mycenaean period between Crete and the islands/mainland are unclear, but this
situation is very different from the apparent palace to palace relations of the Hittites and
Mycenaeans. The aforementioned craft similarities between central Anatolia and the
Greek mainland are only detectable at palatial sites. The Minoan craftspersons who
worked outside Crete do not appear to have been so restricted. Even if Minoan artisans
were employed by mainland elites, this structure and organization is very different from
the Hittite and Mycenaean one. Clearly, the Crete‒Cycladic/mainland connection was not
based on an equivalent citadel to citadel relationship.
The apparent difference in craft travel, as noted above, is a reflection of a
centralized and controlling agency. In light of these observations, it is interesting to
reconsider the distribution of LBA carpentry/masonry tools by site, as most regions have
one primary consumer. Of the Cypriot carpentry/masonry tools (182 examples), 57.6%
(94 cases) come from Enkomi. Likewise, Mycenae (25.2% or 77 out of 306), Hattusha
(60.3% or 199 out of 330) and Ugarit (67.8% or 82 out of 121) are the chief users of LBA
wood- and stone-working tools in their respective regions. As previously noted, the
distribution of these tools is more evenly distributed on Crete, reflecting the peer-polity
nature of the Neopalatial period. Zakros has greatest yield of LM carpentry/masonry
tools, but this number represents only 14.5% of the region’s assemblage. The method of
351

producing and consuming metal tools was quite different on LM Crete as compared to the
other LBA state-level societies. Perhaps this evidence illustrates that LBA craft activity
was more centralized—possibly with tighter control—on the Greek mainland, Cyprus,
the Levant, and Anatolia. This observation may explain why tool similarities among
multiple regions in the 14 th and 13 th centuries are comparatively rare, despite a well
recognized international style for many craft products. 822 The Neopalatial evidence—
both in terms of the distribution of tools on the island and the number of instances of
Minoan craftspersons who traveled—suggests a dissimilar type of craft organization in
relation to other regions. On the other hand, the link between Mycenaeans and Hittites
resembles the type of relationship between palatial entities as described in Near Eastern
texts, like the Amarna tablets. 823
The fashioning of luxurious commodities and their exchange plays a crucial role
824
in dictating the political relationships between Near Eastern states. The exchange of
skilled persons between Near Eastern powers is part of this system, for such individuals
“are requested, refused, and dispatched like gifts.” 825 The movement of artisans by a state
is documented early in the second millennium in the archives at Mari. 826
In the LBA, the
Amarna tablets imply that specialists traveled reciprocally between courts. The king of
Alashiya requested from Egypt (EA 35) an expert in vulture augury (a person with an
unusual skill whose desirability may have been on par with that of a master craftsperson)
822 Feldman 2006.
823 Moran 1992.
824 Feldman 2006; Zaccagnini 1987.
825 Zaccagnini 1983, 253. For the ethnography of elite relations and craftsmen, see Helms 1993, 34.
826 Zaccagnini 1983, 247-248. For the opposite scenario, where artisans where transported from rural to
urbanized areas, see Wattenmaker 1998, 49.
352

while a personnel delivery of 46 females and 5 males was sent to Egypt (EA 268). 827 The
transport of specialists from Babylonia and Egypt to the Hittites and vice versa is
recorded in several texts. The transferred individuals were knowledgeable about medicine
and magic, and the records reveal a deep concern that the experts not be detained upon
completing their work; in fact, it was stipulated that loaned workers should return
immediately to their homeland. This anxiety about the safety of these experts signifies
their worth to the lending authority. The return of the skilled specialists, however, was
not always guaranteed, and the Mari texts record problems with runaway craftspersons
and artisans. A similar concern is evident in a treaty between Mursili II, king of Hatti,
and two vassal states. If the Hittite ruler encountered a refugee who was a “plowman,
weaver, carpenter, leatherworker or craftsman of any kind” then the king was required to
return that person to the vassal state. 828
Explicit evidence detailing the transfer of carpenters and masons in the MBA and
LBA, comparable to the verse in 2 Samuel 5:11 that states that the king of Tyre sent
829
craftspersons to Israel in the Iron Age, is extremely rare.
In an agreement between
Hattusili and Ramses (KUB 3 67 and 66), Hittite masons or house builders are sent to
Egypt after Egyptian physicians were lent to Hatti. In another text, a Hittite king demands
a sculptor from the Babylonian court, while pledging that the artist would be returned
promptly. As these artisans were attached to the palace, their services had to be formally
requested in state letters. It is not unreasonable that such an agreement was in place
between Hattusha and Mycenae/Tiryns. If one had to guess, perhaps it is more likely that
827
Moran 1992, 107-109, 315-316. EA 268 is too fragmentary to ascertain the occupations of the
individuals who were exchanged.
828
Zaccagnini 1983, 250.
829
2 Samuel 5:11: “Now Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, along with cedar logs and
carpenters and stonemasons, and they built a palace for David.”
353

the Argolid acquired specialized Hittite craftspersons rather than vice versa. With this
supposition in mind, the Hittite Tawagalawa letter is intriguing to consider, for it may
document the movement of craftspersons from Anatolia to the Greek mainland. 830 The
letter was written by a Hittite king, perhaps Hattushili III in the mid-13 th century, and
addressed to the Ahhiyawan king. 831 In the text, Tawagalawa, thought to be the brother of
the Ahhiyawan king, was “operating in and around the Ahhiyawan dependency
Millawanda [Miletus], recruiting Anatolians for labor in Ahhiyawa.” 832 The letter also
indicates that an Anatolian charioteer, who had driven both the Hittite king and
Tawagalawa, was sent to Ahhiyawa, thus reflecting “personal and technical exchanges
and visits” between the Hittites and Mycenaeans. 833
According to the LBA Near Eastern textual records, the movement of
834
craftspersons between different states was reciprocal, court mandated, and temporary.
Using the ethnographic record, Helms notes that the nature of travel for craftspersons
may be either long-lasting or periodic; as well as either intentional or forced. 835
The
movement of craftspersons is well documented in historical situations as well, and there
are numerous accounts of foreign craftspersons in various Near Eastern courts during the
Iron Age. Zaccagnini suggests that these artists were perhaps independent and naturally
drawn to capital cities for employment. For example, Phoenician and Cypriot specialists
are reported in Neo-Assyrian Nineveh, while a consortium of alien craftspersons
830
Kelder 2010, 27-30.
831
Güterbock 1983, 134-137; Mellink 1983, 140; Singer 1983, 209-213.
832
Kelder 2010, 27.
833
Mellink 1983, 140; also see Singer 1983, 213 for a discussion of this Hittite charioteer.
834
Zaccagnini 1983, 247.
835
Helms 1993, 32. Also consider the possibility that specialists were obtained as war booty (Zaccagnini
1983, 257). Craftsmen and smiths were taken from Jerusalem to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings
24:14), and this practice is also attested much earlier in the Sumerian poem of Lugalbanda (thought to be
composed in the Ur III period), as well as by the actions of the Middle Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I
(1244-1208 BC).
354

(including Ionian sculptors) toiled at Pasargadae, later at Persepolis, and throughout the
entire Achaemenid Empire. 836
Although there are differences in the conditions that enabled the movement of
craftspersons, the previously discussed cases occur when artisans belonged to state-level
societies (regardless of whether that type of social structure existed in the area where the
work was carried out). In decentralized societies, artisans may have freelanced and
837
traveled because of necessity. Such itinerancy seems detectable with production of
Aegean lithics as far back as the Neolithic and EBA—periods that obviously lacked a
state-level social structure. 838 Specifically, Perlès argues that the chipped stone
assemblages from Neolithic Greece suggest “itinerant knappers going from village to
village with their pre-formed or partially flaked cores.” 839 Likewise, if a highly structured
social system collapsed, craftspersons may have been forced to adapt to new economic
conditions. Under this scenario, craft persons, who were formerly dependent upon now-
defunct palaces, may have turned peripatetic while seeking viable work. Several cases of
craftsmanship in the late 13 th and 12 th centuries apply this logic. 840 In the wake the
Aegean collapse, post-palatial Mycenaean smiths, according to Iacovou, moved to
Cyprus and continued to practice their trade on the island. 841
The findings on the Cape
Gelidonya ship are also understood to reflect the economic stress of the late 13 th century.
The bronze materials on the vessel perhaps belonged to a mercantile bronze smith who
836
Nylander 1970; Zaccagnini 1983, 264.
837
This scenario is suggested by Zaccagnini (1983, 259) to explain the lines in Odyssey 17.382-386, which
describe how carpenters among other specialists are welcomed when they come from abroad.
838
Perlès 1992, 136-137; Carter 2008.
839
Perlès 1992, 137.
840
Hitchcock (2005, 693) hypothesizes that the socio-economic situation at this time resulted in the
movement of Aegean craftsmen to the eastern Mediterranean, yet some of her conclusions may be
questioned.
841
Iacovou 2006, 327-328.
355

traveled from region to region practicing his trade at a time of heightened social anxiety.
Such an independent smith would have operated on a small scale in melting and recasting
objects, leading Bass to identify him as a tinker. 842
An additional case of traveling smiths has been suggested from the Late Cypriot
bronze work on Sardinia. The relationship between Cyprus and Sardinia at the end of the
LBA, although much discussed, is hardly resolved. One proposal is that Cypriot smiths
had metallurgical workshops on Sardinia. Given the lack of evidence for Cypriot
habitation on the western island, however, Lo Schiavo envisions Cypriot craftspersons
843
seasonally living on Sardinia and making regular trips between the two islands.
activity is dated to the 12 th and 11 th centuries, once the traditional metallurgical and trade
networks of the Mediterranean had collapsed. Cypriot traders, workers, and craftspersons
may have ventured west in search of raw materials, goods or new markets. This argument
VI. Future directions for studying metal tools
This
falls in line with the notion that craftspersons travel in search of work during a period of
instability. This type of craft independence, occurring in a decentralized society, does not
seem to characterize the majority of the Bronze Age.
This study has presented at length the distribution and consumption trends of
MBA and LBA metal tools in the Aegean, eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia. The
observations made from this dataset illustrate the development of tool types over time,
the regional tool preferences, and the implications of the craft industries and
craftspersons associated with these implements. Moreover, these patterns confirm how
842 Bass 1967, 163-164.
843 Lo Schiavo 2001.
356

metal was utilized by a society and gives an indication of how much was in circulation.
Yet several parts of this study will be improved with future work.
First of all, the catalogue compiled here is intended to be as comprehensive as
possible but with each year there are new finds and publications that will augment the
current list. The data presented from the Aegean, Cyprus, and Anatolia is relatively
exhaustive, but the information from the Levant has not been investigated as thoroughly
and the assembly of tools from the region principally came from Deshayes’ dataset.
Additionally, tool industries from three important areas peripheral to the study region
were not explored. Egypt, the central Mediterranean (including the Italian peninsula,
Sicily and Sardinia) and the Balkans were in contact with several core study areas during
the second millennium, particularly in the LBA. 844
The implements of these three regions
would provide additional data with which to analyze metal tools from the vast and
interconnected pre- and proto-historic Mediterranean world. Furthermore, the current
study has focused upon carpentry and masonry tools, and more attention should be given
to the other functional tool categories in future projects.
Statistical analyses were useful for identifying tool similarities among different
hoards as well as for differentiating certain kinds of tools and their subtypes based upon a
length-over-width ratio. It is recognized that these calculations merely scratched the
statistical potential of the current database, and a more thorough statistical investigation
of the tool data would be useful. For instance, statistical measures may demonstrate
regional and localized (site-by-site) variations of a single type of implement.
844
Of these three regions, Deshayes included the Balkan tools and emphasized their connection to
Mycenaean types.
357

A complete study of metal tools requires two other avenues of research that were
not fully undertaken in this project. The first is to understand the employment of chipped
stones and bone for tools in craft activities during the MBA and LBA. These utensils,
which had been used for thousands of years, were not eradicated with the introduction of
bronze implements. While the coexistence of stone, bone and metal tools is now
acknowledged for the entire second millennium, it is less clear whether craftspersons
deliberately utilized a combination of these tool types on the same projects. A more lucid
understanding of the relationship between metal and stone implements would represent a
major breakthrough in the evaluation of prehistoric craftsmanship, a point that Karimali
has previously emphasized. 845
Likewise, the comprehension of prehistoric tools would be
enhanced by a methodical examination of tool marks on various media but particularly
masonry. The value of markings from tools is evident in the reconstructions and
implication of the tubular drill in masonry and sculpture as well as the pendulum and
convex saws. A combined investigation that takes the selection of craft tools and their
traces of use into account could reveal localized craft techniques or interregional
connections in masonry work. Consideration of craft tools must take into account, even if
only superficially, the preservation of their cuttings, for such marks may indicate a tool’s
functionality.
Finally, additional methods of analysis are required to address ways for
differentiating carpentry and masonry implements. Metallographic procedures may
indicate how a blade was utilized and more specifically how a cutting edge was
transformed.
846
Perhaps, it is better to conduct a series of experiments for distinguishing
845 Karimali 2005; Karimali 2008.
846 For an example of this type of analysis in the Aegean, see: Tselios 2008.
358

wood- and stone-working tools from each other. 847
Many tools exhibit distinct marks on
their cutting surfaces, but it remains uncertain as to whether these resulted from actual
use, conservation or post-excavation damage in storage. The experimental use of copper-
alloy and bronze tools to cut wood or stone would form a dataset with which to compare
any visible markings on prehistoric tools. Moreover, any experimental work would
enhance our understanding of a tool’s function and its effectiveness on various materials.
847 For a selection of previous experimental work on metal tools, see: Gorelick and Gwinnett 1983;
Gwinnett and Gorelick 1987; Seeher 2007.
359

Dissertation Bibliography
Agouridis, C. 1999. The Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Point Iria: Discovery and
Excavation. In The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca.
1200 B.C. Proceedings of the International Conference, Islands of Spetses, 19
September 1998, edited by W. Phelps: Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology:
25-42.
Alberti, L. 2009. Rethinking the Tomb of the Double Axes at Isopata, Knossos. In
Archaeologies of Cult: Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine
C. Gesell, edited by A. L. D'Agata and A. Van de Moortel. Princeton: The
American School of Classical Studies at Athens: 99-106.
Amouretti, M.-C. 1970. Fo i M i : Le centre politique II: la Crypte
hypostyle (1957-1962), Études crétoises 18. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner.
Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M., G. Rethemiotakis, and N. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, eds.
2008. From the Land of the Labyrinth: Minoan Crete, 3000-1100 B.C. New York:
Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA). In collaboration with the
Hellenic Ministry of Culture, the Archaeological Museums of Crete.
Andreou, E. 1986. Chronika. Archaiologikon Deltion (’Απχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον) 41: 114,
plates 07-08.
———. 1994. Nees Proistorikes Theseis stēn Epeiros. In Phēgo : Timē iko Tomo gi
on K hēgē ē Sō ērē D k rē. Iōannina: Panepistēmio Iōanninōn: 243-59.
Apostolakou, S., P. P. Betancourt, and T. Brogan. 2009. Excavating the Bronze Saw on
Chryssi Island. Kentro 11: 3-5.
Aruz, J. 2008. Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean
and the Orient (ca. 2600-1360 B.C.). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Aruz, J., K. Benzel, and J. Evans, eds. 2008. Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy
in the Second Millennium BC. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Aruz, J. et al. 2008. Painted Palaces. In Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in
the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans. New
York and New Haven: The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University
Press: 123-36.
Åström, P. 1977-78. The Pera Bronzes. In Scripta minora Einaro Gjerstad octogenario
dedicata. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
———. 1982. The Bronzes of Hala Sultan Tekke. In Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000-
500 B.C. Acta of the International Archaeological Symposium, Larnaca, Cyprus
360

1-6 June 1981, edited by J. D. Muhly, R. Maddin and V. Karageorghis. Nicosia:
Pierides Foundation and Dept. of Antiquities: 177-83.
Avila, R. 1983. Bronzene Lanzen- und Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit. Vol.
V, Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Avner, U. 2010. Where are the Egyptian Mines and Smelting Facilities at Timna? In
Paper read at the 2010 American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting,
18-20 November, Atlanta.
Bachmann, M., and S. Özenir. 2004. Das Quellheiligtum Eflatun Pınar. Archäologischer
Anzeiger: 85-122.
Balcer, J. M. 1974. The Mycenaean Dam at Tiryns. American Journal of Archaeology 78:
141-9.
Balthazar, J. W. 1990. Copper and Bronze Working in Early through Middle Bronze Age
Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, 84. Jonsered: Paul
Åströms Förlag.
Banks, E. C. 1984 (1967). The Early and Middle Helladic Small Objects from Lerna.
Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008. The Late
Bronze Age Hoard of Kaleburnu/Galinoporni on Cyprus. Pamatky Archeologicke
99: 4-33.
Bass, G. 1967. Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Vol. 57, Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical
Society.
———. 1986. A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kaş): 1984 Campaign. American
Journal of Archaeology 90 (3): 269-96.
———. 1988. Return to Cape Gelidonya. INA Newsletter 15 (2): 2-5.
Bass, G., C. Pulak, D. Collon, and J. Weinstein. 1989. The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu
Burun: 1986 Campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 93 (1): 1-29.
Beckman, G. 1996a. Akkadian Documents from Ugarit. In Sources for the History of
Cyprus. Volume II: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First
Millennia BC, edited by A. B. Knapp. Altamont, NY: Greece and Cyprus
Research Center: 26-8.
———. 1996b. Hittite Documents from Hattusa. In Sources for the History of Cyprus.
Volume II: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia
361

BC, edited by A. B. Knapp. Altamont, NY: Greece and Cyprus Research Center:
31-5.
Begg, D. J. 2004a. An Archaeology of Palatial Mason’s Marks on Crete. In Χάπιρ: E y
in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, Hesperia Supplement 33, edited by A. P.
Chapin. Princeton, NJ: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens: 1-25.
———. 2004b. An interpretation of mason's marks at Knossos. In Knossos: Palace, City,
State: Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion organised by the British
School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities
of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's
Excavations at Knossos, edited by G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and A. Vasilakis.
London: The British School at Athens: 219-23.
Belgiorno, M. R. 1997. A Coppersmith Tomb of Early-Middle Bronze Age in Pyrgos
(Limassol). Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 119-46.
———. 1999. Preliminary Report of Pyrgos Excavations 1996, 1997. Report of the
Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 71-86.
———. 2004. Pyrgos-Mavroraki: Advanced Technology in Bronze Age Cyprus Nicosia:
Theopress Ltd.
Benson, J. L. 1972. Bamboula at Kourion: The Necropolis and the Finds Excavated by
J.F. Daniel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Benton, S. 1934-35. Excavations in Ithaca, III. Annual of the British School at Athens 35:
45-73.
Ben-Yosef, E., R. Shaar, L. Tauxe, H. Ron, A. Agnon, and T. Levy. 2010. Timna 30
Revisited: High Resolution Dating Indicates Intense Iron Age (11th -9th c.
B.C.E.) Copper Production in the Southern Negev. In Paper read at the 2010
American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, 18-20 November,
Atlanta.
Betancourt, P. P. 2008. The Copper Smelting Workshop at Chrysokamino:
Reconstructing the Smelting Process. In Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age.
Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of Crete,
Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta
Pragmata Publications: 105-11.
Bevan, A. 2007. Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bietak, M., N. Marinatos, and C. Palyvou. 2007. Taureador Scenes in Tell El-D bʻ
(Avaris) and Knossos. Wien: ÖAW, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
362

Wissenschaften.
Bilgi, Ö. 2001. Protohistorik çağ'da orta Karadeniz bö g i m n i ri: Hin -
r p r n n n or n n y ni bir y k m = Protohistoric age
metallurgists of the central Black Sea region: a new perspective on the question
of the Indo-Europeans' original homeland. Istanbul: TASK Vakfı.
Billigmeier, J. C., and J. A. Turner. 1981. The Socio-Economic Roles of Women in
Mycenaean Greece: A Brief Survey from Evidence of the Linear B Tablets. In
Reflections of Women in Antiquity, edited by H. P. Foley. New York: Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers: 1-18.
Binford, L. R., and S. R. Binford. 1966. A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability
in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68 (2): 238-95.
Bintliff, J. 1977. The History of Archaeo-Geographic Studies of Prehistoric Greece, and
Recent Fieldwork. In Mycenaean Geography: Proceedings of the Cambridge
Colloquium, September 1976, edited by J. Bintliff. Cambridge: British
Association for Mycenaean Studies: 3-18.
Blakely, S. 2006. Myth, Ritual, and Metallurgy in Ancient Greece and Recent Africa.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blegen, C. W. 1937. Prosymna: The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum.
Cambridge: The University Press.
Blegen, C. W., and M. Rawson. 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western
Messenia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Blegen, C. W., M. Rawson, W. Taylour, and W. P. Donovan. 1973. The Palace of Nestor,
Volume 3. Acropolis and Lower Town. Tholoi and Grave Circle. Chamber Tombs.
Discoveries Outside the Citadel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Blitzer, H. 1992. The Chipped Stone, Ground Stone, and Worked Bone Industries. In
Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume II. The Bronze Age
Occupation, edited by W. A. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie. Minneapolis: The
University of Minnesota Press: 712-56.
———.1995. Minoan Implements and Industries. In Kommos: An Excavation on the
South Coast of Crete, edited by J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw. Princeton: Princeton
University Press: 403-535.
Bloedow, E. 1997. Itinerant Craftsmen and Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age. In TEXNH:
Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age:
Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple
University, 18-21 April 1996, edited by R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt. Liège;
363

Austin: Université de Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 439-47.
Boehmer, R. M. 1972. Die Kleinf n on Boğ zköy n Gr bungskampagnen 1931-
1939 und 1952-1969. Vol. VII. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
———. 1979. Di K inf n r Un r on Boğ zköy. Gr b ng k mp gn n
1970-1978. Vol. X. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Bolger, D., and N. Serwint, eds. 2002. Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in
Ancient Cyprus. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Borgna, E. 1995. I ripostigli delle acropoli micenee e la circolazione del bronzo alla fine
dell'età palaziale. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 35: 7-56.
———. 2004. Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective. In The Mycenaean Feast, edited
by J. C. Wright. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies: 127-59.
Boulotis, C. 2000. Travelling Fresco Painters in the Aegean Late Bronze Age: The
Diffusion Patterns of a Prestigious Art. In The Wall Paintings of Thera.
Proceedings of the First International Symposium. Petros M. Nomikos
Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997, edited by S.
Sherratt. Athens: Petros M. Nomikos and the Thera Foundation: 844-58.
Bounni, A., E. Lagarce, and J. Lagarce. 1998. Ras ibn Hani, I. Le Palais Nord du Bronze
Récent. Fouilles 1979-1995, Synthèse préliminaire. Beirut: Institut Français
d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient.
Boysal, Y. 1967. New Excavations in Caria. Anadolu (Anatolia) 11: 31-56.
Bradley, R. 1982. The Destruction of Wealth in Later Prehistory. Man 17: 108-22.
———. 1985a. Consumption, Change and the Archaeological Record: The Archaeology
of Monuments and the Archaeology of Deliberate Deposits. Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh.
———. 1985b. Exchange and Social Distance – The Structure of Bronze Artefact
Distributions. Man 20: 692-704.
———. 1990. The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards
and Votive Deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Branigan, K. 1968. Copper and Bronze Working in Early Bronze Age Crete. Lund: Paul
Åströms Förlag.
———. 1969. Early Aegean Hoards of Metalwork. Annual of the British School at
Athens 64: 1-11.
364

———. 1971. An Early Bronze Age Metal Source in Crete. Studi micenei ed egeoanatolici
1: 10-4.
———. 1974. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
———. 1993. Dancing with Death: Life and Death in Southern Crete, c. 3000-2000 BC.
Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert.
Brecoulaki, H. 2010. Review of Brysbaert's The Power of Technology in the Bronze Age
Eastern Mediterranean: The Case of the Painted Plaster. Bryn Mawr Classical
Review 2010.12.27.
Brogan, T. M. 2008. Metalworking at Mochlos before the Appearance of the Artisans'
Quarters. In Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an
International Symposium held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on
November 19-21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata.
Broodbank, C. 2004. Minoanisation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
50: 46-91.
Brysbaert, A. 2008. The Power of Technology in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean:
The Case of the Painted Plaster. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Buchholz, H. G. 1959. Zur Herkunft der kretischen Doppelaxt: Geschichte und
auswärtige Beziehungen eines minoischen Kultsymbols. München: Kiefhaber &
Elbl.
———.1979. Bronzen schaftrohräxte aus Tamassos und Umgebung. In Studies
Presented in Memory of Porphyrios Dikaios. Nicosia: Lions Club of
Nicosia/Zavallis Press: 76-88.
Budd, P., A. M. Pollard, B. Scaife, and R. G. Thomas. 1995a. Oxhide Ingots, Recycling
and the Mediterranean Metals Trade. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8
(1): 1-32.
———. 1995b. Lead Isotope Analysis and Oxhide Ingots: A Final Comment. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 70-5.
Burke, B. 2010. From Minos to Midas: Ancient Cloth Production in the Aegean and in
Anatolia. Ancient Textiles Series 7. Oxford; Oakville, CT: Oxbow Books.
Cahen, D., L. H. Keeley, and F. L. Van Noten. 1979. Stone Tools, Toolkits, and Human
Behavior in Prehistory. Current Anthropology 20 (4): 661-83.
365

Calder, W. M., and D. A. Traill, eds. 1986. Myth, Scandal, and History: The Heinrich
Schliemann Controversy and a First Edition of the Mycenaean Diary. Detriot:
Wayne State University Press.
Camp, J. M. 2003. Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1998-2001. Hesperia 72 (3): 241-
80.
Carter, T. 2008. The Consumption of Obsidian in the Early Bronze Age Cyclades. In
Horizons: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, edited by N. Brodie, J.
Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs:
225-35.
Carter, T., and V. Kilikoglou. 2007. From Reactor to Royalty? Aegean and Anatolian
Obsidians from Quartier Mu, Malia (Crete). Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 20 (1): 115-43.
Caskey, J. L. 1955. Excavations at Lerna: 1954. Hesperia 24 (1): 25-49.
———. 1957. Excavations at Lerna: 1956. Hesperia 26 (2): 142-62.
Càssola Guida, P., and M. Galli Fonseca. 1992. Nuovi studi sulle armi dei Micenei.
Roma: Ateneo.
Casson, S. 1933. The Technique of Early Greek Sculpture. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Catling, H. W. 1956. Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22: 102-25.
———. 1964. Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1976-1977. Excavations at the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973-1976. Archaeological
Reports 23: 24-42.
———. 1977-1978. Archaeology in Greece, 1976-77. Archaeological Reports 24: 3-69.
———. 1986. The Date of the Cape Gelidonya Ship and Cypriot Bronzework. Report of
the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 67-71.
———. 1997. Minoan Metalworking at Palaikastro: Some Questions. Annual of the
British School at Athens 92: 51-8.
———. 2009. Sparta: Menelaion I. The Bronze Age. Edited by O. Krzyszkowska,
Supplementary Volume No. 45. London: The British School at Athens.
Catling, H. W., and E. A. Catling. 1984. The Bronzes and Metalworking Equipment. In
The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, edited by M. Popham. Athens:
366

British School of Archaeology at Athens: 203-88.
Catling, H. W., and H. Hughes-Brock. 1992. The Metal Objects and Miscellaneous Small
Finds. In Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume II: The Bronze
Age Occupation, edited by W. A. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie. Minneapolis: The
University of Minnesota Press: 618-73.
Chadwick, J. 1988. The Women of Pylos. In Texts, Tablets and Scribes. Studies in
Mycenaean Epigraphy and Economy Offered to Emmett L. Bennett, Jr., edited by
J. P. Olivier and T. G. Palaima. Salamanca: 42-96.
Chanut, C., and E. Dardaillon. 2000. The Mysteries of Ugarit: The Art of Metal Working.
Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (4): 222.
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in
the Prehistory of South-Eastern Europe. London and New York: Routledge.
Charles, J. A. 1967. Early Arsenical Bronzes - A Metallurgical View. American Journal
of Archaeology 71: 21-6.
Chavane, M.-J. 1987. Instruments de bronze. In Le centre de la ville. 38e-44e Campagnes
(1978-1984). Ras Shamra-Ougarit III, edited by M. Yon. Paris: Éditions
Recherche sur les Civilisations: 357-72.
Childe, G. V. 1956. Piecing Together the Past: The Interpretation of Archaeological
Data. New York: Praeger.
Christakis, K. S. 2008. The Politics of Storage: Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in
Neopalatial Crete. Philadelphia, PA: INSTAP Academic Press.
Clarke, J. 2002. Gender, Economy and Ceramic Production in Neolithic Cyprus. In
Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus, edited by D.
Bolger, N. Serwint and G. London. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental
Research: 251-63.
Cline, E. 1995. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor: Minoans and Mycenaeans Abroad. In
Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 5th
International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches
Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Aegaeum 12, edited by R. Laffineur and W.-D.
Niemeier. Liège: Université de Liège: 265-83.
———. 2008. Problems of Chronology: Egypt and the Aegean. In Beyond Babylon: Art,
Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C, edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel
and J. M. Evans. New York and New Haven: The Metropolitan Museum of Art
and Yale University Press: 453-4.
367

Cline, E., and A. Yasur-Landau. 2007. Poetry in Motion: Canaanite Rulership and
Minoan Narrative Art at Tel Kabri. In Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and
Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean
Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA - The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20-23 April 2006.
Aegaeum 28, edited by S. Morris and R. Laffineur. Liège; Austin: Université de
Liège; Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory: 157-66.
Coldstream, J. N. 2000. A Strange Prelude to the Cypriot Unguent Trade in Crete. In
Praktika tou tritou Diethnous Kyprologikou Synedriou (Leukosia, 16-20 Apriliou
1996), Vol. A' Archaion Tmima, edited by G. K. Ioannidi and S. A. Chatzistylli.
Leukosia: Etaireia Kypriakon Spoudon: 463-9.
Coleman, J. E. 1985. Investigations at Alambra, 1974-1984. Report of the Department of
Antiquities Cyprus: 125-41.
Coleman, J. E., J. A. Barlow, M. K. Mogelonsky, and K. W. Schaar. 1996. Alambra: A
Middle Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus. Archaeological Investigations by
Cornell University 1974-1985. Vol. 118, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeolgoy.
Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Contenson, H. 1992. Préhistoire de Ras Shamra. Les sondages stratigraphiques de 1995
à 1976. Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII. Paris: éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Cooke, S. R. B., and B. V. Nielsen. 1978. Slags and Other Metallurgical Products. In
Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Site, Environs, and Techniques,
edited by G. Rapp and S. E. Aschenbrenner. Minneapolis: The University of
Minnesota Press: 182-224.
Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and
Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:
1-56.
Courtois, J. 1982. L'activité métallurgique et les bronzes d'Enkomi au Bronze Récent
(1650-1100 avant J.-C.). In Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000-500 B.C. Acta of
the International Archaeological Symposium, Larnaca, Cyprus 1-6 June 1981,
edited by J. D. Muhly, R. Maddin and V. Karageorghis. Nicosia: Pierides
Foundation and Department of Antiquities: 155-76.
———. 1983. Le trésor de poids de Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1982. Report of the
Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 1983: 117-30.
Courtois, J.-C., L. Aristidou, and A. Lanitou. 1984. Alasia III: Les objets des niveaux
stratifiés d'Enkomi: (Fouilles C.F.-A. Schaeffer 1947-1970). Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les civilisations.
Craddock, P. T. 2000. From Hearth to Furnace: Evidences for the Earliest Metal Smelting
368

Technologies in the eastern Mediterranean. Paléorient 26 (2): 151-65.
Crockett, C. 1977. The Complete Spinning Book. New York: Watson Goptill
Publications.
Cummer, W. W. 1980. Itinerant Aegean Builders. Temple University Aegean Symposium
5: 3-14.
Cummer, W. W., and E. Schofield. 1984. Keos: Results of Excavations Conducted by the
University of Cincinnati under the Aupices of the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens. Volume III. Ayia Irini: House A. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Dabney, M. K. 1989. A Comparison of Correlations in the Spatial Distribution of
Archaeological Remains from Prepalatial and Palatial Period Settlements and
Tombs in Central Crete, PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
Dakaris, S. I. 1967. A Mycenaean IIIB Dagger from the Palaeolithic Site of Kastritsa in
Epirus. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33: 30-6.
Dakoronia, F. 1993. Kynos. r h io ogikon D ion (’Απχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον) 43 (1988)
(B'1): 223-4.
———. 2003. The Transition from Late Helladic IIIC to the Early Iron Age at Kynos. In
LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms: Proceedings of the International
Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th,
2001, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil. Wien: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 37-51.
Davies, W. V. 1987. Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum: Tools and
Weapons, I: Axes. London: The British Museum.
Davis, J. L. 1979. Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Late Bronze Age.
In Papers in Cycladic Prehistory, edited by J. L. Davis and J. F. Cherry. Los
Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology: 143-57.
Day, P. M., and R. C. P. Doonan, eds. 2007. Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean,
Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Demakopoulou, K. 1999. Shipwrecks in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Gods and Heroes
of the European Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou. New York: Thames
and Hudson: 35-7.
Demargne, P. 1945. Fo i M i : E p or ion n ropo (1921 -
1933), E r oi , 7. Paris: Geuthner.
Demargne, P., and H. Gallet de Santerre. 1953. Fo i M i : Exploration
369

des maisons et quartiers d'habitation (1921-1948), Études crétoises 9. Paris:
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Deshayes, J. 1960. Les outils de bronze, de l'Indus au Danube (IVe au IIe millénaire).
Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Deshayes, J., and A. Dessenne. 1959. Fouilles exécutées M i : Exploration des
maisons et quartiers d'habitation (1948-1954), r oi 11. Paris:
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Dickinson, O. T. 1977. The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization, Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology 49. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
———. 1983. Cretan Contacts with the Mainland during the Period of the Shaft Graves.
In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May - 5 June,
1982, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag: 115-
8.
———. 1997. Arts and Artefacts in the Shaft Graves: Some Observations. In TEXNH:
Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple
University, 18-21 April 1996, edited by R. Laffineur and P. Betancourt. Liège;
Austin: Université de Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 45-9.
Dietz, S. 1971. Aegean and Near-Eastern Metal Daggers in Early and Middle Bronze Age
Greece: The Dating of Byblite Bronze Hoards and Aegean Imports. Acta
Archaeologica 42: 1-22.
———.1991. The Argolid at the Transition to the Mycenaean Age: Studies in the
Chronology and Cultural Development in the Shaft Grave Period. Copenhagen:
National Museum of Denmark.
Dikaios, P. 1969. Enkomi: Excavations 1948-1958. Vol. 1, The Architectural Remains:
The Tombs. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
———. 1971. Enkomi: Excavations 1948-1958. Vol. 2, Chronology, Summary and
Conclusions, Catalogue, Appendices. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Dimopoulou, N. 1997. Workshops and Craftsmen in the Harbour-Town of Knossos at
Poros-Katsambas. In TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference.
Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16, edited by R.
Laffineur and P. Betancourt. Liège; Austin: Université de Liège; University of
Texas at Austin: 433-8.
370

Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, N. 2004. To epineio tis Knosou ston Poro-Katsampa. In
Knossos: Palace, City, State: Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion
organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric
and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of
Sir Arthur Evans's Excavations at Knossos, edited by G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and
A. Vasilakis. London: The British School at Athens: 363-80.
Dothan, T. K., and A. Ben-Tor. 1983. Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus, 1971-1972,
QEDEM : monographs of the Institute of Archaeology,. Jerusalem: Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Doumas, C. 1983. Thera: Pompeii of the Ancient Aegean. Excavations at Akrotiri 1967-
79. London: Thames and Hudson.
———.1997. Anaskaphē Akrōpēpriou Thēras. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes
Etaireias 1994: 155-66.
———. 1998. Metallurgy and the So-Called Battle Axe: The Tool of a Trade? In Mensch
und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas - Man and Environment in European
Bronze Age. Abschlußtagung der Kampagne des Europarates. Die Bronzezeit:
das erste goldene Zeitalter Europas an der Freien Universität Berlin, 17 - 19
März 1997, edited by B. Hänsel. Kiel: Oetker-Voges Verlag: 157-62.
Doumas, C., M. Marthari, and C. Televantou. 2000. Museum of Prehistoric Thera. Brief
Guide. Athens: XXI Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities.
Downey, C. J. 2001. Prehistoric Tools and the Bronze Age Woodworking Industry. In
Archaiometrikes Meletes gia tin Elliniki Proistoria kai Archaiotita. Archaeometry
Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Y. Bassiakos, E. Aloupi and
Y. Facorellis. Athens: The Hellenic Society of Archaeometry and the Society of
Messenian Archaeological Studies: 791-800.
Drennan, R. D. 2009. Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach. New
York: Springer.
Dunand, M. 1937-39. Fouilles de Byblos I: 1926-1932. Paris: P. Geuthner.
———. 1954. Fouilles de Byblos II: 1933-1938. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Eder, B. 1999. Late Bronze Age Swords from Ancient Elis. In POLEMOS. Le contexte
guerrier en Égée à l'âge du Bronze, Aegaeum 19., edited by R. Laffineur. Liège;
Austin: Université de Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 443-8.
Elliott, C. 1981. Observations on Ground Stone Adzes and Axes from Lemba Lakkous.
Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 1-23.
371

Ellis, R. S. 1968. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Eogan, G. 1983. Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age. Dublin: University College.
Erkanal, H. 1977. Die Äxte und Beile des 2. Jahrtausends in Zentralanatolien. München:
Beck.
Evans, A. 1906. The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos. London: B. Quaritch.
———. 1914. The 'Tomb of the Double Axes' and Associated Group, and the Pillar
Rooms and Ritual Vessels of the 'Little Palace' at Knossos. Archaeologia 65: 1-
94.
———. 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos, II. London: Macmillan and Co.
———. 1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos: Volume IV. London: MacMillan and Co.,
Limited.
Evely, R. D. G. 1993. Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. An Introduction, Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 92.1. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
———. 1999. Mats and Baskets: Some Observations on their Study. In MELETEMATA:
Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters
His 65th Year, Aegaeum 20, edited by P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R.
Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier. Liège; Austin: Université de Liège; University of
Austin: 243-7.
———. 2000. Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. An Introduction, Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 92.2. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
———. 2003. The Stone, Bone, Ivory, Bronze and Clay Finds. In Knossos: The South
House, edited by P. A. Mountjoy. Athens: The British School at Athens: 167-94.
Falconer, S. 2009. Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Landscape Formation at Politiko-
Troullia, Cyprus. In Poster session. ASOR 2009 Annaul Meeting, New Orleans.
Falconer, S., P. Fall, T. Davis, M. Horowitz, and J. Hunt. 2005. Initial Archaeological
Investigations at Politiko Troulia. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus:
69-85.
Feldman, M. H. 2006. Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and an 'International Style' in
the Ancient Near East, 1400-1200 BC. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Felsch, R. C. S. 1996. Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis
und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Band II. Mainz: Philipp
372

von Zabern.
Finley, M. I. 1957. The Mycenaean Tablets and Economic History. The Economic
History Review 10 (1): 128-41.
Fitton, J. L. 1989. Esse Quam Videri: A Reconsideration of the Kythnos Hoard of Early
Cycladic Tools. American Journal of Archaeology 93: 31-9.
Foltiny, S. 1964. Flange-Hilted Cutting Swords of Bronze in Central Europe, Northeast
Italy, and Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 68: 247-58.
Fortenberry, D. 1990. Elements of Mycenaean Warfare, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati.
———. 1991. Single Greaves in the Late Helladic Period. American Journal of
Archaeology 95: 623-7.
Frank, L., and S. K. Miller. 2001. A Land So Remote. Volume 3, Wooden Artifacts of
Frontier New Mexico, 1700s-1900s. Santa Fe, NM: Red Crane Books.
Frankel, D. 1974. Middle Cypriot White Painted Pottery. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Frisch, E., F. Mansfeld, and W.-R. Thiele. 1985. Kāmi el-Lōz 6. Di W r ä n r
spätbronzezeitlichen Paläste. Bonn: Habelt.
Frison, G. C. 1989. Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African
Elephants. American Antiquity 54 (4): 766-84.
Furumark, A., and C. M. Adelman. 2003. Swedish Excavations at Sinda, Cyprus:
Excavations conducted by Arne Furumark 1947-1948. Stockholm: Svenska
Institut i Athen.
Galaty, M. L., and W. A. Parkinson. 2007. 2007 Introduction. Mycenaean Palaces
Rethought. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II. Revised and Expanded Second
Edition, edited by M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson. Los Angeles: The Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles: 1-17.
Gale, N. H. 1991. Copper Oxhide Ingots: Their Origin and their Place in the Bronze Age
Metals Trade in the Mediterranean. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean,
edited by N. H. Gale. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag: 197-239.
Gale, N. H., M. Kayafa, and Z. A. Stos-Gale. 2008. Early Helladic Metallurgy at
Raphina, Attica, and the Role of Lavrion. In Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze
Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of Crete,
Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta
Pragmata Publications: 87-104.
373

Gale, N. H., and Z. A. Stos-Gale. 1995. Comments on 'Oxhide Ingots, Recycling, and the
Mediterranean Metals Trade'. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8(1): 33-41.
Galliano, G., and Y. Calvet. 2004. Le royaume d'Ougarit: Aux origines de l'alphabet.
Paris: Somogy.
Garašanin, M. 1964. Review of Deshayes' Les outils de bronze de l'Indus au Danube.
Syria 41 (1/2): 167-73.
Gates, M.-H. 1984. The Palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari. Biblical Archaeologist 47: 70-87.
———. 1997. Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 101 (2): 241-
305.
Georgiadis, M. 2003. The South-Eastern Aegean in the Mycenaean Period: Islands,
Landscape, Death and Ancestors, BAR International Series 1196. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Giardino, C., G. E. Gigante, and S. Ridolfi. 2002. Archaeometallurgical Investigations on
the Early-Middle Bronze Age finds from the area of Pyrgos (Limassol). Report of
the Department of Antiquities 2002: 33-48.
Gillis, C. 1997. The Smith in the Late Bronze Age: State Employee, Independent Artisan,
or Both? In TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean
Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference.
Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996. Aegaeum 16, edited by R.
Laffineur and P. Betancourt. Liège; Austin: Université de Liège; University of
Texas at Austin: 505-13.
Gjerstand, E., J. Lindros, E. Sjöqvist, and A. Westholm. 1934. The Swedish Cyprus
Expedition. Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus. 1927-1931. Volume
I. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Goldman, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Conducted by the Fogg Art
Museum of Harvard University in Cooperation with the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 1956. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Volume 2. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Gorelick, L., and A. J. Gwinnett. 1983. Ancient Egyptian Stone-drilling. An
Experimental Perspective on a Scholarly Disagreement. Expedition 25 (3): 40-7.
Greaves, A.M., and B. Helwing. 2001. Archaeology in Turkey: The Stone, Bronze, and
Iron Ages, 1997-1999. American Journal of Archaeology 105 (3): 463-511.
374

Grove, A. T., and O. Rackham. 2001. The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An
Ecological History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Güterbock, H. G. 1983. The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part I. The Ahhiyawa
Problem Reconsidered. American Journal of Archaeology 87: 133-43.
Guy, P.L.O. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. Vol. 33, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute
Publications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gwinnett, A. J., and L. Gorelick. 1987. The Change from Stone Drills to Copper Drills in
Mesopotamia--An Experimental Perspective. Expedition 29 (3): 15-24.
Hadjisavvas, S. 1994. Alassa Archaeological Project 1991-1993. Report of the
Department of Antiquities 1994 107-14.
———. 1996. Alassa: A Regional Centre of Alasia? In Late Bronze Age Settlement in
Cyprus: Function and Relationship, edited by P. Åström and E. Herscher.
Jonsered: 23-38.
Hakulin, L. 2004. Bronzeworking on Late Minoan Crete: A Diachronic Study. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
———. 2008. Bronzeworking on Late Minoan Crete: An Overview based on Published
Data. In Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International
Symposium held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-
21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata: 197-209.
Hall, M. 1995. Comments on 'Oxhide Ingots, Recycling, and the Mediterranean Metals
Trade. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 42-4.
Halstead, P. 1988. On Redistribution and the Minoan-Mycenaean Palatial Economies. In
Problems in Greek Prehistory: Proceedings of the British School at Athens
Centenary Conference, Manchester, 14-18 April 1986, edited by E. B. French and
K. Wardle. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press: 519-30.
———. 1992. The Mycenaean Palatial Economy: Making the Most of the Gaps in the
Evidence. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (38): 57-86.
———. 1995. Plough and Power: The Economic and Social Significance of Cultivation
with the Ox-Drawn Ard in the Mediterranean. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture
8: 11-22.
———. 1999. Surplus and Share-Croppers: The Grain Production Strategies of
Mycenaean Palaces. In MELETEMATA: Studies in Aegean archaeolgoy presented
to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th year, Aegaeum 20, edited by R.
375

Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt. Liège; Austin: Université de Liège; University of
Texas: 319-26.
———. 2001. Mycenaean Wheat, Flax and Sheep: Palatial Intervention in Farming and
its Implications for Rural Society. In Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean
Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference held on 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty
of Classics, Cambridge, edited by S. Voutsaki and J. Killen. Cambridge:
Cambridge Philological Society: 38-50.
Hankey, V. 1983. The Ceramic Tradition of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Report of the
Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 168-71.
———. 1993. Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Egyptian Archaeology 3: 27-9.
Hänsel, A., and B. Hänsel. 1997. Gaben an die Götter: Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas.
Berlin: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte.
Hänsel, B. 1997. Gaben an die Götter - Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas - Eine
Einführung. In Gaben an die Götter: Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas, edited by
A. Hänsel and B. Hänsel. Berlin: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte: 11-22.
Hansen, J. M. 1988. Agriculture in the Prehisotric Aegean: Data versus Speculation.
American Journal of Archaeology 92 (1): 39-52.
———. 1994. Specialized Studies: Flora, Fauna, and Population Structure. In Beyond the
Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area, edited by P. N. Kardulias. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America: 173-90.
Hansen, S. 1997. Sacrificia ad Flumina - Gewässerfunde im Bronzezeitlichen Europa. In
Gaben n i Gö r: S hä z r bronzezeit Europas, edited by A. H nsel and B.
H nsel. Berlin: Museum f r Vor- und Fr hgeschichte: 29-35.
Harding, A. F. 1975. Mycenaean Greece and Europe: the Evidence of Bronze Tools and
Implements. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 183-202.
———. 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Harmankaya, N. 1995. Kozman Deresi Mevkii (Şarköy, Tekirdağ) Maden Buluntuları. In
Halet Çambel için, prehistorya yazilari = Readings in prehistory: studies
presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul: Graphis: 217-54.
Harmansah, O. 2007. Upright Stones and Building Narratives: Formation of a Shared
Architectural Practice in the Ancient Near East. In Ancient Near Eastern Art in
Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by her Students, edited by J. Cheng
and M. H. Feldman. Leiden: Brill: 69-99.
376

Hartenberger, B., and C. Runnels. 2001. The Organization of Flaked Stone Production at
Bronze Age Lerna. Hesperia 70 (3): 255-83.
Hastings, H. R. 1905. A Bronze-Age ‘Pocket’ from Avgo (Crete). American Journal of
Archaeology 9: 277-287.
Hawes, H. B., B. Williams, R. Seager, and E. Hall. 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and other
Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete: Excavations of the Wells-
Houston-Cramp Expeditions, 1901, 1903, 1904. Philadelphia: The American
Exploration Society, Free Museum of Science and Art.
Haysom, M. 2010. The Double-Axe: A Contextual Approach to the Understanding of a
Cretan Symbol in the Neopalatial Period. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29 (1):
35-55.
Helms, M. W. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade and Power. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Heltzer, M. 1989. The Trade of Crete and Cyprus with Syria and Mesopotamia and their
Eastern Tin-Sources in the XVIII-XVII Centuries B.C. Minos 24: 7-28.
Hemingway, S. 1996. Minoan Metalworking in the Postpalatial Period: A Deposit of
Metallurgical Debris from Palaikastro. Annual of the British School at Athens 91:
213-52.
Herscher, E. C. 1978. The Bronze Age Cemetery at Lapithos, Vrysi Tou Barba, Cyprus:
Results of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Excavation, 1931. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
Hirschfeld, N. 2002. Marks on Pots: Patterns of Use in the Archaeological Record at
Enkomi. In Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages, edited by
J. S. Smith. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America: 49-110.
Hitchcock, L. A. 2005. ‘Who Will Personally Invite a Foreigner, Unless He is a
Craftsman?’: Exploring Interconnections in Aegean and Levantine Architecture.
In Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of
the 10th International Aegean conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology,
14-18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco. Liège;
Austin: Université de Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 691-9.
Höckmann, O. 1980a. Lanze und Speer im spätminoischen und mykenischen
Griechenland. Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz 27:
13-158.
———. 1980b. Lanze und Speer. In Kriegswesen 2: Angriffswaffen. Archaeologica
377

Homerica, edited by H.-G. Buchholz and J. Wiesner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u.
Ruprecht: 275-319.
———. 1987. Lanzen und Speere der ägäischen Bronzezeit und des Übergangs zur
Eisenzeit. In Ägäische Bronzezeit, edited by H.-G. Buchholz. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: 329-58.
Hofstra, S. 2000. Small Things Considered: The Finds from LH IIIB Pylos in Context,
PhD dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
Hood, S. 1957. Archaeology in Greece, 1957. Archaeological Reports 4: 3-25.
———. 1987. Mason's Marks in the Palaces. In The Function of the Minoan Palaces.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in
Athens, 10-16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos. Stockholm:
Swedish Institute in Athens: 205-12.
Howell, R. J. 1992. Middle Helladic Settlement: Stratigraphy and Architecture. In
Excavations at Nichoria in Southwestern Greece. Volume II. The Bronze Age
Occupaption, edited by W. A. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press: 15-42.
Hult, G. 1983. Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus,
Ugarit, and Neighbouring Regions, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 66.
Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Hundt, H.-J. 1971. Bericht über die Konservierung von Enkomi-Funden aus Ton und
Bronze In Alasia 1. Mission archéologique d'Alasia 4. Paris, Leiden: Klincksiek,
Brill: 367-80.
Iacovou, M. 2006. From the Mycenaean qa-si-re-u to the Cypriote pa-si-le-wo-se: The
Basileus in the Kingdoms of Cyprus. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean
Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by S. Deger-Jalotzy and I. S. Lemos.
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press: 315-35.
Iakovidis, S. 1980. Excavations of the Necropolis at Perati. Los Angeles: Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
———.1982. The Mycenaean Bronze Industry. In Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000-500
B.C. Acta of the International Archaeological Symposium, Larnaca, Cyprus 1-6
June 1981, edited by J. D. Muhly, R. Maddin and V. Karageorghis. Nicosia:
Pierides Foundation and Department of Antiquities: 213-32.
———. 1983. Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
———. 2001. Gla and the Kopais in the 13th Century B.C. Athens: The Archaeological
378

Society at Athens.
———. 2006. The Mycenaean Acropolis of Athens. Athens: The Archaeological Society
at Athens.
Immerwahr, S. A. 1971. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Vol. 13, The Athenian Agora.
Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies.
Iovino, M. R. 2002. Processing Fish with Obsidian Tools: The Micro-Wears. In
Archaeometry 98: Proceedings of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, April 26 - May
3 1998, Vol. I,, edited by E. Jerem and K. T. Biró. Oxford: Archaeopress: 203-6.
Kakavogianni, O., K. Douni, and F. Nezeri. 2008. Silver Metallurgical Finds dating from
the End of the Final Neolithic Period until the Middle Bronze Age in the Area of
Mesogeia. In Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an
International Symposium held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on
November 19-21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications:
45-57.
Karageorghis, V. 1965. Nouveaux documents pour l'etude de Bronze Recent à Chypre,
recueil critique et commenté. Paris: E. de Boccard.
———.1973. A Late Cypriot Hoard of Bronzes from Sinda. Report of the Department of
Antiquities Cyprus: 72-82.
Karageorghis, V., and M. Demas. 1984. Pyla-Kokkinokremos: A Late 13th-Century B.C.
Fortified Settlement in Cyprus. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
———. 1985. Excavations at Kition V. The Pre-Phoenician Levels, Areas I and II. Part
I. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
———.1988. Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979-1986. Nicosia: Department of
Antiquities, Cyprus.
Kardulias, P. N. 2009. Flaked Stone from Isthmia. Hesperia 78 (3): 307-46.
Kardulias, P. N., and C. Runnels. 1995. The Lithic Artifacts: Flaked Stone and Other
Nonflaked Lithics. In Artifact and Assemblage: The Finds from a Regional Survey
of the Southern Argolid, Greece. Volume I. The Prehistory and Early Iron Age
Pottery and the Lithic Artifacts, edited by C. Runnels, D. J. Pullen and S.
Langdon. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 74-139.
Karetsou, A. 1981. The Peak Sanctuary of Mt. Juktas. In Sanctuaries and Cults in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the
Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May 1980, edited by R. Hägg and N.
379

Marinatos. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen: 137-53.
Karimali, E. 2005. Lithic Technologies and Use. In The Archaeology of Mediterranean
Prehistory, edited by E. Blake and A. B. Knapp. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing:
180-214.
Karimali, L. 2008. Lithic and Metal Tools in the Bronze Age Aegean: A Parallel
Relationship. In Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an
International Symposium held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on
November 19-21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications:
315-25.
Karo, G. 1930-1933. Die schachtgräber von Mykenai. München: Bruckmann.
Kassianidou, V. 2001. Cypriot Copper in Sardinia: Yet Another Case of Bringing Coals
to Newcastle? In Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500-450 BC. Proceedings of an
International Symposium held at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in
America at Columbia University, November 16-18, 2000, edited by L. Bonfante
and V. Karageorghis. Nicosia: The Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation: 97-
119.
———. 2008. The Formative Years of the Cypriot Copper Industry. In Aegean
Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at
the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by
I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata: 249-67.
———. 2009. Oxhide Ingots in Cyprus. In Oxhide Ingots in the Central Mediterranean,
edited by F. L. Schiavo, J. D. Muhly, R. Maddin and A. G. Mair. Rome: A.G.
Leventis Foundation; CNR-Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà dell'Egeo e del Vicino
Oriente: 41-81.
Kassianidou, V., and A. B. Knapp. 2005. Archaeometallurgy in the Mediterranean: The
Social Context of Mining, Technology, and Trade. In The Archaeology of
Mediterranean Prehistory, edited by E. Blake and A. B. Knapp. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing: 215-152.
Katzev, M. L. 1982. Iron Objects. In Yassi Ada, Volume I. A Seventh-Century Byzantine
Shipwreck, edited by G. Bass and F. H. v. Doorninck. College Station, TX: Texas
A&M University Press: 231-65.
Kayafa, M. 2008. Copper-Based Artefacts in the Bronze Age Peloponnese: A
Quantitative Approach to Metal Consumption. In Aegean Metallurgy in the
Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of
Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili.
Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications: 211-23.
380

Kelder, J. M. 2010. The Kingdom of Mycenae: A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age
Aegean. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Keswani, P. 2004. Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus London; Oakville,
CT: Equinox Publishers.
———. 2005. Death, Prestige, and Copper in Bronze Age Cyprus. American Journal of
Archaeology 109 (3): 341-401.
Kilian, K. 1975. Fibeln in Thessalien von der Mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit. Vol.
14, Prähistorische Bronzefunde. München: Beck.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1987. Das Kuppelgrab von Vapheio: Die Beigabenausstattung in der
Steinkiste. Untersuchungen zur Sozialstruktur in Späthelladischer Zeit. Jahrbuch
des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz (34): 197-212.
———. 1990. Remarks on the Non-Military Functions of Swords in the Mycenaean
Argolid. In Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, edited
by J. Hägg and G. C. Nordquist. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen: 157-61.
———. 1993. Die Schwerter in Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien
und Albanien. Vol. 14, Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
———. 1997. Das mittelbronzezeitliche Schachtgrab von Ägina. Alt-Ägina 4.3. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern.
Killen, G. 2000. Wood: Technology. In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology,
edited by P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:
353-71.
Killen, J. T. 1979. The Linear B tablets and Economic History: Some Problems. Bulletin
of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 26: 133.
———. 1984. Last Year's Debts on the Pylos MA Tablets. Studi Micenei ed Ageo-
Anatolici 25: 173-88.
———. 1987. Bronzeworking at Knossos and Pylos. Hermathena 143: 61-72.
———. 1998. The Role of the State in Wheat and Olive Production in Mycenaean Crete.
Aevum 72: 19-23.
———. 2001. Some Thoughts on TA-RA-SI-JA. In Economy and Politics in the
Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference held on 1-3 July 1999 in
the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, edited by S. Voutsaki and J. Killen.
Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society: 161-80.
381

———. 2004. Wheat, Barley, Flour, Olives and Figs on Linear B Tablets. In Food,
Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, edited by P. Halstead and J. C. Barrett.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Kling, B., and J. D. Muhly. 2007. Joan du Plat Taylor's Excavations at the Late Bronze
Age Mining Settlement at Apliki Karamallos, Cyprus. Part 1. Vol. 134.1, Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology. Sävedalen: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Knapp, A. B. 1988. Hoards d'oeuvres: Of Metals and Men on Bronze Age Cyprus.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7 (2): 147-76.
———. 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity, and
Connectivity. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Knapp, A. B., and J. F. Cherry. 1994. Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus:
Production, Exchange and Politico-Economic Change. Vol. 21, Monographs in
World Archaeology. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Knapp, A. B., V. Kassianidou, and M. Donnelly. 1999. Excavations at Politiko-Phorades
1998. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 125-46.
Knapp, A. B., J. D. Muhly, and P. M. Muhly. 1988. To Hoard Is Human: Late Bronze
Age Metal Deposits in Cyprus and the Aegean. Report of the Department of
Antiquities Cyprus: 233-62.
Knauss, J. 1996. Arkadian and Boiotian Orchomenos, Centres of Mycenaean Hydraulic
Engineering. In Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di
micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991. Volume 3: Archeologia.
Incunabula Graeca 98, edited by E. D. Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome:
Gruppo editoriale internazionale: 1211-9.
———. 2004. Mykenische Flussumleitung bei Tiryns, im Becken von Pheneos, in
Olympia und in der Kopais; Mykenische Brücken und Wasserdurchlässe an
Straßen in der Argolis. In Althellenische Technologie und Technik von der
prähistorischen bis zur hellenistischen Zeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der
prähistorischen Epoche: Tagung 21.-23.03.2003 in Ohlstadt Deutschland, edited
by A. Kyriatsoulis. Weilheim: Verein zur Förderung der Aufarbeitung der
Hellenischen Geschichte: 295-324.
Kopaka, K. 1997. 'Women's Arts—Men's Crafts'? Towards a Framework for
Approaching Gender Skills in the Prehistoric Aegean. In TEXNH: Craftsmen,
Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the
6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21
April 1996, edited by R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt. Liège: Université de
Liège, Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique: 521-31.
382

Koşay, H., and M. Akok. 1966. Türk Tarih K r m r f n n y p n Höyük
k z ; 1940-1948 ki ç m r k if r i i k r por / gr b ng n on
Alaca Höyük; Vorbericht über die Forschungen und Entdeckungen von 1940-
1948. Ankara: T rk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Kramer-Hajos, M. 2008. Beyond the Palace: Mycenaean East Lokris. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Kramer-Hajos, M., and K. O'Neill. 2008. The Bronze Age Site of Mitrou in East Lokris:
Finds from the 1988-1989 Surface Survey. Hesperia 77 (2): 163-250.
Küpper, M. 1996. Mykenische Architektur: Material, Bearbeitungstechnik, Konstruktion
und Erscheinungsbild. Vol. 25, Internationale Archäologie. Espelkamp: Verlag
Marie Leidorf.
Laffineur, R. 1990-1991. Material and Craftsmanship in the Mycenae Shaft Graves:
Imports vs Local Production. Minos 25-26: 245-96.
———. 2006. Les trésors en archéologie égéene: réalité ou manie? In Mythos. La
préhistorie égéene du XIX au XXI siècle après J.-C., edited by P. Darcque, M.
Fotiadis and O. Polychronopoulou. Athens: École française d'Athènes: 37-46.
Lagarce, J. 1971. La cachette du fondeur aux épées (Enkomi 1967) et l'atelier voisin. In
Alasia 1. Mission Archéologique d'Alasia 4. Paris; Leiden: Mission arch ologique
d'Alasia; E.J. Brill: 381-432.
Levy, J. E. 1982. Social and Religious Organization in Bronze Age Denmark: An
Analysis of Ritual Hoard Finds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Lo Schiavo, F. 2001. Late Cypriot Bronzework and Bronzeworkers in Sardinia, Italy and
Elsewhere in the West. In Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500-450 BC.
Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the Italian Academy for
Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University, November 16-18, 2000,
edited by L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis. Nicosia: The Costakis and Leto
Severis Foundation: 131-52.
Lo Schiavo, F., J. Muhly, R. Maddin, and A. Giumlia-Mair, eds. 2009. Oxhide Ingots in
the Central Mediterranean. Roma: A.G. Leventis Foundation; CNR-Istituto di
Studi sulle Civiltà dell'Egeo e del Vicino Oriente.
Loader, N. C. 1998. Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the
Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece. Vol. 148, Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology. Jonsered: Paul Åstöms Förlag.
Lolos, Y. G. 2003. Mykenaïke Salamis: oi erevnes ton eton 2000-2002. Dodone 32: 17-
98.
383

London, G. A. 2002. Women Potters and Craft Specialization in a Pre-market Cypriot
Economy. In Women Potters and Craft Specialization in a Pre-market Cypriot
Economy. Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus, edited
by D. Bolger and N. Serwint. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriential
Research: 265-80.
Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Manning, S. W. 2010. Chronology and Terminology. In The Oxford Handbook of the
Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), edited by E. H. Cline. Oxford: Oxford
University Press: 11-28.
Maran, J. 1989. Die Schaftlochaxt aus dem Depotfund von Theben (Mittelgriechenland)
und ihre Stellung im Rahmen der bronzezeitlichen Äxte Südosteuropas.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 19: 129-36.
———. 2006. Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic IIIC.
In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by
S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I.Lemos. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press: 123-50.
Marinatos, N. 1995. Formalism and Gender Roles: A Comparison of Minoan and
Egyptian Art. In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of
Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Aegaeum 12, edited by R.
Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l'art et
archéologie de la Grèce antique: 577-85.
Mastrokostas, E. 1965. Archaitetes kai mnemeia Aitoloakarnanias. Archaiologikon
D ion (’Απχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον) 20b: 343-4.
Matthäus, H. 1980a. Die Bronzegefässe der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur. Munich: Beck.
———. 1980b. Minoan Influence on the Greek Mainland During the Sixteenth Century
B.C. and the Origins of Mycenaean Civilization. Temple University Aegean
Symposium 5: 37-44.
———. 1985. Metallgefässe und Gefä n r ä z r Bronz z i , der geometrischen
und archaischen Periode auf Cypern: Mit einem Anhang der bronzezeitlichen
Schwertfunde auf Cypern. München: C.H. Beck.
Matthäus, H., and G. Schumacher-Matthäus. 1986. Zyprische Hortfunde: Kult und
Metallhandwerk in der späten Bronzezeit. In Gedenkschrift für Gero von Merhart
zum 100 Geburtstag. Mearburger Studien zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte 7, edited
by O.H. Frey, et al. Marburg; Lahn: Wolfram Hitzeroth Verlag: 129-91.
384

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. 1949. Western Asiatic Shaft-Hole Axes. Iraq 11 (1): 90-129.
———. 1953. Bronze Lugged Axe- or Adze Blades from Asia. Iraq 15 (1): 69-87.
———. 1963. Review of Deshayes' Les outils de bronze de l'Indus au Danube. Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 22 (3): 207-10.
McDonald, W. 1975. Excavations at Nichoria in Messenia: 1972-1973. Hesperia 44: 69-
141.
McDonald, W. A., and N. C. Wilkie, eds. 1992. Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest
Greece. Volume II. The Bronze Age Occupation. Minneapolis: The University of
Minnesota Press.
McGeehan-Liritzis, V. 1996. The Role and Development of Metallurgy in the Late
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Greece. Vol. 122, Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Mellaart, J., and A. Murray. 1995. Beycesultan Volume 3 Part 2: Late Bronze Age and
Phrygian Pottery and Middle and Late Bronze Age Small Objects, Occasional
Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 12. Oxford: The
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
Mellink, M. J. 1963. Review of Deshayes' Les outils de bronze de l'Indus au Danube.
American Journal of Archaeology 67 (3): 306-7.
———. 1983. The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 2. Archaeological Comments on
Ahhiyawa-Achaians in Western Anatolia. American Journal of Archaeology 87
(2): 138-41.
Merrillees, R. S. 1984. Ambelikou-Aletri: A Preliminary Report. Report of the
Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 1-13.
———. 1985. Twenty-Five Years of Cypriot Archaeology: The Stone Age and Early and
Middle Bronze Ages. In Archaeology in Cyprus 1960-85. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis
Foundation: 11-8.
Moody, J., O. Rackham, and G. Rapp. 1996. Environmental Archaeology of Prehistoric
NW Crete. Journal of Field Archaeology 23 (3): 273-97.
Moores, R. G. 1991. Evidence for Use of a Stone-Cutting Drag Saw by the Fourth
Dynasty Egyptians. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 28: 139-
48.
Moorey, P. 1971. The Loftus Hoard of Old Babylonian Tools from Tell Sifr in Iraq. Iraq
385

33: 61-87.
Moran, W. L., ed. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Morricone, L. 1967. Eleona e Langada: Sepolcreti della tarda Età del Bronzo a Coo.
Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente
(1965-1966) 27-28: 5-311.
———. 1975. Coo. Scavi e scoperte nel "Serraglio" e in località minori (1935-1943).
Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente
(1972-1973) 50-51: 139-396.
Morris, M. W. 2002. Soil Science and Archaeology. Three Test Cases from Minoan
Crete. Vol. 4, Prehistory Monographs. Philadelphia: The Institute for Aegean
Prehistory Academic Press.
Morrow, T. A. 1996. Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn's Formal Approach to Mobile
Tool Kits. American Antiquity 61 (3): 581-90.
Mountjoy, P. A. 1984. The Bronze Greaves from Athens: A Case for a LH IIIC Date.
Opuscula Atheniensia 15: 135-46.
Müller, K. 1930. Tiryns III: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts. Die
Architektur der Burg und des Palastes. Augsburg: B. Filser.
Müller-Karpe, A. 1994. Altanatolisches Metallhandwerk. Vol. 75, Offa-Bücher.
Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag.
———. 1995. Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 1992-1994. Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 127: 5-36.
———.2004. Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 2003. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft zu Berlin 136: 137-72.
———. 2006. Untersuchungen in Kayalıpınar 2005. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft zu Berlin 138: 211-47.
Müller-Karpe, A., V. Müller-Karpe, A. Schachner, T. Ökse, J. Miller, S. Lorra, H.
St mpel, and R. Pasternak. 1999. Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 1998. Mitteilungen
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 131: 57-113.
Muhly, J. D. 1976. Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade
in the Bronze Age. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences
46: 77-136.
———. 1995. Lead Isotope Analysis and the Archaeologist. Journal of Mediterranean
386

Archaeology 8 (1): 54-8.
———. 2003. Review of Metals Make the World Go Round: The Supply and Circulation
of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. American Journal of Archaeology 107 (2): 291-
3.
———. 2005. Traveling Craftsmen: Love ‘Em or Leave ―Em. In Emporia. Aegeans in
the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International
Aegean Conference , Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004,
Aegaeum 25, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco. Liège; Austin: Université de
Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 685-90.
———. 2008a. An Introduction to Minoan Archaeometallurgy. In Aegean Metallurgy in
the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the
University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by I.
Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications: 35-41.
———. 2008b. Ayia Photia and the Cycladic Element in Early Minoan Metallurgy. In
Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International
Symposium held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-
21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications: 69-74.
———. 2009. Oxhide Ingots in the Aegean and in Egypt. In Oxhide Ingots in the Central
Mediterranean, edited by F. L. Schiavo, J. D. Muhly, R. Maddin and A. Giumlia-
Mair. Rome: A.G. Leventis Foundation; CNR-Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà
dell'Egeo e del Vicino Oriente: 17-39.
Museum of Cretan Ethnology. 2011. Museum of Cretan Ethnology. 2006 [cited January
24 2011]. Available from
http://www.cretanethnologymuseum.gr/imke/html/en/index_en.html.
Mylonas, G. 1962. Three Late Mycenaean Knives. American Journal of Archaeology 66
(4): 406-8.
———. 1966. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nakassis, D. 2010. Reevaluating Staple and Wealth Finance at Mycenaean Pylos. In
Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers from the Langford
Conference, Florida State Univeristy, Tallahassee, 22-24 February 2007, edited
by D. J. Pullen. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books: 127-48.
Nakou, G. 1995. The Cutting Edge: A New Look at Early Aegean Metallurgy. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (2): 1-32.
Naumann, R. 1971. Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der
hetitiscen Zeit. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth.
387

Nebelsick, L. 2000. Rent Asunder: Ritual Violence in Late Bronze Age Hoards. In
Metals Make the World Go Round: The Supply and Circulation of Metals in
Bronze Age Europe: Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of
Birmingham in June 1997, edited by C. Pare. Oxford: Oxbow: 160-75.
Needham, S. 1999. Hoards and Atlantic Shipwrecks. In Gods and Heroes of Bronze Age
Europe: The Roots of Odysseus, edited by K. Demakopoulou, et al. New York:
Thames & Hudson: 43-5.
———. 2001. When Expediency Broaches Ritual Intention: The Flow of Metal between
Systemic and Buried Domains. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
7 (2): 275-98.
Nelson, M. C. 2001. The Architecture of Epano Englianos, Greece, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Neve, P. 1984. Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1983. Archäologischer Anzeiger:
329-81.
———. 1986. Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1985. Archäologischer Anzeiger:
365-406.
———. 1987. Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattusha 1986. Archäologischer
Anzeiger: 381-412.
———. 1988. Ein hethitisches Stierrelief aus Derbent bei Boğazköy. In Documentum
Asiae Minoris Antiquae: Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag,
edited by E. Neu and C. Rüster. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz: 263-72.
———. 1989. Eine hethitische Bronzesäge aus Hattusa-Boğayköy. Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 39: 399-406.
———. 1996. Ḫ š --Stadt der Götter und Tempel: neue Ausgrabungen in der
Hauptstadt der Hethiter. Mainz: Philipp Von Zabern.
———. 1999. Boğ zköy-Hattusha: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen XVI. Die Oberstadt
von Hattusha. Die Bauwerke I. Die Bebauung im Zentralen Tempelviertel. Berlin:
Gebr. Mann Verlag.
———. 2001. Boğ zköy-Hattusha Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen XVII. Die Oberstadt
von Hattusha. Die Bauwerke II. Die Bastion des Sphinxtores und die
Tempelviertel am Königs- und Löwentor. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
———. 2002. The Great Temple in Boğazköy-Hattusha. In Across the Anatolian
388

Plateau: Readings in the Archaeology of Ancient Turkey, edited by D. C.
Hopkins. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research: 77-97.
Niemeier, B., and W-D. Niemeier. 1999. The Minoans of Miletus. In MELETEMATA I-
III. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcom H. Wiener as He Enters
His 65th Year, edited by P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-
D. Niemeier. Liège-Austin: Université de Liège-University of Texas: 543-53.
Niemeier, B., and W.-D. Niemeier. 2000. Aegean Frescoes in Syria-Palestine: Alalakh
and Tel Kabri. In The Wall Paintings of Thera: Procedings of the First
International Symposium. Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas,
30 August - 4 September 1997, edited by S. Sherratt. Athens: Petros M. Nomikos
and the Thera Foundation: 763-802.
Niemeier, W.-D. 1995. Tel Kabri: Aegean Fresco Paintings in a Canaanite Palace. In
Recent Excavations in Israel, a View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-
Ekron, Dor, and Ashkelon, edited by S. Gitin. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Co.
Nordquist, G. 1995. Who Made the Pots? Production in the Middle Helladic Society. In
Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th
International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches
Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Aegaeum 12, edited by R. Laffineur and W.-D.
Niemeier. Liège; Austin: Université de Liège; University of Texas: 201-7.
Nosch, M.-L. B. 2003. The Women at Work in the Linear B Tablets. In Gender, Cult,
and Culture in the Ancient World from Mycenae to Byzantium: Proceedings of the
Second Nordic Symposium on Gender and Women's History in Antiquity,
Helsinki, 20-22 October 2000, edited by L. L. Lovén and A. Strömberg.
Sävedalen, Sweden: Paul Åströms Förlag: 12-26.
Nylander, C. 1970. Ionians in Pasargadae: Studies in Old Persian Architecture. Uppsala:
Uppsala University Press.
Onassoglou, A. 1995. Hē oiki o fo ōn ripo ōn i Mykēn . Athens: Hē en
Athēnais Archaiologikē Hetaireia.
———. 1996. Un bâtiment mycénien sous les fondations du nouveau musée de Mycènes:
La tombe aux bronzes. In Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di
micenologia. Roma-Napoli, 14-20 ottobre 1991, edited by E. D. Miro, L. Godart
and A. Sacconi. Roma: Gruppo editoriale internazionale: 1255-67.
Özgüç, T. 1982. Ma at Höyük 2 Boğazköy'ün kuzeydoğusunda bir Hitit merkezi = A
Hittite center northeast of Boğazköy. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
———. 2003. Kü p K niš/N š . Th E r i In rn ion Tr C n r n h
389

Oldest Capital City of the Hittites. Istanbul: The Middle Eastern Culture Center in
Japan.
Palaima, T. 2003. The Inscribed Bronze 'Kessel' from Shaft Grave IV and Cretan
Heirlooms of the Bronze Artist named 'Aigeus' vel sim. in the Mycenaean Palatial
Period. In Briciaka. A Tribute to W. C. Brice, edited by Y. Duhoux, W. F. Bakker
and W. C. Brice. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert: 187-201.
Palmer, R. 1998-1999. Models in Linear B Landholding: An Analysis of Methodology.
In A-na-qo-ta. Studies Presented to J. T. Killen. Minos 33-34, edited by J. Bennet
and J. Driessen: 223-50.
———. 2001. Bridging the Gap: The Continuity of Greek Agriculture from the
Mycenaean to the Historical Period. In Prehistory and History: Ethnicity, Class
and Political Economy, edited by D. W. Tandy. Montréal/New York/London:
Black Rose Books: 41-84.
———. 2008. Wheat and Barley in Mycenaean Society 15 Years Later. In Colloquium
Romanum: atti del XII colloquio internazionale di micenologia, Roma, 20 - 25
febbraio 2006, edited by A. Sacconi, M. D. Freo, L. Godart and M. Negri. Pisa
and Roma: Fabrizio Serra: 621-39.
Palyvou, C. 2005. Akrotiri Thera: An Architecture of Affluence 3,500 Years Old. Vol. 15,
Prehistory Monographs. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.
Papadatos, Y. 2007. The Beginning of Metallurgy in Crete: New Evidence from the FN -
EM I Settlement at Kephala Petras, Siteia. In Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age
Aegean, edited by P. M. Day and R. C. Doonan. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 154-67.
Papadimitriou, N. 2001. T. 164 - An Early LH Built Chamber Tomb from Argos. Annual
of the British School at Athens 96: 41-79.
Papadopoulos, T. J. 1978. Mycenaean Achaea. Vol. 55, Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology. Göteborg: Paul Åström Förlag.
Papasavvas, G. 2001. Chalkinoi Ypostates apo tin Kypro kai tin Kriti. Tripodikoi kai
tetrapleuroi ypostates apo tin Ysteri Epochi tou Chalkou eos tin Proimi Epochi
tou Sidirou. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation.
———. 2003. Writing on Cyprus: Some Silent Witnesses. Report of the Department of
Antiquities Cyprus: 79-94.
Pare, C. F. 2000. Bronze and the Bronze Age. In Metals Make the World Go Round: The
Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Proceedings of a
conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997, edited by C. F.
Pare. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 1-38.
390

Parsons, M., and J. A. Gifford. 1995. Soil and Land Use Studies at Kommos. In Kommos
I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town edited by J. W. Shaw and
M. C. Shaw. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 292-324.
Paschalidis, C. 2007. Euboea at the Crossroads of the Metal Trade: The Aegean and the
Black Sea in the Late Bronze Age. In International Conference on Bronze and
Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments Between the
Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Penninsula, Central and Northern Europe
(2005: Zagreb, Croatia), Aegaeum 27, edited by I. Galanaki, et al. Liège; Austin:
Universitè de Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 433-45.
Paschalidis, C., and P. J. P. McGeorge. 2011. Life and Death in the Periphery of the
Mycenaean World at the End of the Late Bronze Age: The Case of the Achaea
Klauss Cemetery. In From the Aegean to the Adriatic, Social Organizations
modes of Exchange and Interaction in the Postpalatial Times (12th-11th BC),
held at Udine (Italy), on 1-2 December 2006, edited by E. Borgna.
Perlès, C. 1992. Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic
Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5 (2): 115-64.
Pernicka, E. 1995. Crisis or Catharsis in Lead Isotope Analysis? Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 8 (1): 59-64.
Pernier, L., and L. Banti. 1951. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs. Scavi e studi della Missione
archeologica italiana a Creta dal 1900 al 1950. Rome: Libreria dello stato.
Persson, A. W. 1931. The Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.
———. 1942. New Tombs at Dendra near Midea. Lund; Oxford: Leipzig; Oxford
University Press.
Petrie, W. M. F. 1917. Tools and Weapons: Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in
University College, London and 2,000 Outlines from Other Sources. London:
British School of Archaeology in Egypt.
Philip, G. 1989. Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine.
Oxford: B.A.R.
———. 1995. Tell el-Dab'a Metalwork: Patterns and Purpose. In Egypt, the Aegean and
the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC, edited by W. V.
Davies and E. Schofield. London: British Museum Press: 66-83.
Polyzoi, V., ed. 2009. Man & Tools: Aspects of Labour in the Pre-Industrial World.
Exhibition Catalogue. Athens: Ministry of Culture: Museum of Greek Folk Art.
391

Poursat, J.-C. 1978. Travaux de L'École Française en Grèce en 1977: Malia - Atelier de
Sceaux. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 102: 831-6.
———. 1985. Outils de charpentier et de menuisier au Quartier Mu de Malia (Crète). In
De l'Indus aux Balkans: Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes, edited by J.-L.
Huot, M. Yon and Y. Calvet. Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations: 119-25.
Poursat, J.-C., and M. Loubet. 2005. Métallurgie et contacts extérieurs à Malia (Crète) au
minoen moyen II: Remarques sur une série d'analyses isotopiques du plomb. In
Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the
10th International Aegean Conference/ Athens, Italian School of Archaeology,
14-18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco. Liège;
Austin: Université de Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 117-21.
Poursat, J.-C., and J.-P. Olivier. 1996. Fouilles exécutées à Malia: Le quartier Mu. III.
Artisans minoens: Les maisons-ateliers du quartier Mu. Vol. 32, Études crétoises.
Athens: École française d'Athènes.
Pulak, C. 1988a. The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign.
American Journal of Archaeology 92 (1): 1-37.
———. 1988b. Excavations in Turkey: 1988 Campaign. INA Newsletter 15 (4): 13-7.
———. 1992. The Shipwreck at Uluburun, Turkey: 1992 Excavation Campagin. INA
Quarterly 19 (4): 4-11, 21.
———. 1993. The Shipwreck at Uluburun: 1993 Excavation Campaign. INA Quarterly
20 (4): 4-12.
———. 1994. 1994 Excavation at Uluburun: The Final Campaign. INA Quarterly 21 (4):
8-16.
———. 1998. The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview. The International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology 27 (3): 188-224.
Pullen, D. J. 1992. Ox and Plow in the Early Bronze Age Aegean. American Journal of
Archaeology 96 (1): 45-54.
Rackham, O., and J. Moody. 1992. Terraces. In Agriculture in Ancient Greece.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at
Athens, 16-17 May 1990, edited by B. Wells. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag:
123-33.
———. 1996. The Making of the Cretan Landscape. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
392

Rahmstorf, L. 2008. Tiryns: Forschungen und Berichte XVI. Kleinfunde aus Tiryns.
Terrakotta, Stein, Bein und Glas/Fayence vornehmlich aus der Spätbronzezeit.
Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
Reinholdt, C. 1993. Entwicklung und Typologie mittelbronzezeitlicher Lanzenspitzen mit
Schäftungsschuh in Griechenland. Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für
Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 14: 43-52.
Renfrew, C. 1967. Cycladic Metallurgy and the Aegean Early Bronze Age. American
Journal of Archaeology 71 (1): 1-20.
———. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third
Millennium B.C. London: Methuen.
Renfrew, C., and J. Cherry. 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rodgers, E. 1992. Boat Reliefs in the Tomb of Ti and Mastaba of Mereruka. INA
Quarterly 19 (3): 8-11.
Rolfe, J. C. 1890. Discoveries at Anthedon in 1889. The American Journal of
Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 6 (1/2): 96-107.
Romano, D. G. 2003. Minoan Surveyors and Town Planning at Gournia. In Metron:
Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean
Conference. New Haven, Yale University, 18-21 April 2002, edited by K. P.
Foster and R. Laffineur. Liège: Université de Liège: 247-55.
Rosen, S. A. 1984. The Adoption of Metallurgy in the Levant: A Lithic Perspective.
Current Antropology 25: 504-5.
Rougemont, F. 2007. Flax and Linen Textiles in the Mycenaean Palatial Economy. In
Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Ancient Textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and
Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19-23, 2003, edited by C. Gillis and M.-L. B.
Nosch. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 46-9.
Runnels, C. N. 1982. Flaked-Stone Artifacts in Greece during the Historical Period.
Journal of Field Archaeology 9 (3): 363-73.
———. 1985. The Bronze Age Flaked-Stone Industries from Lerna. Hesperia 54: 357-
91.
———. 1994. On Lithic Studies in Greece. In Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the
Aegean Area, edited by P. N. Kardulias. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America: 161-72.
393

Ruscillo, D. 2006. Catalogue of Miscellaneous Finds from the Southern Area: Faunal
Remains and Murex Dye Production. In Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan
Buildings at Kommos, edited by J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw. Princeton:
Princeton University Press: 776-844.
Sakellarakis, Y. 1976. Mycenaean Stone Vases. Studi Micenei ed Ageo-Anatolici 17:
173-87.
Sakellarakis, Y., and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki. 1997. Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New
Light. Athens: Ammos Publications.
Sandars, N. K. 1955. The Antiquity of the One-Edged Bronze Knife in the Aegean.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21: 174-97.
———. 1961. The First Aegean Swords and their Ancestry. American Journal of
Archaeology 65: 17-29.
———. 1963. Later Aegean Bronze Swords. American Journal of Archaeology 67: 117-
53.
Sarpaki, A. 1992. The Palaeoethnobotanical Approach. The Mediterranean Traid or is it a
Quartet? In Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Proceedings of the Seventh
International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16-17 May, 1990,
edited by B. Wells. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag: 61-76.
Sayre, E. V., K. A. Yener, and E. C. Joel. 1995. Comments on 'Oxhide Ingots, Recycling,
and the Mediterranean Metals Trade. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8
(1): 45-53.
Schaeffer, C. F. A. 1936. Missions en Chypre, 1932-1935. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
———. 1949. Ug ri i II: No r i o r R Sh mr .
Paris: Paul Geuthner.
———. 1952. Enkomi-Alasia: Nouvelles missions en Chypre, 1946-1950, Publications
de la mission archéologique française et de la mission du gouvernement de
Chypre à Enkomi. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
———.1956. Ug ri i r i o r R Sh mr . Paris: Paul
Guethner.
Scheel, B. 1989. Egyptian Metalworking and Tools. Aylesbury: Shire Publications.
Schliemann, H. 1878. Mycenae: A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae
and Tiryns. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & company.
394

Schofield, E. 1982. The Western Cyclades and Crete: A "Special Relationship". Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 1 (1): 9-25.
Schwandner, E. L. 1991. Der Schnitt im Stein: Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch der
Steinsäge in der Antike. In Bautechnik der Antike. Internationales Kolloquium in
Berlin vom 15-17. Februar 1990/veranstaltet vom Architekturreferat des DAI in
Zusammenarbeit mit dem Seminar für Klassiche Archäologie der Freien
Universität Berlin, edited by A. Hoffmann, E. L. Schwandner, W. Hoepfner and
G. Brandes. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern: 215-23.
Schwenzer, S. 1997. 'Wanderer kommst Du nach Spa...' Der Opferplatz von Berlin-
Spandau. Ein Heiligtum für Krieger, Händler und Reisende. In G b n n i
Gö r: S hä z r Bronz z i E rop , edited by A. H nsel and B. H nsel.
Berlin: Museum f r Vor- und Fr hgeschichte: 61-6.
Seager, R. 1909. Excavations on the Island of Mochos, Crete, in 1908. American Journal
of Archaeology 13: 273-303.
Seeher, J. 2005. Bohren wie die Hethiter: Rekonstruktion von Bohrmaschinen der
Spätbronzezeit und Beispiele ihrer Verwendung. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 55: 17-
35.
———. 2007. Sägen wie die Hethiter: Rekonstruktion einer Steinschneidetechnik im
bronzezeitlichen Bauhandwerk. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 57: 27-43.
———.2008. Innovation im Bauwesen als Indikator für Kulturkontakt: Hethiter und
Mykener als Fallbeispiel. In Austausch und Inspiration. Kulturkontakt als Impuls
architektonischer Innovation, edited by F. Pirson and U. Wulf-Rheidt. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern: 1-15.
———. 2009. Die Techniken der Steinbearbeitung in der hethitischen Architektur des 2.
Jahrtausends v. Chr. In Bautehnik im antiken und vorantiken Kleinasien.
Internationale Konferenz, 13-16 Juni 2007 in Istanbul, BYZAS 9, edited by M.
Bachmann. Istanbul: E. Yayinlari: 119-56.
Semenov, S.A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools
and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Translated by M. W.
Thompson. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Shaw, J. W. 1973a. Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques. Annuario della
Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente (1971) 49: 1-
236.
———. 1973b. The Chrysolakkos Facades. In Ta pepragmena tu G' Diethnus
Kritoloyiku Sinedriu (Rethymno, 18-23 Sept. 1971). Athens: 319-31.
395

———. 2006a. Catalogue of Miscellaneous Finds from the Southern Area: Metals and
Metalworking. In Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos,
edited by J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw. Princeton: Princeton University Press:
717-29.
———. 2006b. Artifacts of Stone. In Kommos V. The Monumental Minoan Buildings at
Kommos, edited by J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw. Princeton: Princeton University
Press: 739-51.
———. 2009. Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques. Vol. 7, Studi
Archeologia Cretese. Padova: Bottega D'Erasmo.
Shaw, M. 1997. Aegean Sponsors and Artists: Reflections of their Roles in the Patterns
of Distribution of Themes and Representational Conventions in the Murals. In
TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age:
Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple
University, 18-21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16, edited by R. Laffineur and P. P.
Betancourt. Liège; Austin: Université de Liège; University of Texas at Austin:
481-504.
Sherratt, S. 2000. Circulation of Metals and the End of the Bronze Age in the Eastern
Mediterranean. In Metals Make the World Go Round. The Supply and Circulation
of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Proceedings of a Conference held at the
University of Birmingham in June 1997, edited by C. Pare. Oxford: Oxbow
Books: 82-98.
———. 2007. Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age. Edited by P. M. Day and R. Doonan,
Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology, 7. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Simmons, A. H. 2001. The First Humans and Last Pygmy Hippopotami of Cyprus. In
The Earliest Prehistory of Cyprus: From Colonization to Exploitation, edited by
S. Swiny. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research: 1-18.
Singer, I. 1983. Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B.C. according to Hittite
Texts. Anatolian Studies 33: 205-18.
Sloane, E. 2002. A Museum of Early American Tools. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications,
Inc.
Smith, J. S. 1993. The Pylos Jn Series. Minos 27-28: 167-259.
———. 2009. Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soles, J. 2003. Mochlos IA. Mochlos Period III: Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast. The
396

i n ’ Q r r n h F rmho Ch inomouri: The Sites. Philadelphia:
INSTAP Academic Press.
———. 2005. From Ugarit to Mochlos: Remnants of an Ancient Voyage In Emporia:
Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th
International Aegean Conference. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18
April 2004, Aegaeum 25, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco. Liège; Austin:
Université de Liège; University of Texas at Austin: 429-39.
———. 2007. Saevus Tridens. In Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and
Maria Shaw, edited by P. Betancourt, M. C. Nelson and H. Williams.
Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press: 251-5.
———. 2008. Metal Hoards from LM IB Mochlos, Crete. In Aegean Metallurgy in the
Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of
Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by I. Tzachili.
Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications: 143-56.
Soles, J., and C. Davaras. 1996. Excavations at Mochlos, 1992-1993. Hesperia 65 (2):
173-230.
———, eds. 2004. Mochlos IC: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The
r i n ’ Q r r n h F rmho Ch inomo ri. Th Sm Fin . Vol. 9,
Prehistory Monographs. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.
Soles, J., and Z. Stos-Gale. 2004. The Metal Finds and Their Geological Sources. In
Mo h o IC: P rio III. N op i S m n on h Co : Th r i n ’
Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Small Finds, edited by J. Soles
and C. Davaras. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press: 45-59.
South, A. K. 1983. Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrious 1982. Report of the Department of
Antiquities Cyprus: 92-116.
Spyropoulos, T. 1970. Thisauros halkon andikimenon eks Orhomenu (A Late Mycenaean
Bronze Founder's Hoard from Boeotian Orchomenos). Athens Annals of
r h o ogy (’Απχαιολογικὰ ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ ’Αθηνῶν) 3 (2): 263-7.
———. 1972. Hystero Mykēn koi H ikoi Thē roi. Athens: Archaiologikē
Hetaireia.
Steel, L. 2004. A Goodly Feast...A Cup of Mellow Wine: Feasting in Bronze Age
Cyprus. In The Mycenaean Feast, edited by J. C. Wright. Princeton: American
School of Classical Studies at Athens: 161-80.
Steffy, J. R. 1994. Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College
Station: Texas A & M University Press.
397

Stewart, J. 1961. The Early Bronze Age in Cyprus. In The Swedish Cyprus Expedition
Volume IV. Part IA. Lund.
Stos-Gale, Z. A., N. H. Gale, and D. Evely. 2000. An Interpretation of the Metal Finds,
using Lead Isotope and Chemical Analytical Procedures. In The Greek-Swedish
Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square. Kastelli, Khania, 1970-1987. Vol. II,
The Late Minoan IIIC Settlement, edited by E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager.
Stockholm; Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag: 206-14.
Strasser, T. F. 2008. Stones of Contention: Regional Axe Production and Hidden
Landscapes on Neolithic Crete. In Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic
in Context, edited by V. Isaakidou and P. D. Tomkins: 155-64.
Stroulia, A. 2003. Ground Stone Celts from Franchthi Cave: A Close Look. Hesperia 72
(1): 1-30.
Stubbings, F. H. 1954a. Mycenae 1939-1953. Part VII. A Bronze Founder's Hoard.
Annual of the British School at Athens 49: 292-6.
———. 1954b. Mycenae 1939-1953. Part VIII. A Winged-Axe Mould. Annual of the
British School at Athens 49: 297-8.
Süel, A. 2002. Ortaköy-şapinuwa. In Recent developments in Hittite archaeology and
history : papers in memory of Hans G. Güterbock, edited by K. A. Yener and J.
H. A. Hoffner. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns: 157-65.
Summers, G. 1991. Metalwork in Gaziantep Museum said to be a Hoard from the Region
of Sakçagözü. Anatolian Studies 41: 173-95.
Swiny, S. 1986. The Kent State University Expedition to Episkopi Phaneromeni. Vol.
74.2, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. Nicosia: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Symeonoglou, S. 1985. The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern
Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tartaron, T. F. 2004. Bronze Age Landscape and Society in Southern Epirus, Greece.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Taylor, J. D. P. 1952. A Late Bronze Age Settlement at Apliki, Cyprus. The Antiquaries
Journal 32: 133-67.
———. 1957. Myrtou-Pigadhes: A Late Bronze Age Sanctuary in Cyprus. Oxford:
Ashmolean Museum.
Taylor, R. J. 1993. Hoards of the Bronze Age in Southern Britain: Analysis and
398

Interpretation. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Taylour, W. D., and R. Janko. 2008. Ayios Stephanos: Excavations at a Bronze Age and
Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia. London: British School at Athens.
Thaler, U. 2007. Ahhiyawa and Hatti: Palatial Perspectives. In Mediterranean
Crossroads, edited by S. Antoniadou and A. Pace. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 291-
323.
Thomas, N. R. 2005. Niello or Not? Laboratory Analyses of the Black-Inlaid Weapons of
the Aegean, Egypt, and the Levant. In Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and
Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean
Conference. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004, Aegaeum
25, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco. Liège; Austin: Université de Liège;
University of Texas at Austin: 717-30.
Thornton, C. P., J. M. Golden, D. J. Killick, V. C. Pigott, T. Rehren, and B. W. Roberts.
2010. A Chalcolithic Error: Rebuttal to Amzallag 2009. American Journal of
Archaeology 114: 305-15.
Todd, I. A., ed. 1986. Vasilikos Valley Project, I: The Bronze Age Cemetery in Kalavasos
Village. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
———. 1988. The Middle Bronze Age in the Kalavasos Area. Report of the Department
of Antiquities Cyprus: 133-40.
———. 1993. Kalavasos-Laroumena: Test Excavation of a Middle Bronze Age
Settlement. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 81-96.
Trantalidou, K. 2001. Producing and Recording Leather and Other Animal Products. In
Manufacture and Measurement: Counting, Measuring and Recording Craft Items
in Early Aegean Societies, edited by A. Michailidou, P. Kalogerakou and K.
Voutsa. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National
Hellenic Research Foundation: 267-317.
Tripathi, D. N. 1988. Bronzework of Mainland Greece from c. 2600 B.C. to c. 1450. Vol.
69, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Tselios, T. 2006. A New Look at Minoan Metalworking Techniques. In Symposium on
Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA 2004): Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers, School of Classics, Trinity College,
Dublin. 20-22 February 2004, edited by J. Day, C. Greenlaw, H. Hall, A. Kelly,
L. Matassa, K. McAleese, E. Saunders and D. Stritch. Oxford: Archaeopress: 193-
7.
———. 2008. Pre-Palatial Copper Metalworking in the Mesara Plain, Crete. In Aegean
399

Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at
the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by
I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications: 123-9.
Tsountas, C. 1908. Hai pro orik i kropo i Dimēnio k i S k o . Athens:
Sakellarios.
Tzachili, I. 2001a. Circulation of Textiles in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. In
Manufacture and Measurement: Counting, Measuring and Recording Craft Items
in Early Aegean Societies, edited by A. Michailidou, P. Kalogerakou and K.
Voutsa. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National
Hellenic Research Foundation: 167-75.
———. 2001b. Counting and Recording Textiles in the Mycenaean Archives of Knossos.
In Manufacture and Measurement: Counting, Measuring and Recording Craft
Items in Early Aegean Societies, edited by A. Michailidou, P. Kalogerakou and K.
Voutsa. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National
Hellenic Research Foundation: 177-93.
———. 2008a. Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age: Recent Developments. In Aegean
Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at
the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by
I. Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications: 7-33.
———. 2008b. An Addendum: Were there Sources of Metal Ores on Crete or not? In
Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age: Recent Developments. Aegean Metallurgy
in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the
University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, edited by I.
Tzachili. Athens: Ta Pragmata Publications: 327-9.
Tzedakis, Y., and H. Martlew, eds. 2002. Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of their
Time. Athens: Ministry of Culture: Hellenic Cultural Heritage.
Uchitel, A. 1990. Bronze-Smiths of Pylos and Silver-Smiths of Ur. Minos 25: 195-202.
Ulrich, R. B. 2007. Roman Woodworking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Vagnetti, L. 1971. Osservazioni sul sosiddetto ripostiglio di Makarska. In Studi Ciprioti e
rapporti di scavo, Biblioteca di Antichita Cipriote 1. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale
delle Ricerche, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici: 203-16.
———.1984. Testimonianze di metallurgia minoica dalla zona di Nerokourou
(Kydonias). Studi Micenei ed Ageo-Anatolici 25: 153-71.
Valmin, M. N. 1938. The Swedish Messenia Expedition. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
400

Van Effenterre, H., and M. van Effenterre. 1970. L'agora (1960-1966). Fouilles
exécutées à Mallia: le Centre politique. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste P. Geuthner.
Van Wersch, H. J. 1972. The Agricultural Economy. In The Minnesota Messenia
Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment, edited by W. A.
McDonald and G. R. Rapp, Jr. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press:
177-87.
Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vermeule, E. 1975. The Art of the Shaft Graves of Mycenae. Cincinnati: University of
Cincinnati.
Vermeule, E.T., and F.Z. Wolsky. 1990. Toumba tou Skourou: A Bronze Age Potters'
Quarter on Morphou Bay in Cyprus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vichos, Y. 1999. The Point Iria Wreck: The Nautical Dimension. In The Point Iria
Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC. Proceedings of the
International Conference, Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998, edited by W.
Phelps, Y. Lolos and Y. Vichos. Athens: Hellenic Institute of Marine
Archaeology: 77-98.
Vocotopoulou, J. 1972. Thisauros halkon pelekeon ek Katamahis Ioanninon (Hoard of
Bronze Double Axes from Katamachi). Athens Annals of Archaeology
(’Απχαιολογικὰ ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ ’Αθηνῶν) 5 (1): 112-8.
Voskos, I., and A. B. Knapp. 2008. Cyprus at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Crisis and
Colonization or Continuity and Hybridization? American Journal of Archaeology
112 (4): 659-84.
Voutsa, K. 2001. Mycenaean Craftsmen in Palace Archives: Problems in Interpretation.
In Manufacture and Measurement: Counting, Measuring and Recording Craft
Items in Early Aegean Societies, edited by A. Michailidou, P. Kalogerakou and K.
Voutsa. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National
Hellenic Research Foundation: 145-65.
Wace, A. 1949. Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
———. 1953. Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 1952. Annual of the British
School at Athens 48: 3-18.
Wachsmann, S. 2009. Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. Second
printing. ed. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
401

Walberg, G. 1998. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea. Results of the Greek-Swedish
Excavations under the direction of Katie Demakopoulou and Paul Åström. The
Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1985-1991. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.
———. 2007. Midea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area. Excavations on the
Lower Terraces 1994-1997, Prehistory Monographs 20. Philadelphia: INSTAP
Academic Press.
Walz, C. 1985. Ethnographic Analogy and the Gender of Potters in the Late Cypriot
Bronze Age. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 126-32.
Warren, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases. London: Cambridge University Press.
Wattenmaker, P. 1998. Craft Production and Social Identity in Northwest Mesopotamia.
In Craft and Social Identity, edited by C. L. Costin and R. P. Wright. Arlington,
VA: American Anthropological Association: 47-55.
Webb, J. 1999. Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze
Age. Jonsered: P. Åströms Förlag.
Weingarten, J. 1994. The Sealing Studies in the Middle Bronze Age. I: Karahöyük. II:
Phaistos. In Archives Before Writing. Proceedings of the International
Colloquium Oriolo Romano, October 23-25, 1991, edited by P. Ferioli, E.
Fiandra, G. G. Fissore and M. Frangipane. Roma: Centro Internazionale di
Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche: 261-96.
Weinstein, J. 1981. Hafting Methods on Type B Swords and Daggers. Temple University
Aegean Symposium 6: 44-55.
Wells, N. 1996. Ugaritic Documents from Ugarit. In Sources for the History of Cyprus.
Volume II: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia
BC, edited by A. B. Knapp. Altamont, NY: Greece and Cyprus Research Center:
36-40.
Whittaker, J. C. 2000. Alonia and Dhoukanes: The Ethnoarchaeology of Threshing in
Cyprus. Near Eastern Archaeology 63 (2): 62-9.
Wiencke, M. H. 1998. Mycenaean Lerna. Hesperia 67: 125-214.
Wiman, I., and M. Bruun-Lundgren. 2003. Industrial Activities and Personal
Adornments. In The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square
Kastelli, Khania 1970-1987 and 2001, Vol. III:1, The Late Minoan IIIB:2
Settlement, edited by E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager. Stockholm: Paul Åströms
Förlag: 266-9.
Wright, J. C. 1978. Mycenaean Masonry Practices and Elements of Construction, PhD
402

dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA.
———, ed. 2004. The Mycenaean Feast. Princeton: American School of Classical
Studies at Athens.
———. 2006. The Formation of the Mycenaean Palace. In Ancient Greece: From the
Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S.
Lemos. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press: 7-52.
Wright, J. C., E. Pappi, S. Triantaphyllou, M. K. Dabney, P. Karkanas, G. Kotzamani,
and A. Livarda. 2008. Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, Excavations at
Barnavos: Final Report. Hesperia 77 (4): 607-54.
Wulff, H. E. 1966. The Traditional Crafts of Persia. Their Development, Technology,
and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilizations. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T.
Press.
Xénaki-Sakellariou, A. 1985. Les Tombes à chambre de Mycènes: fouilles de Chr.
Tsountas (1887-1898) (in Greek). Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.
Yalçin, U., C. Pulak, and R. Slotta, eds. 2005. Das Schiff von Uluburun Welthandel vor
3000 Jahren: Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum
vom 15. Juli 2005 bis 16. Juli 2006. Vol. 138, V röff n i h ng n m
Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum.
Yalouris, N. 1960. Mykenische Bronzeschutzwaffen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 75: 42-67.
Yassoglou, N. J., and C. F. Haidouti. 1978. Soil Formation. In Excavations at Nichoria in
Southwest Greece: Volume I. Site, Environs, and Techniques, edited by G. Rapp,
Jr and S. E. Aschenbrenner. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press: 31-
40.
Yildirim, B., and M.-H. Gates. 2007. Archaeology in Turkey, 2004-2005. American
Journal of Archaeology 111 (2): 275-356.
Zaccagnini, C. 1983. Patterns of Mobility among Near Eastern Craftsmen. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 42: 245-64.
———. 1987. Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East during the Late Second
Millennium BC. In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M.
Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press: 57-65.
Zangger, E. 1992. Prehistoric and Historic Soils in Greece: Assessing the Natural
Resources for Agriculture. In Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Proceedings of the
403

Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16-17 May
1990, edited by B. Wells. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag: 13-9.
———. 1994. Landscape Changes around Tiryns during the Bronze Age. American
Journal of Archaeology 98 (2): 189-212.
Zangger, E., M. E. Timpson, S. B. Yazvenko, F. Kuhnke, and J. Knauss. 1997. The Pylos
Regional Archaeological Project. Part II: Landscape Evolution and Site
Preservation. Hesperia 66: 549-641.
Zwicker, U. 1991. Natural Copper-Arsenic Alloys and Smelted Arsenic Bronzes in Early
Metal Production. In La découverte du métal: Colloque: Papers, edited by J.-P.
Mohen and C. Éluère. Paris: Picard: 331-40.
404

Vita:
I, Nicholas George Blackwell, was born to Diane and George Blackwell on
October 29, 1980 in Fredericksburg, Virginia. After three years of public elementary
school in Orange, Virginia, I was homeschooled by my mother until I began high school
at Woodberry Forest School (Madison, VA)—where I graduated in 1998. I received my
B.A. in 2002 from Davidson College (Davidson, NC) with honors in Classics. Since then,
I have been enrolled as a graduate student in the Department of Classical and Near
Eastern Archaeology at Bryn Mawr College, where I earned an M.A. in 2004. My
master’s thesis comprised two papers, titled: 1) Instruments of Sacrifice: The Religious
Function of Early Minoan Daggers and 2) Tomb and Burial Assemblage Variation within
the “Royal Cemetery” at Salamis (Cyprus). In 2005–2006, I served as a teaching
assistant at Bryn Mawr College and passed my doctoral preliminary examinations in the
following subject areas: 1) Prehistory of Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean; 2) Greek
Architectural Sculpture; 3) Homeric Studies; and 4) Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian Art and
Architecture. In July 2006, I married Joanie Gidas and we spent the subsequent year in
Athens, Greece while I was a Regular Member at the American School of Classical
Studies. Since Fall 2007, I have received several traveling fellowships to fund
dissertation research in Greece, Cyprus, and Turkey. Having excavated in Cyprus or
Greece nearly every summer since 2000, I served as the Field School Director for the
Mitrou Archaeological Project (Greece) over Summer 2008. The final stage of doctoral
work was supported by the Mrs. Giles Whiting Dissertation Fellowship. Next year, I will
conduct post-doctoral research with funding from the Archaeological Institute of
America’s Pomerance Fellowship and an Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA)
Fellowship from the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, Israel.
405

Volume 2
APPENDIX 1: Figures
(diagrams, histograms, tables, scatter plots, box-and-dot plots, maps) 406
APPENDIX 2: Plates 490
APPENDIX 3: Hoard catalogue 519
APPENDIX 4: Tool catalogue 546
Cretan tools 546
Greek mainland tools 571
Greek island tools 596
Cypriot tools 602
Anatolian tools 629
Syro-Palestinian tools 654
Shipwreck tools 663
APPENDIX 1: FIGURES
Initial stage
Middle stage
Final stage
Loss of value
leading to
melting and
recycling
Mining and
ore gathering
Ore crushing
and transport
Production centers:
metallurgical workshops
that cast and produce
specific metal objects
Various smelting
and refining
processes
Distribution and
exchange of raw
products
Artifact distribution and consumption patterns
according to regional preferences and functionality
Use and/or deposition in the archaeological record
Tool damage;
wear and tear
Lost objects
Repair, reuse, modification , manipulation
and secondary functionality
Figure 2.1: The stages of metallurgical production and consumption
Production of pure
metal
Intentional deposition:
hoards, burials, etc
406

Total quantity
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 3.1a: Increase in metal tools (including stone molds) from
the Middle to Late Bronze Age (n=5309)
Crete Greek mainland Greek islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
EBA-MBA MBA LBA General 2nd millennium
Figure 3.1b: Increase in metal tools (including stone molds) from the Middle to Late Bronze Age 1
Crete Greek Greek Cyprus Anatolia Uluburun/ Syria- Total
mainland islands
Gelidonya Palestine
EBA-MBA 75 2 - 1 - - - 78
MBA 143 78 4 616 267 - 100 1208
LBA 653 947 176 539 746 237 212 3510
% difference
MBA to LBA
+457% +1214% +4400% -12.5% +279% - +212% +291%
General 2 nd
millennium
189
+6 EIA
45 25 44
+2 EIA
111
+1 EIA
- 90 504
+9 EIA
1 Some stone and ceramic/terracotta object are considered as metallurgical implements in this study and are those included in the overall counts. There are 209
stone molds, 1 stone swage block, 17 ceramic/terracotta molds, and 2 ceramic/terracotta tongs.
407

Total quantity
2000
1500
1000
500
0
153
638 561
645
15
Figure 3.2a: Contextual distribution of tools by time period
45
351
1623
173
82
175
267
130
10 4 51 61
Hoard Burial Settlement Stray or unknown Sanctuary Workshop Shipwrecks
MBA LBA General 2nd millennium
Figure 3.2b – Percentage of tools by context and time period
Hoard Burial Settlement Surface, stray or
unknown
Sanctuary Workshop Shipwreck
MBA (n=1208) 12.7% 46.4% 29% 6.8% 0.8% 4.2% -
LBA (n=3510) 18.2% 18.4% 46.3% 5% 3.7% 1.8% 6.8%
General 2 nd mill
(n=504)
3% 8.9% 34.9% 52.8% 0.8% - -
Figure 3.3a – Crete: tool quantity and percentage by context and time period
Hoard Burial Settlement Surface, stray or unknown Sanctuary Workshop
MBA Crete
(n=143)
21 (14.7%) 25 (17.5%) 69 (48.3%) 8 (5.6%) 4 (2.8%) 16 (11.2%)
LBA Crete
(n=653)
85 (13%) 74 (11.3%) 362 (55.4%) 57 (8.7%) 29 (4.1%) 49 (7.5%)
237
408

Figure 3.3b – Greek mainland: tool quantity and percentage by context and time period
Hoard Burial Settlement Surface, stray or unknown Sanctuary Workshop
MBA mainland (n=78) 7 (9%) 26
(33.3%)
35 (44.9%) 10 (12.8%) - -
LBA mainland (n=947) 268 (28.3%) 350 (37%) 264 (27.9%) 51 (5.4%) 14 (1.5%) -
Figure 3.3c – Greek islands: tool quantity and percentage by context and time period
Hoard Burial Settlement Surface, stray or unknown Sanctuary Workshop
MBA islands (n=4) - 2 (50%) - 2 (50%) - -
LBA islands (n=176) 4 (2.3%) 118 (67%) 39 (22.2%) 7 (4%) 8 (4.5%) -
Figure 3.3d – Cyprus: tool quantity and percentage by context and time period
Hoard Burial Settlement Surface, stray or unknown Sanctuary Workshop
MBA Cyprus (n=616) 83 (13.6%) 484 (78.6%) 20 (3.2%) 29 (4.6%) - -
LBA Cyprus (n=539) 163 (30.2%) 89 (16.5%) 237 (44%) 27 (5%) 18 (3.3%) 5 (0.9%)
Figure 3.3e – Anatolia: tool quantity and percentage by context and time period
Hoard Burial Settlement Surface, stray or unknown Sanctuary Workshop
MBA Anatolia (n=267) 3 (1.2%) 5 (2%) 207 (75.8%) 16 (5.2%) 1 (0.8%) 35 (13.9%)
LBA Anatolia (n=746) 64 (8.6%) 4 (0.5%) 605 (81%) 8 (1.1%) 58 (7.7%) 7 (0.9%)
Figure 3.3f – Syria-Palestine: tool quantity and percentage by context and time period
Hoard Burial Settlement Surface, stray or unknown Sanctuary Workshop Underwater site
MBA Syria-
Palestine
(n=100)
39 (39%) 19 (19%) 20 (20%) 17 (17%) 5 (5.1%) - -
LBA Syria-
Palestine
(n=212)
54 (25.5%) 10 (4.7%) 117 (55.2%) 24 (11.3%) 3 (1.4%) 1 (0.5%) 3 (1.4%)
409

Carpentry/
masonry
2253 (42.4%)
Figure 3.4a - Functional categories of metal (and some non-metal) tools
(there are 5309 tools in the database, but the total count here adds
up to 5344 since 35 tools are listed in two categories)
Ritual
prestige, 32 (0.6%)
Agricultural,
401 (7.6%)
Small craft tools, 737
(13.9%)
Metallurgical , 357 (6.7%)
-including stone and
ceramic molds
[128 are metal, 210 are
stone, 19 are ceramic]
Utilitarian,
1564, (29.5%)
410

Figure 3.4b: Quantity and percentage of tools by functional category and time period
MBA (n=1208) LBA (n=3510) General 2 nd millennium (n=504)
Agricultural 6 (0.5% of all MBA tools) 381 (10.9% of all LBA tools) 11 (2.2% of all 2 nd millennium tools)
Metallurgical 119 (9.9%) 203 (5.8%) 32 (6.3%)
Utilitarian 498 (41.2%) 960 (27.4%) 94 (18.7%)
Small craft 129 (10.7%) 526 (15%) 28 (5.6%)
Carpentry/masonry 455 (37.7%) 1444 (41.1%) 340 (67.5%)
Percentage
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 3.5a - Agricultural tool percentages
(as measured by each region's total tool assemblage)
MBA
LBA
General 2nd millennium
411

Figure 3.5b - Agricultural tools: quantity and proportion of total number of tools for each region and time period 2
Crete Mainland Greek islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
MBA
- - 1 (0.2%) 5 (1.9%) - -
-
1 EBA-MBA
LBA 19 (2.9%) 53 (5.6%) 8 (4.5%) 96 (17.8%) 57 (7.6%) 110 (46.4%) 38 (17.9%)
General 2 nd
6 (3.2%) 2 (4.4%) - - - - 3 (3.3%)
millennium +1 EIA
Figure 3.6- Distribution of agricultural
tools according to a site's size
(not including implements found on shipwrecks)
Minor, 70
Medium, 26
Known from
stray finds,
13
Large, 180
2 Total tool quantities for each region and time period are listed in Fig. 3.1b.
Shipwreck,
111
Figure 3.7 - Distribution of Agricultural tools
by context (n=401)
Stray or
unknown, 33
Settlement,
72
Sanctuary, 6 Workshop, 1
Burial, 6
Hoard, 172
412

Total quantity
200
150
100
50
0
187
119
Figure 3.8 - Agricultural tool types
12 7 7 6 1
Figure 3.9a - Crete LBA quantities of Agricultural tools
Agricultural tool types (n=19) Distribution of tools by site size Distribution of tools by context type
Sickles = 9
Large - palatial or major urban center = 9
Hoard = 1
Shovel = 1
Medium - secondary to palace = 8
Burial = 1
Pruning knives = 4
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 1
Settlement = 15
Pick-adzes = 5
Known only from stray finds = 1
Unstratified/stray/unknown = 2
Figure 3.9b - Greek mainland LBA quantities of Agricultural tools
Agricultural tool types (n=53) Distribution of tools by site size Distribution of tools by context type
Sickles = 48
Large - palatial or major urban center = 38
Hoard = 42
Plowshares = 4
Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Burial = 3
Shovel = 1
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 8
Known only from stray finds = 6
Settlement = 8
Figure 3.9c - Greek island LBA quantities of Agricultural tools
Agricultural tool type (n=8) Distribution of tools by site size Distribution of tools by context type
Sickles = 8
Medium - secondary to palace = 7
Hoard = 1; Settlement = 6
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 1
Unstratified/stray/unknown = 1
60
1 1
413

Figure 3.9d - Cyprus LBA quantities of Agricultural tools
Agricultural tool types (n=96) Distribution of tools by site size Distribution of tools by context type
Sickles = 33
Large - palatial or major urban center = 80
Hoard = 68
Plowshares = 35
Medium - secondary to palace = 5
Burial = 1
Large hoes = 2
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 7
Settlement = 20
Shovels = 8; Picks = 12 Known only from stray finds = 4
Unstratified/stray/unknown = 4
Pruning hooks = 4
Plow scraper = 1
Undefined agricultural tool = 1
Sanctuary = 3
Figure 3.9e - Anatolia LBA quantities of Agricultural tools
Agricultural tool types
(n=57)
Distribution of tools by site size Distribution of tools by context type
Sickles = 55
Large - palatial or major urban center = 11
Hoard = 45
Hoes (various forms) = 2 Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Settlement = 9
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 45
Sanctuary = 3
Figure 3.9f - Syria-Palestine quantities of Agricultural tools (LBA and General 2 nd millennium tools)
Agricultural tool types
(n=38)
Distribution of tools by site size Distribution of tools by context type
Sickles = 14
Large - palatial or major urban center = 35
Hoard = 14
Plowshare = 16
Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Burial = 1
Hoes = 6
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 2
Settlement = 4
Pruning knife = 1
Unstratified/stray/unknown = 18
Shovel = 1
Shipwreck = 1
Figure 3.9g - Agricultural tool types found on LBA Shipwrecks
Cape Gelidonya (n=102) Uluburun (n=8) Kibbutz Hahotrim , Israel (n=1)
Sickle = 1; Picks = 47; Pruning hook = 3; Sickles = 7
Hoe/plowshare = 1
Hoes = 49; Shovel = 1; Mattock = 1 Hoe/plowshare = 1
414

Percentage
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 3.10a - Metallurgical tool percentages by region and time period
Crete Greek Mainland Greek Islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
Figure 3.10b - Metallurgical tools: quantity and proportion of total number of tools for each region and time period 3
Crete Mainland Greek islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
MBA 28 (19.6%)
+3 EBA-MBA
6 (7.7%) - 4 (0.6%) 81 (30.3%) - -
LBA 54 (8.3%) 23 (2.4%) 4 (2.3%) 44 (8.2%) 57 (7.6%) 11 (4.6%) 10 (4.7%)
General 2 nd
millennium
10 (5.2%) 1 (2.2%) 1 (4%) 1 (2.3%) 17 (15.3%) - 2 (2.2%)
3 Total tool quantities for each region and time period are listed in Fig. 3.1b. Of the 357 metallurgical implements, 229 are non-metal, including stone molds, a
stone swage block, ceramic/terracotta molds, and ceramic/terracotta tongs.
MBA
LBA
General 2nd millennium
415

Medium, 67
Figure 3.11 - Distribution of metallurgical
tools according to a site's size (n=357)
Minor, 63
Known from
stray finds,6
Large, 220
Sanctuary , 7
Unstratified/
unknown, 15
Shipwreck,
11
Figure 3.12 - Distribution of Metallurgical
tools by context (n=357)
Workshop,
52
Hoard, 35
Burial, 15
Settlement,
222
416

Total Quantity
250
200
150
100
50
0
2
209
Figure 3.13 - Metallurgical tool types Hot working tools Both Cold working tools
17
23
4 2 10
33
Figure 3.14a – Crete Metallurgical tools
Metallurgical tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA
(n=31)
Mold= 27 (including 3 EBA-
MBA examples)
Hammer = 2
Billet = 1
Tongs = 1
Large - palatial or major urban center =24
Medium - secondary to palace = 4
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 3
Settlement = 21
Burial = 1
Sanctuary = 1
Workshop = 8
LBA Mold = 18
Large - palatial or major urban center = 15 Hoard = 5
(n=54) Hammer = 7; Billet = 16 Medium - secondary to palace = 34
Settlement = 44
Tongs = 8
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 5 Sanctuary = 2
Anvil/stake = 3
Ingot breaker? = 2
Workshop = 3
General
2 nd mill.
(n=10)
Hammer = 5
Anvil = 2
Large - palatial or major urban center =1
Medium - secondary to palace = 3
Hoard = 1
Burial = 1
13
25
8 1 3 2 2 1 1
417

Billet = 1
Mold = 1
Wedge, socketed = 1
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 5
Known only from stray finds = 1
Settlement = 2
Unstratified/stray/unknown = 6
Figure 3.14b – Greek mainland Metallurgical tools
Metallurgical tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Mold =6
Medium - secondary to palace = 5
Settlement = 4
(n=6)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 1 Burial = 1
Unknown = 1
LBA Hammer = 3, Mold = 2, Large - palatial or major urban center = 11 Hoard = 7
(n=23) Tongs = 5, Anvil = 2, Medium - secondary to palace = 2
Settlement = 9
Casting = 1, File = 1, Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 9 Burial = 7
Shovel (?) = 1, Wedge-like
tool = 1, billets=7
Known only from stray finds = 1
General 2 nd
mill. (n=1)
Hammer = 1 Medium = 1
Unstratified/unknown = 1
Figure 3.14c – Greek island Metallurgical tools
Metallurgical tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
LBA Tongs = 2
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 2 Burial = 1
(n=4) Mold = 2
Medium - secondary to palace = 2
Sanctuary = 1
Settlement = 2
General 2 nd
mill. (n=1)
Mold = 1 Medium - secondary to palace = 1 Settlement = 1
Figure 3.14d – Cyprus Metallurgical tools
Metallurgical tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Hammer/anvil = 1
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 3 Settlement = 3
(n=4) Mold = 3 (2 terracotta) Known only from stray finds =1
Hoard = 1
LBA Charcoal shovels = 9, Large - palatial or major urban center = 34 Hoard = 20
418

(n=44) Hammers = 4, Tongs = 3,
Crucible scraper = 1, furnace
spatula = 3, anvil = 1, swage
block = 1, metal mold = 2,
stone mold = 14, terracotta
mold = 1; castings = 5
General
2 nd mill.
Medium - secondary to palace = 2
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 6
Known only from stray finds = 2
Tongs = 1 Medium = 1 Burial ? = 1
Settlement = 18
Unstratified/unknown = 3
Workshop = 3
Figure 3.14e – Anatolia Metallurgical tools
Metallurgical tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Stone mold = 79
Large - palatial or major urban center = 67 Settlement = 46
(n=81) Terracotta mold = 1 Medium - secondary to palace = 6
Sanctuary = 1
Hammer = 1
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 8 Workshop =33
Unstratified/unknown = 1
LBA Stone mold = 46
Large - palatial or major urban center = 44 Hoard = 1
(n=57) Terracotta mold = 5 Medium - secondary to palace = 6
Settlement = 51
Hammers = 5
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 7 Sanctuary = 1
Wedge-like tool =1
Workshop = 4
General
2 nd mill.
(n=17)
Stone mold = 13
Terracotta mold = 1
Hammers = 2
Casting = 1
Large - palatial or major urban center = 13
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 2
Known only from stray finds = 2
Settlement = 13
Burial (?) = 1
Unstratified/unknown = 3
Figure 3.14f – Shipwreck and Syria-Palestine Metallurgical tools
Cape Gelidonya (n=10) Uluburun (n=1) Syria-Palestine
Castings = 6,
Tongs = 1 LBA (n=10): Mold = 5, Tongs = 3; spatula = 1; 1
Crucible scraper (?) or spatula = 1
furance spatula
Swage block =1
Hammer/anvil =1
Large site = 9; settlement = 6, burial = 2; workshop = 1
General 2 nd mill (n=2): Hammer = 1; mold = 1
Large site = 2; settlement = 2
419

Percentage
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 3.15a - Utilitarian tool percentages by region and time period
Crete Mainland Islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
Figure 3.15b - Utilitarian tools: quantity and proportion of total number of tools for each region and time period 4
Crete Mainland Greek Islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwreck Syria-Palestine
MBA 20 (14%) 40 (51.3%) 2 (50%) 388 (63%) 41 (15.4%) - 7 (7%)
+ 6 EBA-MBA + 1 EBA-MBA
LBA 122 (18.7%) 465 (49.1%) 111 (63.1%) 115 (21.3%) 84 (11.3%) 35 (14.8%) 28 (13.2%)
General 2 nd
15 (7.9%) 17 (37.8%) 7 (28%) 33 (75%) 2 (1.8%) - 20 (22.2%)
millennium +3 EIA
+ 1 EIA?
4 Total tool quantities for each region and time period are listed in Fig. 3.1b.
MBA
LBA
General 2nd millennium
420

Minor,
646
Figure 3.16 - Distribution of utilitarian tools
according to a site's size (n=1564)
Known from
stray finds,
50
Medium,
392
Large,
476
Settlement,
416
Shipwreck,
35
Figure 3.17 - Distribution of utilitarian
tools by context (n=1564)
Sanctuary,
25
Workshop, 6
Unknown,
104
Hoard, 148
Burial, 830
421

Quantity
Quantity
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1176
103
Figure 3.18 - Utilitarian tool types
22
62
151
41 9
Knife Razor Razor, cleaver-like Cleaver Scraper /spatula Undefined blade Cutting/slashing
tool
435
Figure 3.19 - Distriubtion of Knives by region and time period
382
107
83
66 59
37
10 14 16
2 5
410
294
84
112
73
32 37
2
24 24 22
1
15 6
Crete Mainland Islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
Total
MBA
LBA
General 2nd
millennium
422

Figure 3.20a – Crete Utilitarian tools
Utilitarian tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Knife = 10
Large - palatial or major urban center = 10 Hoard = 5
(n=20) Razor = 2
Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Burial = 2
Scraper/spatula = 4 Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 5 Settlement = 9
Blade, undefined = 2 Known only from stray finds = 4
Sanctuary = 1; Workshop = 1
Spatula = 2
Unstratified/unknown = 2
LBA Knife = 83
Large - palatial or major urban center = 37 Hoard = 14; Burial = 44;Settlement =
(n=122) Razor = 5; Cleaver = 24 Medium - secondary to palace = 38
45; Workshop = 4; Sanctuary = 5
Scraper/spatula = 7 Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 46 Unstratified/unknown = 10
Cutting implement = 3 Known only from stray finds = 1
General
2 nd mill.
(n=15)
Knife = 14
Razor = 1
Large - palatial or major urban center = 5
Medium - yet secondary to palace = 4
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 2
Known only from stray finds = 4
Burial = 4;
Settlement = 7
Unstratified/unknown = 4
Figure 3.20b – Greek mainland Utilitarian tools
Utilitarian tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Knife = 37
Large - palatial or major urban center = 2 Hoard = 6
(n=40) Razor = 2
Medium - secondary to palace = 10
Burial = 14
Scraper/spatula = 1 Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 28 Settlement = 15
Unstratified/unknown = 5
LBA Knife = 382
Large - palatial or major urban center = 212 Hoard = 76
(n=465) Razor = 49 (including 14 Medium - secondary to palace = 34
Burial = 264
cleaver-like razors) Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 213 Settlement = 100
Cleaver = 21
Known only from stray finds = 6
Sanctuary = 6
Scraper/spatula = 3
Blades = 5
Other implement = 5
Unstratified/unknown = 19
General Knife = 16 Large - palatial or major urban center = 4 Burial = 9
423

2 nd mill.
(n=17)
Spatula/scraper = 1 Medium - secondary to palace = 3
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 9
Known only from stray finds = 1
Unstratified/unknown = 8
Figure 3.20c – Greek islands Utilitarian tools
Utilitarian tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA
(n=2)
Knife = 2
Medium - secondary to palace = 2
Burial = 2
LBA Knife = 59
Medium - secondary to palace = 13
Hoard = 1
(n=110) Razor = 34 (8 cleaver-like) Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 95 Burial = 90
Cleaver = 13
Known only from stray finds = 2
Settlement = 14
Spatula = 4
Unstratified/unknown = 3
Sanctuary = 2
General
2 nd mill.
(n=7)
Knife = 5
Scraper/spatula = 2
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 6
Known only from stray finds = 1
Unstratified/unknown = 7
Figure 3.20d – Cyprus Utilitarian tools
Utilitarian tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Knife = 293
Medium - secondary to palace = 249
Hoard = 36
(n=388) Razor = 9
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 130 Burial = 336
Scraper/spatula = 84 Known only from stray finds = 9
Settlement = 7
Flesh hook = 2
Unstratified/unknown = 9
LBA Knife = 84
Large - palatial or major urban center = 48 Hoard = 8
(n= 115) Razor = 2
Medium - secondary to palace = 16
Burial = 43
Scraper/spatula = 21 Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 48 Settlement = 52
Undefined blade = 4 Known only from stray finds = 3
Cultic site or Sanctuary = 8
Undefined implement = 3
Cutting tool = 1
Unstratified/unknown = 4
424

General
2 nd mill.
(n=33)
Knife = 32
Scraper/spatula = 1
Medium - secondary to palace = 3
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 14
Known only from stray finds = 16
Burial = 7
Unstratified/unknown = 26
Figure 3.20e - Anatolia Utilitarian tools
Utilitarian tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Knife = 37
Large - palatial or major urban center = 35 Settlement = 37
(n=41) Razor = 1
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 4 Unstratified/unknown = 4
Flanged blade = 3
Known only from stray finds = 2
LBA Knife = 73
Large - palatial or major urban center = 68 Settlement = 76
(n= 84) Scraper/spatula = 4 Medium - secondary to palace = 11
Burial = 4
Flanged blade = 2
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 5 Workshop = 1
Undefined implement = 2
Cutting/slashing tool = 3
Cultic site or Sanctuary = 3
General
2 nd mill.
(n=2)
Knife = 2
Large - palatial or major urban center = 1
Known only from stray finds = 1
Settlement = 1
Unstratified/unknown = 1
Figure 3.20f – Syria-Palestine Utilitarian tools
Utilitarian tool types Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Knife = 1
Large - palatial or major urban center = 7 Burial = 2
(n=7) Flanged blade = 1
Hoard = 2
Spatula/scraper = 3
Cleaver = 1
Cutting/slashing tool = 1
Settlement = 3
LBA Knife = 15
Large - palatial or major urban center = 26 Settlement = 28
(n= 28) Scraper/spatula = 2
Razor = 2
Flanged blade = 6
Cutting/slashing tool = 3
Medium - secondary to palace = 2
425

General 2 nd
millennium
(n=20)
Knife = 6
Flanged blade =1
Spatula/scraper = 13
Large - palatial or major urban center = 20
Figure 3.20g – Shipwreck Utilitarian tools
Gelidonya (n = 25) Uluburun (n =10)
Knife = 17
Knife = 7
Razor = 1
Razor = 3
Spatula or crucible scraper = 1
(NB: some of the knives may be razors or daggers)
Possible utilitarian implements = 5
Punch for cutting sheet metal? = 1
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 3.21a - "Small craft" tool percentages by region and time period
Crete Mainland Islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
Settlement = 18
Unstratified/unknown = 2
MBA
LBA
General 2nd millennium
426

Figure 3.21b - “Small craft” tools: quantity and proportion of total number of tools for each region and time period 5
Crete Mainland Greek islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
MBA 25 (17.5%)
+52 EBA-MBA
16 (20.5%) - 56 (9.1%) 25 (9.4%) - 7 (7%)
LBA 83 (12.7%) 101 (10.7%) 9 (5.1%) 101 (18.7%) 208 (27.9%) 10 (4.2%) 14 (6.6%)
General 2 nd
millennium
13 (6.9%) 4 (8.8%) 1 (4%) 1 (2.3%) 4 (3.6%) - 5 (5.6%)
Minor, 187
Figure 3.22 - Distribution of small craft
tools according to a site's size (n=737)
Known
from stray
finds, 11
Medium,
101
Large, 438
5 Total tool quantities for each region and time period are listed in Fig. 3.1b.
Figure 3.23 -Distribution of small craft
tools by context (n=737)
Sanctuary, 50
Workshop,
21
Unstratified/
unknown, 22 Hoard, 35
Settlement,
455
Burial, 144
Shipwreck,
10
427

Total quantity
400
300
200
100
0
17
358
Figure 3.25a – Awls: quantity and proportion of total number of tools for each region and time period 6
Crete Mainland Greek islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
MBA 18 (12.6%) 13 (16.7%) - 54 (8.8%) 14 (5.2%) - 6 (6%)
LBA 68 (10.4%) 67 (7.1%) 7 (4%) 45 (8.3%) 109 (14.6%) 10 (4.2%) 3 (1.4%)
General 2 nd
millennium
11 (5.8%) 3 (6.7%) - 1 (2.3%) 4 (3.6%) - 5 (5.6%)
Figure 3.25b – Awl distribution information
Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Large - palatial or major urban center = 31 Hoard = 10
(n=105) Medium - secondary to palace = 40
Burial = 45
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 34
Settlement = 46
Workshop = 2
Unstratified or unknown = 2
6 Total tool quantities for each region and time period are listed in Fig. 3.1b.
21
Figure 3.24 - Small craft tool types
69 72
15 12
165
13
428

LBA
(n= 309)
General 2 nd
millennium
(n=24)
Percentage
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Large - palatial or major urban center = 198
Medium - secondary to palace = 36
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 73
Known only from stray finds = 2
Large - palatial or major urban center = 12
Medium - secondary to palace = 3
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 6
Known only from stray finds = 3
Hoard = 15
Burial = 38
Shipwreck = 10
Settlement = 217
Sanctuary = 13
Workshop = 13
Unstratified or unknown = 3
Settlement = 18
Burial = 3
Unstratified or unknown = 3
Figure 3.26a - Carpentry/Masonry tool percentages by region and time period
Crete Mainland Islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
MBA
LBA
General 2nd mill.
429

Figure 3.26b: Carpentry/Masonry tools: quantity and proportion of total number of tools for each region and time period 7
Crete Mainland Greek islands Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks Syria-Palestine
MBA 71 (49.7%)
+13 E-MBA
16 (20.5%)
+1 E-MBA
2 (50%) 167 (27.1%) 116 (43.4%) - 83 (83%)
LBA 379 (58%) 306 (32.3%) 45 (25.6%) 183 (34%) 337 (45.2%) 73 (30.8%) 121 (57%)
General 2 nd
millennium
147 (77.8%) 21 (46.7%) 16 (64%) 7 (15.9%)
+1 EIA
89 (80.2%) - 60 (66.7%)
Figure 3.27 - Distribution of Carpentry/ Masonry
tools according to a site's size (n=2253)
Known from
stray finds,
241
Minor, 524
Medium,
355
Large, 1133
7 Total tool quantities for each region and time period are listed in Fig. 3.1b.
Figure 3.28 - Distribution of Carpentry/ Masonry
tools by context (n=2253)
Unstratified,
361
Hoard, 423
Sanctuary,
51
Workshop,
33
Burial, 309
Settlement,
1001
Shipwreck,
75
430

Total quantity
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
6 33 6
857
Figure 3.30 - Carpentry/Masonry tool variation by period
Object type MBA
Figure 3.29 - Carpentry/Masonry tool types
59 29
(% of all 455 MBA C/M tools)
LBA
(% of all 1444 LBA C/M tools)
Adze-hammer (n=6) 1 (0.2%) 4 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%)
Ax-adze (n=33) 3 (0.7%) 24 (1.7%) 6 (1.8%)
Ax-hammer (n=6) 0 5 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%)
Chisel (n=857) 110 (24.2%) 597 (41.3%) 129 (37.9%)
Chisel, socketed (n=59) 12 (2.6%) 39 (2.7%) 8 (2.4%)
Double adze (n=29) 0 24 (1.7%) 5 (1.5%)
Double ax (n=380) 24 (5.3%) 269 (18.6%) 79 (23.2%)
Drill (n=132) 15 (3.3%) 108 (7.5%) 9 (2.6%)
Hollow cylinder -tubular drill? (n=18) 1 (0.2%) 16 (1.1%) 1 (0.3%)
Pick-adze (n=6) 0 5 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%)
Saw (n=113) 21 (4.6%) 81 (5.6%) 9 (2.6%)
Shaft hole/ collared ax (n=111) 57 (12.5%) 34 (2.4%) 19 (5.6%)
Single adze (n=29) 2 (0.4%) 27 (1.9%) 0
380
132
18 6
113 111
29
370
General BA (% of all 340
general C/M tools)
6
99
3
431

Single/flat ax (n=370) 185 (40.7%) 133 (9.2%) 52 (15.3%)
Trunnion/lugged adze (n=6) 0 6 (0.4%) 0
Trunnion/lugged ax (n=99) 23 (5.1%) 59 (4.1%) 17 (5%)
Wedge or ax, socketed (n=3) 2 (0.1%) 1 (0.3%)
Summary of the combination tools 28 (6.2% of MBA
331 (22.9% of LBA C/M tools) 93 (27.4% of general 2
(n=460) (double axes, double adzes, ax- C/M tools)
adzes, ax-hammers, hammer-adzes, pickadzes)
+8 EBA-MBA
nd
millennium C/M tools)
Figure 3.31a - Crete Carpentry/Masonry tools 8
Carpentry/masonry tool types: Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Adze-hammer = 1 (1.4%)
Large - palatial or major urban center =37 Hoard = 16
(n=71) Ax-adze = 3 (4.2%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 20
Burial = 19
Chisel = 17 (23.9%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 9
Settlement = 25
Double ax = 18 (25.4%)
Known only from stray finds = 5
Workshop = 5
Drill = 4 (5.6%)
Sanctuary = 2
Hollow cylinder (drill?) = 1 (1.4%)
Saw = 13 (18.3%) +2 EBA-MBA
Shaft-hole adze = 1 (1.4%)
Shaft-hole ax = 11 (15.5%)
Single/flat ax = 1 (1.4%)
Trunnion/lugged ax =1 (1.4%)
Unstratified, unknown = 4
LBA Ax-adze = 6 (1.6%)
Large - palatial or major urban center = 154 Hoard = 62
(n=379) Ax-hammer= 1 (0.3%)
Medium - secondary to palace= 130
Burial = 25
Chisel = 121 (31.9%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 71
Settlement = 208
Chisel, socketed = 1 (0.3%)
Known only from stray finds = 24
Workshop = 23
Double adze = 13 (3.4%)
Sanctuary = 16
Double ax = 136 (35.9%)
Drill = 14 (3.7%)
Hollow cylinder (drill?) = 8 (2.1%)
Pick-adze = 5 (1.3%)
Saw = 57 (15%)
Single/flat adze = 2 (0.5%)
Single/flat ax = 11 (2.9%)
Unstratified, unknown = 45
8 Percentages in Figures 4.31a-f reflect the proportion of that tool type within the carpentry/ masonry tool assemblage by region and time period.
432

General
2 nd mill.
(n=147)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 2 (0.5%)
Rasp = 1 (0.3%)
Drawing compass = 1 (0.3%)
Adze-hammer = 1 (0.7%)
Ax-adze = 3 (2%)
Ax-hammer = 1 (0.7%)
Chisel = 43 (29.3%)
Double adze = 5 (3.4%)
Double ax = 70 (47.6%)
Drill = 3 (2%)
Hollow cylinder (drill?) = 1 (0.7%)
Pick-adze = 1 (0.7%)
Saw = 7 (4.8%)
Shaft-hole ax = 6 (4.1%)
Single/flat ax = 2 (1.4%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 2 (1.4%)
Undefined implement = 1 (0.7%)
Wedge or ax tool, socketed = 1 (0.7%)
Large - palatial or major urban center = 15
Medium - secondary to palace = 18
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 66
Known only from stray finds = 48
Hoard = 4
Burial = 1
Settlement = 19
Sanctuary = 2
Unstratified, unknown = 121
Figure 3.31b – Greek mainland Carpentry/Masonry tools
Carpentry/masonry tool types: Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Chisel = 10 (62.5%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 5
Hoard = 1
(n=16) Double ax = 2 (12.5%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 10
Burial = 9
Drill = 1 (6.3%)
Known only from stray finds = 1
Settlement = 3
Saw = 1 (6.3%)
Single ax = 2 (12.5%)
Unstratified, unknown = 3
LBA Ax-adze = 2 (0.7%)
Large - palatial or major urban center = 172 Hoard = 131
(n=306) Ax-hammer = 1 (0.3%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 18
Burial = 58
Chisel = 121 (39.5%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 76
Settlement = 84
Chisel, socketed = 2 (0.7%)
Known only from stray finds = 40
Sanctuary = 3
Double ax = 104 (34%)
Double hammer = 1 (0.3%)
Drill = 30 (9.8%)
Hollow cylinder (drill?) = 5 (1.6%)
Saw = 13 (4.2%)
Shaft-hole ax = 8 (2.6%)
Unstratified, unknown = 30
433

General 2 nd
millennium
(n=21)
Single/flat adze = 1 (0.3%)
Single/flat ax = 13 (4.2%)
Trunnion/lugged adze = 1 (0.3%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 3 (1%)
Wedge or ax, socketed = 1 (0.3%)
Ax-adze = 3 (14.3%)
Chisel = 7 (33.3%)
Double ax = 5 (23.8%)
Drill = 1 (4.8%)
Shaft-hole ax = 2 (9.5%)
Single/flat ax = 3 (14.3%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 8
Known only from stray finds = 12
Burial = 1
Settlement = 1
Unstratified, unknown = 19
Figure 3.31c – Greek islands Carpentry/Masonry tools
Carpentry/masonry tool types: Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Double ax = 2 (100%) Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Unstratified, unknown = 2
(n=2)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 1
LBA Chisel = 26 (59%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 20
Hoard = 2
(n=44) Double ax = 8 (18.2%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 23
Burial = 24
Saw = 1 (2.3%)
Known only from stray finds = 1
Settlement = 14
Single/flat ax = 7 (15.9%)
Sanctuary = 2
Trunnion/lugged ax = 2 (4.5%)
Unstratified, unknown = 2
General 2 nd
millennium
(n=16)
Chisel = 10 (62.5%)
Double ax = 2 (12.5%)
Saw = 1 (6.25%)
Shaft-hole ax = 2 (12.5%)
Single ax = 1 (6.25%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 2
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 12
Known only from stray finds = 2
Unstratified, unknown = 16
Figure 3.31d - Cyprus Carpentry/Masonry tools
Carpentry/masonry tool types: Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Chisel = 20 (12%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 81
Hoard = 37
(n=167) Chisel, socketed = 3 (1.8%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 60
Burial = 105
Drill = 5 (3%)
Known only from stray finds site = 26
Settlement = 5
Saw = 2 (1.2%)
Shaft-hole ax = 13 (7.8%)
Single adze = 1 (0.6%)
Unstratified, unknown = 20
434

LBA
(n=183)
General 2 nd
millennium
(n=7)
Single/flat ax = 123 (73.7%)
Ax-adze = 9 (4.9%)
Adze-hammer = 4 (2.2%)
Chisel = 68 (37.2%)
Chisel, socketed = 12 (6.6%)
Double adze = 11 (6%)
Double ax = 4 (2.2%)
Drill = 30 (16.4%)
Saw = 7 (3.8%)
Shaft-hole ax = 1 (0.5%)
Single adze = 4 (2.2%)
Single/flat ax = 26 (14.2%)
Trunnion/lugged adze = 2 (1.1%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 6 (3.3%)
Chisel = 3 (42.9%)
Single/flat ax = 4 (57.1%)
Large - palatial or major urban center =122
Medium - secondary to palace = 26
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 25
Known only from stray finds site = 10
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 1
Known only from stray finds site = 6
Hoard = 56
Burial = 23
Settlement = 85
Sanctuary = 3
Workshop = 2
Unstratified, unknown = 14
Settlement = 1
Unstratified, unknown = 6
Figure 3.31e - Anatolia Carpentry/Masonry tools
Carpentry/masonry tool types: Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Chisel = 49 (42.2%)
Large - palatial or major urban center =89 Hoard = 3
(n=116) Chisel, socketed = 9 (7.8%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 5
Burial = 5
Double ax = 1 (0.9%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 16 Settlement = 99
Drill = 5 (4.5%)
Known only from stray finds = 6
Workshop = 1
Saw = 2 (1.7%)
Shaft-hole adze = 1 (0.9%)
Shaft-hole ax = 18 (15.5%)
Single/flat ax = 11 (9.5%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 20 (17.2%)
Unstratified/unknown = 8
LBA Ax-adze = 1 (0.3%)
Large - palatial or major urban center = 286 Hoard = 18
(n=337) Ax-hammer = 2 (0.6%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 24
Settlement = 292
Chisel = 213 (63.2%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 20 Workshop = 2
Chisel, socketed = 22 (6.5%)
Known only from stray finds = 7
Sanctuary = 18
Drill = 13 (3.9%)
Double ax = 9 (2.7%)
Hollow cylinder (drill?) = 3 (0.9%)
Saw = 1 (0.3%)
Unstratified, unknown = 7
435

General 2 nd
millennium
(n=89)
Shaft-hole adze = 4 (1.2%)
Shaft-hole ax = 16 (4.7%)
Single/flat adze = 2 (0.6%)
Single/flat ax = 15 (4.5%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 34 (10.1%)
Stone cutting tool? = 1 (0.3%)
Wedge tool or ax = 1 (0.3%)
Chisel = 55 (61.8%)
Chisel, socketed = 8 (9%)
Double ax = 2 (1.9%)
Drill = 3 (2.9%)
Shaft-hole ax = 5 (5.6%)
Single/flat ax = 3 (3.4%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 13 (14.6%)
Large - palatial or major urban center =16
Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 24
Known only from stray finds = 48
Hoard = 10
Burial = 15
Settlement = 25
Unstratified, unknown = 39
Figure 3.31f – Syria-Palestine Carpentry/Masonry tools
Carpentry/masonry tool types: Distribution of tools by site size Tool distribution by context type
MBA Chisel = 13 (15.7%)
Large - palatial or major urban center =76 Hoard = 35
(n=83) Double ax = 1 (1.2%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Burial = 17
Saw = 3 (3.6%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 6 Settlement = 12
Shaft-hole ax = 15 (18.1%)
Sanctuary = 2
Single/flat ax = 48 (58.5%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 2 (2.4%)
Gouge = 1 (1.2%)
Unstratified, unknown =17
LBA Ax-adze = 2 (1.7%)
Large - palatial or major urban center = 107 Hoard = 40
(n=121) Ax-hammer = 1 (0.8%)
Medium - secondary to palace = 1
Settlement = 68
Chisel = 27 (22.3%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 13 Burial = 2
Chisel, socketed = 1 (0.8%)
Sanctuary = 3
Double ax = 2 (1.7%)
Unstratified, unknown =6
Drill = 4 (3.3%)
Saw = 1 (0.8%)
Shaft hole adze = 9 (7.4%)
Shaft hole ax = 8 (6.6%)
Single/flat ax = 58 (47.9%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 8 (6.6%)
Shipwreck = 2
Chisel = 10 (16.7%) Large - palatial or major urban center =59 Settlement = 59
General 2 nd
millennium
436

(n=60) Drill = 2 (3.3%)
Egyptian ax = 2 (3.3%)
Saw = 1 (1.7%)
Shaft-hole ax = 4 (6.7%)
Single/flat ax = 39 (65%)
Trunnion/lugged ax = 2 (3.3%)
Minor - rural unimpressive setting = 1
Figure 3.31g - Shipwreck Carpentry/Masonry tools
Gelidonya (n = 34) Uluburun (n =38) Kibbutz Hahotrim (n=2)
Ax-adze = 4
Double ax =2
Chisel = 2
Double ax = 4
Chisel = 13
Chisel = 5
Drill = 2; Plumb bob = 1
Chisel, socketed = 1
Saw = 1; Shaft-hole axe= 1
Single/flat adze = 15
Single adzes = 3
Single/flat ax = 1
Slender, long bronze tool = 12
Trunnion/lugged ax =2
Trunnion/lugged adze = 1
Trunnion/lugged adze = 2 Trunnion/lugged axe = 2
Unstratified, unknown =1
437

Figure 4.1: Shaft-hole axes: regional measurements (length and cutting edge width)
Length (cm)
Average length= 8 cm (17 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 3.9 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.49
Length (cm)
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
=
MBA General 2nd mill.
Crete shaft-hole axes
MBA LBA EIA?
Cyprus shaft-hole axes
Average length = 17 cm (14 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 2.9 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.17
Cutting edge width (cm)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
MBA General 2nd mill.
Crete shaft-hole axes
Average width = 3.9 cm (16 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 1.7 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.43
Cutting edge width (cm)
5
4
3
2
1
0
MBA LBA
Cyprus shaft-hole axes
Average width = 3.4 cm (13 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 0.6 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.17
438

Figure 4.1 continued: Shaft-hole axes: regional measurements (length and cutting edge width)
Length (cm)
Average length = 14.4 cm (20 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 3 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.21
Length (cm)
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill. Uluburun
Anatolia shaft-hole axes
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
Syro-Palestinian shaft-hole axes
Average length = 14.5 cm (19 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 3.7 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.25
Cutting edge width (cm)
10
8
6
4
2
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill. Uluburun
Anatolian shaft-hole axes
Average width = 5.5 cm (20 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 1.8 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.32
Cutting edge width (cm)
10
8
6
4
2
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
Syria-Palestine shaft-hole axes
Average width = 3.8 cm (17 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 1.7 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.46
439

Figure 4.2: Doubles axes: regional measurements (length and cutting edge width)
35
MBA LBA General 2 mill.
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
30
10
25
8
20
6
15
10
5
4
2
0
0
Cretan double axes
Cretan double axes
Average length = 16.6 cm (129 examples)
Standard deviation = ±3.74 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.23
Average cutting edge width = 5.88 cm (126 example)
Standard deviation = ±0.74 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.13
Length (cm)
Length
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
LBA General 2nd mill.
Mainland double axes
Average length = 17.6 cm (80 examples)
Standard deviation = ±5.1 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.29
Cutting edge width (cm)
Cutting edge width (cm)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
Mainland double axes
Average cutting edge width = 5.85 cm (133 examples)
Standard deviation = ±1.11 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.19
440

Figure 4.2 continued: Doubles axes: regional measurements (length, cutting edge width, middle width)
Object's middle width (cm)
Average middle width = 4.9 cm (91 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 0.65 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.13
Length (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
Cretan double axes
Islands Cyprus Anatolia S-P Shipwrecks
Double axes from other regions (n=21)
Object's middle width (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
LBA
Mainland double ax
Average middle width = 4.05 cm (67 examples)
Standard deviation = ± 0.55 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.14
Cutting edge width (cm)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Island Cyprus Anatolia Shipwrecks
Double axes from other regions (n=19)
441

Cutting edge width (cm)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Chisels Single adze Single axe Trunnion blade
Single ax
R² = 0.2519
Single adze
R² = 0.0295
Trunnion blade
R² = 0.3608
Chisels
R² = 0.3925
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Length (cm)
Figure 4.3: Scatter plot of chisels (n=526), single/flat adzes (n=26), single/flat axes (n=102), and trunnion/lugged blades (n=71)
442

Cutting edge width (cm)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Wide chisels (3.0+ cm) Single adzes Single axes Trunnion blades
Single axes
R² = 0.2519
Single adzes
R² = 0.0295
Trunnion blades
R² = 0.3608
Figure 4.4: Wide chisels (n=82) compared to single/flat axes and adzes, and trunnion/lugged blades
Wide chisels
R² = 0.061
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Length (cm)
443

Tool series N Mean
of
ratio
Standard
deviation of ratio
& Coefficient of
variance (CV)
Wide chisels 82 5.33 ± 1.985
CV=0.37
Single/flat 26 2.3 ± 1.592
adzes
CV=0.69
Single/flat 102 2.8 ± 0.906
axes
CV=0.32
Trunnion/ 71 3.2 ± 0.992
lugged blades
CV=0.31
Figure 4.5a Mean ratios of length by cutting edge
width and standard deviation; for similar
cutting/paring tool types
Ratio (Length divided by cutting edge width)
Figure 4.5b Box-and-dot plot; showing range of ratios for broad
or wide chisels, single/flat adzes, single/flat axes, and trunnion/
lugged blades (NB: the horizontal lines in the mid-spread boxes
represent the median; the mean is listed in Figure 4.5a)
444

Figure 4.6: Trunnion/lugged axes (or adzes): regional measurements (length and cutting edge width)
Length (cm)
Average length = 14.9 cm (48 examples)
Standard deviation = ±4.46 cm; CV=0.3
Length (cm)
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
Anatolia trunnion/lugged axes
Cyprus S-P Shipwrecks
Eastern Mediterranean
trunnion/lugged axe or adzes
Average length = 17.1 cm (17 examples)
Standard deviation = ±4.4 cm; CV=0.26
Cutting edge width (cm)
15
10
5
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
Anatolia trunnion/lugged axes
Average cutting edge width = 5.5 cm (48
examples) Standard deviation = ±2.36 cm; CV=0.43
Cutting edg width (cm)
10
5
0
Cyprus S-P Shipwrecks
Eastern Mediterranean
trunnion/lugged axes or adzes
Average cutting edge width = 5.2 cm (18
examples) Standard deviation = ±1.43 cm; CV=0.27
Length (cm)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Crete Mainland Islands
Aegean trunnion/lugged
axes or adzes
Average length= 15.6 cm (6 examples)
Cutting edge width (cm)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Crete Mainland Islands
Aegean trunnion/lugged
axes or adzes
Average cutting edge width = 3.8 cm
(6 examples)
445

Figure 4.7: Single/flat axes: regional measurements (length and cutting edge width)
Length (cm)
Aegean average length = 13.3 cm (16 examples)
Standard deviation = ±4.69 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.35
Length (cm)
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
Crete Mainland Islands
Aegean single/flat axes
LBA General 2nd mill.
Anatolia flat/single axes
Anatolian average = 12.85 cm long (10 examples)
Standard deviation = ±3.8 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.29
Cutting edge width (cm)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Crete Mainland
Aegean single/flat axes
Aegean average cutting edge = 4.7 cm (11 examples)
Standard deviation = ±1.6 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.35
Cutting edge width (cm)
10
8
6
4
2
0
LBA General 2nd mill.
Anatolia flat/single axes
Anatolian average cutting edge = 5.6cm (7 examples)
Standard deviation = ±2 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.36
446

Figure 4.7 continued: Single/flat axes: regional measurements (length and cutting edge width)
Cypriot average length = 11.5 (136 examples)
Standard deviation = ±3.7 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.32
Length (cm)
Length (cm)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cypriot single/flat axes
Syria-Palestine single/flat axes
Syria-Palestine average length= 17 cm (59 examples)
Standard deviation = ±4.7 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.27
Cutting edge width (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cypriot single/flat axes
Cypriot average cutting edge = 4.5 cm (64 examples)
Standard deviation = ±0.95 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.21
Cutting edge width (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Syria-Palestine single/flat axes
Syria-Palestine average cutting edge = 4.6 cm (18 examples)
Standard deviation = ±1.3 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.29
447

Cutting edge width (cm)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Single/flat adzes (n=26)
R² = 0.0295
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Length (cm)
Figure 4.8: Single/flat adzes: regional measurements (length and cutting edge width)
Length average = 10.2 cm and standard deviation = ± 6.7 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.66 (26 examples)
Cutting edge width average = 4.7 cm and standard deviation = ± 1.2 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.25 (26 examples)
448

Cutting edge width (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Chisels
Figure 4.9: Scatter plot of all chisels in the dataset with length and cutting edge measurements (n=526)
R² = 0.3956
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Length (cm)
449

Figure 4.10: Chisels: Scatter plots (length and cutting edge width) by region
Cutting edge width (cm)
Cutting edge width (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3.5 4
2.5 3
1.5 2
0.5
0
1
Crete chisels (n=73)
R² = 0.6283
0 10 20 30 40 50
Length (cm)
Island chisels (n=14)
R² = 0.4622
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Length (cm)
Cutting edge width (cm)
Cutting edge width (cm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Mainland chisels (n=107)
R² = 0.4352
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Length (cm)
Cyprus chisels (n=62)
R² = 0.0093
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Length (cm)
450

Figure 4.10 continued: Chisels: Scatter plots (length and cutting edge width) by region
Cutting edge width (cm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Cutting edge width (cm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Anatolian chisels (n=243)
R² = 0.1784
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Syria-Palestine chisels (n=12)
R² = 0.4798
0 5 10 15 20 25
Length (cm)
Length (cm)
Cutting edge width (cm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shipwrecks (n=15)
R² = 0.0216
0 5 10 15
Length (cm)
20 25 30
451

Cutting edge width (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Crete Mainland Islands
Islands
R² = 0.0486
Figure 4.11: Aegean broad chisels (cutting edges greater than 3.0 cm) by region
Mainland
R² = 0.1104
Crete
R² = 0.0023
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Length (cm)
452

Wide chisels by region Number Ratio Mean Standard deviation of ratio
& Coefficient of variance (CV)
Crete 27 6.51 ±1.872; CV=0.28
Mainland 31 4.25 ±1.304; CV=0.3
Islands 5 5.14 ±1.793; CV=0.35
Figure 4.12a: Ratio (length divided by cutting width) of Aegean broad/wide chisels showing the mean
Ratio (Length divided by cutting edge width)
Figure 4.12b: Box-and-dot plot, showing range of ratios for Aegean broad/wide chisels
453

Chisels by size Number Ratio Mean Standard deviation of ratio
& Coefficient of variance (CV)
Bit (0.5 cm and less or Size 1) 161 20.24 ±10.789; CV=0.53
Narrow (0.6‒1.5 cm or Size 2) 222 10.01 ±5.66; CV=0.57
Medium (1.6‒2.9 cm or Size 3) 85 5.68 ±3.449; CV=0.61
Wide (3.0 + cm or Sizes 4-5) 82 5.33 ±1.985; CV=0.37
Figure 4.13a: Ratio (length divided by cutting width) of chisel sizes showing the mean
Ratio (Length divided by cutting edge width)
Figure 4.13b: Box-and-dot plot, showing range of ratios for the different chisel sizes
454

Chisels by size Number Ratio Mean Standard deviation of ratio
& Coefficient of variance (CV)
Narrow (0.6‒1.5 cm) 222 10.01 ±5.66; CV=0.57
Socketed 49 13.08 ±5.188; CV=0.4
Mortise 13 12.88 ±3.869; CV=0.3
Medium (1.6‒2.9 cm) 85 5.68 ±3.449; CV=0.61
Cold 9 3.96 ±1.041; CV=0.26
Wide (3.0 + cm) 82 5.33 ±1.985 CV=0.37
Figure 4.14a: Ratio (length divided by cutting width) of chisels, highlighting socketed, mortise, cold types
Ratio (Length divided by cutting edge width)
Figure 4.14b: Box-and-dot plot, showing range of ratios for chisel sizes compared to socketed, mortise and cold types
455

Cutting edge width (cm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Socketed chisels
Anatolia Cyprus Other regions
Cyprus
R² = 0.0368
Figure 4.15a (above): Scatter plot of socketed chisels by region (Anatolia: n= 34; Cyprus: n= 11; Other, including mainland, Crete,
Syria-Palestine, shipwrecks: n=4)
Figure 4.15b (below): Socketed chisel length and cutting edge measurements by region
Socketed chisels Average length, standard deviation, and CV Average tip width, standard deviation, and CV
Anatolia 13.9 cm with ± 5.7 cm; CV=0.41 1.01 cm with ± 0.4 cm; CV=0.4
Cyprus 13.3 cm with ± 4.2 cm; CV=0.32 1.4 cm with ± 0.6 cm; CV=0.43
Anatolia
R² = 0.5581
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Length (cm)
456

Cutting edge width (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Double adzes
Cyprus double adze Crete double adze
Figure 4.16a (above): Scatter plot for double adzes (Cyprus: n= 11, Crete: n= 15)
Figure 4.16b (below): Double adze length and cutting edge measurements by region
Double adzes series Average length, standard Average cutting edge width,
deviation, and CV
standard deviation, and CV
Crete 26.1 cm with ± 8.8 cm; CV=0.34 4.7 cm with ± 0.6 cm; CV=0.13
Cyprus 16.4 cm with ± 5.3 cm; CV=0.32 4.4 cm with ± 0.7 cm; CV=0.16
Cyprus
R² = 0.7886
Crete
R² = 0.2903
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Double adze length (cm)
457

Figure 4.17: Ax-adzes: regions measurements (length and cutting edge width)
Length (cm)
Crete average length = 15.6 cm (10 examples)
Standard deviation = ±1.9 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.12
Ax end cutting edge
width (cm)
20
15
10
5
0
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
MBA LBA General 2nd mill.
Cretan ax-adzes
Crete Mainland Cyprus
Ax-adzes from Crete, mainland and Cyprus
Crete average ax cutting edge = 4.2 cm (10 examples);
Standard deviation=±0.6 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.13
Mainland average ax cutting edge = 4.0 cm (3 examples)
Cyprus average ax cutting edge = 4.0 cm (6 examples)
Length (cm)
20
15
10
5
0
Mainland Cyprus
Mainland and Cypriot ax-adzes
Mainland average length = 15.3 cm (4 examples);
Cyprus average length = 12.9 cm (7 examples)
Adze end cutting edge
width (cm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Crete Mainland Cyprus
Ax-adzes from Crete, mainland and Cyprus
Crete average adze cutting edge = 3.8 cm (9 examples)
Standard deviation=±0.5 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.13
Mainland average adze cutting edge = 3.15 cm (3 examples)
Cyprus average adze cutting edge = 3.8 cm (4 examples)
458

Tip width (cm)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Solid drills
Crete Mainland Cyprus Anatolia
Figure 4.18a (above): Scatter plot of solid drill by region (Crete: n =24, mainland: n=25, Cyprus: n=28, Anatolia: n=29)
Figure 4.18b (below): Drill length and cutting edge measurements by region
Solid drill series Average length, standard Average tip width, standard
deviation, and CV
deviation, and CV
Crete 9.5 cm with ± 6.7 cm; CV=0.71 0.6 cm with ± 0.3 cm; CV=0.5
Mainland 6.6 cm with ± 5.0 cm; CV=0.75 0.5 cm with ± 0.3 cm; CV=0.6
Cyprus 11.3 cm with ± 4.0 cm; CV=0.35 0.7 cm with ± 0.25 cm; CV=0.36
Anatolia 8.0 cm with ± 5.6 cm; CV=0.7 0.4 cm with ± 0.35 cm; CV=0.88
Mainland
R² = 0.5069
Cyprus
R² = 0.0231
Anatolia
R² = 0.748
Crete
R² = 0.3962
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Length (cm)
459

Figure 4.19: Hollow cylindrical metal objects; potential tubular drill bits
Site Date Length Diameter
Bibliography
(cm) (cm)
Ayia Triadha, HM 1232 LBA 8 4.5 Evely 1993, 36 entry 6
Gournia – HM 967 LBA 10 3.5 Evely 1993, 46 entry 3, figure 12
Gournia – HM 967 LBA 10 3.5 Evely 1993, 46 entry 4, figure 12
Gournia LBA 10.3 ? Evely 1993, 46 entry 5
Knossos – south house LBA 10 4.5 Evans 1928, 629; Evely 1993, 36 entry 1
Knossos – south house LBA 10 4.5 Evans 1928, 629; Evely 1993, 36 entry 2
Knossos - (Box 1876) Unknown 3.6 1.5 Evans’ Box 1876 – Stratigraphical Museum
Mallia, Quartier Mu –
seal workshop
MBA ? ? Evely 1993, 78 entry 24
Zakros, Palace LBA ? ? Evely 1993, 78 entry 25
Zakros, Palace,
west wing
LBA ? ? Evely 1993, 36 entry 7
Prosymna – Tomb XIV LBA 3.5 2.5 Blegen 1937, 168, 170, 353, Plate 417.3
Prosymna – Tomb XIV LBA ? 2.2 Blegen 1937, 169-70, 353, Plate 419.5
Prosymna –Tomb
XXXVIII
LBA ? ? Blegen 1937, 131, figure 311
Tiryns - #770 LBA 4.5 1.7 Rahmstorf 2008, entry 770
Tiryns – Prophitis Elias,
grave VII
LBA 3.2 2 Rudolph 1973, 54 entry 18, plate 29.1
Boğazköy – Bo. 70/80 LBA ? ? Boehmer 1979, 3 plate 2 catalogue #2500
Boğazköy – Bo. 73/18 LBA ? ? Boehmer 1979, 3 plate 2 catalogue #2501
Boğazköy – Bo. 73/244 LBA ? ? Boehmer 1979, 3 plate 2 catalogue #2502
460

Figure 4.20: Saw measurements by region
Length (cm)
Cretan average length = 34.6 cm long (51 examples)
Standard deviation = ±46.5 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 1.34
Length (cm)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cretan saws
Greek mainland saws
Mainland average length = 18.27 cm (10 examples)
Standard deviation = ±15.3 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) = 0.84
Greatest width (cm)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cretan saws
Cretan average width = 6.1 cm wide (50 examples)
Standard deviation = ±5.75 cm; Coefficient of variance (CV) =0.94
Greatest width (cm)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Greek mainland saws
Mainland average width = 2.63 cm (11 examples). Note that there
several in the 1.3-1.8 cm range. Standard deviation ±2.18 cm; CV=0.83
461

Figure 4.20 continued: Saw measurements by region
Length (cm)
Length (cm)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
40
30
20
10
0
Islands Anatolia
Greek islands and Anatolian saws
Cyprus Syria-Palestine
Cyprus and Syria-Palestine saws
Cypriot average saw length = 26.2 cm (6 examples);
Syria-Palestine average saw length = 25.9 cm (5 examples)
Width (cm)
Width (cm)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
Islands Anatolia
Greek islands and Anatolian saws
Cyprus Syria-Palestine
Cyprus and Syria-Palestine saws
Cypriot average saw length = 3.7 cm (6 examples);
Syria-Palestine average saw length = 4.6 cm (4 examples)
462

F4, (5)
F3, (6)
F2, (6)
F1, (13)
E2, (1)
G1, (19) G2, (8)
E1, (123)
Crete LBA
H, (57)
I, (1)
D3, (2)
C, (137)
D1, (2)
D2, (11)
G2, (1)
G1, (4)
F3, (1)
F2, (3)
E1, (21)
F1, (5)
F4, (2)
F3, (4)
F2, (3)
E1, (44)
H, (13)
Crete MBA
D3, (1)
D2, (1)
A, (11)
Crete general 2nd mill.
G1, (3) G2, (1) H, (7)
A, (6)
D2, (2)
D1, (2)
B, (1)
D1, (1)
C, (25)
C, (70)
Figure 4.21
Crete carpentry/
masonry tools
#s within ( ) = # of examples
A: Shaft-hole axes
B: Shaft-hole (socketed)
adzes
C: Double axes
D1:Trunnion/lugged axes
(or adzes)
D2: Single/flat axes
D3: Single/flat adzes
E1: Chisels
E2: Socketed chisels
F1: Double adzes
F2: Ax-adzes
F3: Double hammers, ax-
hammer and adzehammer
F4: Pick-adzes
G1: Drills
G2: Hollow cylinders
(or tubular drills?)
H: Saws
I: Files/Rasps
463

G,1 (30)
F3, (2)
F2, (2)
E2, (2)
E1, (124)
G2, (5)
Mainland LBA
H, (13) I, (1)
A, (8)
C, (104)
D2, (13)
D3, (1)
D1, (4)
E1, (11)
G1, (1)
F2, (3)
E1, (7)
Mainland MBA
H, (1)
C, (3)
Mainland general
2nd mill.
F3, (1) G1, (1)
A, (2)
D2, (2)
C, (5)
D2, (3)
Figure 4.22
Mainland carpentry/
masonry tools
#s within ( ) = # of examples
A: Shaft-hole axes
B: Shaft-hole (socketed)
adzes
C: Double axes
D1:Trunnion/lugged axes
(or adzes)
D2: Single/flat axes
D3: Single/flat adzes
E1: Chisels
E2: Socketed chisels
F1: Double adzes
F2: Ax-adzes
F3: Double hammers, ax-
hammer and adzehammer
F4: Pick-adzes
G1: Drills
G2: Hollow cylinders
(or tubular drills?)
H: Saws
I: Files/Rasps
464

E1, (26)
Island LBA
H, (1)
C, (8) D1, (2)
D2, (7)
E1, (10)
Island MBA
Island general 2nd mill.
H, (1)
A, (2)
C, (2)
C, (2)
D2, (1)
Figure 4.23
Island carpentry/
masonry tools
#s within ( ) = # of examples
A: Shaft-hole axes
B: Shaft-hole (socketed)
adzes
C: Double axes
D1:Trunnion/lugged axes
(or adzes)
D2: Single/flat axes
D3: Single/flat adzes
E1: Chisels
E2: Socketed chisels
F1: Double adzes
F2: Ax-adzes
F3: Double hammers, ax-
hammer and adzehammer
F4: Pick-adzes
G1: Drills
G2: Hollow cylinders
(or tubular drills?)
H: Saws
I: Files/Rasps
465

F3, (7)
F2, (9)
F1, (11)
G1, (37)
E2, (12)
Cyprus LBA
H, (7)
A, (1) C, (4) D1, (8)
D2, (26)
E1, (68)
D3, (4)
D3, (1)
E2, (3) F3, (1) G1, (5 H, (2)
E1, (20)
E1, (3)
Cyprus MBA
Cyprus general
2nd mill.
A, (13)
D2, (123)
D2, (4)
Figure 4.24
Cyprus carpentry/
masonry tools
#s within ( ) = # of examples
A: Shaft-hole axes
B: Shaft-hole (socketed)
adzes
C: Double axes
D1:Trunnion/lugged axes
(or adzes)
D2: Single/flat axes
D3: Single/flat adzes
E1: Chisels
E2: Socketed chisels
F1: Double adzes
F2: Ax-adzes
F3: Double hammers, ax-
hammer and adzehammer
F4: Pick-adzes
G1: Drills
G2: Hollow cylinders
(or tubular drills?)
H: Saws
I: Files/Rasps
466

F2, (1)
E2, (22)
E1, (213)
Anatolia LBA
G1, (21) G2, (3) H, (1)
F3, (2)
A, (16)
B, (4) C, (9)
D1, (34)
D2, (15)
D3, (2)
G1, (5) H, (2)
E2, (9)
E1, (49)
E2, (8)
Anatolia MBA
A, (18)
D2, (11)
Anatolian general 2nd mill.
G1, (5)
F3, (1)
E1, (55)
A, (5) C, (2)
B, (1)
C, (1)
D1, (20)
D1, (13)
D2, (3)
Figure 4.25
Anatolia carpentry/
masonry tools
#s within ( ) = # of examples
A: Shaft-hole axes
B: Shaft-hole (socketed)
adzes
C: Double axes
D1:Trunnion/lugged axes
(or adzes)
D2: Single/flat axes
D3: Single/flat adzes
E1: Chisels
E2: Socketed chisels
F1: Double adzes
F2: Ax-adzes
F3: Double hammers, ax-
hammer and adzehammer
F4: Pick-adzes
G1: Drills
G2: Hollow cylinders
(or tubular drills?)
H: Saws
I: Files/Rasps
467

F2, (2) F3, (1) G1, (4)
E1, (27)
E2, (1)
Syria-Palestine LBA
H, (1)
A, (8)
B, (9) C, (2)
D2, (58)
D1, (8)
E1, (13)
Syria-Palestine MBA
H, (3)
D2, (48)
A, (16)
C, (1)
D1, (2)
Syria-Palestine general 2nd mill.
E1, (10)
G1, (2)
H, (1)
A, (4)
D1, (2)
D2, (39)
Figure 4.26
Syria-Palestine
carpentry/ masonry
tools
#s within ( ) = # of examples
A: Shaft-hole axes
B: Shaft-hole (socketed)
adzes
C: Double axes
D1:Trunnion/lugged axes
(or adzes)
D2: Single/flat axes
D3: Single/flat adzes
E1: Chisels
E2: Socketed chisels
F1: Double adzes
F2: Ax-adzes
F3: Double hammers, ax-
hammer and adzehammer
F4: Pick-adzes
G1: Drills
G2: Hollow cylinders
(or tubular drills?)
H: Saws
I: Files/Rasps
468

E1, (18)
E2, (1)
Uluburun and Gelidonya shipwrecks (LBA)
F2, (4)
G1, (2)
H, (1) A, (1)
C, (7)
D3, (18)
D1, (7)
D2, (2)
Figure 4.27
Shipwreck carpentry/
masonry tools
#s within ( ) = # of examples
A: Shaft-hole axes
B: Shaft-hole (socketed)
adzes
C: Double axes
D1:Trunnion/lugged axes
(or adzes)
D2: Single/flat axes
D3: Single/flat adzes
E1: Chisels
E2: Socketed chisels
F1: Double adzes
F2: Ax-adzes
F3: Double hammers, ax-
hammer and adzehammer
F4: Pick-adzes
G1: Drills
G2: Hollow cylinders
(or tubular drills?)
H: Saws
I: Files/Rasps
469

1-5
6-15
16-30
31-50
51-100
100 +
Shaft-hole ax; Shaft-hole adze; Double ax; Trunnion ax; Single ax; Single adze;
Chisel; Socketed chisel; Combination or double ended tools; Drill; Saw
Figure 4.28: MBA Carpentry/ Masonry tool distribution and quantities
470

1-5
6-15
16-30
31-50
51-100
100 +
Shaft-hole ax; Shaft-hole adze; Double ax; Trunnion ax; Single ax; Single adze;
Chisel; Socketed chisel; Combination or double ended tools; Drill; Saw
Figure 4.29: LBA Carpentry/ Masonry tool distribution and quantities
471

Figure 5.1: Tool frequencies and distributions within MBA-LBA hoards from Crete
Hoard name:
n=total hoard #
Samba-Pediados
hoard; EM II –
MM II; n=3
Selakanos hoard
EM II – MM II
n=6
Chamaizi hoard
MM I-II; n=4
Mallia – Quartier
Mu, Building A
(I9), MM II, n=5
Mallia – Quartier
Mu, Building B
(IV4), MM II,n=4
Mochlos; metal
merchant hoard;
room 2.2, House
C.3 - LM IB
n=37+
Mochlos; House
C.3, northeast
corner hoard -
LM IB; n=21+
Mochlos; House
C.7 southwest
room hoard - LM
IB; n=9+
Knossos - south
house inner room
LM I? - n=10
Knossos; north
west hoard; MM
III or LM I; n=18
Knossos; south
east hoard; MM
III –LM IA; n=5
Tool % in
hoard
100%
100%
100%
80%
100%
78.4%
Double
axes
Broad
chisels
Narrow
chisels
Drills Saws Other carpentry/ masonry
tools
Utilitarian:
Knives or
razors
Utilitarian
: awls or
engravers
Smith tools
or other tool type
1 1 1 mortise - - - - - -
4 2 - - - - - - -
2 - - - - 1 ax-adze,
1 broad, single adze
- - -
- - - 1 1 1 ax-adze 1 - -
1 - 1 mortise - 1 1 socketed adze - - -
9 7 - - - 1 double adze 8 - 2 tongs, 2 tools to break
ingots (?), 2 balance pans
57% 3 2
-two
sizes
- - - - 2 1 1 rasp, 1 shovel, 1 tongs,
2 balance pans
44.4% 2 - - - - - 2 - -
100% 2 - - 2 tubular
drills
3 1 ax-hammer 2 - 3 whetstones
55.5% 3 1 - - - 5 double adzes - - 1 whetstone
20% - - - - 1 - - - -
472

Figure 5.1 continued – Hoards from Crete
Hoard name:
n=total hoard #
Knossos
basement hoard
LM I; n=15
Avgo hoard; MM
I-LM II; n=28
Tool % in
hoard
Double
axes
Broad
chisels
Narrow
chisels
Drills Saws Other carpentry/ masonry
tools
Utilitarian:
Knives or
razors
Utilitarian
: awls or
engravers
Smith tools
or other tool type
6.7% 1 - - - - - - - -
14.3% - - - - - 1 flat/single ax 2 razors
1 scraper
- -
Figure 5.2: Tool frequencies and distributions within MBA-LBA hoards from the Greek mainland and nearby islands
Hoard name:
n=total hoard #
Malthi – MBA
n= 7
Mycenae
Schliemann
hoard - n=19
Mycenae
Mylonas hoard
n=21
Mycenae
Poros Wall
hoard
n=81
Mycenae
Tsountas hoard
n=90
Tiryns
Treasure
n=16+
Athens
Acropolis
hoard; n=37
Salamis-
Kanakia hoard
n=4 or 5
Tool % in
hoard
Double
axes
Broad
chisels
Narrow
chisels
Drills Saws Other carpentry/
masonry tools
Utilitarian:
Knives or
razors
Utilitarian
awls or
engravers
Agricultural
tools
Smith tools
or other tool type
100% - - 1 - - - 6 - - -
47.3% 4 - - - - - 5 - - -
61.9% 4 1 1 - - - 2 2 3 sickles -
27.2% 1 1 3 1 - - 7 - 1 sickle 1 small hammer
(possible carpentry or
masonry tool)
84.4% 9 14 6 - - - 13 and 1
cleaver
9 19 sickles 1 casting, 2 balance
pans
12.5% - - - - - - - - 2 sickles -
78.4% 13 7 1 - - 1 hammer-ax or
ax-adze or
double hammer
1 - 2 plowshares,
1 sickle
1 pyramidal hammer,
1 file, 1 casting, 3
balance pans
75% - 1 1 - - - 1 - 1 sickle -
473

Figure 5.2 continued – Hoards from Greek mainland and nearby islands
Hoard name:
n=total hoard #
Anthedon
hoard; n=35
Thebes Arsenal
hoard; n=32
Orchomenos
hoard; n=106
Andronianoi
hoard; n=10
Kalydon-
Psorolithi;
n=14
Kierion-
Karditsa hoard
n=6
Katamachi
hoard; n=7
Stephani hoard
n=17
Rodotopi hoard
n=4
Ithaka-Polis
hoard; n=17
Tool % in
hoard
Double
axes
Broad
chisels
Narrow
chisels
Drill
s
Saws Other carpentry/
masonry tools
Utilitarian
Knives or
razors
Utilitarian
awls or
engravers
Agricultural
tools
Smith tools
or other tool type
68.6% 4 - 1 - - 1 trunnion or 14 1 2 plowshares,
-
lugged adze
1 sickle
43.8% 3 2 1 - - - 3 - 2 sickles 1 anvil (bronze cube),
1 bronze pestle form,
file-like object (?)
45.3% 7 6 3 1 2 1 flat adze or
broad chisel
10 - 4 sickles -
30% 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - -
78.6% 2 2 - - - - 1 - 6 sickles -
50 or 66.7% 2 1 - - - - - 1? - -
100% 5 - 1 socketed - - - - - - 1 pyramidal anvil
64.7% 10 - - - - - - - - 1 whetstone
100% - - - - - 4 shaft-hole axes - - - -
29.4% - 1 1 socketed
or spear
point
- - - 3 - - -
474

Figure 5.3: Tool frequencies and distributions for MBA –LBA Cypriot hoards
Hoard name:
n=total hoard #
Enkomi:
Foundry hoard;
n=85
Enkomi:
Gunnis hoard;
n=18
Enkomi:
Maison des
Bronzes
n=5+
Enkomi: Trésor
de Bronzes; n=37
Enkomi:
Stylianou hoard
n=28
Enkomi: Weapon
hoard; n=33
Enkomi: Point
1458 hoard; n=41
Enkomi: Brunnen
212 hoard; n=23+
Enkomi: Point
438 hoard; n=4
Enkomi:
miniature hoard
n=15
Mathiati hoard
n=65
Tool % in
hoard
Double
axes
Shaft
-hole
axes
Combination
tools
Flat
ax or
adze
Broad
chisels
40% 1 - 2 ax-adzes - 1, or a
lugged
ax
100% - - 4 double adzes
1 ax-adze
Narrow
chisels
2
(1 with
socket)
Drills Saws Utilitarian
tools
Agricultural
tools
- - 2 knives 11 plowshares
1 pruning hook
2 sickles
2 pick frags
1 - - - - - 2 plowshares
2 shovels
6 picks
Smith tools
or other tool type
1 double hammer
from double adze,
1 sledgehammer, 1
tongs, 3 charcoal
shovels, 2 furnace
spatulas
1 charcoal shovel
1 metal mold
20% - - 1 double adze - - - - - - 1 plowshare? -
30% - - 1 double adze
1 ax-adze
1 hammer-adze
1
adze
1 (cold) 2
mortise
2 - 1 knife - 1 spatulate tool
2 weights/scales
57.1% - - - 3 - - - - - 1 shovel
3 plowshares
2 picks
6 sickles
1 spatula
9% 1 - - - - - - - - 2 sickles -
7.3% - - - - - - - - 2 knives 1 sickle -
26.1% - - 2 hammer- - 2 - 1 - - 1 plowshare 2 unidentified tools
adzes
2 bronze scales
75% - - - - - - - - - 1 shovel
2 sickles
-
26.6% - - - - - 1 1 - - - 3 miniature
unidentified tools
1 bronze scale
38.5% 2 - 3 double adzes 3 - 1 - - - 6 plowshares 1 sledgehammer
1 ax-adze
3 sickles 1 metal mold
1 hammer-adze
1 pruning hook
1 plow scraper
1 casting
475

Figure 5.3 continued – Hoards from Cyprus
Hoard name:
n=total hoard #
Pyla-
Kokkinokremnos
Hoard; n=43+
Kition foundation
deposit; n=3
Sinda bronze
hoard; n=11
Nitovikla hoard
n=3+
Pera bronzes
n=117
-iron objects later
intrusions
Galinoporni
hoard; n=26
Athienou-
Bamboulari
n=20+
Makarska hoard
(possible Cypriot
hoard); n=9
Sanctuary of
horned god hoard
n=4
Tool % in
hoard
Double
axes
Shaft
-hole
axes
Combination
tools
Flat
ax or
adze
Broad
chisels
Narrow
chisels
Drills Saws Utilitarian
tools
Agricultural
tools
Smith tools
or other tool type
4.8% - - - - - - 2 - - - 1 bronze scale
66.7% - - - - - - - - - - 2 T-shaped
plowshare castings
36.4% - - - - - - - - - 1 pick 1 charcoal shovel
1 tongs
1 spatula
100% - - - 1 - - - - - 1 shovel
1 plowshare
-
59.1% - 2 1 ax-adze 15 - 5, 1 1 32 knives - 1 whetstone
(including
(iron)
(one
1 iron
shaft hole
axe)
socket)
26.9% - - - - - - - 1 - 5 sickles 1 charcoal shovel
45% - - - - - 8 - - 1 awl - 2 other small
unidentifiable tools
77.8% - 2 - 2 - 2, with
sockets
- - - - 1 hammer,
socketed
25% - - - - - - - - - 1 agricultural
tools
-
476

Figure 5.4: Tool frequencies and distributions for MBA –LBA hoards from other regions
Hoard name:
n=total hoard #
Sakçagözü hoard
MBA (Anatolia)
n=15+
Şarköy hoard
LBA (Anatolia)
n=77
Ugarit priest
house hoard
LBA (Syria)
n=74
Tool % in
hoard
Double
axes
Shafthole
axes
Combination
tools
Flat ax
or adze
Broad
chisels
Narrow
chisels
Drills Saws Utilitarian
tools
Agricultural
tools
Smith tools
or other tool
type
26.7% - 3 - - 1 - - - - - -
66.2% 3 1 or
wedge
- 2 2 lugged or
trunnion
axes
- - - - - -
67.2% - 8 adzes - 27 - 3 2 - - 4 sickles
5 plowshares
or hoes
-
477

Hoards: 1 - 13 are from Crete
1: Samba-Pediados hoard
2: Selakanos hoard
3: Chamaizi hoard
4: Mallia - Quartier Mu - Building A (I9)
5: Mallia - Quartier Mu - Building B
(IV4)
6: Mochlos: Metal merchant hoard
(room 2.2, House C.3)
7: Mochlos: Northeast corner hoard,
House C.3
8: Mochlos: Southwest room hoard,
House C.7
9: Knossos: South House hoard
10: Knossos: Northwest hoard
11: Knossos: Southeast hoard
12: Knossos: Basement hoard
13: Avgo Hoard
Hoards 14 - 31 are from the
Greek mainland
14: Malthi hoard
15: Mycenae: Schliemann hoard
16: Mycenae: Mylonas hoard
17: Mycenae: Poros Wall hoard
18: Mycenae: Tsountas hoard
19: Tiryns Treasure
20: Athens: Acropolis hoard
21: Salamis-Kanakia hoard
22: Anthedon hoard
23: Thebes Arsenal hoard
24: Orchomenos hoard
25: Andronianoi hoard
26: Kalydon-Psorolithi hoard
27: Kierion-Karditsa
28: Katamachi hoard
29: Stephani hoard
30: Rodotopi hoard
31: Ithaka-Polis hoard
Figure 5.5: List of hoards that contain tools
Hoards 32 - 51 are from Cyprus
32: Enkomi: Foundry hoard
33: Enkomi: Gunnis hoard
34: Enkomi: Maison des Bronzes
35: Enkomi: Trésor de Bronzes
36: Enkomi: Stylianou hoard
37: Enkomi: Weapon hoard
38: Enkomi: Point 1458 hoard
39: Enkomi: Brunnen 212 hoard
40: Enkomi: Point 438 hoard
41: Enkomi: Miniature hoard
42: Mathiati hoard
43: Pyla-Kokkinokremnos hoard
44: Kition foundation deposit
45: Sinda bronze hoard
46: Nitovikla hoard
47: Pera bronzes
48: Galinoporni hoard
49 Athienou-Bamboulari hoard
50: Makarska hoard
51: Enkomi: Sanctuary of the horned
god hoard
52: Sakçagözü hoard
Hoards 52 - 54 from other regions
53: Şarköy hoard
54: Ugarit priest house hoard

Figure 5.6: Similarity matrix (Jaccard's Coefficient) for all 54 hoards (see Figure 5.5)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1.000 .667 .200 .000 .400 .333 .333 .250 .125 .400 .000 .333 .000 .250 .250 .500 .429
.667 1.000 .250 .000 .200 .400 .400 .333 .143 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .333 .333 .286
.200 .250 1.000 .167 .400 .333 .143 .250 .286 .400 .000 .333 .250 .000 .250 .125 .111
.000 .000 .167 1.000 .143 .286 .125 .200 .667 .143 .250 .000 .200 .200 .200 .111 .222
.400 .200 .400 .143 1.000 .125 .125 .200 .250 .143 .250 .250 .200 .200 .200 .250 .222
.333 .400 .333 .286 .125 1.000 .667 .400 .571 .800 .000 .200 .167 .167 .400 .375 .500
.333 .400 .143 .125 .125 .667 1.000 .400 .375 .500 .000 .200 .167 .167 .400 .571 .500
.250 .333 .250 .200 .200 .400 .400 1.000 .333 .200 .000 .500 .333 .333 1.000 .333 .286
.125 .143 .286 .667 .250 .571 .375 .333 1.000 .429 .167 .167 .143 .143 .333 .200 .444
.400 .500 .400 .143 .143 .800 .500 .200 .429 1.000 .000 .250 .000 .000 .200 .250 .375
.000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .000 .167 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.333 .500 .333 .000 .250 .200 .200 .500 .167 .250 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .500 .167 .143
.000 .000 .250 .200 .200 .167 .167 .333 .143 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .333 .333 .143 .125
.250 .000 .000 .200 .200 .167 .167 .333 .143 .000 .000 .000 .333 1.000 .333 .333 .285
.250 .333 .250 .200 .200 .400 .400 1.000 .333 .200 .000 .500 .333 .333 1.000 .333 .286
.500 .333 .125 .111 .250 .375 .571 .333 .200 .250 .000 .167 .143 .333 .333 1.000 .625
.429 .286 .111 .222 .222 .500 .500 .286 .444 .375 .000 .143 .125 .286 .286 .625 1.000
.429 .286 .111 .100 .222 .500 .714 .286 .300 .375 .000 .143 .125 .266 .286 .857 .750
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .167 .143
.429 .286 .250 .222 .222 .714 .500 .286 .444 .571 .000 .143 .125 .286 .286 .625 .750
.400 .200 .000 .143 .143 .286 .286 .200 .111 .143 .000 .000 .200 .500 .200 .667 .571
.286 .143 .286 .111 .429 .222 .375 .333 .200 .111 .000 .167 .333 .333 .333 .714 .444
.500 .333 .125 .111 .250 .571 .571 .333 .333 .429 .000 .167 .143 .333 .333 .714 .857
.375 .250 .222 .333 .500 .300 .300 .250 .400 .200 .125 .125 .250 .250 .250 .556 .667
.167 .200 .157 .333 .333 .286 .286 .500 .429 .143 .250 .250 .200 .200 .500 .429 .375
.400 .500 .167 .143 .143 .500 .500 .500 .250 .333 .000 .250 .200 .200 .500 .667 .571
---­ .
.500 .667 .200 .000 .167 .333 .600 .250 .125 .400 .000 .333 .000 .000 .250 .500 .250
479

40
51
19
38
34
45
48
33
36
46
28
29
44
41
43
49
12
37
8
15
25
2
27
1
21
31
14
6
10
7
16
18
20
32
17
23
26
22
24
35
47
4
9
39
50
54
3
42
5
13
52
53
30
11
0
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
5
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
10
15
20
25

40
51
19
38
34
45
48
33
36
46
28
29
44
41
43
49
12
37
8
15
25
2
27
1
21
31
14
6
10
7
16
18
20
32
17
23
26
22
24
35
47
4
9
39
50
54
3
42
5
13
52
53
30
11
0
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
5
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
10
15
20
25

Proximity Matrix for the tool types foundin the hoards from Cluster IJ
Tool variable Similarity chart (Jaccard coefficient)
Double ax Broad chisel Narrow chisel Drill Saw Combination tool flat ax or adze Shaft-OOle ax Knife or razor AvA or engraver Agricultural Smith lools
Double ax 1,000
Broad chisel .636 1.000
Narrow chisel ,391 .556 1.000
Drill ,100 .125 .167 1.000
Saw ,100 .059 .077 .333 1.000
Combination tool .200 .250 .143 .000 .000 1.000
Flat ax or adze ,100 .059 ,167 ,333 .333 .000 1.000
Shaft-hole ax ,000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000
KnWe or razor .609 .571 .611 ,118 .118 .167 .118 .000 1.000
Aw. or engrawr ,250 .235 .214 .000 .000 .000 .167 .000 .222 1.000
Agricultural ,524 .474 .600 ,167 .167 .143 .167 .000 .611 .214 1.000
Smith lools .400 .500 .333 .111 .000 .500 .000 .000 .369 .182 .333 1.000
Figure 5.9: Similarity chart by variable for hoards in Cluster #3
Proximity Matrix for the tool types found in tile hOards from Cluster #4
Tool variable Similarity chart (Jaccard coefficient)
Double ax Broad chisel Narrow chisel OnR Saw Combinalion tool fiat ax Or adze Shalt-hole ax Knife or razor AvA or engraver Agricultural Smith tools
Double ax 1.000
Broad chisel .000 1.000
Narrow chisel .250 .143 1.000
Drill .111 .333 .333 1.000
Saw .333 .000 .250 .429 1.000
Combination tool .375 .286 .300 .625 .375 1.000
Flat ax or adze .375 .125 .857 .300 .222 .400 1.000
Shaft·hole ax .000 .000 .500 .286 .167 .111 .429 1.000
Knife or razor .143 .200 .250 .667 .600 .571 .222 .167 1.000
AYA or engraver .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000
Agricultural .167 .250 .286 .286 .000 .250 .250 .200 .000 .000 1.000
Smith tools .250 ,333 ,500 .500 .250 .625 .444 .286 .429 ,000 .286 1.000
5.10: ehart by variable for hoards in Cluster #4
487

Double ax
Broad chisel
Knife or razor
Agricultural
Narrow chisel
Combination
Smith tool
Awl/engraver
Saw
Single/flat ax
Drill
Shaft-hole ax
0
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
5
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
10
15
20
25

Narrow chisel
Flat/single ax
Shaft-hole ax
Drill
Knife or razor
Combination
Smith tool
Saw
Double ax
Broad chisel
Agricultural
Awl/engraver
0
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
5
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
10
15
20
25

APPENDIX 2: PLATES
Plate 4.1: Shaft-hole ax (LBA) from Boğazköy, Hattusha; Ankara Museum, #Bo 51/L – 13844;
photographs by author.
Plate 4.2: Fenestrated and crescent shaped
shaft-hole ax from Vaphio (LH IIA); from
Athens National Museum, #1870; photographs
by author.
490

Plate 4.3: Shaft-hole ax from Cyprus; no provenance; Nicosia Museum; CM 1967/111-10/1; photographs
by author.
Plate 4.4: Double ax from
Chamaizi; MM I-II; Heraklion
Museum, HM 1018; photographs
by author.
Plate 4.5: Double ax from
Gournia; MMII-LMI;
Heraklion Museum, HM
555; photographs by author.
491

Plate 4.6: Double ax from Knossos Unexplored Mansion, LM II; Knossos Stratigraphical Museum;
MUM 1973; L 169; photographs by author.
Plate 4.7: Double ax from the Athens Acropolis hoard, LH IIIB; Acropolis Museum; (old number was
6898 in the National Museum); photographs by author.
Plate 4.8:
Double ax from the Orchomenos
hoard, LH IIIB or C; Chaironeia
Museum 501; photographs by
author.
492

Plate 4.9:
Andronianoi (Euboea) double ax, from a
hoard; LH II-IIIA1. Athens National
Museum, #10798, prehistoric collection;
photographs by author.
Plate 4.10:
Trunnion/lugged blade from
Alishar Höyük, LBA; Ankara
Museum, #153-560-84,
c1741; photographs by
author.
Plate 4.11
Trunnion/lugged blade from
Alaca Höyük, LBA, Ankara
Museum, Al.l.60, 10673;
photographs by author
493

Plate 4.12
Trunnion/lugged ax from Alaca
Höyük, LBA; Ankara Museum,
Al.L.18; photographs by author
Plate 4.13
Trunnion/lugged ax from Alaca
Höyük, LBA; Ankara Museum,
Al.d.345, #8772; photographs by
author.
Plate 4.14
Single/flat ax from a burial at
Alambra, Cyprus; MBA; Nicosia
Museum; AO.380; photographs
by author.
494

Plate 4.15
Single/flat ax from Katarraktis
(Drakotrypa), Achaea, from a
burial; Patras Museum, #339;
photographs by author.
Plate 4.16
Single/flat adze from Enkomi, LC III;
Nicosia Museum, French excavation
1960, inv. 78, photographs by author.
Plate 4.17;
Flat/single blade; probably a chisel
with an adze-like profile; from
Chamaizi; Heraklion Museum; #
1020; photographs by author.
495

Plate 4.18: Bit-sized chisel-like tool;
Boğazköy, Hattusha - Boğazkale Museum #Bo 79/106
Plate 4.19: Bit-sized chisel-like tool;
Boğazköy, Hattusha - Boğazkale Museum #Bo 79/118
Plate 4.20: Narrow or size 2 chisel; Enkomi, French exc. 1960, inv. 37 – Nicosia Museum
Plate 4.21: Narrow or size 2 chisel; Mylonas hoard – Mycenae Museum #1346
496

Plate 4.22: Chisel of size 3; Enkomi, French
excavation 1960, inv. 79 - Nicosia Museum
Plate 4.23:Orchomenos hoard -
Chaironeia Museum 517
Plate 4.24: Size 4 or wide chisel, from Knossos, Unexplored Mansion - Knossos Stratigraphical
Museum - MUM 72-54 – M9. Distinctive, elongated Minoan chisel with wide cutting edge.
Photograph by author.
Plate 4.25: Size 4 or wide
chisel; from Athens Acropolis
hoard - Athens Acropolis
Museum # 6996; photograph by
author.
Plate 4.26: Chisel? Cutting width size 5; from Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum
#511; photograph by author.
497

Plate 4.27
Cold chisel from
Uluburn shipwreck;
Bodrum Museum;
KW 3618; #28.7.95;
photographs by
author.
Plate 4.28: Mortise chisel from
Uluburun shipwreck; Bodrum
Museum; KW 276; #5.24.86.
Plate 4.29: Socketed chisel from Beycesultan, LBA - Pamukkale Museum (Denizili) - E 2641(#5-
679-75); photograph by author.
Plate 4.30: Socketed chisel from Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, LBA - Larnaca Museum - K-AD
#566; photograph by author.
498

Plate 4.33: Double adze: from the Gunnis Hoard. Nicosia Museum L37;
photograph by author
Plate 4.34: Double adze: from the Enkomi Maison des Bronzes Hoard. Louvre
Museum AO 18613; photograph by author
Plate 4.31:
Double adze from Meniko; LBA,
Nicosia Museum; CM 1953/IX – 3/3;
photograph by author.
Plate 4.32:
Double adze from Ayia Triadha,
LBA; Shaw 2009, 251, Plates
38a, b
499

Plate 4.38: Adze-hammer, from Enkomi
Trésor de Bronzes. Louvre Museum AM 2188.
Plate 4.35 (left):
Ax-adze; Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes; Louvre
Museum, AM 2187; photograph by author.
Plate 4.36 (top):
Ax-adze from Enkomi; Nicosia Museum; CM
Met 2175
Plate 4.37
Gournia, double hammer; Heraklion Museum; HM
965; photographs by author.
Detail of Trésor de Bronzes adze-hammer. Notice
jagged hammer end surface; photographs by author.
500

Plate 4.39: Trésor de Bronzes adze-hammer and ax-adze. Louvre museum. Compare the adze-hammer
with the ax-adze (AM 2187) from the same hoard. Photographs by author.
Plate 4.40: Adze-hammer; Brunnen 212 hoard; originally a
double adze. Cyprus Museum (Inv. 19.113). Notice the
deformed hammer end; photographs by author.
Plate 4.41a, b
Pick adzes, both from Ayia
Triadha. Photographs published
in Shaw 2009, fig. 37.
Plate 4.42a, b
Drill; Nicosia Museum;
Enkomi, French
excavation 1960, inv.
265; photographs by
author
501

Plate 4.43: Saw type 1: Prosymna; National Museum (Athens) 13146; photograph by author.
Plate 4.44: Saw type 2: Knossos, South house hoard; Heraklion Museum 1803. Note that the saw is
upside down; the cutting edge is at the top; photograph by author.
Plate 4.45: Saw type 2: Andronianoi hoard saw; National Museum (Athens) 10797; photograph by
author
Plate 4.46: Saw type 3: Gournia, Heraklion Museum 571; photograph by author.
502

Plate 4.47: Saw type 3: Boğazköy-Hattusha; Çorum Museum, Bo. 77/146 - K/20
Plate 4.49: Saw type 4: Orchomenos hoard: band
saw fragment? Chaironeia Museum 544.
Width = 1.8-1.9 cm
Plate 4.51: Knossos saw: with round tip with
teeth, vaguely similar to the Mochlos rasp. From
the Knossos Stratigraphical Museum, Evans’ Box
1877; photograph by author.
Plate 4.48a,b: Saw type 4: Kalopodi band saw
Top: Kalopodi saw: Felsch 1996, plate 63 entry
2236. Width of Kalopodi band saw = 1.86 cm.
Left: Reconstruction of the Kalopodi band saw.
Küpper 1996, Plate 128 middle.
Plate 4.50: Saw type 4: Orchomenos hoard:
band saw fragment? Chaironeia Museum 582.
Width of object = 1.7-1.9 cm
503

Plate 4.52: Rasp from Mochlos; photograph published in Shaw
2009, 252 Plate 47.
Plate 4.53: File; from the Athens Acropolis hoard; Athens acropolis museum - #7004; bottom = detail
photograph showing the triangular indentations; photograph by author.
504

Plate 5.1: Katamachi hoard – Ioannina Museum,
image courtesy of Christos Kleitsas
Plate 5.2: Kalydon-Psorolithi hoard – Agrinio Museum (damage occurs on a sickleknife,
dagger and double ax); photograph by author.
Plate 5.3: MX 502 – double ax fragment
Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum.
Photographs by author.
505

Figure 5.4: MX 503 – Double ax
fragment; Orchomenos hoard –
Chaironeia Museum; photographs
by author.
Plate 5.5: MX 509 – double axe fragment
Orchomenos hoard - Charioneia Museum;
photographs by author.
Plate 5.6: MX 524 –Double axe fragment (Left) Orchomenos hoard - Charioneia Museum
Comparison with MX 503 (right): notice the short sidewall stubs that are unnatural breaks; photographs by
author.
506

Plate 5.7: MX 541 – Double or single ax
fragment; Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia
Museum; photographs by author.
Plate 5.9: MX 516 – Chisel fragment - Orchomenos hoard –
Chaironeia Museum; photographs by author.
Plate 5.8: MX 515 – Broad chisel fragment;
Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum; photographs by
author.
507

Plate 5.10: MX 517 – Chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard -
Chaironeia Museum; photographs by author.
Plate 5.11a-d; 4 chisel fragments; MX518 above;
Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia Museum;
photographs by author.
Chisel fragment :MX 520
Plate 5.12a, b: MX 518 – chisel fragment
Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum
Rugged, irregular break edge; also see Plate 5.11.
Chisel fragment: MX 519
Chisel fragment: MX 521
MX 518 – chisel fragment
Straight, regular break edge; photographs by
author.
508

Plate 5.13: Chisel fragment; MX 519; Orchomenos hoard - Chaironeia Museum; photographs by
author; also see Plate 5.11.
Plate 5.14: Chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard MX 520; Chaironeia Museum; photographs by
author; also see Plate 5.11.
Plate 5.15: Chisel fragment; Orchomenos hoard; MX 521; Orchomenos hoard; Chaironeia
Museum; photographs by author; also see Plate 5.11.
Plate 5.16: Manipulated vessel fragment; MX 601;
Orchomenos hoard – Chaironeia Museum; photographs by
author.
509

1 double ax - 7660
2 chisels and 1 drill – 7655 (above)
1 hammer –7653 (right)
2 bent knives – 7646
Bent broad chisel –7650
Bent knife– 7647
Plate 5.17 – Poros Wall hoard implements; Athens National Museum, prehistoric collection;
photographs by author.
Plate 5.18: Mycenae Tsountas hoard; Athens National Museum; prehistoric collection; photographs
by author. Continued on next page as well. (ANM 2540)
510

Tsountas hoard, double
axes
9 double axes – ANM – 2541
(left and middle), Tsountas hoard)
Plate 5.18 continued: Mycenae Tsountas hoard
implements; Athens National Museum
-There are 14 broad chisels in the hoard, and all but four
are picture above or on the previous page (ANM 2540).
-There are 6 narrow chisels in the hoard, right (ANM
2605).
8 of 13 knives (ANM 2550 and
2604); Tsountas hoard
Plate 5.19: Athens Acropolis hoard: 8 of the 13 double axes shown above. Acropolis Museum;
photographs by author.
511

Plate 5.19 continued: Athens Acropolis hoard: 3 broad chisels, 1 narrow chisel, 1 file, 1 knife, 1
double hammer or ax-hammer NB: the hoard also contained 1 hammer and four other bronze chisels
among the wood/stone working tools which are not pictured here.
Plate 5.20a: double ax fragment – ANM 6905
Athens Acropolis hoard - Acropolis Museum; photograph by author; also see Plate 5.19
Plate 5.20b: double ax fragment – ANM 6906
Athens Acropolis hoard – Acropolis Museum; photograph by author; also see Plate 5.19
512

Plate 5.23: Double ax fragment–Anthedon hoard:
NM 18180; Athens National Museum (overview on
left, detail on right); photographs by author.
Plate 5.21 – Double ax fragment from the kalydon
hoard; Agrinio Museum; AM 79 (overview on left,
detail on right); photographs by author.
Plate 5.22: Anthedon hoard; Athens National
Museum; Bronze Collection; The hoard’s knives
are not pictured. Left: 2 double axes, 2 double
ax fragments. Top: 1 trunnion/lugged adze, 1
narrow chisel, 1 awl.
Photographs by author.
513

Plate 5.24 – Double hammer - Enkomi Foundry Hoard - British Museum; BM 1/1468
The double hammer likely was a double adze before being modified; photograph by author.
Plate 5.25: Enkomi Gunnis Hoard - (L 39) Cyprus Museum; Double adze; right end is thinner and
distorted probably from annealing; photograph by author.
Plate 5.26: Enkomi Gunnis Hoard - (L 37); Cyprus Museum; Double adze; Notice that one end is
longer than the other side, possibly from annealing. Photograph by author.
514

Plate 5.27: Enkomi Gunnis Hoard - (L 37); Cyprus Museum; Double adze; use wear marks that
suggest secondary usage. Photograph by author.
Plate 5.28 – The Mylonas Mycenae hoard tool kit: Mycenae Museum
4 complete double axes, 1 broad chisel, 1 narrow chisel, 2 knives, 2 awls/engravers.
Photograph by author.
515

Complete double axe – MX 501
Complete broad chisel – MX 511
Complete narrow chisel – MX 523
Complete knife – MX 568
Complete drill – MX 522
Plate 5.29: The Orchomenos tool kit – Chaironeia Museum (MX); photograph by author.
516

L: hammer-adze
R: double adze fragment (hammeradze?)
L: Smaller double adze
R: Large double adze
Half of double ax; apparently
wider than the complete
double axe
L and R: Two different flat axes
or broad chisels
L: Flat ax or broad chisel
Middle: complete double ax
Ax-adze fragment
R: Narrow chisel
Plate 5.30: Mathiati hoard carpentry/masonry tools: (photographs published in Catling 1964, plate 52a,b)
Plate 5.31:
Enkomi – Foundry Hoard
tool kit – British Museum;
photograph by author.
Enkomi: Foundry hoard: 1
sledge-hammer, 1 double
axe, 1 double hammer
(originally a double
adze?), 1 trunnion
axe/broad chisel fragment,
2 knives, 2 axe-adze
fragments, 1 narrow chisel
fragment, 2 saw fragments
517

Plate 5.32: Enkomi – Trésor de Bronzes wood/stone working tool kit – Louvre Museum
Enkomi: Trésor de Bronzes: 1 double adze, 1 hammer-adze, 1 axe-adze, 3 drills (2 not pictured),
1 narrow chisel, 1flat adze, 1 broad chisel/wedge (not picture), 1 knife (not pictured); photograph by
author
Plate 5.33 Pyla-Kokkinokremnos
Crucible scraper with Cypro-Minoan marks
Cyprus Museum
518

Appendix 3:
Second Millennium BC Metal Hoards: composition and tool types 1
Early to Middle Bronze Age transition and Middle Bronze Age
1. Crete: Selakanos hoard (Southeastern Crete): EM II – MM II
Heraklion Museum (HM)
Total objects in hoard 6
Tool count and frequency 6 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 4 double axes (HM 303-306), 2 long chisels (HM
337, 339)
Bibliography Branigan 1969, 2-4, fig.1; Branigan 1974; Deshayes 1960
(entries 736, 737, 2038, 2018, 2045)
Context and date of Unknown
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Possible but hardly definite
Traditional interpretation Carpenter’s hoard
2. Crete: Samba -Pediados hoard (Central Crete): EM II – MM II
Heraklion Museum (HM)
Total objects in hoard 3
Tool count and frequency 3 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 3 total: 1 double ax (HM 1792); 2 chisels (HM 1793-4)
Bibliography Branigan 1968, Branigan 1969, Deshayes 1960 (entries 735,
998, 2091)
Context and date of Unknown; 1914 is the year of entry in museum catalog
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Possible but hardly definite
Traditional interpretation Carpenter’s hoard
3. Crete: Chamaizi hoard (Eastern Crete): MM I-II
Heraklion Museum (HM)
Total objects in hoard 4
Tool count and frequency 4 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 4 total: 2 double axes, 1 elongated single/flat adze; 1 ax-adze
1 There are numerous metal hoards from the EBA II and III periods; see Branigan 1969. The known EBA
hoards from Greece and Turkey are listed here. From Greece: EH II/III Thebes hoard, EH II Eutresis
hoard, EH III Petralona hoard, EC II Kythnos or new Naxos hoard; EC II Chalandriani/Kastri hoard, other
EC II Naxos hoard, EB I Thermi level IIIB hoard, EB2 Thermi level IV or Potters’ pool hoard and
Poliochni Vano 829 hoard. From Turkey: Edremit hoard, EB 2 Trojan Great Treasure (Priam’s) and
Trojan Treasure K. A recent discovery worth noting is the EBA hoard from Rodopi in Northern Greece.
Newspaper reports indicate that more than 110 axe and other tools were found. Other assemblages of metal
objects include the Thyreatis cache (1 silver pin, 1 gold pin, 1 gold pendant, 23 gold pendants, 1 gold
pendant, 1 gold pendant, 1 gold bead) and the Aegina Treasure.
519

Bibliography Branigan 1968, 89-90; Branigan 1969, Branigan 1974
Context and date of Found in the “exterior compartment of the early house”
discovery
before 1921
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Carpenter’s hoard
4. Crete: Mallia Quartier Mu, Building A hoard: MM II
Ayios Nikolaos Museum
Total objects in hoard 4 or 5+
Tool count and frequency 4 (80%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 3 total: 1 ax-adze, 1 drill, 1 small saw
Other objects 1 knife, possibly 1 metal vessel fragment, ceramics
Bibliography Poursat 1985
Context and date of Quartier Mu, Building A, corridor I9; found in 1966
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Probable
Traditional interpretation Carpenter’s hoard, specifically a carpenter’s tool kit
5. Crete: Mallia Quartier Mu, Building B hoard: MM II
Ayios Nikolaos Museum
Total objects in hoard 4
Tool count and frequency 4 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 4 total: 1 double ax, 1 chisel (mortise), 1 small saw, 1
socketed adze
Bibliography Poursat 1985
Context and date of Quartier Mu, Building B, IV 4 (basement), found in 1968
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Probable
Traditional interpretation Carpenter’s hoard, specifically a carpenter’s tool kit
6. Greek Mainland: Lerna hoard (Argolid): MH I
Argos Museum
Total objects in hoard 3
Tool count and frequency 1 (33%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 chisel
Other objects 2 long daggers
Bibliography Caskey 1957, 151, plate 42c.
Context and date of Eastern section of area BD (just north of House of the Tiles),
discovery
found in 1956
Likelihood of hoard Possible
7. Greek Mainland: Malthi hoard (Messenia, Peloponnese): MH
Kalamata Museum
Total objects in hoard 7
Tool count and frequency 7 (100%)
520

Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 chisel
Other objects 6 knives
Bibliography Valmin 1938, 102-103, 368-369, plate
Context and date of
discovery
XXX.5,6,7,9,10,11,12; Branigan 1974, 153.
Room A41; room used by smiths and potters. The chisel was
found in the northeast corner while the knives were from the
room’s northwest corner. 2 Found in 1929-1936.
Likelihood of hoard Possible; knives found together while the chisel was nearby.
Traditional interpretation Assemblage in storage; workshop nearby.
8. Anatolia: Sakçagözü hoard (Gaziantep province, Southeastern Turkey): MBA
Gaziantep Museum (inventory # 13/1/75 to 13/14/75)
Total objects in hoard 15+
Tool count and frequency 4 (26.7%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 3 shaft-hole axes, 1 chisel
Other objects 1 male figurine (another figurine in the Adana Museum may
belong as well), 2 long swords, 8 daggers
Bibliography Summers 1991
Context and date of Said to be from region of Sakçagözü; contextual details
discovery
unknown; found in 1975 or earlier.
Likelihood of hoard Possible
9. Syria-Palestine: Byblos, Deposit D: MBA (19 th century BC)
Total objects in hoard 152
Tool count and frequency 56 (36.8%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 48 total: 27 single/flat axes; 11 axe fragments; 6 chisels; 1
gouge; 3 saws
Other objects 3 awls; 3 knives; 1 scraper; 1 scraper or spatula; 1 spearhead;
1 sword; 8 daggers; 2 pins; 1 hook; 3 blades; 2 silver vessels;
53 ornamental items; 5 miscellaneous items; 18 figurines or
fragments
Bibliography Dunand 1937, 146, 151-2,
Context and date of Deposit D in room E of Building 2
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Transition from MBA to LBA
10. Crete: Knossos northwest hoard: MM III or LM IA (not after 1600-1500 BC)
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 18
Tool count and frequency 10 (55%%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 9 total: 3 double axes, 5 double adzes, 1 broad, long chisel
2 Valmin 1938, 103.
521

Other objects 1 whetstone, 1 tripod cauldron, 4 daggers blades, 1 sword
fragment, 2 ceramic jars
Bibliography Evans 1928, 627-629
Context and date of Built cavity in the basement of a structure northwest of the
discovery
palace; found before 1925.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
11. Crete: Knossos southeast hoard: MM III – LM IA
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 5
Tool count and frequency 1 (20%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 saw (1.63 meters)
Other objects 2 tripod bronze cauldrons, 1 bronze basin, 1 bronze ewer
Bibliography Evans 1928, 629-632
Context and date of Basement of structure southeast of Knossos south house,
discovery
found before 1928.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
12. Crete: Gournia, room F18: MMIII-LM I
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 5
Tool count and frequency 5
Carpentry/masonry tools 5 total: 1 narrow chisel, 2 broad chisels, 1 double ax, 1 drill
Bibliography Hawes, Williams, Seager, and Hall 1908, 34, plate 4
Context and date of Found in room F18, before 1908
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Unclear; the objects are from the same room but it is
uncertain if all were found together.
13. Crete: Gournia, House Cg: MMIII-LM I
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 6+
Tool count and frequency 3
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 1 chisel, 1 double ax
Other objects 1 fish hook, 1 tray handle, metal scrap pieces
Bibliography Hawes, Williams, Seager, and Hall 1908, 24, 37 plate 4
Context and date of Found in House Cg, before 1908
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Unclear; the objects are from the same room but it is
uncertain if all were found together.
Traditional interpretation Domestic clutter? Or worker/dealer in bronze?
14. Crete: Avgo hoard (eastern Crete): MM I-LM II
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 28
522

Tool count and frequency 4 (14.3%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 single/flat ax
Other objects 2 razors, 1 scraper; 3 tweezers, 4 pins, 5 finger rings, 12
small stone objects
Bibliography Hastings 1905; Branigan 1974, 153
Context and date of Found in a vineyard by a local; assemblage found together
discovery
with pithoi fragments on March 30 th , 1903.
Likelihood of hoard Possible, but unclear
Traditional interpretation From a tomb group?
15. Cyprus: Pera bronzes (Troodos foothills, southwest of Nicosia): MC III-LC I
Various museums: Stockholm, Lund, Gothenburg, Malmö, and Helsinki
Total objects in hoard 117
Tool count and frequency 48, not including two iron tools (59.1%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 26: 2 shaft hole axes, 16 flat axes, 1 saw, 1 socketed chisel, 5
narrow chisels, 1 drill; (later intrusions are 1 iron axe-adze
and 1 iron shaft hole ax)
Other objects 31 knives, 8 awls, 1 whetstone, 2 spatulae, 1 flesh-hook, 6
swords, 26 daggers, 1 spearhead, 1 arrowhead, 6 toggle-pins,
4 tweezers, 3 stone mace-heads
Bibliography Åström 1977-1978. Catling 1964, 278, note 1.
Context and date of Reportedly found in a field in 1896
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Possible
Traditional interpretation Could be an agglomeration of looted grave goods
16. Cyprus or Croatia: Makarska hoard (Mesaoria valley or Dalmatia): MC II-III? 3
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford England (inv. 1927:1220-23+)
Total objects in hoard 9
Tool count and frequency 7 (77.8%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 2 single/flat axes, 2 shaft-hole axes, 2 socket chisels
Other objects 1 socketed (smith?) hammer, 1 spear butt, 1 miniature ingot
Bibliography Vagnetti 1971; Åström 1977-1978, 40
Context and date of Unknown; purchased in 1879 and later acquired by Evans
discovery
and placed in the Ashmolean Museum in 1927.
Likelihood of hoard Uncertain
Traditional interpretation Bronzes could be a hoard or a collection of grave goods.
3 Two major problems exist with these bronzes. First, contextual information is sparse thus casting doubt
on the hoard’s authenticity, and a typological study purports that the metals represent different
chronological periods. Second, the reported provenance is in doubt. Catling argues that “Makarska” is a
mis-spelling of a modern Cypriot village in the Mesaoria valley: “Makrasyka.” Typologically, the
Makarska bronzes appear Cypriot, yet it is impossible to ascertain whether they originated within a hoard
or a tomb. Although difficult to substantiate, it is possible that these bronzes represented a bronze hoard
from Cyprus.
523

LBA I: 1600 – 1450 BC (mostly LM IA or LM IB)
17. Crete: Knossos south house hoard: LM I?
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 10
Tool count and frequency 10 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 8 total: 3 saws, 2 hollow drill bits?, 1 axe-hammer, 2 double
axes
Other objects 2 double-edged knives
Bibliography Evans 1928, 629-630
Context and date of From basement storeroom of Knossos south house; found
discovery
before 1928
Likelihood of hoard Definite
18. Crete: Knossos basement hoard: LM I
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 15
Tool count and frequency 1 (6.7%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 double ax
Other objects 1 bronze spouted jug, 5 basins, 5 broad pans, 1 one-handled
bowl, 2 stone vessels, 1 carnelian bead-seal, 1 ceramic ewer.
Bibliography Evans 1928, 632
Context and date of
discovery
Found in basement near the stepped portico, before 1928.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
19. Crete: Knossos northwest treasure house hoard: LM I
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 5
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 4 large bronze basins, 1 bronze ewer
Bibliography Evans 1928, 637-642
Context and date of
discovery
Evidence of wooden chest in a built, walled in basement
space in the ‘North-West Treasure House’ north of the west
court. 4 Found before 1925.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Palatial deposit, possibly associated with palace sanctuary
20. Crete: Mallia, Quarter Z, House g, room 15: LM IA
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 19
Tool count and frequency 11 (57.9%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 8 total: 8 double axes
4 Evans 1928, 623, 637.
524

Other objects 2 awls, 1 large scraper/cutter, 7 daggers, 1 needle
Bibliography Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 67-72, plate 20
Context and date of
discovery
Found in House g, room 15; found during 1948-1954
Likelihood of hoard Unclear; the objects are from the same room but it is
uncertain if all were found together.
21. Crete: Mallia, Quarter Z, House B, room 5: LM IA
Heraklion Museum?
Total objects in hoard 7
Tool count and frequency 6 (85.7%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 5 total: 2 double axes, 2 chisels, 1 saw
Other objects 1 large scraper/cutter, 1 spearhead
Bibliography Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 67-71, plates 20-21
Context and date of Found in House B, room 5; found during 1948-1954
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Unclear; the objects are from the same room but it is
uncertain if all were found together.
22. Crete: Mochlos, merchant hoard; House C.3 room 2.2, (Mirabello): LM IB 5
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 37+
Tool count and frequency 29 (78.4%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 17 total: 1 double adze (ANM 14,397), 6 broad chisels
(ANM 14,396), 1 broad, wedge-like chisel (ANM 14,395), 9
double axes
Other objects 8 knives (or daggers), 2 tongs (1 clay; ANM 14,440-1), 2
tools for breaking apart ingot fragments, 2 balance disks
(ANM 14,407-8), 2 bronze bowls (ANM 14,394), 1 bronze
sistrum, numerous bronze strips, 1 half oxhide ingot (ANM
14,389) and ingot fragments.
Bibliography Soles 2005; Soles 2007, Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-
Vlazaki, Rethemiotakis and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2008
Context and date of Found in a stone and plaster-lined pit beneath floor of room
discovery
2.2 of House C.3 in 2004.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Metal merchant/traders’ hoard (Soles’ hoard number 4)
23. Crete: Mochlos, Seager’s hoard, House C.6 (Mirabello): LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM)
Total objects in hoard 5+
Tool count and frequency 0
5 Mochlos now has 10 hoards and maybe two more on the way…1) metal merchant, 2) foundation deposit,
cult in room 1.7, 3) artisans quarter, 4) room 1.3 with six bronze basins, 5) cult building pillar basement
with oxhide ingot? Need to check the labyrinth book
525

Other objects 4 bronze basins, 1 bronze bowl
Bibliography Seager 1909, 286-287, figure 10; Soles 2008, 151.
Context and date of Found in small pit lined with stones in House C.6; ground
discovery
floor room in 1908.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Merchant hoard (Soles’ hoard number 5)
24. Crete: Mochlos, House C.3 northeast corner hoard (Mirabello): LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 21+ 6
Tool count and frequency 12 (57%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 7 total: 2 double axes (CA 46, 47), 1 broken saw (CA 51), 1
rasp (CA 52), 1 ‘ceremonial’ double axe fragment (CA 57), 2
broad chisels of different sizes (CA 53, 54)
Other objects 2 knives (CA 55, 59), 1 awl (CA 56), 1 tongs (CA 60), 1
shovel, 2 balance pans (CA 49,50), 1 flattened vessel (CA
58), 1 spear point, numerous oxhide ingot fragments from
Cyprus weighing over 12 kilograms (CA 44,45), 1 bun ingot,
scrap metal; metal strips
Bibliography Soles and Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Context and date of Northeast corner of room 1.1 in House C.3, possibly hidden
discovery
from view by large pithoi; found in 1992-1993
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Foundry hoard (Soles’ hoard number 2)
25. Crete: Mochlos, House C.3, room 1.1 small deposit (Mirabello): LM I A or B
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 3. NB: these objects are also included in the object list of the
other hoard from room 1.1, house C.3
Tool count and frequency 3 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 2 double axes
Other objects 1 shovel
Bibliography Soles and Davaras 1996; Soles 2008, 151
Context and date of House C.3; niche at bottom of east wall of room 1.1; found
discovery
in 1992-1993.
Likelihood of hoard Definitely part of a hoard, however it is unclear if these three
objects were truly separate from the other hoard found in
room 1.1 of House C.3, listed in the previous entry.
Traditional interpretation Ceremonial/foundation deposit (Soles’ hoard number 6)
26. Crete: Mochlos, House C.7 southwest room hoard (Mirabello); LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 9+
6
Note: 3 objects are included in this list that may have formed another hoard; please see the next entry for
the other hoard from room 1.1, House C.3.
526

Tool count and frequency 4 (44.4%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 2 double axes (CA 72, 80),
Other objects 2 knives (CA 77, 78); Copper ingot fragments (CA 70, 71), 2
bronze vases (CA 76, 79), 1 bezel of ring (CA 128)
Bibliography Soles and Davaras 1996, 201; Soles 2008, 147
Context and date of On the floor in the northeastern corner of room 1 in House
discovery
C.7; the hoard was hidden behind vessels; found in 1992-93.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Foundry hoard (Soles’ hoard number 3)
27. Crete: Mochlos cult hoard, foundation deposit, building B.2 (Mirabello): LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 2
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 1 trident; 1 tin ingot, (pithos with stones protecting hoard)
Bibliography Soles 2007, Soles 2008, 152-154; Andreadaki-Vlazaki,
Rethemiotakis and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2008
Context and date of Pit 40 cm below floor of room 1.7 of ceremonial building
discovery
B2; found in 2004
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Votive, foundation deposit (Soles’ hoard number 7)
28. Crete: Mochlos House B.2 basin hoard (Mirabello): LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 6
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 6 large bronze basins (ANM 14,390, 14391)
Bibliography Soles 2004; Soles 2005; Soles 2008, 154-155.
Context and date of Under floor of Building B.2 (cult building), room 1.4; found
discovery
in 1993
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation ceremonial/ ritual display hoard (Soles’ hoard number 8)
29. Crete: Mochlos Artisan quarter hoard (Mirabello): LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 20
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 2 fragments of bronze spillage; 15 ingot fragments; 2
fragmentary bowls, 1 handle
Bibliography Soles 2003, 20, 23, fig. 17, pl. 12D; Soles and Stos-Gale,
2004, 45-59; Soles 2005; Soles 2008, 146.
Context and date of Artisans quarter, building A; found in stone-line pit on
discovery
exterior side of north wall of room 2; found in the 1990s.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Foundry hoard (Soles’ hoard number 1)
527

30. Crete: Mochlos, Seager’s single bronze basin (Mirabello): LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 1
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 1 bronze basin
Bibliography Seager 1909; Soles 2008, 155
Context and date of Pillar crypt of Building B.2; found in 1908.
discovery
Likelihood of hoard It is not a hoard.
Traditional interpretation Ceremonial/ ritual display hoard (Soles’ hoard number 9)
31. Crete: Mochlos, Building B.2 ingot (Mirabello): LM IB
Ayios Nikolaos Museum (ANM) or INSTAP study center
Total objects in hoard 1
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 1 copper oxhide ingot (with one upside conical cup)
Bibliography Soles 2008, 155
Context and date of Beneath window of Building B.2’s pillar crypt; found in
discovery
2004
Likelihood of hoard It is not a hoard.
Traditional interpretation Ceremonial/ ritual display hoard (Soles’ hoard number 10)
32. Crete: Phaistos, palace, room 63d: LM IB
Heraklion Museum (341-349)
Total objects in hoard 9
Tool count and frequency 9 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 9 total: 9 double axes
Bibliography Pernier and Banti 1951, 171-172
Context and date of From room 63d of the palace; found between 1900-1950.
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Very possible, though previous literature has not identified
this collection of double axes as a hoard per se.
33. Anatolia: Tarsus, hoard in room D: LB I
Total objects in hoard 19
Tool count and frequency 10 (52.6%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 10 total: 5 single/flat axes, 2 trunnion/lugged axes, 1 narrow
chisel, 1 socketed chisel, 1 double ax
Other objects 4 daggers, broken tube, 4 lead rings
Bibliography Goldman 1956. 282, 289, figure 424.
Context and date of Room D, found under a wall
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Probable
Traditional interpretation Foundation deposit
528

15 th -14 th century: LH II – IIIA1
34. Greek Mainland: Andronianoi hoard (Euboea): LH II – IIIA1
Athens National Museum; prehistoric collection
Total objects in hoard 10
Tool count and frequency 3 (30%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 1 saw (10797), 1 double ax (10798)
Other objects 1 razor (10814); 2 swords (10812-13), 2 daggers (10810-11),
1 spearhead (10815), 1 phiale (10816), 1 metal sheet (silver
alloy with copper and gold, 10817.1-10817.3)
Bibliography Paschalidis 2007
Context and date of Unknown; found in 1940
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Possible, but context is unclear
Traditional interpretation Hoard loosely associated with metal market interests
35. Cyprus: Enkomi miniature dagger casting hoard: end of the 15 th century
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum (inv. CM excavations inv. 839)
Total objects in hoard 6
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 6 miniature dagger castings
Bibliography Dikaios 1969, 232, pl. 126.20, 23 and pl. 153.14, 16-7, 27.
Context and date of Area I, under the ‘megaron’ floor of Ashlar Building in
discovery
quarter 4B, court B; found in 1948-58
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Votive or foundation deposit
36. Syria-Palestine: Ras Shamra priest house hoard (Ugarit): 14 th century BC
Louvre Museum
Total objects in hoard 74
Tool count and frequency 50 (67.6%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 41 total: 27 flat axes, 9 socketed adzes (four have Ugaritic
inscriptions as dedications to the high priest), 3 chisels, and 2
drills
Other objects 4 sickles, 5 hoes, 1 tripod, 4 swords, 9 socketed spearheads, 2
daggers, 3 arrowheads, 2 fragments of melted material
Bibliography Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Context and date of Under threshold of high priest house, between Baal and
discovery
Dagon temples; found in 1929.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Votive, non-utilitarian
13 th century: LH IIIB or LC IIC
37. Greek Mainland: Mycenae Poros wall hoard (Argolid): LH IIIB
529

Athens National Museum; Prehistoric collection
Total objects in hoard 81
Tool count and frequency 22 (27.2%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 7 total: 1 broad chisel (NM 7650), 3 narrow chisels (7655),
1 drill (7655), 1 double ax (7660), 1 small hammer (7653)
Other objects 3 bent knives (7646-7), 5 fragments of knives or sickles; 6
sickles (NM 7647, 7648), 1 cleaver, 1 hilted dagger, one bent
sword blade (NM 7649), two hydria handles, other vessel
fragments; 2 tweezers, 16 ingots, 36 scrap fragments
Bibliography Wace 1953, Stubbings 1954, Catling 1964, 295
Context and date of Outside Mycenae citadel; next to curved wall in between
discovery
Aegisthus and Clytemnestra tholos tombs; found in 1952.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
38. Greek Mainland: Mycenae Mylonas hoard (Argolid): LH IIIB
Mycenae Museum
Total objects in hoard 21
Tool count and frequency 13 (61.9%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 1 broad chisel (MM 1344), 1 slender chisel (1346), 4
double axes (1353-7)
Other objects 2 knives (1361-2), 2 awls/engravers (1345, 1347); 3 swords,
1 spearhead, 3 sickles, 2 vase fragments, 1 ingot
Bibliography Mylonas 1962, 406-408; Mylonas 1966, 77, 170
Context and date of Mycenae, citadel; found in a wall; found in 1959.
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Utilitarian
39. Greek Mainland: Thebes hoard from older excavations (Boeotia): LH IIIB
Thebes Museum?
Total objects in hoard ?
Tool count and frequency At least 1, more?
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 double ax?
Other objects Spearheads, arrowheads, model wheel, spatula
Bibliography Spyropoulos 1972; Paschalidis 2007
Context and date of
discovery
Unknown
Likelihood of hoard Unknown
40. Cyprus: Pyla-Kokkinokremnos bronze hoard (Larnaca): LC IIC, 1230-1200 BC
Larnaca and Nicosia Museums
Total objects in hoard 43+
Tool count and frequency 2 (4.8%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 2 drills
530

Other objects 1 bronze weight with handle, 1 bent spearhead, 1 bronze
male figurine, 1 bronze bowl, 1 bowl fragment, 2 bronze
cymbals, 1 bronze scale, ingot fragments, scrap metal
Bibliography Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 63; Karageorghis 2002, 85,
figure 164; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 177
Context and date of Pit concealed by stones and pithoi fragments in room 22 of
discovery
area II; found in 1982.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard?
41. Cyprus: Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios hoard (Vasilikos valley): LC IIC
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum
Total objects in hoard 15
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 14 weights (K-AD 441-454: 3 hematite elliptical, 3
cylindrical, 3 bull headed, 3 lying down animals, 1 duck, 1
male head), 1 cylinder seal (K-AD 455)
Bibliography South 1983, 103; Courtois 1983; Matthäus and Schumacher-
Matthäus 1986, 176.
Context and date of In small hole cut through the floor and bedrock of Building
discovery
III, room A 219; found in 1982.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Merchant’s hoard
Late 13 th or early 12 th century; LH IIIB–LH IIIC and LC IIC – LC IIIA
42. Greek Mainland: Mycenae Schliemann hoard (Argolid): LH IIIB late ‒ IIIC
Athens National Museum; prehistoric collection
Total objects in hoard 19
Tool count and frequency 9 (47.3%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 4 total: 4 doubles axes (NM 1016)
Other objects 5 knives; 2 spearheads, tripod cauldron, 6 vases, some
fragments, hair pin, 2 model wheels
Bibliography Schliemann 1878, 111; figures: no. 173 on pg. 111, no. 120
on pg 74, no. 121-5 on pg 75; Calder and Traill 1986, 149,
206 n. 36. Catling 1964, 295
Context and date of Mycenae acropolis; found in 1876.
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Probable
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
43. Greek Mainland: Mycenae Tsountas hoard (Argolid): End of the 13 th century
Athens National Museum; Prehistoric collection.
Total objects in hoard 90
531

Tool count and frequency 76 (84.4%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 29 total: 9 double axes (NM 2541), 14 chisels (NM 2540), 6
small chisels (NM 2605)
Other objects 12 small knives (NM 2550), 1 large knife, 9 awls; 19 sickles,
1 cleaver, 6 swords, 1 spearhead, 2 ornaments, 1 ingot, 2
weights, scrap, sword casting, bronze horse bit; undecorated
bronze strips; two disks with rosettes, gold wire; 5 tweezers
Bibliography Catling 1964, 294-295; Spyropoulos 1972, 8-45.
Context and date of
discovery
Exact provenience is unclear; Tsountas maintained that the
objects were concealed between walls of a prehistoric house
located near the Mycenae lion gate; found in 1890.
Likelihood of hoard Definite; probable two different hoard here
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard?
44. Greek Mainland: Athens Acropolis hoard (Attica): LH IIIB/C
Originally in Athens National Museum; moved to the new Acropolis Museum in 2009
Total objects in hoard 37
Tool count and frequency 29 (78.4%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 24 total: 7 broad chisels (NM 6996-7002), 1 narrow chisel
(7366), 13 double axes (6894-6907), 1 double hammer
(6909), 1 ax-hammer (6908); 1 file (7004)
Other objects 1 knife (6891-2), 1 anvil, 2 plowshares, 1 sickle; 1 cast-hilted
dirk, 2 spearheads, 1 two-handled bowl, 3 round disks
Bibliography Catling 1964, 296; Spyropoulos 1972, 63-78, 92-97, 202-
203; Iakovidis 2006, 145
Context and date of Inside Mycenaean fortification wall on the acropolis; found
discovery
during 1885-1887 excavations.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
45. Greek Mainland: Thebes hoard (new): tentatively LH IIIB or LH IIIC early
Thebes Museum
Total objects in hoard 32
Tool count and frequency 14 (43.8%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 3 double axes; 2 broad chisels, 1 narrow chisel,
Other objects 3 knives, 2 sickles, 1 bronze cube (anvil?); 1 bronze pestle
(?), 1 bronze socket with four triangular cuts and three rivet
holes; 1 object with various partially melted fragmentary
objects, 17 scrap metal (e.g. sheet metal and blade fragments)
Bibliography Currently unpublished
Context and date of
discovery
Near the Arsenal, at the corner of Pelopidou and Zengini
streets in modern Thebes. 7 Found on March 3 rd and 4 th , 2006.
7 Symeonoglou (1985, 230) discusses site 3, Kadmeia I-11, where ivory and linear B tablets were
recovered. The area also yielded numerous bronze objects (mostly military in nature), including vessels and
532

Likelihood of hoard Definite
46. Greek Mainland: Orchomenos hoard (Boeotia): LH IIIB or IIIC
Chaironeia Museum (MX)
Total objects in hoard 106
Tool count and frequency 48 (45.3%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 19 total: 7 double axes (MX 501-503, 509, 524, 527, 541), 6
broad chisels (511, 515, 518, 519, 520, 521), 3 narrow
chisels (516, 517, 523), 1 drill (522), 2 saw fragments (544,
582)
Other objects 10 knives (533, 535-7, 542, 545, 547, 554, 564-5, 568-70,
576-77, 579, 580),15 daggers, 4 swords, 2 spearheads, 3
tweezers, 1 fibulae, 13 bronze vessel fragments, tripod
cauldron legs, 18 miscellaneous
Bibliography Spyropoulos 1970; Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988
Context and date of Well deposit; found before 1970
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
47. Greek Mainland: Kalydon-Psorolithi hoard (Aitolia): LH IIIB or IIIC
Arginio Museum (AM)
Total objects in hoard 14
Tool count and frequency 11 (78.6%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 4 total: 2 double axes (AM 78-9), 2 broad chisels (AM 76-7)
Other objects 1 knife (AM 73); four knives or sickles (AM 69, 70, 71, 72);
2 sickles (AM 67, 68); 1 dagger (AM 74); 1 arrowhead (AM
75); 1 tripod/ cauldron leg
Bibliography Mastrokostas 1965, 343-344; Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988
Context and date of Found at the edge of a field, near the banks of a stream, 2500
discovery
meters from Kalydon.
Likelihood of hoard Probable
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
48. Greek Mainland: Katamachi hoard (Epirus): LH III B/C 8
Ioannina Museum
Total objects in hoard 7
Tool count and frequency 7 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 5 double axes (IM 4979-83), 1 socketed chisel (4985)
Other objects 1 pyramidal anvil (IM 4984)
armor, that had collapsed into a Middle Helladic tomb. This is the area where the new excavations were
conducted in 2005 and 2006.
8 This hoard will be studied in depth by Christos Kleitsas, of the 14th Ephoria of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities located in Ioannina, for his PhD thesis. Kleitsas is reviewing the evidence for metallurgy in
Late Bronze Age Epirus. Kleitsas kindly invited me to visit the Ioannina Museum, where he showed me the
objects of this hoard.
533

Bibliography Vocotopoulou 1972; Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988;
Kleistsas’ dissertation
Context and date of On the Alysos Mountain slopes, 1200 meters above sea
discovery
level; found in 1970.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Merchant hoard of itinerant bronzesmith
49. Greek mainland sphere: Ithaka-Polis hoard (Ionian islands): LH IIIB/IIIC
Present location unknown 9
Total objects in hoard 17
Tool count and frequency 5 (29.4%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 1 broad chisel; 1 socketed chisel?
Other objects 3 knives; 2 sword fragments, 1 small javelin head, 9
spearhead fragments; 1 EIA bowl handle
Bibliography Benton 1935; Catling 1964, 297
Context and date of
discovery
Unknown; found before 1935
Likelihood of hoard Unclear, although Catling claims it is “clearly a hoard” 10
50. Cyprus: Enkomi Brunnen 212 hoard: LC IIC – IIIA
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum
Total objects in hoard 23+
Tool count and frequency 6 (26.1%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 5 total: 2 adze-hammers (Enkomi 1967, Inv. 19.113), 1 drill,
2 chisels
Other objects 1 plowshare; 4 swords, 1 spear point/head, 1 fragmentary
tool preserving a folded socket, 1 bent tool, 2 bronze balance
scales, 1 bronze weights (2 fragments), 1 bronze model
wagon (cultic object?); 3 bronze rings, ingot fragments, more
than 3 kilograms of fragments and scraps for reworking/melting,
5 bowl fragments
Bibliography Lagarce, 1971; Hundt 1971; Matthäus 1985, 363ff; Matthäus
and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
Context and date of In a well, (well 212 in quarter 5E); found in 1967
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
51. Cyprus: Enkomi Point 438 hoard: LC II or LC II-III 11
9 The hoard is neither in the Athens National Museum nor the Argostoli Museum in Kefalonia. The objects
may be in the Vathy or Stavros Museums in Ithaca but the ΛΕ Ephoria of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities could not confirm its existence in either of these museums.
10 Catling 1964, 297; Spyropoulos 1972 did not consider the Ithaca-Polis bronzes to be a hoard, but Knapp
et al. 1988 included the assemblage in the list of Aegean hoards.
11 LC II according to Knapp et al. but 1200-1100 according to Courtois. Knapp et al (1988, 246) criticize
the chronological conclusions of the French excavations regarding the Enkomi hoards: “The problem
534

Nicosia, Cyprus Museum (inv. Enkomi 1960, 194-197)
Total objects in hoard 4
Tool count and frequency 3 (75%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 0
Other objects 1 shovel (Enk. 1960, 194), 2 sickles (Enk. 1960, 195-196), 1
large bronze ring (Enk. 1960, 197)
Bibliography Courtois 1982, 166; Courtois 1984, 38ff; Matthäus and
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175
Context and date of Quarter 3W, point 438; precise contextual information not
discovery
reported; found in 1960
Likelihood of hoard Definite
52. Cyprus: Mathiati hoard (Eastern foothills of Troodos mts): LC IIC or IIIA
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum 12
Total objects in hoard 65
Tool count and frequency 25 (38.5%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 11 total: 1 hammer-adze, 3 double-adzes, 1 ax-adze, 3
singe/flat axes, 2 double axes, 1 tanged chisel
Other objects 1 sledgehammer, 1 mould for pruning hook; socketed pick; 4
plowshares, 2 hoes, 1 socketed sickle, 2 tanged sickles,
pruning hook, plough scraper/goad, 2 spearheads, 28 ingot or
fragments of ingots; plowshare casting, metal strip scrap;
other metal scrap, nails
Bibliography Catling 1964, 282, plate 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Context and date of Unknown; found in 1936 or earlier.
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Probable
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
53. Cyprus: Sinda bronze hoard (Mesaoria): LC IIC-IIIA
Ayios Barnabas Archaeological and Icon Museum, (North Cyprus) 13
Total objects in hoard 11
Tool count and frequency 4 (36.4%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 0
Other objects 1 charcoal shovel, 1 pair of tongs, 1 socketed spatula, 1
socketed pick, 1 metal wall bracket, 1 complete
comes with the Enkomi hoards excavated by the French Mission: beginning with C.F.A. Schaeffer, all
French scholars who have discussed these six hoards (Maison des Bronzes, Trésor de Bronzes,
Topographical Points 438, 783, and 1458, and Brunnen 212) have always dated them to LC IIIA. Yet little
stratigraphic or ceramic evidence has ever been published in support of this dating.”
12
Part of the hoard is in the Nicosia, Cyprus Museum, however much of the hoard is now missing.
(inventory numbers CM 1936/VII- )
13
Although Karageorghis published the hoard, the object were recovered illicitly and subsequently sold to
Mr. Chr. Hadjiprodromou in Famagusta. Parts of the hoard are now on display in the Saint Barnabas Icon
and Archaeological Museum, near Salamis and just north of Famagusta.
535

table/portable hearth, 1 situla bronze vessel, 1 hemispherical
bowl, 1 head fragment of male figurine, 1 wheel with bent
bronze wire through its central hole, 1 rectangular bar
(unidentified object referred to as scrap metal)
Bibliography Karageorghis 1973; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus
1986, 177; Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988
Context and date of In a pit covered with ashes, however the find is a “result of
discovery
clandestine excavations;” found in 1971. 14
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard; items from a sanctuary?
54. Cyprus: Galinoporni-Vasili (Kaleburnu-Kraltepsesi) hoard: LC IIC or IIIA
North Cyprus
Total objects in hoard 26
Tool count and frequency 7 (26.9%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 saw
Other objects 5 sickles, 1 charcoal shovel, 16 bronze vessels, 3 bronze
incense burners, 1 ceramic stirrup jar w Cypro-Minoan mark
Bibliography Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and
Context and date of
discovery
H. Tekel. 2008.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
In a large pithos by a bulldozer; Galinoporni-Vasili
(Kaleburnu-Kraltepsesi), or King’s mountain (Karpass);
found in June 2004.
55. Cyprus: Alassa-Pano Mandilaris hoard: LC IIC-IIIA
Limmasol or Nicosia museum
Total objects in hoard 3
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 3 spearheads of different types.
Bibliography Hadjisavvas 1994, 112-113; Hadjisavvas 1996, 28, figure 4.
Context and date of Cache found hidden in a rock crevice in room B; found in
discovery
1991
Likelihood of hoard Probable
Traditional interpretation Hoard hidden at a time of imminent danger
56. Cyprus: Myrtou-Pigadhes hoard (northwestern Cyprus): LC IIC – IIIA
Cyprus Museum?
Total objects in hoard 5 (possible more)
Tool count and 0…but 1 plowshare found in same room
frequency
Other objects 1 squat tripod with plain ring, 2 squat tripods with decorated
ring, 2 tripod ring stands with decorative elements
14 Karageorghis 1973, 72.
536

Bibliography Taylor 1957, 20, 86-90; Matthäus, H. 1985
Context and date of Room 15; found in 1950-51
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Questionable
Traditional interpretation Merchant hoard?
12 th century: LH IIIC and LC IIIA
57. Greek Mainland: Tiryns Treasure: date uncertain; 12 th century or earlier?
Athens National Museum
Total objects in hoard 16+
Tool count and frequency 2 (12.5%)
Carpentry/masonry tools None
Other objects 2 sickles, two gold signet rings, gold wire, 2 large wheels
composed of gold wire on the circumference and interior
crossing bronze wire with amber beads; gold and amber
jewelry, bronze vessels, 3 tripod cauldron legs, bronze tripod
stand, bronze cauldron, 2 swords, bronze fire spits, large
bronze ingot (unusual type; neither oxhide or slab form)
Bibliography Mattäus 1980a, 56-58. Spyropoulos 1972, 177-193; Maran
Context and date of
discovery
2006.
Found outside Tiryns citadel; found while conducting
roadwork by the citadel. Karo suggested that it came from
the remains of a freestanding Mycenaean house, however
this is not secure; found in 1915.
Likelihood of hoard Doubtful
Traditional interpretation Assemblage formed from grave robbing.
58. Islands: Salamis-Kanakia hoard (Saronic Gulf): LH IIIC early
Excavation apotheke/ Salamis museum
Total objects in hoard 4 or 5
Tool count and frequency 3 (75%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 1 broad chisel, 1 narrow chisel
Other objects 1 sickle, 1 bronze sheet, 1 knife (found in a different room)
Bibliography Lolos 2003, 83-93.
Context and date of On a floor of a niche in Building ΙΔ, found in 2002.
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Utilitarian
59. Greek Mainland: Anthedon hoard (Boeotia): 12 th century BC
Athens National Museum, Bronze collection
Total objects in hoard 35
Tool count and frequency 24 (68.6%)
537

Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 1 trunnion/lugged ax (NM 18186), 15 1 narrow chisel
(18185), 16 2 double axes (17179, 18178), 2 half double axes
(18180-1)
Other objects 1 awl (18188), 14 knives (some fragmentary and some may
be sickles); 2 plowshare fragments; 1 sickle, 3 loops from
bronze bowls; tripod ring stand fragment; armlet or anklet
object; bundle of spits; tripod leg fragment, sheet bronze;
bronze slag; bronze rod; 1 spearhead, 1 curved band with
decoration of a stag in relief, other miscellaneous objects
Bibliography Rolfe 1890; Catling 1964, 296-297; Spyropoulos 1972,
Context and date of Found in 1889 while excavating classical temple at Anthedon
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
60. Greek Mainland: Kierion-Karditsa hoard (Thessaly): LH III C:
Volos Museum
Total objects in hoard 6
Tool count and frequency 3 (50%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 3 total: 2 double axes; 1 broad chisel
Other objects 2 fibulae fragments, 1 spearhead, 1 pointed arrowhead like
an awl
Bibliography Kilian 1975, 13, 18, plate 95b.
Context and date of
discovery
Unknown
Likelihood of hoard Probable
61. Cyprus: Enkomi foundry hoard: LC IIIA (according to Catling)
British Museum (BM 1897/4-1/….)
Total objects in hoard 85
Tool count and frequency 34 (40%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 8 total: 1 trunnion axe fragment (BM 1897/4-1/1471), 1
socketed chisel (…/1520.2), 1 other chisel (…/1520.1), 1
double ax (BM …/1467), 2 ax-adzes (…/1469 and 1470), 2
saws (…/1525-6)
Other objects 2 knives (BM 1897/4-1/1481-2); 1 sledgehammer (…/1472),
1 double-hammer (originally a double-adze, …/1468), 1
tongs (…/1466), 3 charcoal shovels (…/1461-3), 2 furnace
spatulas (…/1464-5), 1 hoe (…/1473), 10 plowshares and
fragments (…/1474-80 and 1520), pruning hook (…/1520.6),
sickles (…/1483, 1485), pick fragments (…/1520.7, 8), 8
weapons, 5 vessel fragments, 7 stand/tripod fragments, 1
oxhide ingot (…/1535), 4 ingot fragments
15 NM 18186 has been interpreted as a chisel as well.
16 NM 18185 has been interpreted as a drill as well.
538

(…/1520.12,13,14,15); 18 castings, pair of wheels
Bibliography Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174
Context and date of Unknown; Northwest part of the site according to local
discovery
tradition. 17 Found in 1897.
Likelihood of hoard Definite; in fact, probably originally two hoards
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
62. Cyprus: Enkomi Gunnis hoard: LC IIIA (according to Catling)
Nicosia Museum (only a portion of the hoard was found in the museum)
Total objects in hoard 18
Tool count and frequency 18 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 1 flat axe, 4 double adzes (CM L 37, L 38, L39, # ?),
1 axe-adze (CM Met 2175)
Other objects 1 charcoal shovel (CM Met 2177), 1 metal mould for casting
plowshares (CM #?), 2 plowshares, 2 socketed shovels, 4
socketed picks and 2 fragments
Bibliography Catling 1964, 281-282; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus
1986, 174.
Context and date of Unknown; found in 1927
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
63. Cyprus: Enkomi Maison des Bronzes: LC IIIA
Paris, Louvre 18
Total objects in hoard 5 total objects (Schaeffer claims there were 9 objects)
Tool count and frequency 1 (20%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 double adze (Lourve, AO 18613)
Other objects 2 hemispherical bowls, 1 bronze table, 1 larger bowl in
which the adze was found
Bibliography Schaeffer 1936, 87, plate 39, 40; Catling 1964, Matthäus and
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174.
Context and date of Pit in the Maison des Bronzes in the southeastern part of
discovery
Enkomi in Quarter 6E; found in 1934
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Votive hoard
64. Cyprus: Enkomi Trésor de Bronzes: LC IIIA
Paris, Louvre Museum and Cyprus Museum
Total objects in hoard 37
17
Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus (1985, 144, Abb. 3) suggest that the Foundry Hoard came from
Enkomi Quarter 6W.
18
Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus (1985, 174) list the hoard as from the Cyprus Museum, but I could
not locate it when I visited the Cyprus Museum, but the double adze is in the Louvre.
539

Tool count and frequency 11 (30%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 9 total: 1 axe-adze (AM 2187); 1 double adze (AM 2189), 1
hammer-adze (AM 2188), 1 necked, flat adze (M. 3779 or
AM 2142) 19 , 3 drills (AM 2144) 20 , 1 deep bar chisel (AM
2142), 1 cold chisel/wedge (old inventory #: M. 3.787) 21
Other objects 1 knife (old inventory #: M. 3.753), 1 spatulate tool (AM
2139), 1 spear butt spike, 2 vessel fragments, 18 ornaments
of bracelets, spiral rings, mace head, other misc, 1 shepherd’s
crook, 2 weights/scales, some scrap
Bibliography Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964,
286-87; Courtois 1982, Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus
1986, 174.
Context and date of Crevice of a wall in a building in the north section of town in
discovery
quarter 2W; found in 1947
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Merchant’s hoard?
65. Cyprus: Enkomi weapon hoard: LC IIIA (hoard with Myc IIIC1 pottery)
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum (Enkomi 1276/1-13; 1277-80)
Total objects in hoard 33
Tool count and frequency 3 (9%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 double ax (CM 1280)
Other objects 1 tanged sickle, 1 sickle fragment, 24 weapons (5 spearheads
and many fragments, 5 fragmentary daggers, 2 javelins, 1
spear butt spike, 1 rivet); 1 metal bowl casting, 1 table
fragment, 5 scraps
Bibliography Dikaios 1969, 99,109, 132; Matthäus and Schumacher-
Matthäus 1986, 143, 175
Context and date of Enkomi, area III, room 1, quarter 1W; the hoard may have
discovery
been stored on a shelf; found in 1952.
Likelihood of hoard Doubtful, as the cache was not intentionally concealed. 22
Traditional interpretation Weapons in storage for defense of the city or foundry hoard
66. Cyprus: Enkomi Quarter 6W Point 1458 hoard: LC IIIA
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum
Total objects in hoard 41
Tool count and frequency 3 (7.3%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 0
Other objects 3 knives or sickles, 12 vessel fragments (situlae, basin,
19
Necked adze has an old inventory number of: M. 3779; its new number is unknown but it is currently
attached to the deep bar chisel (old number 3778), which has a new number of AM 2142
20
Only one of the three drills was found in the Louvre museum. The old inventory number of these drills
were: M. 3.787, M. 3.785, M. 3786. Old inventory number M 3.785 is now listed under AM 2144.
21
Objects with only the old inventory number means that they were not found in the Louvre Museum
during my visit.
22
See Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 143 and Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988, 246.
540

cauldron fragments), 1 ingot fragment, 1 casting, 23 other
various metal fragments including
Bibliography Courtois 1982, 167ff; Courtois 1984, 39ff, fig. 13:1-2, 8-13;
Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175
Context and date of Enkomi Quarter 6W, Point 1458; found in 1966 during the
discovery
French excavations
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
67. Cyprus: Enkomi Point 783 hoard: LC IIIA
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum (inv. Enk. 1962, 121 A-G)
Total objects in hoard 7+
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 1 dagger, 1 tripod leg, 3 ingot fragments, 1 rectangular
bronze section, 1 undetermined bronze fragment
Bibliography Courtois 1982, 167; Courtois 1984, 37-38, fig. 12.2-4, 8, 10.
Context and date of Quarter 3W, point 783; found in 1962
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
68. Cyprus: Kition Foundation deposit (Larnaca): LC IIA
Larnaca Museum (inv. Number 3675-77)
Total objects in hoard 3
Tool count and frequency 2 (66.7%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 0
Other objects 2 T-shaped plowshare castings, 1 bronze conical peg
Bibliography Karageorghis 1985, 109, plate 88.4,6; Matthäus and
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Context and date of Hoard found below floor III and above floor IIIa of Temple
discovery
4, room 38; found in 1974-75
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Foundation deposit
69. Cyprus: Enkomi ingot hoard: 12 th century BC?
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum (1939/VI-20/4); Los Angeles
Total objects in hoard 2+
Tool count and frequency 0
Other objects 2 complete oxhide ingots
Bibliography Schaeffer 1952, 27; Catling 1964, 268, 282; Matthäus and
Context and date of
discovery
Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Reportedly from a metal working area in the northwestern
part of the site. 23 Found before 1945.
23
Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus (1986, 144, figure 3) place the ingot hoard in quarter 6W, but they
admit it is a hypothetical location.
541

Likelihood of hoard Doubtful
Traditional interpretation Material belonging to a smith or merchant
70. Cyprus: Enkomi, sanctuary of the horned god: LC IIIA
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum
Total objects in hoard 4
Tool count and frequency 1 (25%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 0
Other objects 1 agricultural tool, Horned god statue (inv. 19), bronze strip
(inv. 27), 1 other scrap
Bibliography Dikaios 1969, 195-199
Context and date of Pit in debris above floor II of room 10 of area I, H-θ, 14-16;
discovery
found in 1948-58
Likelihood of hoard Doubtful
Traditional interpretation Ceremonial or ritual associations
Late 12 th century or early 11 th century
71. Cyprus: Enkomi miniature hoard: End of LC IIIB or beginning of LC IIIC
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum (inv. Enk. 742 A-K)
Total objects in hoard 15 total objects 24
Tool count and frequency 4? (26.6%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 2 total: 1 fragmentary drill, 1 miniature chisel
Other objects 1 pointed tool fragment, 1 tubular object (possible tool?), 1
miniature spearhead, 1 miniature spear, 1 scale pan, 2 (?)
fragments of bronze cup, tripod leg, 4 fragments of silver
ribbon, bead
Bibliography Catling 1964, 288; Dikaios 1969, 295-296, plates 36.4 and
146.21; Matthäus 1985, 48ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-
Matthäus 1986, 175; Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988, 246
Context and date of Found on ashlar east wall of room 10 in the sanctuary of the
discovery
horned god (Ashlar building) in quarter 4W; 1948-58.
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Votive hoard or foundation deposit
72. Anatolia: Şarköy hoard (İğdebağları, north of Marmara Sea); 12-11 th century
Istanbul Archaeolgical Museum
Total objects in hoard 77
Tool count and frequency 51 (66.2%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 3 double axes, 2 trunnion/lugged axes, 1 wedge
24 Knapp et al. (1988, 242, table 2) lists 59 total objects for the Miniature hoard including 1 weapon, 13
vessels/stands, 2 ornaments or statuette fragments, 27 castings, 1 weight/scales and 15 fragments of scrap,
slag, misc. These numbers do not correspond to Dikaios’ publication and the source of data for Knapp et
al.’s numbers is unknown to me.
542

Other objects 45 sickles, 3 swords, 3 socketed spearhead fragments, 4 rings
(bracelets?), 1 vessel handle, 14 bowls and fragments,
1 oxhide ingot fragment
Bibliography Harmankaya1 995
Context and date of Found by a local in 1984
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Possible
General Late Bronze Age
73. Crete: Routasi hoard; LM?
Heraklion Museum (2468-70, 84)
Total objects in hoard 7+
Tool count and frequency 6 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 5 total: 3 double axes, 1 hammer, 1 saw
Other objects Knives (#?), spearhead
Bibliography Hood 1957, 20; Evely 1993, 33 entry 75, 49 entry 175-177,
Context and date of
discovery
101 entry 4
Likelihood of hoard Possible
Very unclear. Described by Hood as: “A hoard of bronzes
found at 'Asprolivadha' near Rotdsi (ancient Rytiasos)
includes hammers, double axes, knives, a spear-head and a
saw.” Found in 1957.
74. Greek mainland: Stephani hoard (Epirus): LH
Ioannina Museum (IM)
Total objects in hoard 17
Tool count and frequency 11 (64.7%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 10 total: 10 double axes (IM 7505-7514)
Other objects 1 whetstone (IM 9468), 3 leaf shaped spearheads (IM 7515-
17), 2 unidentified bronze objects (long engravers, bracelet
fragments or styli, IM 7518-19), 1 stone block (IM 9469)
Bibliography Andreou 1986; Andreou 1994
Context and date of Crevice in a hill; found in 1985
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Definite
Traditional interpretation Merchant hoard?
75. Greek Mainland: Rodotopi hoard (Epirus): LH ?
Ioannina Museum
Total objects in hoard 4
Tool count and frequency 4 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 4 single, shaft-hole axes
Bibliography Unpublished, but is included in C. Kleitsas’ dissertation
Context and date of Unknown, from Rodotopi village (Epirus), found in 1951
543

discovery
Likelihood of hoard Possible
76. Cyprus: Enkomi Stylianou hoard: date uncertain
Nicosia, Cyprus Museum; some items were sent to the Famagusta Museum prior to 1974
Total objects in hoard 28
Tool count and frequency 16 (57.1%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 3 total: 3 single/flat axes (CM 1958/VI-24/5, 6, 7) 25
Other objects 1 socketed shovel, 3 plowshares, 2 socketed picks, 6 sickles,
socketed spatulate tool, 3 vessel fragments, 2 handles, 6
ornaments, shepherd’s crook, wheel, pour cup (now metal)
Bibliography Catling 1964, 285; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus
1986, 174
Context and date of Enkomi, otherwise unknown; found during the 1930s
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Probable, although the original composition is in doubt
Traditional interpretation Founder’s hoard
77. Cyprus: Nitovikla hoard (Karpass peninsula): LC general
The shovel is in the Ashmolean Museum
Total objects in hoard 3+, unknown total number of objects
Tool count and frequency 3 (100%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 single/flat ax
Other objects 1 plowshare/hoe; 1 shovel
Bibliography Catling 1964, 289; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus
1986, 143; Knapp, Muhly and Muhly 1988, 244
Context and date of
discovery
Well; found at the beginning of the 20 th century
Likelihood of hoard Possible
78. Cyprus: Athienou- Bamboulari tis Koukounninas hoard (Mesaoira): LC general
Jerusalem, Israel?
Total objects in hoard 20+ total objects 26
Tool count and frequency 9 (?) total tools 27
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 6 small chisels
Other objects 2 other small tools that are impossible to identify from poor
preservation, 1 awl (?); 6 nails and/or tacks, 3-5 pieces of
bronze spillage, 2 folded lead objects, possibly weights, lots
of scrap metal, lots of nodules
Bibliography Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 16-20, 134-135, plates 44.1-2,
25 None of the three flat axes were found in the Cyprus Museum. I was told that these were sent to the
Famagusta Museum prior to 1974 invasion.
26 It is reported that 5 kilograms of scrap metal were recovered from the site and that the majority came
from pit 536 (Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134), but an exact quantity of scrap fragments is not reported.
27 As determined by Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, figure 57.7-12 and plate 47.2.
544

Context and date of
46.3, 47.1-4
Pit in area F8 of the site’s courtyard in stratum III; found in
discovery
1971-72
Likelihood of hoard Questionable
Traditional interpretation Scrap metal for metallurgical activity; founder’s hoard?
545

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Amnisos - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Evely 1993, 49 entry 169
Knife LM III Utilitarian Settlement? Deshayes 2526
Mold for spike LM IIIB Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 361, entry 37
Apesokari -MBA
Double Ax MM I Carpentry/masonry Burial Branigan 1974 165 entry 552
Apidi, Sitea - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 49 entry 190
Apodoulou - LBA
Double Ax MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.3 m= 4; ce = 5 Deshayes 2008; Evely 1993, 42, 8
Apodoulou Amari - 2nd millennium BC
Saw or scraper? Carpentry/masonry? Unstratified or unknown 2.5 2 Evely 1993; 33 entry 58-62
Archanes - EBA to MBA
Scraper Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 602, fig. 628
Scraper Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997,, 602, fig. 628
Scraper Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 602, fig. 628
Scraper Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 602, fig. 628
Scraper Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 602, fig. 628
Archanes - MBA
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 627
Archanes - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 600 fig. 625
Razor LH/LM III Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 625
Archanes - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 10 entry 120
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 626
Hammer Metallurgical Burial? Evely 1993 101 entry 7; Hood 1957, 20.
Knife Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 600 fig. 624
Knife Utilitarian Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 600 fig. 624
Unknown implement with ivory h&le Small crafts Burial Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 602 fig. 630
Archanes - Botzi - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 626
Archanes - Lakkos - LBA
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 627
Archanes - Loumata - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 626
Archanes - Tourkoyeitonia - LBA
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement? Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 627
Archanes - Vourna - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 601 fig. 626
Arkalochori - MBA
Scraper EM I-MM (Branigan) Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Branigan 1974 176 entry 1418.
Arkalochori - LBA
Ax-adze LM I Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 2244; Evely 1993, 68 entry 10
Armenoi - LBA
Cleaver LM III A-B Utilitarian Burial 21.6 7.88 Tzedakis and Martlew 2002, pg 258, entry 256, fig. 256
Cleaver LM III B1 Utilitarian Burial 22 6 Tzedakis and Martlew 2002, pg 275, entry 287, fig. 287
Cleaver LM III B1 Utilitarian Burial 14.9 5.3 Tzedakis and Martlew 2002, pg 274, entry 284, fig. 284
Double Ax LM IIIB Carpentry/masonry Burial Evely 1993, 49 entry 170; Tzedakis 1971, 515.
CRETE TOOLS 546

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife LM IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 12 2.1 Tzedakis and Martlew 2002, pg 274, entry 283, fig. 283
Knife LM IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 15.7 1.5 Tzedakis and Martlew 2002, pg 274, entry 284, fig. 284
Saw LM III A-B Carpentry/masonry Burial 42 5.5 Tzedakis and Martlew 2002, pg 257, entry 254, fig. 254
Artsa - LBA
Cleaver LM III Utilitarian Burial? Deshayes 2711
Avgo - MBA
Knife MM I-LM III Utilitarian Hoard 8 2 Branigan 1974, 167 entry 639, pg 153
Razor MM I - LM II Utilitarian Hoard 12 3.5 Branigan 1974, 177 entry 1477a; pg 153
Razor MM I - LM II Utilitarian Hoard 9.5 3.3 Branigan 1974, 177 entry 1463a; pg 153
Scraper MM I - LM II Utilitarian Hoard Branigan 1974, 177 entry 1452a, pg 153
Ayia Photia - MBA
Chisel EM-MM Carpentry/masonry Burial? 15.4 1.6 Evely 1993, 8 entry 72
Mold MM Metallurgical Settlement? Unpublished; mentioned in Evely 2000, 360 type 4
Ayia Triadha - MBA
Double Ax (Mycenaean-like form?) MM (or LM III?) Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 16 ce = 7.4 Deshayes 2051 bis, Branigan 1974, 165, 539a, pl. 28.
Double Ax EM-MM II Carpentry/masonry Burial Branigan 1968, 89, II, 6; Branigan 1974 165 entry 528.
Punch EM I - MMII Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1968, 93, II; Branigan 1974 176 Entry 1393
Punch EMI-MMII Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1968, 95, IIIa; Branigan 1974 176 Entry 1426
Ayia Triadha - LBA
Ax, lugged or trunnion LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 22.5 ce = 4.5 Deshayes 1076, Evely 1993 58 entry 1.
Chisel LM I or LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 7.3 ce = 1.5 Deshayes 715, Evely 1993, 8 entry 47.
Chisel LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 29.5 ce = 4 Deshayes 731; Evely 1993, 10 entry 92.
Chisel LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 29.4 ce = 5 Deshayes 730, Evely 1993, 10 entry 93.
Chisel LM I or LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 22.5 ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 175
Chisel LM I or LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 24 ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 175
Chisel LM I or LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 11 entry 176; Halbherr 1977, 59
Double adze LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.5 4.8 to 5 Deshayes 2090, Evely 1993 63, 5
Double adze LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Shaw 2009, 41-42, figure 38.A
Double Ax LM I? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.3 m = 5.3; ce = 6 Deshayes 2023; Evely 1993, 44 entries 58-63.
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.3 m = 5.3; ce = 6 Deshayes 2023; Evely 1993, 44 entries 58-63
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.3 m = 5.3; ce = 6 Deshayes 2023; Evely 1993, 44 entries 58-63.
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.3 m = 5.3; ce = 6 Deshayes 2023; Evely 1993, 44 entries 58-63
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.3 m = 5.3; ce = 6 Deshayes 2023; Evely 1993, 44 entries 58-63.
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.3 m = 5.3; ce = 6 Deshayes 2023; Evely 1993, 44 entries 58-63.
Double hammer or sledgehammer MM III-LM I probably Metallurgical Settlement 23 m = 8; end = 10 Deshayes 2021A; Evely 1993 101, 13.
Double hammer or sledgehammer MM III-LM I Metallurgical Settlement? 13.5 ends = 9.3 Deshayes 2021A; Evely 1993 101, 14.
Hammer MM III - LM I Metallurgical Settlement Evely 1993 101 entry 10.
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? LM ? Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 8 diam = 4.5 Evely 1993, 36 entry 6; Shaw 1973a, 58
Pick-adze MM III - LM I Carp/mason or agricultural Settlement? 37.7 adze ce = 4.3 Deshayes 2305; Evely 1993, 71, 4
Pick-adze MM III - LM I Carp/mason or agricultural Settlement 24.5 adze ce = 5.2 Deshayes 2306; Evely 1993, 71, 5
Saw MM III –LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement 144 12 Deshayes 2899; Evely 1993 31, entry 23
Saw MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 51 13 Shaw 1973a, 56, fig 44; Evely 1993, 33 entry 46
Saw LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 33 entry 77
Stake or anvil LM I perhaps Metallurgical Settlement 50.2 Deshayes 2323; Evely 1993 101 entry 23
Ayia Triadha - 2nd millennium BC
Ax, single, flat (or chisel tip?) Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8 est. ce = 5.5 Deshayes 2932; pg 364, pl L2 & LXIII.3
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 54
Double Ax (Mycenaean-like form) Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.8 ce = 5.6 Deshayes 2062; Evely 1993 49 entry 151
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement? Evely 1993,47 112
CRETE TOOLS 547

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Hoe or pick-like implement Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 6.5 Deshayes 1238, plate XVII.11 & LVI.4
Pruning knife Agricultural Settlement? Deshayes 2858.
Saw Carpentry/masonry Burial 51.5 6.5 Deshayes 2904, 153, pls. 48.8; Evely 1993, 33 entry 49;
Saw Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 33 entry 50
Sickle Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2787
Ayios Stavromenos - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 49 172.
Berbani - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.6 ce = 5.8 Deshayes 2049, 107, Evely 1993, 47 entry 109.
Chamaizi - EBA to MBA
Saw EM II - MMI transition Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 3.6 1.3 Branigan 1974 168, 709, pl. 14; Evely 1993 30, entry 1
Chamaizi - MBA
Adze, single, flat MM Ia – II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 25.1 ce = 3.4 Branigan 1968, 89-90; Deshayes 718; Evely 1993, 8, 80
Ax-adze MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.2 ce = 5.1 & 3.4 Deshayes 2234, Evely 1993, 67 entry 1.
Double Ax MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.1 ce = 6 Deshayes 2001; Evely 1993, 41 entry 1.
Double Ax MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.4 ce = 5.85 & 5.9 Deshayes 2001, A; Evely 1993, 41 entry 2
Chania - LBA
Awl LM IIIA1 Small crafts Settlement Stos-Gale et al. 2000, 207 entry 6.
Blade or knife LM IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Stos-Gale et al. 2000, plate 3, entry 19
Chisel? LM IIIA;2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Stos-Gale et al. 2000, 207 entry 16.
Graver or point LM IIIB:2 Small crafts Settlement Wiman & Bruun-Lundgren 2003, 269 plate 153a:2
Knife w ivory h&le LM IIIB:2 Utilitarian Settlement Wiman & Bruun-Lundgren 2003, 269 plate 159e:9
Knife LM IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Stos-Gale et al. 2000, plate 3, entry 185
Knife fragment LM IIIB:2 Utilitarian Settlement Wiman & Bruun-Lundgren 2003, 269 plate 152a:12
Mold LM Metallurgical Settlement Unpublished; mentioned in Evely 2000, 360 type 4
Punch or awl LM IIIC Small crafts Settlement Hallger & Hallager (eds) 2000, plate 3, entry 96
Razor fragment LM IIIB:2 Utilitarian Settlement Wiman & Bruun-Lundgren 2003, 269 pl 148, 152b:4
Razor fragment LM IIIB:2 Utilitarian Settlement Wiman & Bruun-Lundgren 2003, 269 pl 148, 155c:12
Spatula? LM IIIB:2 Utilitarian Settlement Wiman & Bruun-Lundgren 2003, 269 pl 162a:3
Charakas - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 194
Christos - EBA to MBA
Punch EMII-MMI? Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 176 entry 1398;
Punch EMII-MMI? Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 176 entry 1400;
Punch EMII-MMI? Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 177 entry 1445
Chryssi Island - LBA
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 55-60 Apostolakou, Betancourt & Brogan. 2009, 3-5
Drakones - EBA to MBA
Punch EM III-MMII Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974 176 entry 1438
Drapanon - MBA
Double Ax MM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 204 entry 522a; ArchDelt 1969 pl. 442
Elakanes - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 191
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 192
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 193
Episkopi Pediados - LBA
Ax, flat, single LM III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 395,; Evely 1993 72, entry 12;
Implement, cutting or slashing LM III Small crafts Unstratified Deshayes 2936
Episkopi Pediados - 2nd millennium BC
CRETE TOOLS 548

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2658
Gaudourophus - 2nd millennium BC
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.7 ce = 6 Branigan 1974 entry 582; Evely 1993, 55, 2; D. 1540
Gazi - LBA
Cleaver LM IIIA2 Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2697
Knife LM IIIA2 Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2452
General Crete - LBA
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.5 m = 4.7; ce = 5.6 Evely 1993, 44 entry 56; unpublished;
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.8 m = 4.9; ce = 5.8 Evely 1993, 46 entry 77
Double Ax LM Carp/mason or prestige item Hoard? 20 Evely 1993, 46 entry 78; Buchholz 1959, 45.41d
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20 Evely 1993, 46 entry 79; Buchholz 1959, 45.41e
General Crete - 2nd millennium BC
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.5 ce = 7.5 Evely 1993 55 entry 4; Branigan 1974, 166.579, pl. 12
Ax-adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 Ax ce = 5 Deshayes 2243; Evely 1933, 68 entry 11
Double adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 32.5 m=5.8; ce = 5 Deshayes 2093; Evely 1993, 63 entry 14.
Double adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 33 ce = 5 & 5.2 Deshayes 2092, 109, pl. 35.10; Evely 1993, 63 entry 15
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 165 entry 535
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19.4 Deshayes 2026 A; Evely 1993, 46 101
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13 m = 5; ce = 6 Deshayes 2040; Evely 1993, 46, entry 102
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16 m = 4.5; ce = 5.5 Deshayes 2040, Aa; Evely 1993, 46 entry 103
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 46, entry 104; Buchholz 1959, 45.41c
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993 46, entry 105
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 22 m = 4.4; ce = 6 Evely 1993 46 entry 106
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 22.8 m = 4.2; ce = 6 Evely 1993, 47 entry 107
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16 ce = 6.1 Evely 1993 47 entry 107a
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16 m = 5.1; ce = 6.8 Evely 1993 47 entry 128; Branigan AM 165.535, pl. 12
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 30.8 3 Branigan 1974 167 entry 635
General Crete or Mallia? - 2nd millennium BC
Adze-hammer from double adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993 101 entry 22
General East Crete - LBA
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown GR 1923.3-14.1. On display in British Museum.
General East Crete - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16 ce = 3.4 Branigan 1974 170 entry 802; Evely 1993, 8 entries 73
General West Crete - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 23.7 ce = 3.1 Evely 1993, 10 entry 109; & Evely 1993 78 entry 21
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17 ce = 3.8 Evely 1993, 8 entry 75; otherwise unpublished
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19.6 ce = 3.5 Evely 1993, 10 entry 108; otherwise unpublished
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.8 ce = 1.5-2 Evely 1993, 10 entry 115; otherwise unpublished
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.5 m = 5.3; ce = 6.1 Evely 1993 46, entry 99; otherwise unpublished
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.6 m = 5.1; ce = 5.9 Evely 1993 46, entry 100
Saw Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 25 5 Evely 1993 31, entry 33; otherwise unpublished
Gournia - MBA?
Chisel EM-MM Carpentry/masonry Burial 8 Evely 1993, 11 entry 144; Davaras, AD 28.2(2) 1973, 588
Gournia - LBA
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 ce = 1.5 Deshayes 794, Evely 1993 6 entry 27;
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20 ce = 1.2 Deshayes 897, Evely 1993, 8 entry 50
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 31.5 ce = 3.8 Deshayes 725; Evely 1993, 8 entry 84.
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 26.7 ce = 4 Hawes 1908, 34, pl. 4.10; Evely 1993, 8 entry 85. D. 725
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 27.2 ce - 4.2 Evely 1993, 8 entry 86; , Deshayes 724
CRETE TOOLS 549

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel or drill MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.5 shaft = 0.4 Evely 1993, 78 entry 15 (drill); Deshayes 185
Cutting-slashing implement LM Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 2930; Hawes 1908, 34, pl. IV, 30
Double Ax MM III-LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18 m = 4.1; ce = 5 Deshayes 2014; Evely 1993, 42 entry 9
Double Ax MM III-LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.5 m = 5.1; ce = 6.5 Evely 1993, 42 10
Double Ax MM III-LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.8 ce = 5.65 & 5.7 Deshayes 2036, Aa; Evely 1993, 42, 13
Double Ax MM III-LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.7 6 Deshayes 2036; Evely 1993, 42 entry 11
Double Ax MM III-LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.1 m = 5; ce = 6.5 Deshayes 2015; Evely 1993, 42, entry 12.
Double Ax or double hammer MM III-LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.51 m = 5.1; ce = 6.6 & 6.6 Deshayes 2020; Evely 1993 101 no. 18.
Drill MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.5 0.8 Evely 1993 78 entry 7
Drill MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 27 1.0 Deshayes 185, Evely 1993 78, entry 11, (HM 564)
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 10 Evely 1993, 46 entry 3, figure 12
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 10 Evely 1993, 46 entry 3, figure 12
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.3 Evely 1993, 36 entry 5
Knife LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2641; Hawes 1908, 34, pl,IV,20
Knife LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2642; Hawes 1908, 34, pl,IV,21
Knife LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2531; Hawes 1908, 34 pl. IV, 19
Pruning knife LM Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2852; Hawes 1908, 34, pl. IV, 34 & 36
Pruning knife LM Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2853; Gournia, p. 34, pl. IV, 35
Pruning knife LM Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2855; Hawes 1908, 34, pl. IV, 33
Saw LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.4 1 Deshayes 2892, Evely 1993, 30 entry 7
Saw LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.95 1.15 Deshayes 2892; Evely 1993 30, entry 8.
Saw LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 1.3 Deshayes 2896, Evely 1993 31, entry 17
Saw MM III –LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 28.6 9 Deshayes 2901; HM 571, Evely 1993 31, entry 20.
Saw MM III –LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 45 6 Deshayes 2901, HM 570; Evely 1993, 31, entry 34.
Saw LM presumably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 40 6 Evely 1993 31, entry 21.
Saw MM III-LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 56 8.3 Evely 1993 31, entry 35.
Saw LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 28 5.5 Evely 1993, 31 entry 36...
Saw LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 36 5 Evely 1993, 31 entry 37
Sickle LM Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2786; Hawes 1908, 34, pl. IV, 37...
Spatula, scraper LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 3027; Hawes 1908, 34, pl. IV, 27...
Spatula, scraper Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 3009; Hawes 1908, 34, pl. IV, 31
Spatula, scraper
Gournia - 2nd millennium BC
LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 3007; Hawes 1908, 34, pl. IV, 28 & 29
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 117-119
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 117-119
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 117-119
Drill
Gournos Pediados - 2nd millennium BC
Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993 78 entry 14
Knife
Gypsades - Knossos - LBA
Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2657; Sandars 1955, 190
Cleaver
Helenes - LBA
LM IIIA or later? Utilitarian Burial Catling 1964, 107
Double Ax LM I or earlier? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19 ce = 5.8 Evely 1993, 44; entry 41
Double Ax
Heraklion general - 2nd millennium BC
LM I or earlier Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993 49 entry 166
Ax, socketed
Ierapetra - LBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.2 est. ce = 5.7 Deshayes 1236, plate XVII.14
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.2 m = 5; ce = 5.7 Deshayes 2037, Aa; Evely 1993, 44 entry 65.
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20+ Evely 1993, 47 122
CRETE TOOLS 550

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ierapetra - 2nd millennium BC
Ax, shaft hole date unknown Carpentry/masonry Unstratified 9.6 ce = 6 Branigan 1974, 166.583, pl. 12; Evely 1993, 55 entry 3
Ax, shaft hole date unknown Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary? 13.5 ce = 6.2 Deshayes 1571 HB; Evely 1993 55, 5
Isopata - LBA
Double Ax - Mycenaean-like LM II Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.3 ce = 6.7 Deshayes 2051; Evely 1993, 47 entry 135
Knife LM IIIA Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2521, Evans 1914, fig. 54, 2d
Knife LM II Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2487, Evans 1914, 42, fig. 54,2,e
Knife LM IB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2440, Evans 1914, p. 4, fig 5
Itanos - LBA
Pick-adze LM Ia Carp/mason or agricultural Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 71 entry 6; Cook, AR, 1950 251
Iuktas - MBA
Hammer MM I-II? Metallurgical Cultic site or sanctuary Evely 1993 101 entry 9; Mylonas, Ergon 1981, 70
Kalami - LBA
Awl LM IIIb Small crafts Burial Evely 1993 90 entry 49; Tzedakis AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Awl? LM IIIa Small crafts Burial Evely 1993 92 entry 99; Tzedakis AD 24.2 (2) (1970) 469
Chisel LM IIIB Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.3 ce = 0.4 Evely 1993 6, 10 , plate 1; Tzedakis, AD 25.2(1970) 469
Chisel LM IIIB Carpentry/masonry Burial 12 ce = 0.8 Evely 1993, 6 entry 22; Tzedakis, AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Chisel LM IIIB Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.7 ce = 0.45 Evely 1993 6 entry 23; Tzedakis, AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Chisel LM IIIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 17 ce = 1.4 Evely 1993, 11 entry 143; Tzedakis, AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Chisel LM IIIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 19.2 ce = 4.1 Evely 1993, 10, entry 96; Tzedakis, AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Chisel LM IIIB Carpentry/masonry Burial 25 ce = 5.5 Evely 1993, 10 entry 114; Tzedakis, AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Drill LM IIIa Carpentry/masonry Burial 14.5 bit = 0.75 Evely 1993 78 entry 8; Tzedakis AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Drill LM IIIb Carpentry/masonry Burial 12.3 0.6 Evely 1993, 78 entry 9; Tzedakis AD 25.2 (2) (1970) 469
Kalamvaki, Sitea - LBA
Ax-adze LM III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.1 ce = 3.8 & 3.9 Deshayes 2241, 117, pl. 61.3; Evely 1993, 68, entry 7
Kalarryta - 2nd millennium BC
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.5 ce =4.5 Evely 1993, 55 entry 6
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10.3 ce = 4 Evely 1993 55 entry 7
Kalathiana - EBA to MBA
Punch EM I-MMI Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1403; Branigan 1968, 94 III 2)
Kalo Chorio - LBA
Double Ax MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.9 m = 4.9; ce = 5.7 Evely 1993, 42,3a; Alexiou, ArchDelt 20.2 (2) 1965, 554;
Kamares - LBA
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary? Evely 1993 47 entry 123; Taramelli AJA 5 (1901) 442
Kamares - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evans 1993, 10 entry 125
Knife Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2472
Kamilari - MBA
Borer or drill? MM I-LM Carpentry/masonry Burial? Branigan1974, 171 entry 974-5a
Double Ax MM I - LM Carpentry/masonry Burial Branigan 1974, 164 entry 523
Knife MM I - LM I Utilitarian Burial Branigan 1974, 167 entry 652-3
Kamilari - LBA
Awl? MM I - LM Small crafts Burial Evely 1993, 90 entry 51-53
Kamilaris - LBA
Double Ax LM probably Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.2 m = 4.2 Evely 1993, 49 entry 167; Alexiou AD 24.2 (2) (1969) 412)
Kardhamoutsa (Lasithi) - LBA
Double Ax MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20 ce = 6.6 Evely 1993, 42, entry 14; Pope, BSA 51 (195) 133, pl. 36a-b
Karphi - LBA
Awl LM IIIc-Subminoan Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 88 entry 2
CRETE TOOLS 551

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl LM IIIc-Subminoan Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 100; Evely 1993 88 entry 20.
Awl? LM IIIc-Subminoan Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 100, B1; Evely 1993 90 entry 78.
Awl? LM IIIc-Subminoan Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 137; Evely 1993 88 entry 21.
Ax, lugged or trunnion LM IIIc-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary? 15.6 ce = 4 Deshayes 1134; Evely 1993 58 entry 2.
Chisel LM IIIc-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 693; Evely 1993, 6 entry 12.
Chisel LM IIIc-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 693; Evely 1993, 6 entry 12.
Drill LM IIIc-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 13.2 tip = 0.4 Deshayes 182; Evely 1993 78 entry 10
Saw LM IIIc-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.4 Evely 1993 31, entry 14.
Saw LM IIIc-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.8 Evely 1993, 33 entry 73
Karphi - LBA - EIA
Awl? Subminoan; 1100-900 Small crafts Burial Evely 1993 90 entry 41-48
Knife Subminoan; 1100-900 Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2471. BSA 38 (1937-38), pl. 116, pl. 28, 2, no. 518
Knife Subminoan; 1100-900 Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2418; BSA 38 (1937-38), p. 116, pl. 28, 3, no. 687
Knife Subminoan; 1100-900 Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2419; BSA 38 (1937-38), p. 116, pl. 28, 2, no. 687
Sickle Subminoan; 1100-900 Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2794. BSA 38 (1937-38), p. 116, , nos. 213 & 232
Kastellos - MBA
Double Ax MM I or III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.3 ce = 5.8 Deshayes 2007; Evely 1993, 47 entry 116
Knife MM III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2423. BSA 38 (1937-38), p. 46, pl. 3,3, no. 24
Spatula, scraper MM III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2989; BSA 38 (1937-38), p. 26, p. 3, 3 no. 14
Kato Syme - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Evely 1993, 49 entry 173
Katsambas - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 22 Deshayes 738; Evely 1993, 10 entry 104
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 27 Deshayes 738; Evely 1993, 10 entry 103
Keratokampos - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Buchholz 1959, 37.13.c.3; Evely 1993, 46 entry 66 (HM 1547)
Khonos, Karydhi - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax fragment Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 49 174
Knossos - MBA
Awl, point, punch MM IA Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 90 entry 55
Awl, point, punch MMIA Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 90 entry 56.
Awl, point, punch MM I probably Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 90 entry 57
Awl, point, punch MM IB Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 172.1047; Evely 1993, 92 entry 114
Awl, point, punch MM IB Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 92 entry 115.
Awl, point, punch MMIa-IIIb Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 117
Awl, point, punch MMIa/b-II/III Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 118
Awl, point, punch MM IIIa Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 119.
Awl or nail MM IA Small crafts Settlement? Branigan 1974 171 entry 954; Branigan 1968, 90
Double Ax MM Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 49 entry 155
Mold MM Ia Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360, entry 31
Punch MM IB Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1047
Knossos - LBA
Awl, point, punch MM III-LM I probably Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 90 entry 39
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 90 entry 59
Awl, point, punch LMIB Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 90 entry 60
Awl, point, punch LM IB Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 90 entry 61
Awl, point, punch LM IB Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 92 entry 95
Awl, point, punch LM IB Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 101
Awl, point, punch LM IB Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 102.
CRETE TOOLS 552

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl, point, punch LM Ib Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 126
Awl, point, punch LMIb Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 127
Awl, point, punch LM IB Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 128
Awl, point, punch LM IB Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 129
Awl, point, punch LMIb or IIIa? Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 131
Awl, point, punch LMIb or IIIa? Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 132.
Awl, point, punch LM IIIa? Small crafts Settlement? Evely1993, 92 entry 134
Ax-hammer LM I Carpentry/masonry Hoard 10.5 Deshayes 2109, Evely 1993, 101 entry 11
Chisel MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 35 ce = 3.5 Evans 1928, 628-9, fig. 392.12; Evely 1993, 8 entry 82.
Chisel MM-LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.8 ce = 0.9 Evely 1993, 11 entry 146
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 1.7 0.9 Evely 1993, 11 entry 166
Chisel MM - LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.8 ce = 1 Evely 1993, 11 entry 167
Chisel MM-LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.8 0.7 Evely 1993, 11 entry 168
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.7 0.8 Evely 1993, 11 entry 169
Chisel (possibly from Knossos?) Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 19.2 tip = 5.4 Evely 1993, 8 entry 77 plate 2
Chisel or drill LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement & workshop 3.3 0.2 Evely 1993, 6, entry 8 or 78 entry 18 for drill entry
Chisel or drill LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement & workshop 3.1 0.15 Evely 1993, 6, entry 7 (chisel) or 78 entry 17 (drill)
Cleaver LM III Utilitarian Burial? Deshayes 2698; BSA 28 (1926-27), p. 253, fig. 6,5
Cutting/slashing tool LM IA Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2933
Double adze MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 39 ce = 4 to 5? Deshayes 2088; Evely 1993 63 entry 11. Shaw 1973a, 48, n 9
Double adze MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 30.3 m = 4.5; ce = 5 Deshayes 2087; Evely 1993 63 entry 8
Double adze MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 30.7 Deshayes 2087; Evely 1993 63 entry 10
Double adze MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 34 ce = 4.5 Deshayes 2087; Evely 1993 63 entry 7
Double adze MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 30.3 ce = 5 Deshayes 2087, Evely 1993 63 entry 9.
Double Ax LM I; MM IIIa-LM Ia Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16 ce = 5.5 Deshayes 2010A. Evely 1993, 42 entry 7; Evely 2003, 190
Double Ax LM I; MM IIIa-LM Ia Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16 ce = 4.5 Deshayes 2010, Evely 1993, 42 entry 6; Evely 2003, 190
Double Ax MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12 Deshayes 2011; Evely 1993, 47 entry 119
Double Ax LM I; MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Hoard 17.5 Evely 1993, 42 entry 15.
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18 ce = 5.7 & 6 Evely 1993, 44 entry 42
Double Ax MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 17.5 ce = 6 Deshayes 2011A. Evely 1993, 42 entry 5.
Double Ax MM III or LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.5 ce = 6.5 Deshayes 2011, Evely 1993, 42 entry 4
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? LM I Carpentry/masonry Hoard 10 Evely 1993, 36 entry 1-2; Evely 2003, 190, entry 186-187
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? LM I Carpentry/masonry Hoard 10 Evely 1993, 36 entry 1-2; Evely 2003, 190, entry 186-187
Knife LM I Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2530
Knife LM III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2545
Knife LM III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2654
Knife LM III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2655
Knife LM IIIA Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2494; BSA 38 (1926-27), p. 252, sqq, fig. 6.4)
Knife LM IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2499; Sandars 1955, 190
Knife LM IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2499; Sandars 1955, 190
Knife LM IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2499; Sandars 1955, 190
Knife LM IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2499; Sandars 1955, 190
Razor LM I Utilitarian Hoard Evans 1928, 629-630; Evely 2003, 190, entry 184-185
Razor LM I Utilitarian Hoard Evans 1928, 629-630; Evely 2003, 190, entry 184-185
Saw MM III – LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 45 6.5 Deshayes 2898, Evely 1993, 31 entry 40; Evely 2003, 190
Saw MM III –LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 37 8 Deshayes 2898, Evely 1993, 31, entry 39; Evely 2003, 190
Saw MM III – LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 53 9 Deshayes 2898; Evely 1993, 31 entry 41; Evely 2003, 190
Saw MM III - LM IA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 163 19.2 Deshayes 2898; Evely 1993, 33, entry 45
Saw MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 42 8.5 Evely 1993, 31 entry 38
CRETE TOOLS 553

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Sickle LM IIIC Agricultural Burial Deshayes 2805; BSA 51, 1956, p. 79, pl. 12b
Stylus or drill
Knossos - 2nd millennium BC
LM IIIa-c Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 92 entry 135
Awl Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 90 entry 65
Awl or punch Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 90 entry 63
Awl or punch Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 90 entry 64; otherwise unpublished
Awl or punch Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, ???
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Settlement? Evely 1993, 88 entry 26
Ax, lunate Ax head, pendant? Carpentry/masonry or ritual or prestige Settlement item
5.15 blade = 5.9 Evely 1993, ???
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 16.9 ce = 0.9 Evely 1993, 6 entry 31, plate 1 &5
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 34.7 ce 3.9 Evely 1993, 10 entry 110
Double adze Carpentry/masonry Settlement 31.2 ce = 4.6 Evely 1993, 63 entry 12
Double adze Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 30 ce = 4.7 & 5 Evely 1993, 63 entry 13
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.4 ce = 4.9 Evely 1993 46, 67.
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 19 m = 5; ce = 6 Deshayes 2025; Evely 1993 46 entry 81
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 18 ce = 5.9 Deshayes 2041; Evely 1993 46 entry 82
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 0.3 Evely 1993 78 entry 5a
Drill or chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.95 0.6 Evely 1993, ???
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 3.6 diam. = 1.5 Evely 1993, ???
Implement shank fragment Carpentry/masonry? Settlement? 10.5 0.55 Evely 1993 92 entry 103; plate 21
Implement, unidentified Small crafts Settlement 9.9 0.75 Evely 1993, ???
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 15.5 butt = 1.8 Evely 1993, ???
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 7 Evely 1993, ???
Knife or blade Utilitarian Settlement 7.7 3.3 Evely 1993, ???
Razor Utilitarian Settlement 14.25 4.3 Evely 1993, ???
Saw Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 60 7 Evely 1993, 31 entry 22
Saw Carpentry/masonry Settlement? 9.05 2.85 Evely 1993 33, entry 57
Knife
Knossos, Unexplored Mansion - LBA
Utilitarian Settlement? 8.9 1.6 Evely 1993, ???
Awl or drill LM II Small crafts Workshop 5.5 tip = 0.55 Catling and Catling 1984, entry 68-178
Awl or drill LM II Small crafts Workshop 5.1 0.4 Catling and Catling 1984, 61, 214 (M91); Evely 1993, 88, #37
Awl or point LM II Small crafts Workshop 1.9 Catling and Catling 1984, 23, 214 (H7); Evely 1993, 90, #70
Awl or point LM II Small crafts Workshop c. 3 Catling and Catling 1984, 23, 214 (H6); Evely 1993, 90, #69
Awl or point LM II Small crafts Workshop 1 Catling and Catling 1984, 23, 214 (H11); Evely 1993, 90, #68
Awl or point LM II Small crafts Workshop 1.4 Catling and Catling 1984 29, 214 (H 81); Evely 1993 90, #66.
Awl or punch LM II Small crafts Workshop 2 & 1.4 Catling and Catling 1984 60, 214 (M68); Evely 1993, 90, #72
Awl or punch LM II Small crafts Workshop 14.3 tip = 0.45 Catling and Catling 1984 78.214 (P6); Evely 1993 92,#133
Awl or punch LM II Small crafts Workshop Catling and Catling 1984 67, 214 (M 180); Evely 1993 90,#71.
Awl or punch LM II Small crafts Workshop Catling and Catling 1984 82, 214 (P 43); Evely 1993 92, #97.
Awl or small implement LM II Small crafts Workshop 8.3 diam = 0.3 Catling and Catling 1984
Awl, punch or engraver LM II Small crafts Workshop 2.3 Catling and Catling 1984 67, 214 (M 179); Evely 1993 90, #67
Chisel LM II-III probably Carpentry/masonry Workshop 6.7 ce = 1.8 Catling and Catling 1984 221, Evely 1993, 8, #70
Chisel LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 11 tip = 0.5 Catling and Catling 1984, 59, 214(M30); Evely 1993, 6, #20
Chisel LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 21.2 tip = 1.5 Catling 1984 59, 214 (M 29), Evely 1993, 6, #29
Chisel LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 42.5 ce = 4.5 Catling and Catling 1984 57, M9, 214; Evely 1993, 10, #84
Chisel LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 5.8 1.2; butt = 0.8 Catling and Catling 1984 23, H23
Chisel LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 9 tip =1.2 Catling and Catling 1984 60, 214; Evely 1993, 6, #21.
Chisel LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 13 0.5 Catling and Catling 1984 51, 214, L 129; Evely 1993, 10, #137
Chisel-like fragment? LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 3 1 Catling and Catling 1984
CRETE TOOLS 554

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel-like implement LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 3.45 0.55 Catling and Catling1984 26, H71
Compass? LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 3.1 Catling and Catling 1984 29, H77, plate 205.24
Double Ax LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 9.1 ce= 6.2 Catling and Catling 1984 23, 213 (H25); Evely 1993, 47, #134.
Double Ax LM IA Carpentry/masonry Workshop 19.8 ce = 6.3 & 6 Catling and Catling 1984, 53, 220 (L 169); Evely 1993, 42,#26.
Drill LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 18.5 & 3.6 tip =1.25 Catling and Catling 1984 59, 215 (M26), Evely 1993 78, #13
Drill LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 8.7 tip = 0.4 Catling and Catling 1984 23 (H16), Evely 1993, 78 entry 4
Drill or small awl LM II Small crafts Workshop 4.7 tip = 0.5 Catling and Catling 1984 16,214 (G2); Evely 1993 78, #5.
Implement, small or pin LM II Small crafts Workshop 8.9 0.75 Catling and Catling 1984
Implement fragment LM II Small crafts Workshop 4.45 0.45 Catling and Catling 1984, 51, L137
Implement or drill, L-shaped LM II Small crafts Workshop 3.2 Catling and Catling 1984
Knife LM II Utilitarian Workshop 10 0.9 Catling and Catling 1984, 71, N10, plate 204.6
Knife LM II Utilitarian Workshop 11.15 1.85; tip = 0.4 Catling and Catling 1984, 29, H93, plate 201.15
Knife or blade LM II Utilitarian Workshop 2.3 1.55 Catling and Catling 1984
Knife tip LM II Utilitarian Workshop 1.5 0.8 Catling and Catling 1984, 51, L140
Mold LM II Metallurgical Workshop Catling and Catling 1984, 50.L117; Evely 2000, 356, #4
Punch LM II Small crafts Workshop 6.8 butt = 0.7 Catling and Catling 1984 29.214 (H91), Evely 1993, 92, #96
Saw LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 20.4 9.3 Catling and Catling 1984, 59,213 (M33 &128), Evely 1993 31,#42
Saw LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 4.4 6.2 Catling and Catling 1984, 65, 213 (M139); Evely 1993, 33 entry 72.
Saw LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 11.7 7.4 Catling and Catling 1984, 61, 213 (M79); Evely 1993, 33, #71.
Saw LM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 8.1 9.3 Catling and Catling 1984, 61, 213 (M77); Evely 1993, 33, #70
Small implement or billet LM II Metallurgical Workshop 5.8 0.7 Catling and Catling 1984, 29, H90; plate 204.7
Tongs LM II Metallurgical Workshop 7.2 ends = 1.8 Catling and Catling 1984, 71, N10; Evely 2000, 365 entry 6
Knossos, Unexplored Mansion, LBA-EIA
Awl or small implement Subminoan context Small crafts Workshop under 5.0 0.25 Catling and Catling 1984 221 misc.2; Evely 1993 90 entry 73.
Kommos - MBA
Billet bar w chisel-like end MM III Metallurgical Settlement 0.75 0.95 Blitzer 1995, 514, entry M 120
Knife MM III Utilitarian Settlement 10 1.7 Blitzer 1995, 511 entry M63, pls. 8.83, 8.84, 8.108
Kommos - LBA
Billet bar w chisel-like end LM III B Metallurgical Settlement 2.1 & 0.7 0.6 (diam) Blitzer 1995, 514, entry M 119; Shaw 2006, 720 entry 17
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIA2 Metallurgical Settlement 3.9 diam = 0.6 Shaw 2006a, 717-725, pg 720, entry 13, pl. 4.4
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIA2 Metallurgical Settlement 5.6 1.3 Shaw 2006a, 717-725, pg 720 entry 14, pl. 4.4, 4.9
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIB Metallurgical Settlement 10.7 diam = 0.4 Shaw 2006a, 717-725, pg 720 entry 16, pl. 4.4
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIB Metallurgical Settlement 2.2 0.4 Shaw 2006a, 717-725; pg 720 entry 16, pl. 4.4
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIA2-B Metallurgical Settlement 3.3 0.9 Blitzer 1995, 511 entry M58, pls. 8.86, 8.107
Billet, bar or rod MM III-LM I or LM III Metallurgical Settlement 4.2 0.9 Blitzer 1995, 513 entry M 89, pl. 8.86, 8.107
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIA2-B Metallurgical Settlement 4.2 0.5 Blitzer 1995, 513 entry M 99
Billet, bar or rod MM III or LM III Metallurgical Settlement 2.7 0.55 Blitzer 1995, 514, entry M 116, pl. 8.86
Billet, bar or rod LM II Metallurgical Settlement 3.4 & 2.7 1.4 Blitzer 1995, 515 entry M 132, plate 8.83, 8.86, 8.107
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIA2 Metallurgical Settlement 2.95 2.4 Blitzer 1995, 515 entry M 140
Billet, bar or rod MM III or LM IIIA Metallurgical Settlement 3.2 0.4 Blitzer 1995, 516 entry M 143
Billet, bar or rod MM III or LM I Metallurgical Settlement 2.8 Blitzer 1995, 517 entry M 162
Billet, bar or rod LM I or LM IIIA1 Metallurgical Settlement 4.7 Blitzer 1995, 517 entry M 165
Billet, bar or rod LM IIIA2-B Metallurgical Settlement 5.7 & 3.1 Blitzer 1995 517 entry 167, plate 8.86...
Chisel LM IIIA or MM-LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.8 ce = 2.4 Evely 1993, 8 entry 71; Blitzer 1995, 516 entry M147
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.3 0.55 Shaw 2006a, 717-725, pg 719 entry 5, pl. 4.2-3
Chisel LM II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.9 0.65 Shaw 2006a, 717-725, pg 719, entry 6, pl. 4.2-3
Chisel MM III - LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.2 0.5 Shaw 2006a, 717-725, pg 719 entry 7, pl. 4.2-3
Chisel LM IIIA2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Blitzer 1995, 516 entry M 150; Evely 1993, 11 entry 170
Chisel or drill LM I-III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 tip = 1.5 Evely 1993, 6 entry 30; Blitzer 1995, 511 entry M61
CRETE TOOLS 555

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel? LM IIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.2 0.7 Shaw 2006a, 717-725; pg 719 entry 8, pl. 4.2-3
Double Ax LM II? latest LM IIIA1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.6 ce = 6.7 Evely 1993, 44, entry 57; Blitzer 1995, 516 entry 154
Knife LM IIIB Utilitarian Settlement 1.5 1 Shaw 2006a, 717-725; pg 717, entry 3
Knife MM III-LM I or LM III Utilitarian Settlement 2.1 2 Blitzer 1995, 511, M65
Knife LM IIIB? Utilitarian Settlement 2.1 1.4 Blitzer 1995, 512 entry M 81, pls. 8.84, 8.108
Knife LM III A-B? Utilitarian Settlement 1.3 1.55 Blitzer 1995, 512 entry M 83; pl. 8.84
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 5 & 1.7 1.6 & 1 Blitzer 1995, 514, entry M 124, pl. 8.84 & 8.108
Knife MM III or LM III Utilitarian Settlement 20 1.2 Blitzer 1995, 516 entry M 144, pls. 8.83 , 8.84
Knife LM IIIA? Utilitarian Settlement 9.2 3.1 Blitzer 1995 517 entry 166, plate 8.83...
Knife or blade LM IIIA2-B Utilitarian Settlement 4.6 3 Blitzer 1995, 511 entry M 62, pls. 8.83, 8.108
Knife or blade LM IIIA2 Utilitarian Settlement 5.3 3.6 Blitzer 1995 517 entry 168, plate 8.83...
Mold LM IIIa-b Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360 entry 30+
Saw-like blade LM IIIA2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 1.7 0.12 Shaw 2006a, 717-725, pg 717 entry 1, pl. 4.1
Saw-like blade LM IIIA2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2 2.3 Shaw 2006a, 717-725; pg 717, entry 2, pl. 4.1
Saw-like blade LM IIIA2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 1.1 0.8 Shaw 2006a, 717-725; 717 entry 4, pl. 4.1
Sickle LM II-LM IIIA1 Agricultural Settlement 20 2.7 Blitzer 1995, 517 entry M 169, pl. 8.83 & 8.108
Kommos - 2nd millennium BC
Awl Small crafts Settlement 10.4 0.5 Blitzer 1995, 516 entry M 160, plate 8.108
Billet, bar or rod Metallurgical Settlement 3.5 0.4 Blitzer 1995, 513 entry M 95, pl. 8.83
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 15.2 1.7 Blitzer 1995, 515, entry M 128 plate 8.83, 8.84, 8.108
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 22 2.6 Blitzer 1995, 517 entry M 161, pl. 8.108
Koumasa - EBA to MBA
Chisel EM I-MMI Carpentry/masonry Burial Branigan 1974, 169 entry 723, Branigan 1968, 90, II, 1
Mold EM-MM? Metallurgical Burial Branigan 1974, Entry M82; Evely 2000, 358 entry 18
Punch EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 1036; Branigan 1968, 90, I, 1
Punch EMI-MM Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 1036a; Branigan 90 I 2
Punch EM I-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 1037; Branigan 90 I 3
Punch EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 1038; Branigan 90 I 4
Punch EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1402; Branigan 94 III 1
Punch EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1412; Branigan 94 III 11
Punch EMI-MMII Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1413; Branigan 94 III 12
Punch EMI-MMII Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1414; Branigan 94 III 13
Punch EM-MM III Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1433; Branigan 95, IIIc, I
Punch EM I-MM II; Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1436; Branigan 1968, 95, IV, I
Saw EMIIa-MMIa (Evely) Carpentry/masonry Burial 14.3 2.4 Deshayes 2895; Evely 1993, 31, entry 19
Koumasa - 2nd millennium BC
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Burial Evely 1993, 92 entry 106-109
Krasi - EBA to MBA
Borer EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 958; Branigan 1968, 90, I,2
Borer EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 959; Branigan 1968, 90, I,3
Borer EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 960; Branigan 1968, 90, I,4
Borer EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 171 entry 961; Branigan 1968, 90, I,5
Kritsa - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 83
La Canee - LBA
Cleaver LM IIIB Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2691
Cleaver LM III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2692
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 68
Liliano, Phaistos? - 2nd millennium BC
CRETE TOOLS 556

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 187
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 188
Loutraki - LBA
Double adze LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13 m = 4; ce = 4.4 Evely 1993, 63 entry 6
Mallia - EBA to MBA
Awl, point, punch EM II-III or MM IB Small crafts Settlement Amouretti 1970, pl. 9; Evely 1993 92, entry 91+.
Awl, point, punch EM/MMI Small crafts Settlement Van Effenterre 1970, 68; Evely 1993 92 entry 113
Mallia - MBA
Awl, point, punch EM II-III or MM Ib Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 88 entry 31-34; Amouretti 1970, 66/7, pl. 9
Awl, point, punch MM? Small crafts Settlement 8 0.4 Van Effenterre 1970, 101.ff, fig 131 ; Evely 1993 90 entry 74
Awl, point, punch MM IB-II Small crafts Settlement Van Effenterre 1970, 28; Evely 1993 92 entry 116
Ax, single, flat MM level Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 663
Ax, trunnion or lugged MM I-II Carp/mason or prestige item Burial? 5.5 2.2 Evely 1993 58 entry 3
Chisel MM? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.2 ce = 4.8 Van Effenterre 1970, 27; I 103; Evely 1993, 8 entry 72
Double Ax MM level Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2003
Mold for multiple tools MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M5. Evely 2000, 356 entry 5
Mold for dagger MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M6; Evely 2000, 358 entry 13
Mold for ingot? MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M7; Evely 2000, 358, entry 14
Mold for disk MM I-II; MM III for Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M8; Evely 2000, 356 entry 6
Mold MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M9; Evely 2000, 356 entry 7
Mold MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M10; Evely 2000 356, entry 8
Mold for double Ax MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 202 entry M75; Evely 2000, 358 entry 19
Mold for double Ax MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 202 entry M76-8; Evely 2000, 360 entry 24
Mold for double Ax MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 202 entry M79; Evely 2000, 358 entry 21
Mold for double Ax MMI-II, MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 202 entry M80; Evely 2000, 358 entry 20
Mold for double Ax MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360 entry 22
Mold for double Ax MM I-II; MM III Pelon Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360 entry 23
Punch EMIII-MM II Small crafts Settlement? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1441
Saw MM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6 0.9 Evely 1993 30, entry 3.
Saw MM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.6 0.7 Evely 1993, 33 entry 63
Saw MM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.3 0.7 Evely 1993, 33 entry 65
Saw MM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 1.7 Branigan 1974, 168.709a; Evely 1993 31, entry 15
Saw MM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop Evely 1993, 33 entry 66; Desenne, BCH 81 (1957) 639 ff
Saw MM IIB-LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4 1.8 Van Effenterre 1970, 123, Evely 1993 31, entry 16
Tongs MM III Metallurgical Settlement 17 Evely 2000, 365 entry 2, figure 144.3
Mallia - LBA
Awl, point, punch MM III-LM Ia probably Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 88 entry 12.
Awl, point, punch LM Ia Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 90, Evely 1993, 88 entry 13.
Awl, point, punch LM IA Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 90; Evely 1993, 88 entry 24.
Awl, point, punch MMIII/LM I or LM III? Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 103; Evely 1993, 88 entry 25
Awl, point, punch LM I Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 52, Evely 1993, 90 entry 84.
Awl, point, punch LM ? Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 92 entry 110
Awl, point, punch MMIII/LMI Small crafts Settlement Van Effenterre 1970, 80; Evely 1993, 92 entry 120
Awl, point, punch MMIIIb-LMI Small crafts Settlement Van Effenterre 1970, 123; Evely 1993, 92 entry 122-3
Awl, point, punch LM I Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 92 entry 12; Deshayes 52
Awl, point, punch MM III-LM I Small crafts Settlement Van Effenterre 1970, 86, 104; Evely 1993, 92 entry 143
Chisel LM IA (or maybe MMI) Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.3 ce = 0.3 Deshayes 826; Evely 1993, 2, entry 2
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 24.7 ce = 3.6 Evely 1993, 8 entry 83.
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Workshop? Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 60, Evely 1993, 6, #19
CRETE TOOLS 557

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3 ce = 0.6 Evely 1993, 6 entry 43; Deshayes 826,
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.8 ce = 0.8 Evely 1993, 6 entry 44; Deshayes 827
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 26.5 ce = 3.5 Deshayes 727; Evely 1993, 8 entry 87
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21 ce = 3.5 Deshayes 727; Evely 1993, 10 entry 88.
Chisel MM III - LM I? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.5 ce = 0.7 Evely 1993, 10 entry 138 figure 5
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Workshop 10 ce = 0.6 Deshayes 871; Evely 1993, 6 entry 18
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Workshop? 5.6 ce = 1.2 Deshayes 692; Evely 1993, 6 entry 45
Chisel (from the LBA?) LM I (Deshayes) Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.4 ce = 0.75 Deshayes 692; Evely 1993 6 entry 13
Cleaver LM IB Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2677
Cutting/ slashing tool LM I Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 2935
Cutting/slashing tool LM IA Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 2934
Double Ax MM III-LMI Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19 ce = 6.5 Deshayes 2061; Evely 1993, 47 132
Double Ax MM III-LMI Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19 m = 5.5; ce = 6 Deshayes 2024; Evely 1993, 42 entry 16 (HM 2378)
Double Ax MM III-LMI Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.5 ce = 5.7 Deshayes 2024; Evely 1993, 42 entry 17
Double Ax LM Ia Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 17 ce = 6.5 Deshayes 2012; Evely 1993, 42 entry 27
Double Ax LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 18.2 ce = 6.3 Deshayes 2012; Evely 1993, 42 entry 29
Double Ax LM Ia Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 17.2 ce = 6.1 Deshayes 2012; Evely 1993, 42 entry 30
Double Ax LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 16.2 ce = 6.6 Deshayes 2012, Evely 1993, 42 entry 31
Double Ax LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 16.8 ce = 5.8 Deshayes 2012; Evely 1993, 44 entry 32
Double Ax LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 17.4 ce = 6.3 Deshayes 2012; Evely 1993, 44 entry 34
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 ce = 5 & 5.5 Deshayes 2013; Evely 1993, 44 entry 45.
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 49 entry 149; Buchholz 1959, 39.18e
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 49 148; Buchholz 1959, 39.18b
Double Ax LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 16.1 ce= 5.7 Deshayes 2012, Evely 1993, 42 entry 28
Double Ax LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? 18.6 ce = 7 Deshayes 2012; Evely 1993, 44 entry 33
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20 Deshayes 2034; Evely 1993, 44 entry 43
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.2 ce = 5.9 & 6.2 Deshayes 2013; Evely 1993, 44 entry 44
Hammer MMIII-LM Ib Metallurgical Settlement 15 2 Evely 1993 97 entry 1
Knife LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2532
Knife LM I-II Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2485
Knife LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2441
Saw MM-LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.8 3 Evely 1993, 31, entry 18
Saw LM I? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 141 15 Deshayes 2900; Evely 1993, 33, entry 44
Saw (from the LBA?) Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 33 entry 64
Sickle LM I Agricultural Settlement? Deshayes 2804; Mallia I, p. 59, pl. XXX, 4
Spatula, scraper LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 3026
Spatula, scraper Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 3028
Spatula, scraper LM I Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2978
Mallia - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 196
Mold fragment MM-LM probably Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360 entry 28
Mallia - Chrysolakkos - MBA
Awl or pointed implement Small crafts Burial Demargne 1945, 52 plate LXIV, 3
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial Demargne 1945, 52 plate LXIV, 3
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 5.2 2.1 Demargne 1945, 52 plate LXI, 1, number 2244
Mallia, Quartier Mu - MBA
Adze, socketed MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12 1.6 Poursat 1985, 122; Poursat and Olivier 1996, 71 (M 68/B 21)
Adze-hammer or double hammer MM Carpentry/masonry or Metallurgical Settlement 9.9 1.8 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 118, 125, pl.43k
Awl or needle MM II Small crafts Workshop? Poursat and Olivier 1996, D39, M70/B55, 65, 71
CRETE TOOLS 558

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl, point, punch MM II Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 90 entry 58; Poursat, BCH 106 (1982) 677
Awl, point, punch MM II Small crafts Workshop Evely 1993, 90 entry 75; Dessenne, BCH 81 (1957) 695
Ax-adze MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.7 ce = 4.6 & 3.65 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 71 plate 42
Blade MMII Utilitarian Settlement - Building E Poursat and Olivier 1996, 71, (M82/B3), plate 43j
Blade fragment MM II Utilitarian Settlement Poursat and Olivier 1996, 70, plate 43i
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement
Chisel MM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 7.3 1.8 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 64 plate 43f
Chisel MM Carpentry/masonry Hoard 18.2 tip = 1.2 Poursat 1985, 122 entry B2, figures 1 & 2
Chisel or tool shank Carpentry/masonry Settlement
Chisel or tool shank Carpentry/masonry Settlement
Double-Ax MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.7 5.8 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 71
Drill MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 10.8 ce = 0.45 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 71 (M 66/ B4); Poursat 1985, 120
Drill MM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop 3.7 0.4 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 55, C 29, plate 43l
Drill or nail MM II Carpentry/masonry Workshop? 0.4 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 64, D36, M70/B 62 & 64
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? MM III Carpentry/masonry Workshop Poursat 1978, 834; Evely 1993 78 entry 24+
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Poursat 1985, pg 123 figure 4 center
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Poursat 1985, pg 123
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Poursat 1985, pg 123
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Poursat 1985, pg 123
Mold for multiple tools MM II Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 116, plate 52d
Mold (cover?) MM II Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 116, plate 53d, pg 55 C28
Mold fragment for a hammer? MM II Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 116, plate 53b, pg 55 C 24
Mold fragment for double Ax MM II Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 116, plate 53a; pg 53 C18
Mold fragment Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 116, plate 53c, pg 55 C27
Mold for double Ax MM II Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 69, plate 54, 116
Mold fragment for double Ax MM II Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 116 plate 54b
Mold fragment for dagger? MM II Metallurgical Workshop Poursat and Olivier 1996, 116 plate 54c
Saw MM II-III presumably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.8+ 7.4 Evely 1993, 33,#78; Poursat and Olivier 1996, 64 entry D32
Saw MM II Carpentry/masonry Settlement Poursat and Olivier 1996, 64, entry D33, plate 42e
Saw MM II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.2 & 5.7 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 70, plate 42k
Saw MM II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4 & 2.6 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 70 plate 42f
Saw MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 4.7 1.4 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 71 (M 66/ B3)
Saw MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 3 1 Poursat & Olivier 1996, 71, (M68/B18); Poursat 1985, 122
Saw Carpentry/masonry Settlement Poursat and Olivier 1996, 71, plate 42e
Scraper or cutter MM II Utilitarian Settlement 5 2.8 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 70 (M71/ B 73), plate 42c
Scraper or cutter MM II Utilitarian Workshop? 3.6 2.1 Poursat and Olivier 1996, 64, D35, plate 42c; M 71/ B 97
Spatula Utilitarian Settlement On display in Ayios Nikolaos Museum
Undetermined tool Small crafts Settlement Poursat and Olivier 1996 plate 42
Mallia, Quartier Nu - LBA
Double Ax LM III - 1350-1300 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008; on display in Ay. Nik. Mus
Sickle Agricultural Settlement Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008; on display in Ay. Nik. Mus
Undefined implement Small crafts Settlement Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008; on display in Ay. Nik. Mus
Undefined implement Small crafts Settlement Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008; on display in Ay. Nik. Mus
Undefined implement Small crafts Settlement Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008; on display in Ay. Nik. Mus
Undefined implement Small crafts Settlement Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008; on display in Ay. Nik. Mus
Marathokephalon - EBA to MBA
Punch EM I-MMI Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1434; Branigan 1968, 95 IIIc, 2
Martha, Arkalochori - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry 7.8 ce = 5.3 Evely 1993, 47 entry 125; Buchholz 1959, 39.19b;
CRETE TOOLS 559

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Megali Vrysi - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 24.8 ce = 4 Deshayes 732.; Evely 1993, 10 entry 97
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 25.2 ce = 3.6 Deshayes 732.; Evely 1993, 10 entry 98
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 30.3 ce = 4 Deshayes 732.; Evely 1993, 10 entry 99
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.3 ce = 5.5 Deshayes 2040, Aa, Evely 1993, 46 entry 84;
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.3 ce = 5.4 Evely 1993, 46 entry 87; Xenaki KCh4 (1950) 115.10
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.8 ce = 5.5 Deshayes 2040; Evely 1993, 46 entry 85
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.5 ce = 6.3 Deshayes 2040; Evely 1993, 46 entry 86
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 88; Buchholz 1959, 39.20
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 46 entry 89; Buchholz 1959, 39.20
Melidoni-Mylopotamou - LBA
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Evely 1993, 44 entry 45a; Hood 1957, 23
Melidoni-Mylopotamou - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.3 ce = 4.4 Deshayes 2039; Evely 1993, 47 entry 126
Mesara general - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 195
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10.6 m = 4; ce = 4.3 Deshayes 2040; Evely 1993, 46 entry 90
Milatos - LBA
Knife LM III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2653
Milatos - 2nd millennium BC
Ax-adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.4 ce = 3.7 & 3.1 Evely 1993, 68 entry 8; Arch Ephemeris 88, pl. 9, f.4 & g.4
Mochlos - LBA
Awl LM IB Small crafts Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Ax-adze LM I-II Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.1 ce = 3.6 Deshayes 2238, Evely 1993, 68 entry 6
Ax-adze LM I –II Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.7 ce = 3.7 & 3.8 Deshayes 2237, Evely 1993; 67 entry 2
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double adze or double pick LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Double Ax LM IB Ritual or prestige item Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 201; Soles 2008, 147.
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 201; Soles 2008, 147.
Ingot breaker? LM IB Metallurgical Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Ingot breaker? LM IB Metallurgical Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Knife LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Knife LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Knife LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 201; Soles 2008, 147.
Knife LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 201; Soles 2008, 147.
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Rasp LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
CRETE TOOLS 560

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194; Soles 2008, 147
Shovel LM IB Agricultural Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Tongs LM IB Metallurgical Hoard Soles & Davaras 1996, 194-198; Soles 2008, 147
Trident Ritual or prestige item Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2005, Soles 2007, Soles 2008, 148-151; Labyrinth
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Knife or dagger LM IB Utilitarian Hoard Soles 2008, 148-151; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008
Tongs LM IB Metallurgical Hoard Brogan 2008, pg 165 figure 6; Soles 2008, 148-151
Tongs LM IB Metallurgical Hoard Brogan 2008, pg 165 figure 6; Soles 2008, 148-151
Mochos - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.6 ce = 4.4 Evely 1993 49, entry 150; Buchholz 1959, 39.18c
Mouliana - LBA
Saw LM IIIC-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Burial 6 4.3 Deshayes 2894; Evely 1993, 30, entry 10
Saw LM IIIC-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Burial 5.8 4 Evely 1993, 30, entry 11; Xanthoudides, AE 1904 31, fig, 7 r
Saw LM IIIC-Subminoan Carpentry/masonry Burial Evely 1993, 30, entry 12-13+; Xanthoudides, AE 1904 31
Mouri Mallia - LBA
Double Ax LM? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20 ce = 5.7 Evely 1993, 46, entry 80
Mylona Lakkos - MBA
Awl, point, punch MM I Small crafts Burial Evely 1993 (HM 2550)
Myrtos Pyrgos - MBA
Mold for spear? MM II-III Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360, entry 26, plate 87.3, 4
Myrtos Pyrgos - LBA?
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 1.4 0.35 Evely 1993 78 entry 19 (drill) 11 entry 171
Nerokourou - LBA
Double Ax MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.5 m = 5; ce = 6 Vagnetti 1984, 156.i, fig. 1.1a-b; Evely 1993, 42 entry 18
Tongs (from the LBA?) perhaps MM III-LM I Metallurgical Settlement 32 tongs end = 1 Vagnetti 1984, 159.3, fig. 2.1
Double Ax MM III –LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 19.6 m = 5.4; ce = 6 Vagnetti 1984, 157.2 fig 1.2a-b; Evely 1993, 42 entry 19
Nirou Khani - LBA
Double Ax; Ax-hammer LM IB Carpentry/masonry 14.2 ce = 6.2 Deshayes 2022; Evely 1993, 44, entry 35 (HM 2266)
Knife LM I Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2650; A. Eph. 1922, p. 13
Olonte or Olous - LBA
Ax, single, flat LM IIIB-C Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.4 to 8.4 ? Deshayes 296; Evely 1993, 72 entry 7
Ax, single, flat LM IIIB-C Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.4 to 8.4 ? Deshayes 296; Evely 1993, 72 entry 8
Ax, single, flat LM IIIB-C Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.4 to 8.4 ? Deshayes 296; Evely 1993, 72 entry 9
Ax, single, flat LM IIIB-C Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.4 to 8.4 ? Deshayes 296; Evely 1993, 72 entry 10
Ax, single, flat LM IIIB-C Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.4 to 8.4 ? Deshayes 296; Evely 1993, 72 entry 11
Chisel? LM IIIB-C Carpentry/masonry Burial 5 1.1 Deshayes 296; Evely 1993, 72 entry 6
CRETE TOOLS 561

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Cleaver LM IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2718; Van Effentere 1948, 59, O 125
Cleaver LM IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2719; Van Effentere 1948, 59 pl. XXII, O126
Cleaver LM IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2708; Van Effentere 1948, 58, O 123 & 124
Knife
Palaikastro - EBA to MBA
LM IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial? Deshayes 2566; Van Effentere 1948, p. 59, O 127-129
Mold for ingots Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M11; Evely 2000, 358 entry 16
Mold for ingots Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M12; BSA supp. 1, Fig. 106
Punch EMII-MMII Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1401; Branigan 1968, 94 II 9
Punch EM II - MM II Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1420; Branigan 1968, 94 III 20
Punch
Palaikastro - MBA
EMII-MMII Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 176 en. 1423; Branigan 1968, 95 III 22
Ax, shaft hole MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entries 8
Ax, shaft hole MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 3.8 ce = 2.1 Deshayes 1541, Evely 1993, 55 entry 9
Ax, shaft hole MM I - II Carpentry/masonry Burial 6 ce = 3 Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entry 10
Ax, shaft hole MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 8.6 ce = 3.8 Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entry 11
Ax, shaft hole MM I - II Carpentry/masonry Burial 4.5 ce = 2.5 Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entry 12 fig 23
Ax, shaft hole MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 5.5 ce = 2.2 Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entry 13 fig 23
Ax, shaft hole MM I - II Carpentry/masonry Burial 6 ce = 3.1 Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entry 14
Ax, shaft hole MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 4.6 ce= 3 Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entry 15
Ax, shaft hole MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 5 3 Evely 1993, 55, entry 17; Bosanquet BSA 8 (1901-1902) 291
Ax, shaft hole MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 5.7 ce = 2.6 Deshayes 1541; Evely 1993, 55 entry 16
Ax, shaft hole (from the MBA?) possibly MM I/II Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 5 ce = 2.7 Branigan 1974, 166, 581, pl. 12; Evely 1993, 55 entry 18
Ax-adze EM –MM II (Branigan), MM Carpentry/masonry II (Dawkins); MMIIIb-LM I (Deshayes, Settlement Shaw)
13.5 ce = 4.8 Deshayes 2239; Evely 1993, 68 entry 4; Shaw 2009, fig 37C
Punch
Palaikastro - LBA
MM I-II Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974 177 entry 1453a; BSA 7, 296
Adze, flat, single LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 5.4 Evely 1993, 72 entry 1
Awl, point, punch LM I & III Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 88 entry 14-18; Dawkins, UOP 119;
Awl, point, punch LM I-III Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993 88 entry 19; Popham BSA 65 (1970) 300.12;
Awl, point, punch LM I Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 91; Evely 1993, 88 entry 23
Awl, point, punch LM I probably Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993 92 entry 125; Bosanquet BSA 9 (1901-02) 308
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.5 ce = 0.45 Deshayes 836; Evely 1993, 6; catalogue entry 5;
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.5? ce = 0.45? Deshayes 836; Evely 1993, 6 entry 6
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 Deshayes 836; Evely 1993, 6 entry 24
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 836; Evely 1993, 6 entry 25
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 24 ce =3.3 Deshayes 729; Evely 1993, 10 entry 89
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 34 Deshayes 729; Evely 1993, 10 entry 90.
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 19 addenda; AR 34 (1988-9) 104
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 151; Bosnquet 1901-1902, 316
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 26 3 Evely 1993, 11 entry 163; Dawkins & Tod 1902-1903, 333.2
Cleaver LM III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2699; Dawkins, UOP, p. 118, pl. 25, C & D
Cutting/slashing tool LM III Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2931; Palaikastro, p. 120, pl. XXV, U
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18 ce = 6.6 Deshayes 2035;Evely 1993, 44 entry 36-40
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.2 ce = 4.8 & 5.4 Buchholz 1959, 40.24a; Evely 1993 47 entry 120
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18 ce = 6.6 Deshayes 2035; Evely 1993, 44 entry 36-40
Double Ax LM probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 5.7 Evely 1993, 49 entry 168; Dawkins & Tod 1902-03, 335
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 ce = 8 & 8.4 Buchholz 1959, 40.29a; Evely 1993 47 entry 136.
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Deshayes 2035; Evely 1993, 44 entry 36-40
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Deshayes 2035; Evely 1993, 44 entry 36-40
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Deshayes 2035; Evely 1993, 44 entry 36-40
CRETE TOOLS 562

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double Ax probably LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Buchholz 1959, 40.24a; Evely 49 entry 142-5
Double Ax probably LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Buchholz 1959, 40.24a; Evely 49 entry 142-5
Double Ax probably LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Buchholz 1959, 40.24a; Evely 49 entry 142-5
Double Ax probably LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Buchholz 1959, 40.24a; Evely 49 entry 142-5
Double Ax; Ax-hammer? LM Ib or II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.4 m = 4; ce = 5.4 Evely 1993 101 entry 16 (hammer) or pg 44 entry 36
Drill LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12 Deshayes 193; Palaikastro p. 119, pl. XXV, R)
Drill LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 bit = 0.8 Deshayes 188; Evely 1993, 78 entry 1
Knife LM II Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2540; Dawkins UOP, p. 119, pl. 25, J
Knife LM II - III Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2493; Dawkins, UOP p. 119 pl. 25, k
Knife, pruning LM II - LM III Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2856; Dawkins, UOP, p. 119, pl. 25, G & H
Mold LM II or earlier Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360 entry Type 4
Mold, ceramic, for tripod leg LM IIIB Metallurgical Settlement Hemmingway 1996; Catling 1997
Punch LM? Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1422; Branigan 1968, 94 III 21
Saw LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 1.5 Evely 1993, 30, entry 4; Deshayes 2893
Saw LM I or LM III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 5 est. = 1.3 Deshayes 2893; Evely 1993, 30, entry 5-6
Socketed chisel LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12 ce = 1.7 Evely 1993, 11 entry 164 (for chisel); or 78 entry 21
Palaikastro - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11 Evely 1993, 10 entry 113; Dawkins UOP 119.P
Panoklissia - LBA
Awl, point, punch LM III Small crafts Burial Evely 1993, 90 entry 62; Touchais BCH 106 (1982) 621
Petsofas - LBA
Double Ax MM - LM Carpentry/masonry Burial 16 Evely 1993, 49 entry 156; Dawkins, BSA 11 (1904-04) 292)
Pezoules Kephalas B - EBA to MBA
Chisel EM III - MM IA Carpentry/masonry Burial Branigan 1974, 170 entry 925; Evely 1993, 11 entry 145
Phaistos - MBA
Mold MM I-II Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360 entry 29
Awl, point, punch MM I - IIIa Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 171; Evely 1993, 88 entry 1
Chisel MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.88 ce = 0.7 Evely 1993, 6 entry 15
Double Ax MM III or earlier in MM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 ce = 5 Pernier 1951, 366, fig. 218; Evely 1993, 41 entry 3
Double Ax MM II or MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.5 ce = 4.5 Deshayes 2004; Evely 1993, 47 118
Double Ax MM I-II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.5 ce = 6.4 & 5.6 Branigan 1974, 165, 527; Evely 1993, 47 entry 117 figure 20
Knife MM I-II Utilitarian Settlement Branigan 702a; Branigan 1974, 168 Entry 702a
Phaistos - LBA
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.5 Evely 1993, 11 entry 148; Pernier 1951, 373.35
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 149; Pernier 1951, 373.35
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 150
Awl, point, punch MM III-LM I probably Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993 90 entry 82
Awl, point, punch MM III-LM I probably Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 90 entry 83
Awl, point, punch MMIII-LM I probably; Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 92 Entry 94
Awl, point, punch MMIII-LM I probably Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993 92 entry 98
Awl, point, punch LM Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 93; Evely 1993, 90 entry 81
Ax-adze LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.2 ce = 4.2 & 4.1 Deshayes 2240; Evely 1993, 68, entry 5
Chisel LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 723
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13 ce = 1.1 Deshayes 921; Evely 1993, 6 entry 16?
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14 Evely 1993, 6 entry 17; Pernier & Banti 1951, 372.34.
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13 Evely 1993, 6 entry 46; Pernier & Banti 1951, 374.41
Chisel or drill MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6 Evely 1993, 6 entry 4 (chisel) or 78 entry 16; Deshayes 795
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2685; MA XIV (1905), p. 540, fig. 24
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 24 m = 6; ce = 6.5 Deshayes 2017; Evely 1993, 44 entry 46
CRETE TOOLS 563

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 20.2 m = 5.5 Deshayes 2017; Evely 1993, 44 entry 47
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 19.4 m = 5 Deshayes 2017; Evely 1993, 44 entry 48
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 18.3 m = 5.5 Deshayes 2017; Evely 1993, 44 entry 50
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 19 m = 5.4 Evely 1993, 44 entry 51
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 18 m = 5 Deshayes 2017; Evely 1993, 44 entry 52
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 15.3 m = 5 Deshayes 2017; Evely 1993, 44 entry 53
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 16 ce = 6.2 Deshayes 2017; Evely 1993, 44 entry 54
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 21.5 ce = 6 & 6.5 Deshayes 2019; Evely 1993, 44 entry 49
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2016; Pernier & Banti 1951, p. 371
Drill LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 tip = 0.7 Evely 1993, 78 entry 2; Deshayes 186
Drill LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 shaft = 0.8 Evely 1993, 78 entry 3
Hammer LM Metallurgical Settlement? Deshayes 2320; Pernier & Banti 1951, p. 371, fig. 235c
Knife LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2643; Pernier & Banti 1951, 180, fig. 112, a
Knife LM Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2488; Pernier & Banti 1951, p. 374, fig. 238a
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2609; Jahrbuch RGZM II (1955), p. 156, fig. 1, 13
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2443; Pernier & Banti 1951, p. 371, fig. 236d
Knife Utilitarian Settlement? Deshayes 2586 bis; Pernier & Banti 1951, 371, fig. 236a
Mold for chisel Metallurgical Settlement 35.5 13 Branigan 1974, 201 entry M13; Evely 2000, 358 entry 11
Mold for sickle after MM III? Metallurgical Settlement 16.5 6.5 Branigan 1974, 201 entry M14; Evely 2000, 358 entry 12
Mold for ingot, used on 3 sides perhaps MM III-LM I Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 201 entry M16; Evely 2000, 358 entry 15
Sickle Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2802; Pernier & Banti 1951, 372, fig. 237,a
Sickle LM Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2788; Pernier & Banti 1951, 371, fig. 237b
Sickle LM ? Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2789; Pernier & Banti 1951, 372, fig. 237,c
Sickle Agricultural Settlement Pernier & Banti 1951, 372, fig. 237,d
Mold for chisel probably after MM III Metallurgical Settlement 12 10 Branigan 1974, 201 entry M15; Evely 2000, 360, entry 27
Pharmakokephalo - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13 ce = 6.5 Evely 1993, 47 entry 137
Phodele (Lasithi) - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993 46, entry 69. Buchholz 1959, 39.17d.c.e.st)
Pines - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.5 ce = 6.2 Evely 1993 47 entry 138
Plakoures - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 55
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 124
Platanos - EBA to MBA
Awl, point, punch EM I-MMII Small crafts Burial Evely 1993 88 entry 6; Xanthoudides, VTM 110, pl. 56
Awl, point, punch EM I-MMII Small crafts Burial Evely 1993 88 entry 7; Xanthoudides, VTM 110
Awl, point, punch EM I-MMII Small crafts Burial Evely 1993 88 entry 8; Xanthoudides, VTM 110
Double Ax EM I - MM II Carpentry/masonry Burial Branigan 1974, 164 entry 521; Branigan 1968, 89, I,2
Double Ax EM I - MM II Carpentry/masonry Burial Branigan 1974, 165 entry 522; Branigan 1968, 89, I, 1
Punch EM I - MM I Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1039; Branigan 1968, 90 I 5
Punch EM I - MM I Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1040; Branigan 1968, 90 I 6
Punch EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1041; Branigan 1968, 90 I 7
Punch EMIII-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1395; Branigan 1968, 93 II 3
Punch EMIII-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1405; Branigan 1968, 94 III 4
Punch EMIII-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1406; Branigan 1968, 94 III 5
Punch EMII-MMII Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974,176 entry 1407; Branigan 1968, 94 III 6
Punch EMII-MMII Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1408; Branigan 1968, 94 III 7
Punch EMIII-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1435; Branigan 95 IIIc 4
CRETE TOOLS 564

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Punch EMII-MMII Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1437; Branigan 1968, 95 IV 2
Punch EMII-MMII Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1443; Branigan 1968, 96 VI 2
Punch EMII-MMI Small crafts Burial Branigan 1974, 177 entry 1444; Branigan 1968, 96 VI 3
Poros-Katsambas - LBA
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Workshop Dimopoulou 1997, pg 437 plate CLXXIII, d
Pointed implements Small crafts Workshop Dimopoulou 1997, pg 437 plate CLXXIII, d
Porti - EBA to MBA
Knife EM I-MM II? Utilitarian Burial? Branigan 1974, 167 entry 631; Branigan 1968, 91, I, 1
Punch EM I - MM II Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1415; Branigan 94 III 14
Porti - MBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial? Deshayes 2484; Xanthoudidis, p. 67, pl. XXXIX, b)
Praisos - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17.1 ce = 6.8 Evely 1993, 46 entry 70
Praisos - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 31 ce = 3.5 Deshayes 734
Double hammer or double Ax Carp/mason or metallurgical Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 101 ent 20; Evely's double Ax = 201
Ax, lugged or trunnion Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 58 entry 4; Pernier 1912, pl. 10, fig 32
Pseira - LBA
Chisel MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 21 2.3 Evely 1993, 8 entry 51; Shaw 1971, 60, fig 48B
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 21.6 ce = 0.9 Evely 1993, 78 entry 22; or 10 entry 136 (chisel)
Double Ax LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.1 ce = 5.6 Evely 1993, 44 entry 55; Betancourt, CCI 34.73, fig 2, pl. 8
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.5 5 Buchholz 1959, 42.29; Evely 1993, 44 entry 64
Double Ax LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.5? 5.8? Buchholz 1959, 42.29; Evely 1993 47 entry 121
Knife LM I-II Ritual or prestige item or utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2486; Sandars 1955, 189; figure 1.4
Mold LM IIIa-b Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 361 entry 36
Saw LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 33 entry 74
Tongs MM III-LM I probably Metallurgical Settlement c. 20 Evely 2000, 365 entry 1
Pseira - 2nd millennium BC
Awl, punch, point Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 92 entry 104
Awl, punch, point Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 92 entry 105
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 6 entry 34.
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 6 entry 37.
Hoe-like implement Agricultural Settlement? 10 Deshayes 1237
Psychro - LBA
Awl, point, punch MM-LM Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1428; Evely 1993 92 entry 136-9
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1428 Evely 1993 92 entry 136-9
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1428; Evely 1993 92 entry 136-9
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1428; Evely 1993 92 entry 136-9
Chisel LM Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 19.1 ce = 3.7 Evely 1993, 8 entry 76; Boardman CCO 51.219, fig. 23 & pl. 15
Chisel LM Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 10.7 ce = 1.3 Evely 1993, 11 entry 142; Boardman, CCO 52, fig. 25a
Chisel LM? Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 11.7 Evely 1993, 11 entry 165; Boardman, CCO 52
Double Ax MM III-LM III Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 15.6 ce = 5.8 Evely 1993, 42 entry 23; Boardman, CCO 44.198, fig. 19
Double Ax MM III-LM III Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 17.2 m = 4.5; ce = 6 Evely 1993, 42 entry 24; Boardman CCO 42, ftnt. 1
Double Ax MM III-LM III Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 6.1 ce = 5.6 Evely 1993, 42 entry 25
Double hammer MMIII-LM I Metallurgical Cultic site or sanctuary? 6.6 3.8 Evely 1993, 101 entry 2; Boardman CCO 52.225, fig. 23
Double hammer or double Ax MM –LM Carp/mason or metallurgical Cultic site or sanctuary 10 ce = 5.3 Evely 1993, 101 entry 19
Knife LM IIIA to EIA Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 2607
Knife LM IIIA to EIA Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 2608
Knife LM IIIA to EIA Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 2597
CRETE TOOLS 565

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife LM IIIA to EIA Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 2586
Knife LM IIIA to EIA Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 2470
Saw
Psychro - 2nd millennium BC
LM III or later Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 3.9 0.7 Evely 1993 30, entry 9; Boardman, CCO 25.93, fig 8, pl. 11
Pick-adze, votive, lead
Pyrgiotises - 2nd millennium BC
Ritual or prestige item or carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 16.5 ce = 2.2 Evely 1993, 71; Boardman, CCO 54.236, figure 26, plate 17
Chisel
Rogdia Malevyziou - LBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evans 1993, 10 entry 126
Double Ax
Rogdia Malevyziou - 2nd millennium BC
LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 71; Buchholz 1959, 43.31.c.e.c)
Pick-adze
Rousa Ekklisia - 2nd millennium BC
Carpentry/masonry or agricultural Unstratified or unknown 14.6 ce = 3.6 & 2 Deshayes 2307; Shaw 1973a, 48; Evely 1993, 71 entry 3
Ax-adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16 ce = 4.2 & 3.7 Deshayes 2242; Evely 1993 68 entry 9
Double Ax
Routasi - LBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 49 178; Pendlebury AC 299;
Saw
Routasi - 2nd millennium BC
LM Carpentry/masonry Hoard? ? Hood 1957, 20; Evely 1993, 33 entry 75
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 123
Hammer Metallurgical Hoard? Evely 1993 101 entry 4; Hood 1957, 20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 32-36? Evely 1993, 6 entry 40
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 37-39 Evely 1993, 6 entry 41
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 40-42 Evely 1993, 6 entry 42
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 58
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 59
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 60
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 61
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 62
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 8 entry 63
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? Hood 1957, 20; Evely 1993, 49 entry 175
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? ? Hood 1957, 20; Evely 1993, 49 entry 176
Double Ax
Salonas - LBA
Carpentry/masonry Settlement or hoard? ? Hood 1957, 20; Evely 1993, 49 entry 177
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16+ ce = 6.4 Evely 1993, 49 entry 140
Double Ax
Samba (Pediados) - EBA to MBA
LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20 ce = 6.6 Evely 1993, 49 entry 139
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Hoard? Branigan 1974, 170 entry 799; BSA 64, 5, no 2
Double Ax
Samba (Pediados) - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Hoard? Branigan 1974, 165 entry 534a; Branigan 1969, BSA 64,4
Chisel EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 32.5 ce = 4.6 Deshayes 735, Evely 1993, 8 entry 81
Chisel EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 23 shaft = 1.3 Deshayes 998, 51, pl. 55.4; Evely 1993, 8 entry 49'
Chisel EM II – MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 20.7 est. ce = 1.3 Deshayes 998, plate XII.3 & LV.4; Evely 1993, 8 entry 48
Double Ax
Samba (Pediados) - 2nd millennium BC
EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 31 Deshayes 2091; Branigan 1969, 5; Evely 1993 47 entry 115
Double adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 31 m = 5.5 Deshayes 2091; Evely 1993 63, entry 16
Stake-anvil
Selakanos - EBA to MBA
Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown 13.3 Deshayes 2321; Evely 1993 101 entry 3
Chisel EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 27.5 est. ce = 4.3 Branigan 1969, 2-4, fig 1; Deshayes 736, fig IX.13 & LV.2
Double Ax EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard Branigan 1969; Deshayes (736, 737, 2038, 2018, 2045)
Double Ax EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.5 ce = 6.2 Deshayes 2018; Evely 1993, 47 entry 113
CRETE TOOLS 566

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double Ax EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 17.3 ce = 3.3 & 5.2 Deshayes 2045; Evely 1993, 47 entry 108
Double Ax EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.8 ce = 6.6 Branigan 1969; Deshayes(736, 737, 2038, 2018, 2045)
Pick Agricultural Hoard? Branigan 1974, 165 entry 561; BSA 64.4, Fig. 1,5
Selakanos - MBA
Chisel EM II - MM II Carpentry/masonry Hoard 27.8 ce = 6.5 Deshayes (736, 737, 2038, 2018, 2045); Evely 1993, 8, 78
Double Ax MM or later Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.5 ce = 6 Deshayes 2062 bis; Evely 1993, 47 entry 130.
Selakanos - LBA
Double Ax MM III –LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19.7 ce = 5.6 Deshayes 2018; Evely 1993 46, entry 96
Selakanos - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 26 ce = 3.3 Catling 1964, 106, plate 11:i left; Evely 1993 10, entry 100
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 28.2 ce = 3.4 Catling 1964, 106, plate 11:i m; Evely 1993, 10 entry 101
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 24.5 ce = 3.2 Catling 1964, 106, plate 11:i; Evely 1993, 10 entry 102
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993 46, entry 91; Buchholz 1959, 44.33e
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 92-5; Buchholz 1959, 43.33b & d
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 92-5; Buchholz 1959, 43.33b & d
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 92-5; Buchholz 1959, 43.33b & d
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 46 entry 92-5; Buchholz 1959, 43.33b & d
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.6 ce = 5.8 Evely 1993, 46 entry 97; Buchholz 1959, 44.33g
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 6.6 (half frag)m = 5; ce = 5.8 Evely 1993, 47 entry 127. Branigan 1974, 165 entry 535a
Ax, trunnion, lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 61, addendum
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 90 entry 76; Touchasis BCH 105 (1981) 865
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2078
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Sandars 1955, 195; Branigan 1974, 167 entry 640
Pruning knife Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2857; Grece Precl. I, pl. 17,2
Siva N - EBA to MBA
Punch EM I-MM I Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1427; Branigan 1968, 95, IIIa,2
Skinias - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 189; Alexion, AD 20.2 (20) (1965) 554
Skoteino - MBA
Double Ax MM Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary? ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 154
Sphaka - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 121
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 122
Stamioi Pediados - LBA
Cleaver LM III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2700; Praktika, 1952, p. 626, fig. 7
Stamioi Pediados - 2nd millennium BC
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2548; Praktika, 1952, p. 624, fig, 7
Sternes - LBA
Double Ax LM IIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 146
Sybrita - 2nd millennium BC
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.6 ce = 1.2 Evely 1993, 8 entry 52
Sybritos - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 179
Sykologos - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, entry 98, Buchholz 1959, 44.37
Thesis Amygdalois - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.3 ce = 4.3 & 4.6 Deshayes 2050; Evely 1993, 47 entry 110
Thesis Trochalou - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 47 entry 124; Buchholz 1959, 38.17b,c,e,c
CRETE TOOLS 567

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Tourloti - LBA
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Buchholz 1959, 44.38 & 34; Evely 1993, 46 entries 73-76
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.5 ce = 6.2 Deshayes 2027; Evely 1993, 46 entry 72
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement 22 m = 6.6; ce = 7 Evely 1993 46 entries 73-76;Xanthoudides AE 1904, 51-52
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993 46 entries 73-76; Xanthoudides AE 1904, 51-52
Double Ax LM Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993 46 entries 73-76; Xanthoudides AE 1904, 51-52
Knife LM III Utilitarian Settlement? Deshayes 2652
Pruning knife Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2849
Tourloti - 2nd millennium BC
Ax-hammer Carpentry/masonry Settlement? ? Evely 1993, 101 entry 12; Xanthoudides AE 1904 51-52
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 31.6 ce = 3.5 Deshayes 733; Evely 1993, 10, 105; Xanthoudides 1904
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 10 entry 106; Xanthoudides, AE 1904, 51-52
Trapeza - EBA to MBA
Punch EMII-MMI Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1396; Branigan 1968, 93 II 4
Punch EM III-MM I Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1397; Branigan 1968, 93 II 5
Punch EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1409; Branigan 1968, 94 III 8
Punch EMI-MMI Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1410; Branigan 1968, 94 III 9
Punch EM II - MM I Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1417; Branigan 1968, 94 III 16
Punch EM II - MM I Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1429; Branigan 1968, 95 IIIb 1
Punch EM II - MM I Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1429a; Branigan 1968, 95 IIIb 2
Punch EMII-MMI Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 ent. 1430; Branigan 1968, 95 IIIb 3
Punch EMII-MMI Small crafts Burial? Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1431; BSA 36, pl. 15
Tylissos - LBA
Awl, point, punch Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 88 entry 35
Awl, point, punch MM III-LM I probably Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993, 88 entry 36
Chisel LM I or LM III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.4 ce = 0.9 Deshayes 837
Chisel LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.5 ce = 3.8 Evely 1993, 8, entry 74; Deshayes 381
Chisel LM I or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.3 ce = 4.3 Deshayes 740; Hazzidakis, VMT 96, fig 27.1e
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2656; Hazziadis VMT, p. 96, pl. XXVII, 1, g
Saw LM I or II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 3 Evely 1993, 33 entry 51; Deshayes 2915
Vai - LBA
Ax, flat, single LM Ia Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 72 entry 13
Ax-adze LM Ia Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19 ce = 4.3 & 4 Deshayes 2247; Evely 1993, 68 entry 3
Vasiliki - MBA
Double Ax Level III; 2000 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2005
Vavari - LBA?
Chisel LM I-II perhaps Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evans 1993, 10 entry 127
Chisel LM I-II perhaps Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evans 1993, 10 entry 128
Chisel LM I-II perhaps Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evans 1993, 10 entry 129
Chisel LM I-II perhaps Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evans 1993, 10 entry 130
Vavaro - 2nd millennium BC
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 181-186
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 181-186
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 181-186
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 181-186
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 181-186
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 181-186
Hammer Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 101 entry 8
Vourou - LBA
CRETE TOOLS 568

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double Ax MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.4 ce = 6.3 Evely 1993, 42 entry 20;
Zafer Papoura - LBA
Chisel LM IIIA-B Carpentry/masonry Burial 24.4 ce = 4.1 Deshayes 719; Evely 1993, 10 entry 95
Chisel LM IIIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 7.4 Evely 1993, 6 entry 9
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 14 Deshayes 2715; Evans 1906, p. 43, no. 14, t
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 14 Deshayes 2715; Evans 1906, p. 43, no. 14, u
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 98 Deshayes 2710; Evans 1906, 87, fig. 98, no. 98d
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 4 20 5.3 Deshayes 2684; Evans 1906,p. 23, no. 4, a;
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 80 Deshayes 2678; Evans 1906,p. 80, fig. 88, no. 80a
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 42 23 Evans 1906, 60, b, figure 63 (1 of 2 pictured)
Cleaver LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 42 23 Evans 1906, 60, b, figure 63 (1 of 2 pictured)
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 1 12 Deshayes 2564; Evans 1906,p. 22, no. 1, c
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 51 Deshayes 2564; Evans 1906, p. 64, fig. 71, no. 51, f
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 13 Deshayes 2565; Evans 1906,p. 34, fig. 31, no. 13,a
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 7 Deshayes 2552; Evans 1906,p. 25, no. 7,a, fig. 19
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 1 11.8 Deshayes 2534; Evans 1906,p. 22, fig. 15
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 98 Deshayes 2522; Evans 1906,p. 87, no. 98a
Knife LM IIIA Utilitarian Burial, tomb 64 Deshayes 2495; Evans 1906,p. 69, no. 64, c
Knife LM IIIA Utilitarian Burial, tomb 64 Deshayes 2496; Sandars 1955, 190
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 3 29.5 Deshayes 2497; Evans 1906,p. 23, no. 3, a
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 4 36 Deshayes 2498; Evans 1906,p. 23, no. 4, b
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 3 Deshayes 2479; Sandars 1955, 192, fig. 2.2
Knife LM IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial, tomb 75 27 Deshayes 2454; Evans 1906,p. 77, , no. 75, d
Saw LM IIIA-B Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 33 48 5.3 Evans 1906, 440, fig. 48.33a; Deshayes 2902
Zakros - LBA
Adze, flat, single LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.7 5.7 Evely 1993, 72 entry 2; Shaw 1971, 47
Anvil LM Ib Metallurgical Settlement Evely 1993 101 entry 25; Platon PAE 1963 183; Zakros 129
Anvil or stakes LM Ib Metallurgical Settlement Evely 1993 101 entry 24
Awl, punch, point LM Ib Small crafts Settlement Evely 1993 92 entry 130+; Platon, PAE 1963 183
Ax, flat, single LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 72 entry 5; Shaw 1973a, 47/8
Ax, flat, single LM Ib Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.5 3.5 Shaw 1973a, 47/8, fig. 50 on 51; Evely 1993, 72 entry 3
Ax, flat, single LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.5 3 Evely 1993, 72 entry 4; Shaw 1973a 47/8
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.2 est. ce =1.8? Shaw 1973a: 74; Evely 1993, 6 entry 28
Chisel MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 152
Chisel MM III - LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 153; Platon, PAE 1967, 180, small
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 154; Platon, PAE 1963, 183
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 155; Platon, PAE 1963, 183
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 156; Platon, PAE 1966, 141.
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 157; Platon, PAE 1964, 149
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 158; Platon, PAE 1962, 159.
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 159; Platon, PAE 1962, 159.
Chisel LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 11 entry 160; Platon, PAE 1966 151
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8 2.3 Evely 1993, 11 entry 161; Platon, PAE 1979, 317
Double adze MM III-LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.8 ce = 4 Deshayes 2089; Evely 1993, 63 entry 1
Double adze MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 24.5 m = 5; ce = 4.7 Shaw 1973a, 51, fig. 39/40.b; Evely 1993, 63 entry 3
Double adze LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.5 est. ce = 3.06 Shaw 1973a, 49, fig 36c; Evely 1993, 63 entry 4
Double adze or double Ax MM III-LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.8 m = 4.4; ce = 4 Deshayes 2089, Evely 1993, 63 entry 2.
Double Ax MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 23.5 ce = 6.7 Deshayes 2009, Evely 1993, 42 entry 21
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18 ce = 5.9 Evely 1993, 47 entry 133; Platon, Zakros 124
CRETE TOOLS 569

Sites & Object types Specific date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993 49, entry 162
Double Ax MM III – LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.2 ce = 6.5 Evely 1993, 42 entry 22
Double Ax fragment - half MM III-LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 49 entry 158; Platon, PAE 1962 147
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993 49, 159; Platon, PAE 1962 149
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993 49, 160; Platon, PAE 1962 149
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 49, entry 161; Platon Zakros 124
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993 49, entry 163; Platon Zakros 124
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993 49, entry 164; Platon Zakros 124
Double Ax LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.4 ce = 4.3 & 4.8 Evely 1993 49 entry 165; Platon Zakros, fig. 124
Double Ax or Double hammer LM Ib Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 m = 4.7; ce = 6 Shaw 19713a 46, fig. 35b; Evely 1993, 101 entry 15
Drill LM Ib Carpentry/masonry Settlement 23.2 ce = 0.5 Shaw 1973a, 49 fig 36e; Evely 1993, 78 entry 12
Drill LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 0.3 Shaw 1973a, 49, fig. 36.d; Evely 1993, 78 entry 6
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? LM I probably Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 78 entry 25
Hollow cylinder, tubular drill? LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 36 entry7; Platon, PAE 1963, 179
Mold MM III-LM I Metallurgical Settlement Evely 2000, 360 entry 34; Platon, Ergon 1977, 185-195
Pick-adze LM IB Carpentry/masonry or agricultural Settlement 17 ce = 4.5 Shaw 1973a, 49 fig. 36b; Evely 1993, 71 entry 1
Pick-adze LM Ib Carpentry/masonry or agricultural Settlement 14 adze ce = 4 Shaw 1973a, 49, fig. 36a; Evely 1993, 71 entry 2.
Saw MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.5 (average) Deshayes 2916; Evely 1993, 33 entry 52-6
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 170 21 Evely 1993, 31 entry 24-5; Platon, PAE 1964, 149, fig 146 a
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993 31 entry 26; PAE 1964 149
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993; 31, entry 27; Platon, Zakros 158
Saw LM Ib Carpentry/masonry Settlement 145 28 Evely 1993, 31, entry 28; Platon PAE 1963 186
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 31 entry 29; Platon Zakros 129, fig on 128
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 122 Shaw 1973a, 56, fig 43; Evely 1993 31, entry 30 (HM 2600)
Saw LM Ib Carpentry/masonry Settlement 88 12 Shaw 1973a, 56, figure 45. Evely 1993, 33 entry 47
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 57 12.8 Shaw 1973a, 69 ftnt 2; Evely 1993, 33 entry 48
Saw LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5 Evely 1993, 33 entry 68; Platon, PAE 1978 277
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6 2 Evely 1993, 33 entry 67; Platon, PAE 1976 423
Saw LM IA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 33 69; Platon PAE 1979 312;
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993 31, entry 31; Platon, PAE 1962, 156
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993 31, entry 32; Platon, PAE 1962, 156 fig. 149a
Saw LM IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 1993, 31 entry 24-5; Platon, PAE 1964, 149, fig 146 a
Saw MM III - LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 40, addendum
Tongs MM III-LM I Metallurgical Settlement 30 Evely 2000, 365 entry 3; Platon 1970, 214, plate 338a left
Tongs MM III-LM I Metallurgical Settlement 45 Evely 2000, 365 entry 4; Platon 1970, 214, plate 338a right
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Evely 1993, 19 addenda; AR 35 (1988-89) 107
Zakros (Ano) - LBA
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.2 Evely 1993, 11, 162; Shaw 1973a, 71; Platon, PAE 1965, 223
Ziro - 2nd millennium BC
Hammer Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 101 entry 5-6; Hood AR 1957 20
Ziros - LBA?
Chisel LM I? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 22.7 ce = 3.7 Shaw 2009, 232, figure 45; Evely 1993, 10 entry 111
Chisel LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Evely 1993, 10 entry 112
Double Ax MM III –LM I Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 26 Evely 1993, 49 entry 157
CRETE TOOLS 570

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Acarnania general - 2nd millennium
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17.2 ce = 4.8 Deshayes 1566, pl XXV.4 and LIX.1
Ax-adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.8 ce =4.3& 2.9 Deshayes 2233, pl XXXVIII.5 and LXI.7
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.2 ce = 3.7 Deshayes 742, pl IX.18 and LV.7
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2069
Achaea general- LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial 16.6 cm 2.1 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 226, figure 209b, 343a
Knife Utilitarian Burial 11.8 cm 1.55 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 226, figure 309b, 342d
Razor, leaf shaped frag Utilitarian Burial 13.8 cm 5.5 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 294d, 327b
Razor, leaf shaped frag Utilitarian Burial 17.2 cm 4.5 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 295b, 327c
Razor, leaf shaped frag Utilitarian Burial 12.7 cm 4.1 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 295b, 327d
Achaea or Patras general area - LBA
Double ax LH I-III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.5 ce = 5.2 Papadopoulous 1978, 154, 226 entry 147, figures 306a-b; 339a
Aigion - 2nd millennium
Ax, single/flat LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.5 3.36 Deshayes 452, pl VI.2 and LIV.4; Papadopoulos 1978, 226 entry 143
Andronianoi - LBA
Double ax LH II - LH IIIA1 Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.75 ce= 9.4&9.9 Paschalidis 2007
Razor LH II - LH IIIA1 Utilitarian Hoard Paschalidis 2007
Saw with teeth LH II - LH IIIA1 Carpentry/masonry Hoard 55.7 8.9 Paschalidis 2007
Anthedon - LBA
Adze, trunnion/lugged around 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21 cm ce= 4.2 cm Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 11, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entry 11.
Awl around 1200 BC Small crafts Hoard 8.4 cm 0.65 Rolfe 1890, 105, # 10, pl. 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entry 10; Deshayes 95.
Chisel, narrow around 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.2 cm ce == 1.4 cm Rolfe 1890, 105, entry 9, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entry 9.
Double ax around 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.1 cm ce =6.5&6.05 cm Rolfe 1890, 104-105, entry 2, pl 15 ; Spyropoulos 1972, 58 entry 2.
Double ax around 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 22.5 cm ce =7.8 cm Rolfe 1890, 104-105, entry 1, pl 15 ; Spyropoulos 1972, 58 entry 1.
Double ax fragment around 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 8 cm ce =5.3 cm Rolfe 1890, 104-105, entry 4, pl 15 ; Spyropoulos 1972, 58 entry 4.
Double ax fragment around 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 7.7 ce =6.2 cm Rolfe 1890, 104-105, entry 3, pl 15 ; Spyropoulos 1972, 58 entry 3.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Knife around 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard Rolfe 1890, 106 entry 13-26, pl 15; Spyropoulos 1972, 61 entries 13-26.
Plowshare around 1200 BC Agricultural Hoard Rolfe 1890; Spyropoulos 1972; Deshayes 1216
Plowshare around 1200 BC Agricultural Hoard Rolfe 1890; Spyropoulos 1972.
Sickle around 1200 BC Agricultural Hoard Rolfe 1890; Spyropoulos 1972; Deshayes 2798.
Arcadia general - LBA
Double ax LH III; has 5th c.inscription Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown On display in Athens National Archaeological Museum (NM 17439)
Argive Herion - LBA
Ax, single/flat 14th-12th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 7.9 ce =3.5 Deshayes 658; Argive Heraium II, p. 300, pl. CXXVII, no. 2266
Chisel, broad 14th-12th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10.3 ce =3.2 Deshayes 269; Argive Heraium II, p. 300, pl. CXXVII no 2265
MAINLAND TOOLS
571

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel 14th-12th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.4 ce =0.6 Deshayes 991; Argive Heraium II, p. 300, pl. CXXVII no 2271
Chisel 14th-12th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.5 ce = 1 Deshayes 925 figure XI.8; Argive Heraium II, p. 300, pl. CXXVII no 2267
Chisel 14th-12th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.8 ce = 0.8 Deshayes 922; Argive Heraium II, p. 300-301, pl. CXXVII no 2269 and 2288-92
Argive Herion - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8.1 ce =0.95 Deshayes 873; Argive Heraium II, p. 300, pl. CXXVII no 2272
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 7.2 ce = 1 Deshayes 799; Argive Heraium II, p. 300, pl. CXXVII no 2270
Sickle Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2793; Argive Heraium II, 299, CXXVII, no 2263
Spatula
Argos - MBA
Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 15.05 ce=2.55 Argive Heraium II, 299, pl. CXXVi, no. 2264.
Knife
Argos - LBA
MH IIB Utilitarian Settlement Branigan 1974, 167# 638, Deshayes 2364 pl XLI:5; Tripathi 1988, 261 #229.
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2553
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2480 bis; BCH LXXXIII (1959), p. 774, fig. 4, right
Knife LH IIIB-C2 Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2469; Deshayes 1966, 202
Knife LH IIIC2 Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2513; Deshayes 1966, 202
Knife LH Utilitarian Burial Papadimitriou 2001, 64 figure 14, pl 11e
Tongs
Argos - 2nd millennium
LH III Metallurgical Burial 11.9 Deshayes 3056 bis; BCH LXXXIII (1959), p. 771, fig. 4, left
Knife Utilitarian Burial Dietz 1991, 132
Knife Utilitarian Burial Dietz 1991, 139
Knife Utilitarian Burial Dietz 1991, 139
Arta (probably) or Terovo - LBA?
Ax, shaft hole
Asine - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown See C. Kleitsas' forthcoming dissertation
Knife
Asine - LBA
MH IIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2420; Branigan 1974, inv 1485; Tripathi 1988, 262 # 240
Ax, trunnion/lugged LH III Carpentry/masonry Settlement? Iakovidis 1982, 224; Frodin-Persson (Asine)1938: 311, figure 214.2
Blade, flanged 14th-12th c Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1130; Asine, p. 311, fig. 214, 2…
Knife
Athens - LBA
LH III Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2461; Asine, p. 311, fig. 214, 2
Spatula, shovel, scraper LH III Utilitarian Hoard? Deshayes 2984.
Athens (environs) - 2nd millennium
Double hammer
Athens acropolis - LBA
Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown 6.2 Deshayes 2310; Catling 1964,100
Ax-hammer LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 5.2 cm ce=1.5-6 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 73 entry 8β; fig. 138 on pg 76, pl. 23β. Catling 1964, 296.
Casting dagger LH IIIB/C Metallurgical Hoard 19.9 cm ce=1.25 cm Spyropoulos 1972, Catling 1964.
Chisel, broad LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 18.1 cm ce=4.2 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 69 entry 5α, fig. 128 on page 72, pl 20γ
Chisel LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.45 cm ce= 3.1 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 69 entry 5β, fig. 129 on pg 72, pl. 20δ; Catling 1964, 296.
Chisel, broad LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.8 cm ce= 4.3 cm, middle = Spyropoulos 3.5 cm; butt 1972, end = 69 2.2 entry cm 5γ, fig. 130 on pg 73, pl 20ε; Catling 1964, 296
Chisel, broad LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 14.6 cm; ce= 3.45 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 69 entry 5δ, fig. 131 on pg 73, pl 21α; Catling 1964, 296
Chisel, broad LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.75 cm ce=3.3 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 70 entry 5ε, fig. 132 on pg 74, pl 21β; Catling 1964, 296
Chisel, broad LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 14.95 cm ce= 3.45 Spyropoulos 1972, 70 entry 5στ, fig. 133 on pg 74, pl 21γ
Chisel, broad LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 14.65 cm ce= 3.65 Spyropoulos 1972, 70 entry 5ζ, fig. 134 on pg 74, pl 21δ; Catling 1964, 296
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16 cm ce=1.15 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 70 entry 6; fig. 135 on pg 74, pl 21ε; Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 22.3 cm, ce= 7 &6.5 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 66 entry 3α; fig. 118 on pg 68; pl 19α; Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.9cm ce=5.65 Spyropoulos 1972, 66 entry 3β; fig. 119 on pg 68; pl. 19β
Catling 1964, 296.
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.8 cm ce= 6.15 Spyropoulos 1972, 67 entry 3γ, fig 120 on pg 68, pl 19γ; Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 22.5 cm ce= 6.6 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 67 entry 3δ; fig 121 on pg 69, pl 19δ; Catling 1964, 296
MAINLAND TOOLS
572

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 22.1 cm, ce= 6.05 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 67 entry 3ε; fig 122 on pg 69, pl 19ε; Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.2 cm ce=7.2-3 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 67 entry 3στ; fig 123 on pg 69, pl 19στ
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 18.8 cm ce= 5.6-8 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 67 entry 3ζ, fig 124 on pg 69, pl 19ζ. Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.5 cm ce= 6.3 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 67 entry 3η, fig 125 on pg 70, pl 19 η; Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16 cm ce= 5.8 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 67 entry 3θ, fig 126 on pg 71, left; Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 68, entry 4, fig 126 on pg 71, middle, pl 20 α,β first left
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 10 cm ce=5.05 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 68 entry 4, fig 126 on pg 71, right, pl 20α, β; Catling 1964, 296
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard 8.5 cm ce =5.25 cm Spyropoulos 1972 68 entry 4, fig 127 on pg 72, left, pl 20 α, β, third from the left. Catling 1964, 296.
Double ax LH IIIB/C Carpentry/masonry Hoard Spyropoulos 1972 68 entry 4, fig 127on pg 72, right fig, pl 20 α, β right.
Double hammer LH IIIB/C C/M or metallurgical Hoard 14.55 cm 4.3 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 73 entry 8α, fig 136 on pg 75, pl 23α. Catling 1964, 296.
File LH IIIB/C Metallurgical or C/M Hoard 20.9 cm 1.2 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 74 entry 9; fig 139 on pg 76, pl 23γ. Catling 1964, 296.
Knife, single edged LH III B/C Utilitarian Hoard 24.3 cm tang= 2.7 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 75 entry 10, fig 140 on pg 76, pl 23δ; Catling 1964, 296.
Plowshare, fragmentary LH IIIB/C Agricultural Hoard 16.2 cm 4 cm Spyropoulos 1972; Catling 1964; Deshayes 1214, pl XVI.18
Plowshare LH IIIB/C Agricultural Hoard 16.1 cm 7.55 cm Spyropoulos 1972, Catling 1964, 296: Deshayes 1215
Sickle LH IIIB/C Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 76 entry 11; Deshayes 2797
Athens Agora - LBA
Awl with long shaft LH IIIA Small crafts Burial 22.6 cm; 0.7 cm Camp 2003, 270, entry 44, figure 35
Ax, single/flat LH IIIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.2 cm 8.3 cm Camp 2003, 268, entry 40, figure 35
Bronze implement LH IIIA2 early Utilitarian Burial - tomb XV-4 18.5 cm tip= 2.35 cm Immerwahr 1971, Tomb XV-4; 205, pl 46
Bronze implement LH III Utilitarian Burial - tomb XXI-14 4.2 cm; 0.5 cm Immerwahr 1971,Tomb XXI-14, 209, pl 50
Knife, single edged LH IIIA late or IIIB early Utilitarian Burial - tomb XVII-3 13.5 cm; 1.4 cm Immerwahr 1971, Tomb XVII-3, 209, pl 48
Knife or razor frags LH III Utilitarian Burial - tomb XIV-9 12 2.5 Immerwahr 1971, Tomb XIV-9, Agora XIII, 203, pl 46
Knife? LH IIIA Utilitarian Burial 21.2 cm 3.7 Camp 2003, 270, entry 43, figure 35
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIA1 Utilitarian Burial 19 cm 4.5 cm Immerwahr 1971, 176, pl 36; Deshayes 2686; Hesperia XVII (1948), p. 157, figure 4c
Razor LH IIIA Utilitarian Burial - tomb VII-27 16 cm ce = 3.6 cm Immerwahr 1971, Tomb VII-27, 189, pl 40
Attica general - 2nd millennium
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.5 ce= 5.4 Deshayes 1989, pl XXXIII.8 and LVI.10
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.7 ce = 1.3 Branigan 1974,170 entry 916; Deshayes 748, pl IX.17 and LV.6?
Ayia Marina - MBA
Chisel EH/MH? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.5 0.5 Tripathi 1988, 264 entry 264
Ayios Stephanos - LBA
Borer MH III/ LH I Small crafts Settlement 1.85 cm diam= 0.1 cm Taylour and Janko 2008, 419, 6011, pl 45.
Chisel, miniature LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 3 0.2 Taylour 1972, 225-28, no. HS 226.60-615; Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1149
Knife LH IIIC Early Utilitarian Settlement 7.5 cm 2.5 cm Taylour and Janko 2008, 447, 7017; pl 52, Excavation # 74-821
Knife LH I Utilitarian Burial Taylour 1972, 222, no. HS 225, 60-612, Pl. 43b; Tripathi 1988 339 en. 1087.
Knife blade? LH IIIC Early Utilitarian Settlement 3 cm 1.3 cm Taylour and Janko 2008, 447, 7016; not illustrated, Excavation # 74-80
Punch LH I Early Small crafts Settlement 6.9 cm 0.35 cm Taylour and Janko 2008, 419,# 6010, pl 45, fig 9.1, Excavation #: 74-215
Tool, small or pin LH IIIC early context Small crafts Settlement 3.5 cm Taylour and Janko 2008, 447, 7014; pl 52, Excavation # 73-103
Tool? Pin, needle, awl? LH IIIC Early Small crafts Settlement 7 cm Diam= 0.2 cm Taylour and Janko 2008, 447, 7015; pl 52, Excavation # 74-016
Chalandritsa (A. Vasilios) - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial? Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1929, 88, figure 2
Ax, single/flat LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial 16.5 Papadopoulos 1978, 226 entry 136
Double ax LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial 16.5 Papadopoulos 1978, 154,; PAE 1929, 88 figure 2; Buchholz 1959, 50 number 23
Razor Utilitarian Burial 20.5 cm 5.25 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 294b, 326a
Knife Utilitarian Burial 23.6 cm 3.3 cm Papadopoulos 1978; Sandars 1955, 183, figure 4:3
Chalkis - LBA
Awl 13th c Small crafts Burial Deshayes 97; Euboia, p. 23, fig 17, right
Cleaver LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2693; Euboia, p. 23, fig 17, center
Knife LH II –III; 15th-12th c; Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2448; BSA XLVII (1952), p. 94, fig. 9, No. 516, B’
MAINLAND TOOLS
573

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2568; Euboia, p. 23, fig. 17, left
Knife LH IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2511; BSA XLVII (1952), p. 94, fig. 9, no. 516, A
Knife LH IIIC1 Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2512; BSA XLVII (1952), p. 94, fig. 9, no. 536…
Corfu: general - EBA to MBA
Double ax EM-MH Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 165 entry 542; BCH 92, 835-6, fig 3
Corinth - 2nd millennium
Sickle Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2800. Grece Precl. I, pl. 17, 4…
Delphi - LBA
Cleaver LH IIIC Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2709; Delphes V, p. 8, fig. 23…
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2466; Delphes V, p. 8, fig. 23…
Dendra - LBA
Bronze tube Utilitarian Burial Persson 1931, 41, entry 10.
Cleaver LH IIIB; 13th c Utilitarian Burial 17.5 cm 7.5 cm Persson 1931, 97 entry 25, pl. XXXII , bottom left;
Cleaver LH III Utilitarian Burial 17.5 cm 7.5 cm Persson 1931, 97, entry 26, pl. XXXII, 6 bottom right; Deshayes 2704?
Bronze implement, small Utilitarian Burial Persson 1942, 101.
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial 35.3 cm 2.8 cm Persson 1931, 98 entry 27; pl XXXII, 6, top; Deshayes 2503.
Knife LH IIIB; 13th c Utilitarian Burial 18 cm 1.7 cm Persson 1931, 98, entry 28; pl. XXXII, 6, center; Deshayes 2480
Knife LH IIIB; 13th c Utilitarian Burial 32 cm 2.3 cm Persson 1931, 100 entry 4, pl XXXII, 5, bottom Deshayes 2524.
Knife fragment LH IIIB, 13th c Utilitarian Burial 23.3 cm 2.5 cm Persson 1931, 103, pl XXXII, 5, top, Deshayes 2546.
Knife LH IIIB; 13th c Utilitarian Burial -tomb 3 14.05 cm 2.1 cm Persson 1931, 90, pl XXXII, 5, center; Deshayes 2504
Knife LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Burial 41.3 cm 3.6 Persson 1942, 35 figure 35.2, Deshayes 2544.
Knife LH IIIB-C, 13th-12th c Utilitarian Burial 27 Persson 1931, 3, pl. XXIII 4, top; Deshayes 2525
Knife Utilitarian Burial 16.8 Persson 1931, 37, pl XX, no. X and XI; Deshayes 2525.
Knife LH IIB - IIIA1 Utilitarian Burial - cuirass tomb 33 Astrom 1977 (Cuirass tomb), 15, entry 13a, pl XXIII
Razor, leaf shaped Utilitarian Burial - tomb 8 Tomb 8, Persson 1942, 45, figure 48.2
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial Persson 1942, 35 figure 35.3-4, Deshayes 2705; NM # 11943?
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial Persson 1942, 35 figure 35.3-4, Deshayes 2705; NM # 11943?
Knife Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2556. Sandars 1955, p. 19
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial - tomb 8 25.55 cm 2.4 cm Persson 1942 45, fig. 48:3; Deshayes 2505; Tripathi 1988 340 entry 1096
Dodona - MBA
Knife MH? Utilitarian Settlement Tripathi 1988 261 entry 233; Hammond 1967, 329
Knife MH? Utilitarian Settlement Tripathi 1988, 262 entry 234.
Knife MH? Utilitarian Settlement Sandars, 1955, 196, fig. 4:4; Deshayes 2432; Branigan 1974,#657; Tripathi 1988, 262 entry 239.
Dodona - LBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged LH III? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Iakovidis 1982, 224; Karapanos 1878: 101
Double ax w Grk inscription Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary On display in Benaki Museum
Double ax fragment Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2030; Praktika 1952, 290, fig 12
Drakmani - MBA
Knife MH I Utilitarian Burial Sandars 1955, 196; Desaheys 2431; Branigan 1974, 168,#701; Tripathi 1988 262 entry 236.
Drosia - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1928, 119
Razor fragment Utilitarian Burial 10.5 cm 3.2 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 294a, 326b
Elaphotopos - LBA
Knife, curved LH IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial Tartaron 2004, 150; Vokotopoulou 1969b: 184-188, figure 2, pl 24
Eleusis - LBA
Cleaver LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2687. ILN, 13/11/54, p. 840, fig. 8 ;
Knife LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2661; Praktika 1952, p 70
Epirus general - 2nd millennium
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown about 17 ce = 6.4 Branigan 1974, 165 entry 545; Deshayes 2056, pl XXXIV.15
MAINLAND TOOLS
574

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Eutresis - MBA
Awl Small crafts Settlement Less than 8.5 cm Branigan 1974, inv 1034; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 258-262
Awl Small crafts Settlement Less than 8.5 cm Branigan 1974, inv 1034; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 258-262
Awl Small crafts Settlement Less than 8.5 cm Branigan 1974, inv 1034; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 258-262
Awl Small crafts Settlement Less than 8.5 cm Branigan 1974, inv 1034; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 258-262
Awl Small crafts Settlement Less than 8.5 cm Branigan 1974, inv 1034; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 258-262
Knife EH III - MH I Utilitarian Settlement 16.5 cm Goldman 1931, 218, figure 286.7; Deshayes 2359
Spatula? Utilitarian Settlement 5 cm 1 cm Goldman 1931, 219, figure 288.2
Eutresis - LBA
Awl Small crafts Settlement 9.5 cm Goldman 1931, 219, figure 289.5; Deshayes 54
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 7.5 cm Goldman 1931, 219, figure 289.4
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 6.7 cm Goldman 1931, 219
Evangelistria, Nauplion - LBA
Awl 1350-1250 BC Small crafts Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Awl 1350-1250 BC Small crafts Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Awl 1350-1250 BC Small crafts Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Awl 1350-1250 BC Small crafts Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Awl 1350-1250 BC Small crafts Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Chisel, narrow 1350-1250 BC Carpentry/masonry Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Chisel, broad 1350-1250 BC Carpentry/masonry Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Cleaver 1350-1250 BC Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Cleaver 1350-1300 BC Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Knife, single edged 1350-1280 BC Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Knife 14th century Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Razor 1350-1250 BC Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Razor 1400-1300 BC Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Razor 1350-1250 BC Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Saw w teeth; band saw? 1350-1250 BC Carpentry/masonry Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Tongs 1350-1280 BC Metallurgical Burial On display in the Nauplion museum, see Piteros 2010
Gerokomeion - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial 7.3 cm 1.65 Papadopoulos 1978;, 226 figure 208b, 342c
Razor fragment Utilitarian Burial 20 cm 2.65 cm Papadopoulos 1978; ArchDelt 22B, 1967, 214
Gona - MBA
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 6 3.1 Branigan 1974, 166 entry 607; BCH 43, 244, fig. 43
Goumenitsa - LBA
Cleaver LH IIIA; 14th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2696; ArchDelt IX (1924), Par., p. 17, fig. 3
Greek mainland general, Sesklo? - 2nd millennium
Awl Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Tripathi 1988, 264 entry 256-7
Ithaka: general - LBA
Ax, single/flat 14th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 270; BSA XLIII (1948) p. 120, pl. 50, no. 172
Ithaka: general - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 2.7 Deshayes 2667; BSA XLVII (1952), p. 241, fig. 11, 35
Ithaka: Polis - LBA
Chisel, broad 14th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Hoard Benson 1934-35, page 71 figure 20; Deshayes 657
Knife, single edged Utilitarian Hoard Deshayes 2668; Benton 1934-35, p. 73, fig. 20, 14
Knife fragment LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Hoard Benton 1934-35, 72, fig. 20, 10-11; Deshayes 2481
Knife LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Hoard Benton 1934-35, 72, fig. 20, 10-11; Deshayes 2481
Socketed chisel Carpentry/masonry Hoard Benton 1934-35, page 71 figure 20.
Ithaka: Stavros - 2nd millennium
MAINLAND TOOLS
575

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 167 entry 658; BSA 47, 241, Fig. II, 35
Kalapodi - LBA
Awl LH IIIC late - EPG Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 3.27 0.26 Felsch 1996, 383 entry 2238, B 2335 pl 63
Awl LH IIIC late - EPG Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 2.83 Felsch 1996, 383 entry 2242, B 2332 pl 63
Awl LH IIIC late - EPG Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 4.62 Felsh 1996, 383, entry 2243, B2644 pl 63
Awl LH IIIC late - EPG Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 2.83 0.22 Felsh 1996, 383 B 2626, entry 2244 pl 63
Awl LH IIIC late - EPG Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 1.88 0.15 Felsh 1996, 383 entry 2245 pl 63 B2329
Chisel LH IIIC developed Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 2.52 0.7 Felsch 1996, 382 entry 2237, B1190
Knife LH IIIC developed Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 12.04 1.63 Felsch 1996, 382 entry 2230 pl 63 B1625
Knife LH IIIC late Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 6.02 1.27 Felsch 1996, 382, entry 2231, pl 63, B2480
Knife LH IIIC late Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 2.56 0.72 Felsh 1996, 382 entry 2232, b2326 pl 63
Knife LH IIIC early Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 7.7 1 Felsch 1996, 382 2233 pl 63, B1677
Knife LH IIIC late - EPG Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 4.03&1.3 1.23 Felsch 1996, 382, 2234 pl 63, B2636
Knife LH IIIC developed Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 2.66 1.63 Felsch 1996, 382 entry 2235 pl 63 B1827
Saw w teeth; band saw LH IIIC late - EPG Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary? 9.75 1.86 Kupper 1996, 15, figure 128 middle; Felsch 1996, 382 entry 2236,pl 63; B1288
Kallithea - LBA
Double ax LH IIIA 2-B Carpentry/masonry Burial Paschalidis and McGeorge. 2011, 4 note 18
Knife LH IIIA 2-B Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; AM 75, 1960, 44, Beil 31:3
Razor LH IIIA 2-B Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; AM 75, 1960, 44, Beil 31:3
Kalpaki - LBA
Knife LH IIIB-early LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Tartaron 2004, 151; Soueref 1986, figure 51.I.b
Kalydon-Psorolithi -LBA
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.1 ce = 4.1 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410 b
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.8 ce = 4.8 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410 b
Double ax LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 9.1 ce=5.95& 6.2 Mastrokostas 1965, 343, pl 410a.
Double ax LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 7.7 ce= 6.5 Mastrokostas 1965, 343, pl 410a
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 14.1 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410g.
Sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural Hoard 21.5 1.6 cm Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410g.
Sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural Hoard 19.9 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410g.
Sickle or knife LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural? Hoard 16.6 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410g.
Sickle or knife LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural? Hoard 12.8 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410g.
Sickle or knife LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural? Hoard 13.8 2.1 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410g.
Sickle or knife LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural? Hoard 13.4 Mastrokostas 1965 343 pl 410g.
Katamachi - LBA
Anvil LH IIIB/C? Metallurgical Hoard 11.4 Vocotopoulou 1972, 115 entry 6, picture 2ζ and 3 on pg 114 and 116.
Double ax LH IIIB/C? Carpentry/masonry Hoard 25.8 5.1 –9.6 Vocotopoulou 1972, 113 entry 1, picture 2α on pg 114, fig 1 on pg 115
Double ax LH IIIB/C? Carpentry/masonry Hoard 25.3 4.8 –9.7 Vocotopoulou 1972, 114 entry 2, picture 2β on pg 114, fig 2 on pg 115
Double ax LH IIIB/C? Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.3 6.2 Vocotopoulou 1972, 115 entry 5, picture 2ε on pg 114
Double ax LH IIIB/C? Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21.1 3.5-7.8 Vocotopoulou 1972, 114 entry 3, picture 2γ on pg 114
Double ax LH IIIB/C? Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.8 5.6 – 8 Vocotopoulou 1972, 114 entry 4, picture 2δ on pg 114, fig 3 on pg 115
Socketed chisel LH IIIB/C? Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13 2.1? Vocotopoulou 1972, 115 entry 7, picture 2η and 4 on pg 114 and 116
Katarraktis - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial 23.3 cm 2.1 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 227, figure 209c, 343d
Katarraktis (A. Athanasios) - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1956, 195 (no. 4)
Razor Utilitarian Burial 16.6 cm 3.5 cm Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1956, 195
Katarraktis (Drakotrypa) - LBA
Ax, single/flat or chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial 16.8 cm ce= 4.95 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 226 entry 140; ; PAE 1958, 176, pl 136e
Sickle Agricultural Burial 22.3 cm 3.2 cm Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1958, 176, pl 136c
MAINLAND TOOLS
576

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Kazarma, Nauplion -LBA
Knife LH I-IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 339 entry 1088; Protonotariou-Deilaki 1969
Knife LH I-IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 341 entry 1104; Protonotariou-Deilaki 1969
Knife LH I-IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 342 entry 1112; Protonotariou-Deilaki 1969
Knife LH I-IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 343 entry 1113; Protonotariou-Deilaki 1969
Knife LH I-IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 343 entry 1118; Protonotariou-Deilaki 1969
Knife 1500-1450 - LH IIA Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum
Knife 1500-1450 - LH IIA Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum
Knife 1500-1450 - LH IIA Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum
Knife 1500-1450 - LH IIA Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum
Knife 1500-1450 - LH IIA Utilitarian Burial On display in the Nauplion museum
Kephalonia: general -LBA
Ax, flat/single 14th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 6 Deshayes 394; Arch Delt, VI (1920), p. 176, fig. 2
Chisel end of 12th c Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 800; A. Eph, 1932, col. 39, pl. 14, on top to the left
Cleaver LH IIIC; end 13th –12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 18.5 Deshayes 2682; Arch delt V (1919), p. 118, fig. 35,2...
Knife LH IIIC; end 13th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 10.4 Deshayes 2585; Arch Delt, V, (1919), p. 118, fig. 35, 4
Knife LH IIIC2; end 12th c Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2528; A. Eph. 1932, p. 39, pl. 14 ; Eph. 1933, p. 93, fig. 42, A, 9
Knife LH IIIC; end 13th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2514; Arch delt, V (1919), p. 119, fig. 37.3
Knife LH IIIC;end 13th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2515; arch delt, V, (1919), p. 118, fig. 35.1
Knife LH IIIC2; end 12th c Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2516, A. Eph.1933, p. 93, fig 42, B, 10 and A, 9 to the left)
Knife LH IIIC2; end 12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2517; A. Eph. 1932, pl. 14
Knife LH IIIC2; end 12th c Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2518; A. Eph. 1933, p. 93, fig 42 A, 9, right
Knife LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2464; Arch delt VI (1920), p. 176, fig. 3
Knife LH IIIC; end 13th c –12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 13.5 Deshayes 2467, Arch delt V (1919), p. 119, fig. 35, 5
Knife LH IIIC2; end 12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2468. A. Eph. 1932, p. 39, pl. 14
Spatula, shovel, scraper LH IIIC2; end 12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 3011; A. Eph. 1932, p. 39, pl. 14 top right
Kephalovryso, Chora - MBA
Knife MH III Utilitarian Burial 27.5 2.75 Tripathi 1988 262 entry 242; Mariantos, 1964, 87-88, pl. 91a,b
Knife MH III Utilitarian Burial 19 2.2 Tripathi 1988 262 entry 243; Mariantos, 1964, 87-88, pl. 91a,b
Razor or dagger MH III? Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988; Mariantos, 1964
Razor or dagger MH III? Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988; Mariantos, 1964
Kephalovryso, Chora - LBA
Knife LH I - II Utilitarian Burial 18.3 1.25 Tripathi 1988 343 entry 1120; Mariantos, 1964, 82
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Burial 17.1 1.25 Tripathi 1988 343 entry 1119; Mariantos, 1964, 82, pl. 94
Razor or dagger LH I-II? Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988; Mariantos, 1964
Kephalovryso, Chora - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988; Mariantos, 1964
Keryneia (A. Yeorgios) - LBA
Double ax LH Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Papadopoulos 1978, 154, 226 entry 146
Kierion-Karditsa - LBA
Arrowhead or awl LH IIIC Small crafts Hoard 8.1 cm Kilian 1975, 13, 18, pl 95b.
Chisel, broad LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 17.1 cm? ce = 4.9 Kilian 1975, 13, 18, pl 95b.
Double ax LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 23.1 cm ce = 6.3&7.2 Kilian 1975, 13, 18, pl 95b.
Double ax LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21.5 cm ce = 6.4 Kilian 1975, 13, 18, pl 95b.
Kilindir -MBA
Knife level IIA Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2636; Casson Antiquaries Journal, VI (1926), p. 63-64, pl. VIII, 3
Knife MH IIIA Utilitarian Settlement Branigan 1974 ,inv 689; Tripathi 1988 263 entry 245; Heurtley 1939, 213, fig. 83w
Mold for metal pin MBA Metallurgical Settlement Tripathi 1988 278 entry M8; Iakovidis 1982, 213
Kilindir -LBA
MAINLAND TOOLS
577

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double ax 14th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11 ce = 4 Deshayes 2073. Casson Antiquaries Journal, VI (1926), p. 67 pl. XVII, 2, no. 1
Sickle Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2840; Casson Antiquaries Journal VI (1926), p. 67, pl. XVII, 2, No. 2
Kirra - LBA
Knife MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 263 entry 244.
Klauss - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 22 cm 2.35 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 227, figure 310b, 344d; Klauss, PAE 1938, 118, figure 1
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 10.35 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 227, figure 309d, 344a; PAE, 1938, 118, figure 1
Knife Utilitarian Burial 12.7 cm; 2.3 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 226, figure 308d, 342b, 309e, 344b
Knife Utilitarian Burial 15 cm 2.25 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 226, figure 308d, 342b, 309e, 344b
Knife LH IIIB 2 / IIIC Early Utilitarian Burial Paschalidis and McGeorge 2011, pg 4
Knife LH IIIC Develop to Advance Utilitarian Burial 12.3 2.1 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2011, pg 6
Razor LH IIIB 2 / IIIC Early Utilitarian Burial Paschalidis and McGeorge 2011, pg 4; also PASCHALIDIS forthcoming
Sickle LH IIIC Late Developed Agricultural Burial Paschalidis and McGeorge 2011, pg 11
Koukounara-Gouvalari - LBA
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1139
Koukounara-Gouvalari - 2nd millennium
Drill LH I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial Tripathi 1988 348 entry 1166; Marinatos 1958, 189
Knife LH I; Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 341 entry 1101.
Knife LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 342 entry 1111.
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 338 entry 1080; Marinatos 1959, 177
Knife Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 341 entry 1105; Marinatos 1959, 177
Koukounara, Kaminia-Kremmidia - LBA
Saw? LH I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 24.5 1.3 Tripathi 1988, 349 entry 1170.
Kourakou - LBA
Chisel 14th-12th c; Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 798; Korakou, p. 109, fig. 133, 2 and 3
Knife LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2457; Korakou, p. 109, fig. 133, 1
Kynos - LBA
Ax, single/flat LH IIIC Middle Carpentry/masonry Settlement Kramer-Hajos 2008, 39
Ax, single/flat LH IIIC Late Carpentry/masonry Settlement Kramer-Hajos 2008, 39
Chisel LH IIIC Middle Carpentry/masonry Settlement Kramer-Hajos 2008, 39
Knife LC IIIC Late Utilitarian Settlement Kramer-Hajos 2008, 39
Laconia general - 2nd millennium
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20 ce = 6.5 Deshayes 272, pl IV.2 and LIV.1; Forbes, R.J. 1950. Metallurgy in Antiquity, p. 30 pl XXII.5
Lazarides, Aegenia - LBA
Awl LH III? Small crafts Settlement Polychronakou-Sgouritsa 2010 presentation at "Mycenaeans Up to Date"
Lefkandi, Xeropolis - LBA
Awl or point LH IIIC Small crafts Settlement Evely 2006, 282, figure 5.9:1, pl 88.2
Awl or point LH IIIC Small crafts Settlement Evely 2006, 282, pl 88.8, figure 5.10: 18
Awl or point LH IIIC Small crafts Settlement Evely 2006, 282, pl 88.6, figure 5.9:2
Chisel LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.9 1.9 Evely 2006, 282, figure 5.9:6, pl 88.1
Drill bit LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Evely 2006, 282, pl 88.3, figure 5.9:3
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Evely 2006, 282 figure 5.10: 3, pl 89.1
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Evely 2006, 282, figure 5.10: 5, pl 89.3
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Evely 2006, 283, figure 5.10: 1; pl 88.10
Knife, twisted handle LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Evely 2006, 283 figure 5.10: 2
Knife, double edged LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Evely 2006, 283 figure 5.10:4, pl 89.2
Saw w teeth; band saw? LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3 1.3 Evely 2006, 282 pl 88.4, figure 5.9: 9
Saw w teeth; band saw? LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.75 1.9 Evely 2006, 282 pl 88.5, figure 5.9: 8
Sickle LH IIIC Agricultural Settlement Evely 2005, 283, figure 5.9:7, pl 89.4
MAINLAND TOOLS
578

Sites & Object types
Lefkas: general - EBA to MBA
Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife
Lefkas: general - MBA
EB-MBI? Utilitarian Burial? 8.2 2.2 Branigan 1974, 168 Entry 695; Ithaka pl. 62,5
Chisel 20th-17th c; MH IIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.6 Deshayes 749; Branigan 1974 169 inv 724; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 266
Chisel, Minoan-like 20th-17th c; MH IIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 25.2 3.4 Deshayes 380, Branigan 1974, inv 784; Tripathi 1988, 265 entry 269
Chisel 20th-17th c; MH IIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 5.5 2.0 Deshayes 293; Branigan 1974, inv 1323, Tripathi 1988, 265 entry 270
Chisel 24th-17th c; MH IIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 7.1 1.6 Deshayes 292; Branigan 1974, 204 inv 884a, Tripathi 1988, 265 entry 271
Drill or Chisel MH IIa Carpentry/masonry Burial 6 1 Branigan 1974, inv. No. 722A; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 263
Knife MH IIa Utilitarian Burial Sandars 1955, 182, 196, fig. 4:2; Deshayes 2433; Tripathi 1988, 262 #237
Knife MH; 20th-17th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 21.5 Deshayes 2649; Alt-Ithaka, I, p. 310
Knife MH IIa Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Tripathi 1988 262 entry 238; Doerpfeld (Ithaka), 1927, 211, 310; LeM. 119
Saw with teeth
Lefkas: general - LBA
MH IIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 11.6 4.1 Deshayes 2906; Branigan 1974, inv 708; Tripathi 1988 263 entry 250
Knife LH III?, 14th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 18 Deshayes 2510; Alt-Ithaka, I, p. 293, Blg. 63, a, 8
Lefkas: general - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20 5 Branigan 1974 169 entry 781
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17.5 5.3 Branigan 1974 169 entry 782
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 165 entry 543; Ithaka p. 328
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2666; Sandars 1955, 193
Punch
Lefkas: Skaros - MBA
Small crafts Burial 8.1 0.3 Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1049; Ithaka Pl. 62,14
Awl MH IIA Small crafts Burial 5.1 diam = 0.3 Tripathi 1988, 264 entry 253.
Chisel
Lerna - MBA
MH IIA Carpentry/masonry Burial 4.8 0.8 Tripathi 1988, 264 entry 267; Doerpfeld 1927, 285
Awl Lerna V; MH I Small crafts Settlement 5.55 Tripathi 1988, 263 entry 251; Banks 1974 33, no. 30 (L6: 309)
Awl Lerna IV-V Small crafts Settlement 2.85 &3 0.2 see Banks 1971 and Tripathi 1988
Awl Lerna Vb Small crafts Settlement 4.55 0.3 Banks 1974 under pins
Chisel MH IIa or MH I; 20th-17th cCarpentry/masonry Settlement 11 ce = 2.75 Deshayes 287; Caskey 1957, 151, pl. 52c; Banks 1974 24, no. 12 (L6:31)
Chisel Lerna V; MH Carpentry/masonry Burial 9.2 ce = 3.75 Banks 1974 24, no. 13 (L4:644); Tripathi 1988 265 entry 272
Knife Lerna V; MH IIA? Utilitarian Burial 10.7; 3.65 (b) ce=0.9 Banks 1974, 29-30, no. 19; Tripathi 1988 261 entry 232
Knife MH IIB Utilitarian Settlement 4.65 1.4 Banks 1974 29, no. 17 (L4: 650); Tripathi 1988 263 entry 247
Knife MH IIB Utilitarian Settlement 10.3 0.65 to 1 Banks 1974 29, no. 18; Tripathi 1988 263 entry 248
Knife MH? Utilitarian Settlement 10.1 (L3:66); 0.5; 2.45 0.4 (L3:68) Tripathi 1988, 263 entry 249
Knife Lerna V; MH-LH I Utilitarian Settlement 10 0.4 - 1.6 Tripathi 1988, 339 entry 1085.
Knife MH -LH I Utilitarian Settlement 10.45 0.6 -2.4 Tripathi 1988
Knife MH? Utilitarian Settlement 6.7 1.1 Tripathi 1988 263 entry 249 ?
Small implement, pin? Lerna – V b Small crafts Settlement 4 0.1 - 0.3 Banks 1974 under pins?
Small implement
Lerna - LBA
Lerna V Small crafts Burial Banks 1974
Awl MH III - LH I Small crafts Burial 3.15 0.25 Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1153
Awl MH III-LHI; Small crafts Settlement 8.95 0.35 Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1154 or 1153
Awl MH III-LH I Small crafts Settlement 5.35 0.3 Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1155
Blade fragment? Lerna VI; LH I Utilitarian ? Burial 1.4 0.4 Wiencke 1998...Check Banks; referred to by M. Lindblom
Blade or dagger Lerna VI? Utilitarian Burial 8.5 2.35 Wiencke 1998, 196, figure 35, pl 31
Knife Lerna VI; MH III-LHI Utilitarian Burial 8.05 2.35 Tripathi 1988 262 entry 241
Knife Lerna VI; LH I Utilitarian Burial 8 1.1 Tripathi 1988 344 entry 1125
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Settlement Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1136
Knife
Lerna - 2nd millennium
LH I Utilitarian Burial 3.6 2.3 Wiencke 1998?
MAINLAND TOOLS
579

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl?
Mainland general - LBA
? Small crafts Settlement 6 0.35 Banks 1974
Double ax
Makrysia - LBA
Late Helladic Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown On display in Benaki Museum.
Knife LH I? Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 342 entry 1109; Themelis, 1968a, 284, 315, pl. 123g; 1968b 126-7, fig. 4;
Knife LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 339 entry 1086; Themelis 1968a, 284, 315, pl. 123g; 1968b, 126-7, fig. 4
Knife
Malthi - MBA
LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 342 entry 1108; Themelis, 1968a, 284, 315, pl. 123g; 1968b 126-7, fig. 4
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 9 cm ce=1.2 cm Valmin 1938, 103& 369, pl. xxx.12; Deshayes 721; Branigan 1974, 170#915
Knife Utilitarian Hoard? 11.2 cm 1 - 2.8 Valmin 1938, 368, pl XXX:9; Deshayes 2562; Branigan 1974, 167 # 642
Knife fragment Utilitarian Hoard 8.4 cm 2.2 cm Valmin 1938,368, pl XXX:11; Deshayes 2570; Branigan 1974, 167 entry 659
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 11.3 cm 1.4 cm Valmin 1938, 368, pl XXX:10; Deshayes 2463; Branigan 1974, 167 entry 650
Knife fragment Utilitarian Hoard 5.2 cm 1.3 cm Valmin 1938, 368, pl XXX:5; Branigan 1974, 167 entry 643
Knife, curved Utilitarian Hoard 9.2 cm 1.3 cm Valmin 1938, 368, pl XXX:7; Deshayes 2569; Branigan 1974, 167 entry 644
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 6.3 cm 0.8 cm Valmin 1938, 369, pl XXX:6 (no. 304); Branigan 1974, 167 entry 648.6
Mold for Double ax Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974 202 entry M75; Valmin 1938, 157
Punch or awl
Malthi - LBA
Small crafts Settlement Valmin 1938, 370, pl XXX.21; Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1051
Double ax Ritual or prestige item - carpentry/masonry
Settlement 14.8 cm ce= 7.8 cm Valmin 1938, 179, 366 plate XXX:1 (no. 863); Deshayes 2067
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 8.9 cm 1.7 cm Valmin 1938, 369, pl XXX.4; Deshayes 2462
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Settlement 8.6 cm Valmin 1938, 369, pl. XXX;3; Tripathi 1988, 344 entry 1124
Knife LH I Utilitarian Settlement 10.85 cm 1 cm Valmin 1938, 371 pl. XXX:20; Triapthi 1988, 345 entry 1137
Knife, iron Utilitarian Settlement 8.2 cm Valmin 1938, 372, pl XXX.14 (no. 1267)
Saw? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.5 cm 2.5 cm Valmin 1938, 370, pl XXX.24
Saw? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21 cm 2.5 cm Valmin 1938, 370, pl XXX.24
Messolonghi - 2nd millennium
Ax-adze
Midea - LBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2252; PPS, n.s. XVI (1950), p. 62
Awl LH IIIB Small crafts Settlement 7 0.3 Walberg 2007, 184, 322, M130, pl 32, figure 236
Awl LH IIIB Small crafts Settlement 4.3 0.6 Walberg 2007, 184, 322; Midea I, pl 112: M19, figure 236?
Awl LH IIIC Small crafts Settlement 3.6 0.4 Walberg 2007, 184, 322, figure 237
Awl LH IIIC Small crafts Settlement 4.3 Walberg 2007, 184, 322, M128, figure 236
Blade Mixed context Utilitarian Settlement 3 7.4 Walberg 2007, 183, 320, 104, figure 235
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement On display in Nauplion museum
Chisel, broad LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement On display in Nauplion museum
Drill LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.5 0.6 Walberg 2007, 183, 321, M109, pl 32; Midea I pl 112, M2, figure 235
Drill? LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 0.2 - 0.5 Walberg 1998, 158, 248, M2
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Settlement On display in Nauplion museum
Knife, single edged LH IIIB Utilitarian Settlement On display in Nauplion museum
Knife, leather working LH IIIB Utilitarian Settlement On display in Nauplion museum
Knife fragment LH IIIC context Utilitarian Settlement 7.8 Walberg 2007, 183, 320 M103, pl 32, figure 235
Awl Small crafts Settlement 8.4 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 112
Awl Small crafts Settlement 7.1 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 112
Awl Small crafts Settlement 5.5 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 112
Chisel, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.8 0.2-0.4 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 112
Chisel fragment, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3 0.3 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 112
Drill fragment Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.9 0.2 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 112
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.7 0.2 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 113
Drill fragment Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5 0.15 - 0.3 Walberg 1998, 159, 250, pl 113
MAINLAND TOOLS
580

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.2 0.3 Walberg 1998, 159, 250, pl 113
Drill fragment Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.9 0.3 Walberg 1998, 159, 249, pl 113
Saw? Mixed context Carpentry/masonry Settlement 1.2 1.5 Walberg 2007, 184, 323, figure 237
Mitopolis (Profitis Elias) - LBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial 5.8 cm 1.3 cm Papadopoulos 1978; ArchDelt 17B, 1961-2, 129 pl 153d
Razor
Mitrou - MBA
Utilitarian Burial 11.1 cm 3.4 cm Papadopoulos 1978; ArchDelt 17B, 1961-62, 129
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10 3.3 Kramer-Hajos and O'Neill 2008, pg 194-195, figure 20
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Unpublished
Mold for chisel
Mitrou - LBA
Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown 7 4.9 Kramer-Hajos and O'Neill 2008, 195 figure 20
Sickle or knife
Mitrou - 2nd millennium
Agricultural or utilitarian Settlement Unpublished
Awl?
Mycenae - LBA
Small crafts Settlement Unpublished
Awl LH II Small crafts Burial Deshayes 96; Tripathi 1988 348 entry 1162; Wace 1932, 58, no. 19, pl. XXIX
Awl LH I-IIA Small crafts Burial Tripathi 1988 347, 1158; Wace 1932, 119, no. 89
Awl Small crafts Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard 10.6 0.5 Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard 8.7 0.55 Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard 7.15 0.55 Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard 8.8 0.45 Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard 7.1 0.35 Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl Small crafts Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 37-38; entry 12α – θ, figs 63 –71 on pgs 38-40, pl 13ι.
Awl or engraver LH IIIB Small crafts Hoard 18.2 cm 0.1 - 0.7 Spyropoulos 1972, 55 entries 14-15, fig 116.14-15 on pg 67.
Awl or engraver LH IIIB Small crafts Hoard 6.2 cm 0.15 - 0.75 Spyropoulos 1972, 55 entries 14-15, fig 116.14-15 on pg 67.
Ax-adze LH IIIA or B; 14th or 13th century Carpentry/masonry Burial 18.4 cm ce= 4.5&3.5 cm Deshayes 2250, pl XXXIX, 3, Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 235, pl 112, XI; Catling 1964 page 92.
Borer; drill? MH III - LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 11.5 Karo 1930-33, 162, no. 924, pl. XCV and XCVI, Tripathi 1988 304 entry 699.
Borer; drill? MH III - LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 8.2 1.3 Tripathi 1988 304 entry 700; Mylonas 1972-73, 73, no. g-274, pl. 56g:2
Bracelet with Axs Ritual or prestige item Burial Karo 1930-33
Bronze implement Utilitarian Burial Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 103
Ceremonial Ax MH III - LH I Ritual or prestige item Burial 28.5 12 Karo 1930-33, 111, no. 514, pl. CII; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 694
Chisel, Minoan-like MH III - LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 29 ce= 4.1 Karo 1930-33, 103, no. 438; Deshayes 739, Tripathi 1988 304 entry 695
Chisel MH III - LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 18.5 3.7 Karo 1930-33, 102, no. 424; Deshayes 739; Tripathi 1988, 303 entry 696
Chisel, Minoan-like MH III - LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 31.5 ce = 3.9 Karo 1930-33, 139, no. 773, fig. 57; Deshayes 739; Tripathi 1988 304 #697
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.5 ce = 1.7 Stubbings 1954, 293 entries 415, 416, 418; Spyropoulos 1972, 48 entry 8α, β, δ figs 97,98,100 on page 53-55.
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 9.6 ce = 0.9 Stubbings 1954, 293 entries 415, 416, 418; Spyropoulos 1972, 48 entry 8α, β, δ figs 97,98,100 on page 53-55.
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 2.2 ce = 1.55 Stubbings 1954, 293 entry 417; Spyropoulos 1972, 48 entry 8γ, fig 99 on page 54.
Chisel, broad LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.1 ce = 3.95 Spyropoulos 1972, 54 entry 9, fig 115.9 on page 66.
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.3 ce= 1.15 Spyropoulos 1972, 55 entry 13, fig 116.13 on pg 67.
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 11.1 ce = 2.55 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 14.25 ce = 3.35 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 4.45 1.55 - 2.2 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
MAINLAND TOOLS
581

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel, narrow Carpentry/masonry Hoard 17.2 ce = 1.4 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, Deshayes 874, pl XI.20
Chisel, narrow Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.3 ce = 1.05 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25,, Deshayes 872 pl XI.6
Chisel, narrow Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 ce = 1.3 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25,, Deshayes 872 pl XI.6
Chisel, narrow Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 ce = 1.3 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25,, Deshayes 872 pl XI.6
Chisel, narrow Carpentry/masonry Hoard 10.75 ce = 1.25 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25,, Deshayes 872 pl XI.6
Chisel, narrow Carpentry/masonry Hoard 7.8 ce = 1.3 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25; Deshayes 956, pl XI.4
Chisel, broad LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 14.5 4.5 Stubbings 1954, 293 entry 410; Spyropoulos 1972, 48 entry 7, fig 96 on page 53.
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.4 ce = 3.75 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.4 ce = 3.75 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.3 ce = 3.9 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 18.6 ce = 4.3 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 17.7 ce = 4.1 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 8.5 ce = 3.5 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Chisel, broad Carpentry/masonry Hoard 9.7 ce = 3.9 Spyropoulos 1972, 22 –25, entry 9α-ιδ, figs 21-34 on pgs 19-25, pls 9α – 10 ζ.; Deshayes 744 and 745
Cleaver LH III; 14th-12th c; Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2716; A. Eph. 1888, p. 171, pl. IX, 17
Cleaver Utilitarian Hoard
Cleaver or knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.8 cm ce=5.7&6 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.4 cm ce= 5.7 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 21.8 cm ce= 5.8 and 5.9 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.1 cm ce= 5.15 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 21.5 cm ce= 5.3&5.6 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 21.2 cm ce=5.3 & 5.4 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.75 cm; ce=5.4 and 5.4 cm; middle Onassoglou width 1995, = 4.2 pages cm 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 21.9 cm ce=5.9 and 5.85 cm; Onassoglou middle = 3.9 1995, cm; pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.1 cm; ce=5.25 Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 22 cm ce=6 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.2 cm ce=5.45 Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 21.6 cm ce=5.3 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.7 cm ce=6.25 &5.95 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 21 cm ce=5.65cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.3 cm ce=5.15&5.3 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.7 cm ce=5.4&5.5 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 21 cm; ce=5.65 & 5.4 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.8 cm ce=5.45 Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 19.9 cm ce=4.85& 5 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry Burial 20.8 cm; ce=5.4 & 5.5 cm Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Double ax LH IIIA or B Carpentry/masonry Burial 14.2 cm ce= 5.8 &5.9 cm Deshayes 2064, vol. 1, p. 257, vol. 2, p. 107; pl XXXIV, 2; Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 235 pl 112, XI
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.15 cm; fragments ce= 6 & 6.2 = 8.2 cm&7.5 Spyropoulos 1972, ?
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21.15 ce=6 &6.15 Schliemann 1878, 111, figure 173 on pg 111; Schliemann et al. 1986, 149
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.7 ce=5.1 & 5 Schliemann 1878, 111, figure 173 on pg 111; Schliemann et al. 1986, 149
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.55 ce= 5.35 Schliemann 1878, 111, figure 173 on pg 111; Schliemann et al. 1986, 149
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 11.45 ce = 6.8 Schliemann 1878, 111, figure 173 on pg 111; Schliemann et al. 1986, 149
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21.65 ce=6.45 &6.9 Wace 1953, pl 2c, right; Wace 1954, 293 entry 423; Spyropoulos 1972, 48# 6,
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.7 ce=5.7 & 5.75 Spyropoulos 1972 51 entries 1-4; figs 112.1-4, 113.4 on page 65
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21 ce=5.35 and 5.4 Spyropoulos 1972 51 entries 1-4; figs 112.1-4, 113.4 on page 65
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21.6 ce= 5.85 and 5.75 Spyropoulos 1972 51 entries 1-4; figs 112.1-4, 113.4 on page 65
Double ax LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.5 ce= 6.1 and 6.15 Spyropoulos 1972 51 entries 1-4; figs 112.1-4, 113.4 on page 65
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.9 ce = 5.2 and 5.25 Spyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
MAINLAND TOOLS
582

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 19.3 ce = 6.05 and 6.15 Spyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.4 ce = 4.9 and 5.1 Spyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 14.4 ce = 5.9 and 6.1 Spyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 21.9 ce = 5.95 and 6 Spyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 18.1 ce = 6 and 6.3 Spyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20.9 ce = 5.55 and 5.4 cmSpyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.8 ce = 6 and 6.15 cm Spyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20 ce= 5.4 and 5.75 cmSpyropoulos 1972, 9-12, entries 1α -θ, figs 1-9 on pgs 10-13.
Double ax LH III; 14th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2063; Mycenes, p. 180, fig. 173
Double hammer LH IIIB Metallurgical Hoard 4.6 2.4 Stubbings 1954, 294, figure 16 on pg 295; Spyropoulos 1972, 49 entry 10, fig 101 on pg 55.
Drill Carpentry/masonry Burial 8.7 cm ce = 0.26 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985,289. pl 143.
Drill LH IIIB Carpentry/masonry Hoard 9.3 ce = 0.7 Stubbings 1954, 293 entries 415, 416, 418; Spyropoulos 1972, 48 entry 8α, β, δ figs 97,98,100 on page 53-55.
Drill? MH III - LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 24.3 1.5 Karo 1930-33, 103, no. 437, pl. XCVIII; Tripathi 1988 304 entry 698
Knife Late MH III Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 162, no. 923, pl. XCVI; Sandars 1955, 191; Deshayes 1960 inv 2477;Tripathi 1988 301 entry 678.
Knife Late MH III Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 162, no. 923a, pl. XCVI; Deshayes 1960 inv 2536;Tripathi 1988 303 entry 679.
Knife Late MH III Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 161, no. 907, pl. XCVI; Deshayes 1960 inv 2482; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 683
Knife Late MH III Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 162, no. 932, pl. XCVI; Sandars 1955, 193; Deshayes 1960 inv 2482; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 684
Single edge knife end of LH I Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2539.; BSA XXV (1921-1923), page 290-291, figure 51
Single edge knife Utilitarian Burial 42 cm; 3.5 cm Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 219, pl 102, X; Sandars Sandars (1955), page 193.
Single edge knife Utilitarian Burial 15.5 cm 1.2 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 219., pl 102, X; Deshayes 2447. PPS XXI (1955), p. 188, fig. 1,2
Single edge knife LH IIIB, 13th c; Utilitarian Burial 18.5 cm; 1.9 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 129, pl 36, X; Deshayes 2594. A, pl 43.3 (vol 1 pg 320, vol II, pg 136); Eph. 1888, p. 173, pl. IX, 20; San
Single edge knife Utilitarian Burial 16.5 cm Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985,289, pl 143, V; Deshayes 2555, vol 1 p. 318; vol 2 pg 134, pl XLIII, 5; PPS XXI (1955), p. 194, fig. 3, 1; Bo
Single edge knife LH III; 14th-12th c; Utilitarian Burial 21.3 cm 1.5 cm Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 60,pl 4. V; Deshayes 2554, vol I, page 318, vol II, p. 134; pl 43.21; Tsountas AE 1888, pg. 173, pl. 9 (21)
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 37 cm Deshayes 2547; Sandars, PPS XXI (1955), p. 194, fig. 3.3
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 103 no 439, pl. XCVIII; Sandars 1955, 194; Deshayes 1960 inv 2549; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 688.
Knife w flanged handle MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 104-5, no. 458, pl. CII; Sandars 1955, 193;Deshayes 1960 inv 2434; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 681.
Knife, single edged MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo, 1930-33, 104, no. 454, pl. XCVII. Deshayes 1960 inv 2434; Tripathi 1988 299 entry 664.
Knife, single edged MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 104, no. 457, pl. CII; Deshayes 1960, inv 2483; Tripathi 1988 300 entry 667.
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 105, no. 461, pl. XCIX and CII. Deshayes 1960 inv 2519, Sandars 1955, 191, Tripathi 1988 301 entry 673
Knife Late MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 66, no. 186; Deshayes 2439. Sandars 1955, 188; Tripathi 1988 300 entry 670; Tripathi 1988 301 entry 672.
Knife Late MH III -LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo, 1930-33, 71, no. 227, pl. LXXII. Deshayes 1960 inv 2426; NM 227; Tripathi 1988 299 entry 661.
Knife Late MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo, 1930-33, 70, no. 216, pl. LXXII; Sandars, 1955, 195; Deshayes 1960 inv 2427; NM 216; Tripathi 1988 299 entry 662
Knife Late MH II-LHI Utilitarian Burial Karo-1930-33, 70, no. 218, pl. LXXII; Sandars 1955, 191; Deshayes 1960 inv 2520; Tripathi 1988 300 entry 669.
Knife LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 63, no. 154, pl. CXLIX; Sandars, 1955, 191; Deshayes 1960 inv 2426; Schuchhardt, 1891, 204, 206, fig. 194; Tripat
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 300 entry 668.; Mylonas 1972-73, 29, no. A-255, pl. 19a:2
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 303 entry 689; Mylonas 1972-73, 29, no. A-254, pl. 19a:1
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 302 entry 686; Mylonas 1972-73, 73, no. G-271, pl. 57g:1
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 302 entry 68; Mylonas 1972-73, 73, no. G-272, pl.57a:2
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 303 entry 692.; Mylonas 1972-73, 73, no. g-273, pl. 57a:1
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 299 entry 660; Mylonas 1972-73, 87,no. delta-280, pl. 68b-1
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 299 entry 663; Mylonas 1972-73, 87-88, no. delta-282, pl. 698
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Mylonas 1972-73, 72, 87 no. D-281, pl. 69b:3; Tripathi 1988 302 entry 680.
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 300 entry 666; Mylonas 1972-73, 140, no. delta-298, pl. 123a
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 301 entry 671; Mylonas 1972-73, 140, no. D-300, pl. 1238
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 301 entry 677; Mylonas 1972-73, 72, no. N-307, pl. 149.a
Knife Utilitarian Burial 22.6 cm 1.55-2.9 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 234-235; Deshayes 2447.
Knife Utilitarian Burial 36.5 cm 0.35 - 2.35 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 234-235; Deshayes 2447.
Knife Utilitarian Burial 22.7 cm 1.5-1.9 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 234-235; Deshayes 2447.
Knife Utilitarian Burial 13.7 cm 1.1-1.3 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 234-235; Deshayes 2447.
MAINLAND TOOLS
583

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife Utilitarian Burial 12.7 cm; 1.35-2.4 Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 234-235; Deshayes 2447.
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 10 cm 1-1.7 Knife, NM #2744, Acropolis; Deshayes 2428.
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 11.9 cm 1-1.4 Knife, NM #2744, Acropolis; Deshayes 2428.
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 12.2 cm 1.1 Knife, NM #2744, Acropolis; Deshayes 2428.
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 9.1 cm 1.6 Knife, NM #2744, Acropolis; Deshayes 2428.
Knife Utilitarian Burial Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 134.
Knife Utilitarian Burial Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 135.
Knife Utilitarian Burial Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 190; Deshayes 2491.
Knife Utilitarian Burial - tomb 88 Tomb 88; Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 247.
Knife LH IIB; 15th c; Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2445; Sandars 1955, 188; Tripathi 1988 340 entry 1093
Knife LH II, end 16th-15th c Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2489; Sandars 1955, 188; Tripathi 1988 340 entry 1094.
Knife Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2533. Sandars 1955, 191; Tripathi 1988 340 entry 1096
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Schliemann 1878, 111, figures 121-125 on pg 75.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Schliemann 1878, 111, figures 121-125 on pg 75.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Schliemann 1878, 111, figures 121-125 on pg 75.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Schliemann 1878, 111, figures 121-125 on pg 75.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Schliemann 1878, 111, figures 121-125 on pg 75.
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard 29 cm 2.5 cm
Knife LH IIIB; 13th c Utilitarian Hoard 10.5 tang = 4.1 Deshayes 2456; Stubbings 1954, 293 entry 403; ; Spyropoulos 1972, 47 #4α
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard 14.55 0.95 - 1.65 Spyropoulos 1972, 55 entries 16-17, figs 116.16-17 on pg 67.
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard 19.7 0.5 - 1.75 Spyropoulos 1972, 55 entries 16-17, figs 116.16-17 on pg 67.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1972,
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 24.3 tang = 2.2 Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 19.3 tip = 0.8; Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 21.3 1.2 - 2.4 Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 17.6 0.85 - 2.3 Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 20.6 tip = 0.7 Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 20.6 tip = 1.4 Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 16.3 tip = 0.55 Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1972 33-36, entry 11α - θ, figs 54-62 on pgs 34-38, pl 13α – θ.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 18.9 tip = 0.4 Spyropoulos 1972, ?
Knife Utilitarian Hoard 11.8 2.1 Spyropoulos 1972, ?
Knife LH II – IIIA1; 15th c Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2543; BSA XXV (1921-23) p. 129, fig. 40, Sandars 1955, p. 194, fig. 3,2
Knife MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Sandars 1955, 188; Deshayes 1960 inv 2435; Tripathi 1988 301 entry 674.
Knife MH III - LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 105, no. 460, pl. C;Tripathi 1988 301 entry 675-6
Knife MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 105, no. 460, pl. C; Deshayes 2537; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 693.
Knife MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 105, no. 460, pl. C; Sandars 1955, 193; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 682.
Knife 16th c; Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2550, Karo 103-104, pl. XCVII numbers 443, 445, 447.
Knife MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 155; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 691.
Knife MH III-LH I Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 102, no. 426, Tripathi 1988 303 entry 685.
Knife LH I; 16th century Utilitarian Burial Karo 1930-33, 134, no. 738, fig. 57; Deshayes 1960 inv 2538; Tripathi 1988 303 entry 690
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard Stubbings 1954, page 293 entry 420
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard 4.7 cm 2 cm Stubbings 1954, 293 entry 407.
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard Stubbings 1954, 293 entry 420.
Knife Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1972, ?
Knife LH IIB, 15th c Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2490 ; Sandars 1955, 188; Tripathi 1988 343 entry 1115
Knife LH IIB; 15th c Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2444; Sandars 1955, 188; Tripathi 1988 340 entry 1092.
Knife or sickle frag LH IIIB Utilitarian Hoard 3.5 cm 2.1 cm Stubbings 1954, 293 entry 408.
MAINLAND TOOLS
584

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Mold for winged Ax LH IIIB Metallurgical Settlement about 17 Stubbings 1954, BSA, pg 297-298, figure 18; Deshayes 1996
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial 18 cm 3.5 cm; handle = 1.2 Xenaki-Sakelariou cm
1985,177, pl 74, X;
Razor, cleaver-like LH III; 14th-12th c; Utilitarian Burial 19 cm 3.5 cm Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 90, pl 17; Tsountas AE 1888, p. 171 pl 9 (18); Deshayes 2688, vol. 2 p. 141; Catling 1964, p. 107; Kaiser
Razor, cleaver-like LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2717, Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 324.
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial -Sakelariou 1985, 70, Deshayes 2688.
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial? Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 276.
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial? Xenaki-Sakelariou 1985, 276.
Razor or dagger Utilitarian Burial 15.5 4.8 Tripathi 1988, 308 entry 729; Karo 1930-33, 162, no. 931, pl. XCVI
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 16.5 cm 2 cm Athens National Museum, prehistoric collection (NM 2743)
Sickle LH III; 14th-12th c Agricultural Hoard 20.2 cm 2.5 cm Stubbings 1954, 293 entry 405. Deshayes 2796
Sickle LH IIIB Agricultural Hoard 18.7 cm 2.6 cm Spyropoulos 1972 54 entry 10, figure 115.10
Sickle LH IIIB Agricultural Hoard 19.1 cm tang = 2.3 Spyropoulos 1972 54 entry 10, figure 115.11
Sickle LH IIIB Agricultural Hoard 18.8 cm tang = 2 cm Spyropoulos 1972 54 entry 10, figure 115.12
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Sickle Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1972
Shovel Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 3024.
Wedge tool or Ax
Mycenae - 2nd millennium
LH III B or C Carpentry/masonry or metallurgical Burial 16.4 cm ce= 6.25 Onassoglou 1995, pages 37-41, 48-49; figures 57-58 and pls 10a, 12-15a.
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2365; Mycenes, p. 143, fig. 125
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2446; Mycenes, p. 143, fig. 121
Knife
Nemea: Barnavos - LBA
Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2551; Mycenes, p. 143, fig. 122
Razor
Nichoria - MBA
LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 7.6 2 Wright et al. 2008, pg 617 figure 13
Tool shaft
Nichoria - LBA
MH Small crafts Settlement 2.7 cm 0.3 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 637; AE 2478, N 1578, p. 1707
Awl LH I-IIA-B Small crafts Settlement 2.75 cm 0.4 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640 in Nichoria II; AE 975; N60bis, p.1746 and 1795; ; Tripathi 1988 348 entry 1161?
Awl MH, LH II-IIIA Small crafts Settlement 5.6 cm 0.4 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 2761, N 1868, p1748
Awl LH II Small crafts Settlement Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1160
Billet LH IIIA2-B Metallurgical Settlement 5 cm 0.35 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 1225, N 315, p. 1759
Billet or chisel frag LH IIA-B Metallurgical Settlement 1.4 cm 0.4 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 2654, N 1755, p1757
Billet or implement LH II Metallurgical? Settlement 2 cm 0.35 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 1376, N 466, p 1758; Tripathi 1988 367 entry 1337.
MAINLAND TOOLS
585

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Billet? LH Metallurgical Settlement 1.4 cm 0.55 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 1290, N 380, p1760
Billet? Metallurgical Settlement 2.8 cm 0.4 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 643; AE 1872, N 968, p 1816
Billet? LH I-IIIA Metallurgical Settlement 3.8 cm 0.2 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 643; AE 2844, N 1953, p 1807
Billet? Bronze rod? LH IIIB Metallurgical Settlement 5.1 cm 0.25 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 643; AE 800g; N1062, p 1812
Chisel LH IIIA-B Carpentry/masonry Settlement 1.25 cm 1.95 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640… AE 1632, N 724, p. 1746
Chisel LH Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 5.8 cm tip = 0.5 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; AE 1718, N 812, p 1742
Chisel fragment LH II-IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement 0.95 cm 1.55 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640… AE 2325; N1423/ p. 1745
Chisel fragment? LH IIIA2/B1 Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 2.3 cm 0.55 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 643… AE 1659; N751/ p. 1811
Chisel tip LH IIIA2-B Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 cm ce= 2 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; AE ??, N 2099, p1744
Cleaver Utilitarian Burial 16.1 cm 4.3 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 777, TB 12 or TB 13; p. 1011; pit 3
Cleaver Utilitarian Burial 16.5 cm 4.3 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 778; TB 12 or TB 13, from pit 3
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? On display in Kalamata museum
Drill LH I-II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.65 cm 0.2 - 0.4 Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; Tripathi 1988 348 entry 1167
Drill bit LH IIIA (early) Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.4 cm; 0.35 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 2690, N 1792, p. 1749
Drill or chisel LH I – IIIA1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.25 cm 0.35 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; AE 2601, N 1702, p1743
Drill or chisel LH IIA-B Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.6 cm, 0.35 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; Tripathi 1988 348 entry 1168
Drill or chisel LH IIIA1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.4 cm 0.35 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 2204, N 1301, p. 1753
Drill tip? LH I-IIA Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 1.9 cm 0.3 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; Tripathi 1988, 348, entry 1169
Implement? LH IIA Small crafts Settlement 1.3 cm 0.3 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; Tripathi 1988, 367, entry 1338
Implement? LH II Small crafts Settlement Tripathi 1988, 367 entry 1339
Knife LH IIIA2 (late) Utilitarian Settlement 5.05 cm 1.1 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; AE 1306, N 396, p1738
Knife Later MH – LH I Utilitarian Settlement 2.15 cm 1.3 Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; Tripathi 1988, 345 entry 1138
Knife Utilitarian Burial McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 792 and 795d, N 1070d, 1073e, 1070f, 1080, p. 1118
Knife Utilitarian Burial 5.2 cm 2.1 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 794b, 797a and 793a,N 1270b, 1201c, 1073f, p. 1121
Knife Utilitarian Burial 1.35 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 798g, 792, 793b and 794d
Knife Utilitarian Burial 13 cm 1.2 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 802, N1383, p. 1117
Knife MH – LH IIA Utilitarian Settlement 4 cm 0.6 to 0.8 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639, Tripathi 1988, 344, 1129
Knife, single edged Utilitarian Settlement 5.6 cm 1.45 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; AE 2625, N 1726, p1740
Knife LH II – IIIA1 Utilitarian Settlement 5.1 cm greatest w =1.15 cmCatling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; AE2842, N 1951, p1737
Knife LH II Utilitarian Settlement Tripathi 1988, 341 entry 1097; Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639
Knife or blade Utilitarian Burial 3.9 cm 1.9 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 794b; N1270d, p. 1122
Knife tip LH I-III Utilitarian Settlement 3.2 cm 1.3 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 639; AE 2453; N1505, p. 1739
Point tip LH IIA-B Small crafts Settlement 2.55 cm 0.5 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 1069, N 154, p1756
Pointed, implement LH IIIA1-2 Small crafts Settlement 3.9 cm 0.3 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 643; AE 1304, N 394, p. 1809
Punch LH IIIA-B Small crafts Settlement 2.55 cm 0.75 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 1283, N 373, p1752
Razor, leaf shaped Utilitarian Burial 23.5 cm 5.8 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 775 -TB 11 or 10; p. 1010 or 1009
Razor, leaf shaped Utilitarian Burial 22.5 cm 6.3 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 776, TB 11 or 10; p. 1010 or 1009;
Knife, single edged Utilitarian Burial 15 cm 1.1 cm McDonald and Wilkie 1992, 308; AE 803, N1375, p. 1116
Small implement LH IIIA2 Small crafts Settlement 2.8 cm 0.3 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 1877, N 973, p 1754
Tool tip (chisel or drill?) Found with LH III scraps Small crafts Settlement 4.8 cm 0.7 cm Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, 640; AE 1360, N 450, p1761
Nichoria - 2nd millennium
Chisel fragment Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.1 0.5 Tripathi 1988, 347 entry 1152
Orchomenos - LBA
Adze, single/flat LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 6.8 ce = 5.45 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 10.9 3.4 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 5.6 2.25 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 3.8 ce = 1.9 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
Chisel, cold LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 5.3 ce = 1.8 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.8 tip = 1.3 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
MAINLAND TOOLS
586

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 3.7 ce = 1.65 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 23.9 5.05 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 7.15 butt end = 1.25 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 5 2 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and picture 3 on pg 264.
Double ax LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13.8 ce= 5.75 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry Α1, picture 1 on pg 263.
Double ax fragment LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 9.6 ce= 6.25 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry Α1, picture 1 on pg 263.
Double ax fragment LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 7.45 ce = 6.15 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry Α1, picture 1 on pg 263.
Double ax fragment LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 7.3 ce = 5.6 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry Α1, picture 1 on pg 263.
Double ax fragment LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 8.4 ce = 7.6 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry Α1, picture 1 on pg 263.
Double ax fragment LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 4.5 3.65 Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Double ax fragment LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 3.4 ce= 6.1 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry Α1, picture 1 on pg 263.
Drill LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 18.2 tip = 0.8 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 A3, picture 3 on pg 264.
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 5.4 2.45 - 3 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 13.9 1.9-2.3 Spyropoulos 1970, 264 entry A2, pic 2 on pg 263 and pic 3 on pg 264.
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 4.8 ce = 1.55 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 7.15 middle = 2.2 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 10.8 1.45 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 13.55 0.3 - 1.6 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 11.95 tang = 2.1 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 2.85 2.4 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 15.9 0.9 - 1.7 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard 11.7 tip = 0.95 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Knife or blade LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife or sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife or sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife or sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife or sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife or sickle tip LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Saw? LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 11.45 1.8-1.9 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Saw? LH IIIB or IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.8 1.7-1.9 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Manipulated vessel frag - notes LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian or weapon? Hoard 7.4 2.3 Spyropoulos 1970, 264
Blade tip LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Sickle LH IIIB or IIIC Agricultural Hoard? Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Sickle or knife LH IIIB or IIIC Utilitarian Hoard? Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Papoulia - LBA Spyropoulos 1970, on display in Chaironeia Museum
Knife MH - LH I Utilitarian Burial 15.6 1.5 Tripathi 1988 344 entry 1128; Marinatos 1954 316
Drill MH III - LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 6.7 0.34 to 0.6 Tripathi 1988 348 entry 1164; Marinatos 1954, 316
Paralimni Teichos Dymaion - LBA
Ax, single/flat or chisel LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Burial 17.2 ce = 3.9 Papadopoulos 1978, 226 entry 137; PAE 1965, 135, pl 177e
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial 15.5 ce = 3.97 Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1965, 135 pl. 177c
Ax, trunnion/lugged LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial 13.8 ce = 4.03 Papadopoulos 1978, 154, 226 entry 139, figures 306c, 339b; Iakovidis 1982, 224
Knife Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1965, 135, pl. 177b
MAINLAND TOOLS
587

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1965, 135, pl. 177d
Knife Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1964 66, pl 68a
Knife Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1964 67, pl 68b
Knife Utilitarian Burial 11.85 cm 2.2 cm Papadopoulos 1978, PAE 1964, 67
Mold Metallurgical Burial? Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1963, 95, pl 66d
Patras region general - LBA
Ax, single/flat LH - Iron Age Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 Branigan 1974, 166 entry 584; Papadopoulos 1978 226 entry 142
Cleaver Utilitarian Burial 21.1 cm 6.3 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 226, figure 308a, 341c
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial 19.3 cm tip = 3.6 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 296d, 329b
Razor, cleaver-like Utilitarian Burial 19 cm 4.5 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 296d, 329a
Patras, Anthia - 2nd millennium
Knife ? Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2665; Praktika 1938, p. 118, Sandars 1955, p. 192
Pelagonia - 2nd millennium
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 165 546
Peloponnese: general - 2nd millennium
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 165 entry 538
Perama - LBA?
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Unpublished- will be published by C. Kleitsas
Perati - LBA
Awl LH IIIC Small crafts Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 figure 107
Chisel LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Burial 19.5 2 Iakovidis 1980, 90 figure 106
Chisel LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 figure 106
Chisel LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 figure 106
Cleaver LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 figure 108
Cleaver LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, , 90 figure 108
Cleaver LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, , 90 figure 108
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 figure 109
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 M188, figure 109
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90, M 13, figure 110
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90, M 72, figure 110
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 M 53, figure 111
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 90 M85 figure 111
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 93 M136 figure 112
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 93 M26 figure 113
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Iakovidis 1980, 93 figure 114
Razor LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial about 20 cm Iakovidis 1980, 78-81 figure 93
Razor LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial about 15 cm Iakovidis 1980, , 78-81 figure 93
Razor LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial about 20 cm Iakovidis 1980, 78-81 figure 93
Razor or knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial about 20 cm Iakovidis 1980, , 78-81 figure 93
Peristeria - LBA
Awl LH I-IIA Small crafts Burial Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1156; Marinatos, 1962, 95-97
Awl LH I-IIA Small crafts Burial 10.8 0.3 Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1157; Marinatos, 1962, 95-97
Knife LH I-IIa Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 344 entry 1126; Marinatos 1962, 95-97
Pharai - LBA
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1135; Zapheiropoulos 1956, 194, no. X-56
Phigalie general area - 2nd millennium
Ax-adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.9 ce = 3.1 Deshayes 2248; Catling 1964 92
Prosymna - LBA
Chisel, double? LH III A - B Carpentry/masonry Burial 6 cm; 0.95 cm Blegan 1937, 346, fig. 244, 3, Deshayes 983.
MAINLAND TOOLS
588

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Cleaver LH IIIA-B; 14th-13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 347 fig. 309 top; Deshayes 2701.
Hollow cylinder, drill? LH II or III; Carpentry/masonry? Burial 3.5 Blegen 1937, 168,170, 353, fig. 417:3; Tripathi 1988 366 entry 1330
Hollow cylinder, drill? LH II Carpentry/masonry? Burial diam = 1.7 - 2.2 Blegen 1937, 169-70, 353, fig. 419:5; Tripathi 1988 366 entry 1329
Hollow cylinder, drill? Carpentry/masonry Burial Blegen 1937, 131, figure 311
Knife LH III A2-B, 14th-13th c Utilitarian Burial 9 cm; 0.35 - 2 Blegen 1937, 344 fig. 223, 1; Deshayes 2437.
Knife LH IIB-IIIB; end 14th-13th c Utilitarian Burial 11.8 + cm; 1.9 cm Blegan 1937, 343, fig. 270. 4; Deshayes 2558; Tripathi 1988 341, 1100
Knife LH II-III; 15th-12th century Utilitarian Burial 5.4 cm 1.25 cm Blegen 1937, 344; fig. 440:5; Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1141. Deshayes 2500
Knife LH IIIA-B; 14th-13th centuryUtilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 346, fig. 461, 12 ; p. 98, fig. 216, 6; Deshayes 2523.
Knife LH IIIB; 13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegen 1937, 345 fig. 512,3; Deshayes 2502.
Knife LH IB-IIIB; end 14th-13th c; Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 343, fig. 503, 2; Deshayes 2558.Tripathi 1988 343 entry 1114
Knife LH III; 14th-12th century Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 345 fig. 77; Deshayes 2506.
Knife LH II-IIIA; 15th-14th c Utilitarian Burial Blegen 1937, 345 fig. 263, 7; Deshayes 2449
Knife LH II-IIIA; 15th-14th c Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 344 fig. 262, 1; Deshayes 2450
Knife LH II B-IIIB, 15th-13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 122, 343, fig. 283:1; Tripathi 1988 339 entry 1084
Knife LH III A-B; 14th-13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegen 1937, 344 fig. 299, 1; Deshayes 2438.
Knife LH IIIA-B; 14th-13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 345, fig. 486, 2; Deshayes 2583.
Knife LH IIIA-B; 14th-13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegen 1937, 345 fig. 309, below; Deshayes 2455
Knife LH III; 14th –12th c Utilitarian Burial Blegen 1937, 346, fig. 377,6; Deshayes 2567.
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial Blegen 1937; fig. 556:2; Deshayes 2500; Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1142.
Knife fragment LH II Utilitarian Burial 10 cm 4 cm Blegen 1937 343, fig. 215:5; Tripathi 1988 342 entry 1106.
Knife fragment LH II Utilitarian Burial 9.3 cm 1.55 to 1.8 cm Blegen 1937 98, 343; fig. 216:6; Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1143
Knife fragment Utilitarian Burial 3.7 cm 1.65 cm Blegen 1937 343, fig. 215:5; Tripathi 1988 342 entry 1106.
Razor LH IIIB; 13th c; Utilitarian Burial 18.7 cm 5 cm Blegen 1937, 345 fig. 143,1; Deshayes 2501.
Razor LH IIIA-B; 14th-13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 348 fig. 426, 1; Deshayes 2702
Razor Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 347 fig 363, 6.
Saw with teeth LH III A - B Carpentry/masonry Burial 21.6 cm; 4 cm Blegen 1937, 346, figure 244.1; Deshayes 2905
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIB; 13th c Utilitarian Burial Blegan 1937, 348, fig. 512, 4; Deshayes 2703.
Pylos - MBA
Knife MH III Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al, 1973, 161, fig. 229:9,Tripathi 1988 341 entry 1099
Pylos - LBA
Awl Small crafts Burial Blegen et al, 1973,
Cleaver Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 188, figure 243:12
Knife, singled edged Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al, 1973, 167, fig. 230:4, Tripathi 1988 340 entry 1089
Razor Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al, 1973,
Razor or dagger Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al, 1973,
Razor or dagger Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al, 1973,
Razor, leaf shaped Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al, 1973,
Sickle Agricultural Burial Blegen 1973, page 232, figure 291:13
Pylos, palace of Nestor - LBA
Awl, arrowhead or point Small crafts Settlement Blegen 1966, Hofstra 2000
Awls, points, etc Small crafts Settlement Hofstra 2000
Awls, points, etc Small crafts Settlement Hofstra 2000
Awls, points, etc Small crafts Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Awls, points, etc Small crafts Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
MAINLAND TOOLS
589

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel, narrow Carpentry/masonry Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Chisel, iron Carpentry/masonry Settlement Hofstra 2000; Box EB SW, SW slop, vol 1, etc; small objects - 7/27/66
Chisel or pin Carpentry/masonry Settlement Hofstra 2000; Box EB SW, SW slop, vol 1, etc; small objects - 7/27/66
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Blegen 1966; Hofstra 2000
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife or blade Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Knife or blade Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Spatula or chisel Utilitarian Settlement Hofstra 2000
Pylos, Vagenas - MBA
Knife MH II Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al., 1973, 160, fig. 230:10; Tripathi 1988 342 entry 1107
Pylos, Vagenas - LBA
Awl LH II Small crafts Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 158, figure 230.8; Tripathi 1988 348 entry 1163
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 158, figure 230.9
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 167, figure 230:6
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 164, figure 229:10
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 157, figure 229.11
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al 1973, 161 fig. 229.6.
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 161, figure 229:5
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 188, figure 243:10
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 197, figure 250:18
Knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 201, figure 250:16
Knife or razor LH I-II Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al, 1973, 167, fig. 230:4, Tripathi 1988 340 entry 1089.
Knife or razor Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 167, figure 230:18
Knife or short dagger Utilitarian Burial Blegen et. Al. 1973, 167, fig. 230:5, 227:4; Tripathi 1988 343 entry 1117.
Razor or knife Utilitarian Burial Blegen et al. 1973, page 161, figure 229:8.
Rakhmani - MBA
Awl MH I-II Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 1960 167; Branigan 1974, inv 2103; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 252.
Rodotopi - LBA
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Routsi - LBA
Fork, socketed LH IIA; 15th century BC Utilitarian Burial 14 6.7 Tripathi 1988; Marinatos, Prakt 1956, 205
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 339 entry 1082; Marinatos 1957, 99
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial 16.7 1.85 Tripathi 1988, 344 entry 1122; Marinatos 1957, 99
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial 18.5 1.55 Tripathi 1988 344 entry 1123; Marinatos 1957, 99
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial 19.6 Tripathi 1988 344 entry 1127; Marinatos 1957, 99
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1144; Marinatos 1957, 99
Sesklo - MBA
Chisel MH IIA; 20th-17th century BCCarpentry/masonry Burial 8 1.7 Tripathi 1988 264 entry 265; Tsountas 1908, 138-40, pl. 4:12
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement ce= 4.5 &4.7 cm Tsountas 1908, 354, Branigan 1974 entry 541, Deshayes 2002?
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement ce= 4.5 &4.7 cm Tsountas 1908, 354, Branigan 1974 entry 541
MAINLAND TOOLS
590

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife MH IIA Utilitarian Burial Sandars 1955, 182; Deshayes 2424; Branigan 662; Tripathi 1988 261 entry 23
Knife MH IIA Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2425; Branigan inv 634; Tripathi 1988 261 entry 230
Mold for spearhead MH IIA Metallurgical Burial Branigan 1974, 202, inv M69; Tripathi 278 entry M5; Iakovidis 1982, 213
Mold, 2 parts MHIIa Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 202, inv M71-72; Tripathi 278 entry M6-7
Mold for Double ax MH IIA Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 202, inv M83-83a; Tripathi 278 entry M3-4.
Punch or awl MH Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1057 ; Deshayes 55, 102; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 254-55.
Punch or awl MH Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 172 entry 1057 ; Deshayes 55, 102; Tripathi 1988 264 entry 254-55.
Spaliareika-Loussika - LBA
Knife early LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Paschalidis and McGeorge 2011, 4 note 18; Petropoulos 2000, 75, 86
Razor early LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Paschalidis and McGeorge 2011, 4 note 18; Petropoulos 2000, 75, 86
Sparta or Spata? - 2nd millennium
Ax, shaft hole Unknown? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.1 ce = 6.5 Branigan 1974, 166 entry 577; Deshayes 1538 pl XXV.3 and LIX.3
Sparta, Menelaion - LBA
Awl LH IIIA1 context Small crafts Settlement 9.1 Catling 2009, 270 M18 figure 321
Awl, large LH IIIA1 context Small crafts Settlement 12.5 0.35 Catling 2009, 270 M24 figure 321
Awl or point LH IIIB2 Small crafts Settlement 3.4 0.3 Catling 2009, 270 M23 figure 332
Chisel, small or graver LH IIIA1 context Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.2 tip - 0.3 Catling 2009, 270 M19 figure 321
Chisel or graver contents LH IIIA1-IIIB Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 1.2 0.4 Catling 2009, 270 M27 figure 321
Chisel fragment LH IIIA1 but some IIIB Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 1.8 Catling 2009, 271 M29 figure 321
Drill, small or graver LH IIIA1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 Catling 2009, 270 M 20, figure 321
Drill? LH IIIA1 context Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.6 0.5 Catling 2009, 270 M17, figure 321, pl 115b, left
Knife LH IIIB2 Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 19.2 2.8 Catling 2009, 270 entry M9, figure 332
Knife LH IIIB2 Utilitarian Settlement 4.5 1.3 Catling 2009, 270, M10, figure 332, pl 115c left
Knife pure LH IIIA1 Utilitarian Settlement 8 1.9 Catling 2009, 270, M11, fig. 332, pl 115e, bottom
Knife LH IIIB2 Utilitarian Settlement 9.8 1.3 Catling 2009, 270, M12, figure 329 pl 115g
Knife LH IIIA1 Utilitarian Settlement 8.8 1.8 Catling 2009, 270, M13, figure 321
Knife chiefly LH IIIB2 material Utilitarian Settlement 7.3 2.1 Catling 2009, 270, M14, figure 321
Point fragment LH IIIA1 Small crafts Settlement 1.8 Catling 2009, 270 M25 figure 321
Point fragment LH IIIB2/C Small crafts Settlement 2 0.25 Catling 2009, 270 M26 not illustarted
Point or graver chiefly LH IIIB/C Small crafts Unstratified or unknown 2.3 Catling 2009, 270 M21, figure 336
Punch LH IIIA1 Small crafts Settlement 6.7 0.9 Catling 209, 270, M16 figure 332, pl 115f
Saw with teeth LH IIIA1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.2 3.5 Catling 2009, 270 M15 figure 321, pl 115d
Tool shaft LH IIIB/C Small crafts Unstratified or unknown 4.3 0.3 Catling 2009, 270 M22 figure 336
Spettos - LBA
Cleaver LH III; 14th-12th c Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2720
Stephani - LBA
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Hoard Andreou 1986, Andreou 1994, included in Kleitsas' dissertation
Stratos - LBA
Double ax LH Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19 ce = 7 Davaras, C. 1970, AAA, 311-313 (New Double axes)…
Terovo - LBA?
MAINLAND TOOLS
591

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Thebes - LBA
Anvil? Bronze cube LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Metallurgical? Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Awl LH IIA Small crafts Burial Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1159; Keramopoullos 1917, 134, no. 13,Deshayes 53
Bronze pestle-hammer LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Metallurgical? Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Chisel, broad LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Chisel, broad frag LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Chisel, narrow LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Chisel, cold end of 13th –12th c Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 992
Double ax LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Double ax, broken LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Double ax fragment LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard ? Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Knife LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Utilitarian Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Knife, bent LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Utilitarian Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Thebes fragment LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Utilitarian Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Knife LH II; 15th century Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 338 entry 1081; Keramopoulos 1917, 198; Deshayes 2561
Knife LH III; 14th-12th century Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2508; Grece Precl. I, pl. 16, 1
Sickle LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Agricultural Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Sickle LH IIIB or LH IIIC early Agricultural Hoard Unpublished; in storeroom in Thebes museum
Thebes - 2nd millennium
Knife ? Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 167 entry 651; Worsaae 234-6, fig. 3
Thesprotiko - LBA?
Double ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Unpublished; will be published by Christos Kleitsas
Tiryns - LBA
Awl LH IIIC late Small crafts Settlement 11.1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 551
Awl LH IIIC late Small crafts Settlement 6.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 555
Awl Small crafts Settlement 6.1 0.47 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2246
Awl Small crafts Settlement 5.85 0.57 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2250
Awl-like LH IIIC early Small crafts Settlement 6.6 0.65 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 302
Awl-like implement LH IIIC early Small crafts Settlement 7.9 0.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 564
Awl, double Unstratified Small crafts Settlement 4 0.45 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 554
Chisel LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.2 0.3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 411
Chisel, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4 ce= 0.62 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 487
Chisel-like Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.2 0.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 535
Chisel-like LH IIIC late Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, 536
Chisel-like LH IIIC late Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 537; Kilian 1982, 416 Abb. 32, 17
Chisel, double LH IIIC late Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.9 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 542; Kilian 1982, 416, Abb. 32, 16
Chisel,small LH IIIC - late? Carpentry/masonry Settlement tip fragment = 1.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 544
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.9 2.73; min = 0.88 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 616
Chisel, iron Unstratified Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.36 0.74 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2192
Chisel, double Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.04 ce = 0.47 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2241
Chisel fragment, narrow Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.55 ce = 1.01 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2327
Chisel LH IIIB developed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.6 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 541, pl 125
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.12 0.52 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2160
Chisel, narrow 14th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.5 0.6 Deshayes 923; Tirynthe (Schliemann 1967) p. 167, fig. 99
Chisel, broad LH III; 14th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9 3 Schliemann 1967, 166-167, no. 98; Deshayes 2985
Chisel with stag horn LH IIIC; 1180-1050 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 24.5 2.45 Gercke and Hiesel 1971, 15 pl 23.2-4
MAINLAND TOOLS
592

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12 0.85 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 540
Chisel - point Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.9 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 546
Chisel - point Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.35 0.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 547
Chisel - point Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.7 0.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 550
Chisel - point LH IIIC developed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5 0.3 to 0.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 558
Chisel - point LH III C early to developed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 548
Chisel? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.85 0.74 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 310
Chisel-like object, bit? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.1 0.39 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 468
Chisel-like object LH IIIB end Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.9 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 543
Chisel-like object- LH III early Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.1 0.25 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 545
Chisel-like object- Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.6 0.35 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 538
Double ax LH III; 14th-12th c; Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20.5 4.5 Deshayes 2053; Tirynthe (Schliemann 1885) p. 156, fig. 100
Double pointed implement LH IIIB developed Small crafts Settlement 3.9 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 352
Double spatula Small crafts Settlement 5.1 0.6 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 539
Drill LH III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.25 0.55 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 308
Drill LH IIIA late Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 556
Drill-like, bit? LH IIIC Late Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, catalog # 563
Drill LH IIIC early to developed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 408
Drill, T-shaped Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9 shaft 1.2 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 515
Drill? LH IIIC late Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.5 0.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 557
Hollow cylinder, drill? Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 4.5 1.7 Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Hollow cylinder, drill? LH II-IIIC Carpentry/masonry Burial 3.2 diam = 2 Rudolph 1973, 54 entry 18, pl 29.1
Small implement LH IIIC early Small crafts Settlement 6.25 0.11 to 0.26 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 414
Small implement Small crafts Settlement 4 0.48 to 0.52 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 488
Small implement Small crafts Settlement 8.4 0.24 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 517
Point implement Small crafts Settlement 9.6 0.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 80
Small implement LH IIIB develop & earlier Small crafts Settlement 6.7 0.25 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 552
Small implement LH IIIB middle Small crafts Settlement 8.1 0.1 to 0.3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 560
Implement tip LH IIIC late Small crafts Settlement 0.95 0.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 313
Knife LH IIIC early Utilitarian Settlement 2.5 0.8 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 288
Knife LH IIIC early Utilitarian Settlement 9.1 0.75 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 291
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 15.3 0.9 - 1.33 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 311
Knife LH IIIB end Utilitarian Settlement 2.4 1.3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 358
Knife LH IIIB middle Utilitarian Settlement 4.3 0.32 to 0.9 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 463
Knife LH IIIB develop to end Utilitarian Settlement 8 1.8 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 582
Knife LH IIIC early Utilitarian Settlement 6.5 1.1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 585
Knife LH IIIB end - LH IIIC early Utilitarian Settlement 6.5 1.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 586
Knife w handle LH IIIB end Utilitarian Settlement 12.5 1.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 587; Kilian 1982, 417, abb. 32, 33
Knife fragment LH IIIC end - developed Utilitarian Settlement 4.7 1.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 589
Knife fragment LH IIIC late Utilitarian Settlement 6.5 1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 590
Knife fragment LH IIIC late Utilitarian Settlement 7.8 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 591
Knife fragment LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement 2.7 1.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 592
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement 5.8 1.1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 593
Knife fragment LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement 8 1.8 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 594
Knife, small Utilitarian Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement 9 1.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 597; Kilian 1982, 411 Anm. 31 Abb. 32, 25
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 9.4 2.8; (min = 0.8) Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 600
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 10.4 2.8 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 602
Knife, tang Utilitarian Settlement 5.4 1.6 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 603
MAINLAND TOOLS
593

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife, small Utilitarian Settlement 8.9 1.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 604
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 16.4 1.82 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 606
Knife tip Utilitarian Settlement 7.2 1.6 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 607
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement 5.9 1.02 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 609
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement 5.9 1.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 610
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 13.6 2.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 611
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement 6.8 1.75 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 612
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement 4.7 1.25 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 614
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement 12 2.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 615
Knife fragment Utilitarian Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Knife, curved Utilitarian Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Knife LH IIIB develop &earlier Utilitarian Settlement 1.75 1.15 Rahmstorf, L. 2008. catalog entry 1655
Knife LH IIIC late Utilitarian Settlement 9 2.4 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 595
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 11.8 1.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 608
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement 2.1 1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 750
Knife w chisel-like end LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement 8.8 1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 588; Kilian 1982, 417, abb. 32, 34
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 7.6 1.8 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 605
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 3.95 1.3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2077
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 2.16 0.31 to 0.64 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 525
Knife or blade LH IIIB early Utilitarian Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 401
Knife or blade Utilitarian Settlement 2.1 1.7 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 598
Knife or blade LH IIIC late Utilitarian Settlement 1.9 1.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 599
Knife or blade LH IIIA late? Utilitarian Settlement 2.2 2.1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008 inventory 405
Knife or cleaver Utilitarian Settlement 13 2.7 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, 601
Point LH IIIB end Small crafts Settlement 2.6 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 562
Point LH IIIB end Small crafts Settlement 8.6 0.1 to 0.5 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 561
Point Small crafts Settlement 3.44 0.19 to 0.26 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2279
Sickle LH IIIB or LH IIIC Agricultural Hoard Karo 1930: no. 6228b; Deshayes 2792; Maran 2006
Sickle LH IIIC Agricultural Hoard Matthäus 1980: 57; Sherratt 1994: 92; Karo 1930: no. 6228a; Maran 2006
Sickle LH IIIB end Agricultural Settlement 16.9 2 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 596
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 14.8 3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 613
Small implement Small crafts Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Small implement Small crafts Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Small implement Small crafts Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 2274
Small implement Small crafts Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Small implement Small crafts Settlement Rahmstorf, L. 2008,
Small implement LH III B developed Small crafts Settlement 9.1 0.1 to 0.3 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 559
T-shaped implement Utilitarian Settlement 4.8 1.8 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 784
Tongs LH IIA Metallurgical Settlement 25.5 1.2; 1 Rahmstorf, L. 2008, entry 520
Tiryns, Prophitis Elias - LBA
Awl? LH IIIB/C Small crafts Burial 3.6 Rudolph 1973,15-16 pl 18.5 nr. 15
Knife? LH IIIB/C Utilitarian Burial 3.7 Rudolph 1973,15-16 pl 18.5 nr. 15
Tongs LH II-IIIC Metallurgical Burial 11.3 Rudolph 1973, 54 entry 17 pl 29.1
Tsoungiza - LBA
Chisel, narrow LH I Carpentry/masonry Settlement Unpublished
Vajze, A - MBA
Knife MH Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 167 entry 659
Knife MH Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 167 entry 660; Epirus 328
MAINLAND TOOLS
594

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife
Vaphio - LBA
MH? Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 167 entry 661; Epirus f 21, B
Ax-adze LH IIA Carpentry/masonry OR ritual Burial or prestige item 16 Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1148; Tsountas 1889 156, pl. 8:2; Deshayes 2249
Bronze tube for shovel? LH IIA Metallurgical Burial Tripathi 1988 366 entry 1328; Tsountas 1889, 157-58, pl. 8:8
Ax, shaft hole, fenestrated LH IIA Ritual or prestige item or carpentry/masonry
Burial Tripathi 1988,346 entry 1145; Tsountas 1889, 155-56, pl. 8:1
Knife LH IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 343 entry 1121; Tsountas 1889, 158-59
Knife LH IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1131; Tsountas 1889 158-159
Knife LH IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1140; Tsountas 1889, 158-59
Poker, socketed, bent
Volimidhia, Vorias - LBA
Metallurgical? Burial Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1987. Tsountas 1889.
Chisel LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 5.7 ? Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1150; Marinatos 1953, 239, fig. 11
Chisel LH I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial 9.8 3.4 Tripathi 1988 347 entry 1151
Drill LH I Carpentry/masonry Burial 3.8 Tripathi 1988, 348 1165; Marinatos, 1953, 239, fig 11
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Burial 6.5 1.25 Tripathi 1988, 339 entry 1083.
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 340 entry 1090.
Knife LH I-II Utilitarian Burial 16.2 1.6 Tripathi 1988, 340 entry 1091
Knife LH II Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988, 341 entry 1098; Marinatos 1953
Knife LH I Utilitarian Burial 18.75 Tripathi 1988 341 entry 1102; Marinatos 1953, 239, fig. 11
Knife LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 341 entry 1103; Marinatos 1953, 239
Knife LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 341 entry 1110; Marinatos 1953, 239
Knife
Vranesi - LBA?
LH I Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 343 entry 1116; Marinatos 1952.
Knife
Vrysarion - LBA
LH butin a geom. tomb? Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2663; Sandars 1955, page 189
Ax, single/flat LH IIIA Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Papadopoulos 1978, 226 entry 144; PAE 1925, 46
Ax, single/flat LH IIIA Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Papadopoulos 1978, 226 entry 145; PAE 1926, 131
Cleaver fragment Utilitarian Burial 19.2 cm 5.5 cm Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1925, 46, figure 2
Knife Utilitarian Burial Papadopoulos 1978; ArchDelt 16B, 1960, 137
Razor, leaf shaped Utilitarian Burial 22 cm 5.8 cm Papadopoulos 1978; PAE 1925, 46, figure 2
Razor
Yianniotion - MBA
Utilitarian Burial 16.1 cm 6.8 cm Papadopoulos 1978, 225, figure 294e; 327a
Knife
Zerelia - MBA
MH Utilitarian Burial Branigan 1974, 262 entry 235; Bokotopoulou 1968 286 pl. 228;
Knife
Zygouries - LBA
MH Utilitarian Burial Branigan 1974, inv 702; Tripathi 1988 263 entry 246.
Knife LH III, 14th-12th c Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2541; Zygouries (Blegen 1928), p. 202, fig. 190, 1
Sickle LH III; 14th-12th c Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2799; Zygouries (Blegen 1928), p. 203, fig. 190, 2
MAINLAND TOOLS
595

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Aegina: general -LBA
Cleaver Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 19 Deshayes 2707; catologue br. Br. Mus., p. 4, fig. 3, no. 47)
Aegina: Kolonna - MBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial -shaft grave Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997; figure 6.6
Knife Utilitarian Burial -shaft grave Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997; figure 6.7
Amorgos: general - 2nd millennium
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.5 7.5 Branigan 1974, 166 entry 580; Renfrew 1967, Pl. 9, 40; Deshayes 1572?
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.9 3.6 Branigan 1974, 169 entry 791; Renfrew 1967, Pl. 9, 40
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17 3.68 Branigan 1974, 169 entry 792;
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16 2.8 Branigan 1974, 170 entry 793; Copenhagen National musem 4674
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17.1 2.7 Branigan 1974, 170 882
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.8 Branigan 1974 170 entry 891; Athens National Museum 1887
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17.2 1.2 Branigan 1974, 170 entry 921
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.1 2.2 Branigan 1974 170 entry 922 ??; Ath. Mitt. II, Pl. I,10
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 167 entry 656; CNM 4673
Punch Small crafts Unstratified or unknown 8.8 2.3 Branigan 1974 177 entry 1452; CMAE FB 131, PC 92
Astypalaia: Armenochori - LBA
Ax, single/flat LHIIIA1-C Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, entry 1F.6a
Knife LHIIIA1-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, entry 1F.3a
Knife LHIIIA1-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, entry 2F.4a
Razor LHIIIA1-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, entry 1F.5a
Astypalaia: Syngairos -LBA
Chisel LH IIIA2/B Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, 1G.4a
Chisel LH IIIA2/B Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, 1G.5a
Chisel LH IIIA2/B Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, 2G.4a
Spatula LH IIIA2/B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, 1G.2a
Spatula LH IIIA2/B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239, 1G.3a
Chios: general - 2nd millennium
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 165 entry 551
Cyclades: general - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 170 entry 803; Doumas no. 224
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 167 entry 641
Delos: general - LBA
Sickle LH III? Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 16.5 Deshayes 2807; BCH LXXI-LXII (1947-48), p. 231, pl. XL, 4
Ikaria: general - 2nd millennium
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17 7.8 Branigan 1974, 165 entry 549; Deshayes 1567, plate XXIII.5 and LIX.2
Kalymnos: general - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2368; Branigan 1974, 167 entry 672
Kea: Ayia Irini - LBA
Awl LM IA/LHI Small crafts Settlement 11.5 0.4 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 82 entry 791, plate 41.
Chisel fragment LMIB/LHII Carpentry/masonry Settlement Cummer and Schofield 1984, pg 78, uninventoried
Knife LH IIIA Utilitarian Settlement 5.3 1.25 Cummer and Schofield 1984, pg 73, plate 41, entry 474
Knife or blade mixed deposit Utilitarian Settlement 3.5 1 Cummer and Schofield 1984, pg 76 entry 555b
Mold for knife, chisel period VII Metallurgical Settlement 14.6 5.6 Cummer and Schofield 1984, pg 89 entry 978, plate 43
Undetermined tool LM IA/LH I Small crafts Settlement 4.2 0.4 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 82 entry 792
Kea: general -2nd millennium
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 to 18.5 Deshayes 2070
Kos: "Seraglio" - LBA
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19 5.1 Morricone, L. 1975, 276-277.
GREEK ISLANDS 596

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, trunnion/lugged LHIII Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.3 4.9 Iakovidis 1982 224; Catling 1964, 88; Morricone 1975; 276, fig 233-4
Cleaver LM IIIA or LH IIIA, after Utilitarian Settlement Catling 1964, 106; unpublished
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement Buchholz 1959, 47 f and plate Xa; Morricone, L. 1975, 277-278.
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement Morricone, L. 1975, 277-278.
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 16.5 Deshayes 2595; PPS 1955, 192; Morricone, L. 1975, 278-79
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 19.7 Deshayes 2542; PPS XXI, 1955, 193; Morricone, L. 1975, 278
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 17.4 Morricone, L. 1975, 278
Kos: Asklepieion area - LBA
Ax, single/flat LH IIIA Carpentry/masonry Burial? 13.2 3.7 Morricone, L. 1975, 255; Georgiadis, M. 2003, 235 entry 1E.G
Chisel LH IIIA Carpentry/masonry Burial? Georgiadis, M. 2003, 235 entry 1E.E
Knife LH IIIA Utilitarian Burial? 22.2 2.5 Morricone, L. 1975, 261; Georgiadis, M. 2003, 235 entry 1E.F
Kos: Aspripetra - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 167 entry 671; Annuario 8-9, 277, Fig. 61
Kos: Eleona and Langada - LBA
Awl LH IIIC Small crafts Burial 7 Morricone, L. 1967, 200,fig. 207; Georgiadis 2003, 237, entry 43B.B
Ax, single/flat LHIIIA2 Carpentry/masonry Burial 17.5 4.3 Morricone, L. 1967, 175-6, fig. 183; Georgiadis 2003, 236,entry 37B.C
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial 6 0.9 Morricone, L. 1967, 254,fig. 279; Georgiadis 2003, 237, entry 58B.B
Cleaver LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial 24.2 Morricone, L. 1967, 213-4,fig. 226; Georgiadis 2003, 237, entry 46B.C
Cleaver LH IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial 19 Morricone, L. 1967, 233,fig. 254-5; Georgiadis 2003, 237, entry 52B.A
Cleaver or razor LH IIIA2,C Utilitarian Burial 17 Morricone, L. 1967, 149, fig. 138-9; Georgiadis 2003, 236, entry 25B.C
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial 13.7 Morricone, L. 1967, 57, fig. 29; Georgiadis 2003, 234, entry 15A.B
Knife LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 14 Morricone, L. 1967, 121, fig. 102; Georgiadis 2003, 234, entry 15B.D
Knife LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 12.3 Morricone, L. 1967, 180,fig. 189; Georgiadis 2003, 236, entry 38B.M
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial 12.5 Morricone, L. 1967, 200,fig. 207; Georgiadis 2003, 237, entry 42B.J
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial 18 Morricone, L. 1967, 214,fig. 226; Georgiadis 2003, 237, entry 46B.D
Knife LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial 13 Morricone, L. 1967, 214,fig. 226; Georgiadis 2003, 237, entry 46B.E
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 16.3 Morricone, L. 1967, 112, fig. 93; Georgiadis 2003, 234, entry 11B.E;
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIA1-2 Utilitarian Burial 16 Morricone, L. 1967, 67, fig. 38; Georgiadis 2003, 235, entry 17A.A
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial 21 Morricone, L. 1967, 77, fig. 52; Georgiadis 2003, 235, entry 21A.C
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial 20 Morricone, L. 1967, 77, fig. 52; Georgiadis 2003, 235, entry 23A.B
Razor LH IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial 16.5 Morricone, L. 1967, 164-5, fig. 167-8; Georgiadis 2003, 236, 34B.C
Tongs or tweezers Mycenaean level Metallurgical Burial 11 Morricone, L. 1967, 112, fig. 93; Georgiadis 2003, 234, entry 11B.F
Kos: general - LBA
Tongs or tweezers Metallurgical Settlement Catling 1964, 99; other unpublished
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2367, plate XLI, 8; ASAA, 8-9 (1925-26), p. 277, fig. 61
Knife Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2669; Sandars 1955, 190
Melos: general - 2nd millennium
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974 166 entry 594; Ridgeway I, fig. 29
Melos: Phylakopi - MBA
Double Ax EC III-MC I; about 2000 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 165 entry 531; Deshayes 2000.
Melos: Phylakopi - LBA
Awl LC I-II?/LMIA-IB Small crafts Settlement 5.5 Bosanquet and Welch 1904, 191, plate XXXVIII.11
Awl phase D Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 4.9 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 314, figure 8.6
Awl fragment phase 2a Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 2.6 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 314, figure 8.6
Awl fragment phase 1b/2a Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary 1.8 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 315
Chisel LC I-II?/LMIA-IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.5 2.53 Bosanquet and Welch 1904, 190, plate XXXVIII.1
Chisel LC I-II?/LMIA-IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.4 3.28 Bosanquet and Welch 1904, 190, plate XXXVIII.2; Deshayes 361 bis
Chisel LC I-II?/LMIA-IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.4 2.67 Bosanquet and Welch 1904, 190, plate XXXVIII.3
Chisel tip fragment? phase 0/2 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 1.6 0.7 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 315
GREEK ISLANDS 597

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel tip fragment? phase D Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 1 1.1 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 315
Double Ax level III; 16th-12th c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8 preserved Deshayes 2052; Phylakopi, p. 191, figure 161
Knife, single edged LH IIIC Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 12.4 1.4 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 314, figure 8.6
Knife, single edged, frag. LC III Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 4.8 0.3 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 314, figure 8.6
Knife or blade LC I-II?/LMIA-IB Utilitarian Settlement Bosanquet and Welch 1904, 190, plate XXXVIII.4
Knife or blade LC I-II?/LMIA-IB Utilitarian Settlement Bosanquet and Welch 1904, 190, plate XXXVIII.5
Mold for chisels, Axs 12th century Metallurgical Cultic site or sanctuary 12.3 10.1 Renfrew and Cherry 1985, 337, fig 8.6, plate 65b
Melos: Phylakopi - 2nd millennium
Mold for double Ax LH III Metallurgical Settlement Branigan 1974, 202 entry M74.
Naxos: general -LBA
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.2 Deshayes 2074 bis; PZ XXXVIII (1960) p. 51, fig. 6a
Paros: general - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.8 3 Branigan 1974, 169 entry 786; Renfrew pl. 9,44
Paros: Koukounaries - LBA
Double Ax LH IIIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17 6 Schilardi 1980, 275 plate 165a; Schilardi 1984, 202
Razor LH IIIC Utilitarian Settlement Schilardi 1984, 202
Rhodes: Ambelia - LBA
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 232 entry 031.1.1a
Rhodes: Apsaktiras - LBA
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 232 entry 028.0.2a
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 232 entry 028.0.3a
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 232 entry 028.0.4a
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 232 entry 028.0.5a
Rhodes: Archangelos - LBA
Razor LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 233 entry 034.2.1a
Rhodes: Aspropilia - LBA
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 233 entry 032.4.2a
Razor LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 232 entry 032.1.3a
Razor LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 232 entry 032.3.4a
Spatula LH IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 233 entry 032.4.3a
Spatula LH IIIB-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 233 entry 032.4.4a
Rhodes: general -LBA
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, 107; MV Taf. D: 8 and 17; Deshayes 2712
Razor, cleaver-like LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Catling 1964, 107; MV Taf. D: 8 and 17; Deshayes 2712
Rhodes: Ialysos -LBA
Possible stylus or awl LH IIIA2 or C Small crafts Burial 13.5 Deshayes 58; ASAA VI-VII, p. 113, fig. 33; Georgiadis, 2003, 228
Chisel, narrow LH IIIA-B Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 750; ASAA XIII-XIV (1930-31), p. 344, fig. 95;
Chisel, broad LH IIIA-B Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 701. ASAA VI-VII, p. 175, fig. 101; Georgiadis, M. 2003, 221
Chisel LH IIIA2 or C Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 100.18
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 219 entry 101.155
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 219 entry 101.144
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 219 entry 101.151
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 219 entry 101.152
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 219 entry 101.153
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 219 entry 101.154
Chisel LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 219 entry 101.155
Chisel LH IIIA2 or C Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 100.17
Cleaver LH III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2706. ASAA, VI-VII ,p. 153, fig. 76; Georgiadis, 2003, 222
Cleaver LH IIIB Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2713; ASAA VI-VII, p. 100, fig. 15; Georgiadis 2003, 224
GREEK ISLANDS 598

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Cleaver LH IIIC1 Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2714; ASAA VI-VII, p. 181, fig. 106; Georgiadis 2003, 223
Cleaver LH III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2706. ASAA, VI-VII, p. 231, fig. 147; Georgiadis 2003, 226
Cleaver LH IIIC1 Utilitarian Burial 22 Deshayes 2694; ASAA VI-VII, p. 181, fig. 106; Georgiadis 2003
Cleaver LH IIIA2 or C Utilitarian Burial 15.2 Deshayes 2689 (?); Georgiadis, M. 2003, 228
Cleaver LH III Utilitarian Burial 15 Deshayes 2690; ASAA, XIII-XIV, p. 344, fig. 95; Georgiadis 2003, 228
Cleaver LH III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2680 (?), Rhodes p. 108, pl. IIIA
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Burial Catling 1964, 89 note 6; Ann. xii-xiv, 285, figure 28
Knife LH IIIA-B Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2573; ASAA VI-VII , p. 149, fig. 70; Georgiadis 2003, 222
Knife with ivory handle LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 29 Deshayes 2581, ASAA, VI-VII, p. 231, fig. 147; Georgiadis 2003, 226
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2599; ASAA, VI-VII, p. 175, fig. 101; Georgiadis 2003, 221
Knife LH IIIC1 Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2465; ASAA, VI-VII, p. 181, no. 61, fig. 106 bottom
Knife LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2458; MykVasen 1886, p. 75, pl. D6; Georgiadis, 2003, 229
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial 21 Deshayes 2459; ASAA XIII-XIV (1930-31), p. 342, fig. 84
Knife LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2451; Clara Rhodos X (1941) p. 130, fig. 89, 1 and 90
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial? Deshayes 2417; Rhodes in ancient times, 1885, p. 108, pl. III, F
Knife LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial 17 Georgiadis, M. 2003, 226; ASAA, VI-VII, p. 231, fig. 147
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.123
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.129
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.131
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.132
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.150
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 220 entry 101.88
Knife LH IIIA1-2 Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 224 entry 39.5
Knife LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 224 entry 48.15
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O6.1
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O8.1
Razor; cleaver-like LH III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2695; ASAA, VI-VII, p. 153, fig. 76; Georgiadis 2003, 222
Razor LH IIIA2 or C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 100.12
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.122
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.130
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 218 entry 101.133
Razor LH IIIA1 Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 224 entry 45.2
Razor LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 224 entry 48.14
Razor LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 226 entry 51.6A
Razor LH IIIA or C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 226 entry 54.4
Razor LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 227 entry 62.15
Razor LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O4.7
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O4.8
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O6.2
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O6.3
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O8.2
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 229 entry O8.3
Rhodes: Kalogrios - LBA
Razor LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 231 entry 027.1.1a
Rhodes: Kaminaki-Lures - LBA
Razor LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 230 entry 012.1.1a
Rhodes: Lelos - LBA
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 231 entry 014.5.3a
Rhodes: Lindos - LBA
GREEK ISLANDS 599

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 233 entry 033.0.1a
Ax, single/flat LH III Carpentry/masonry Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 233 entry 033.0.2a
Ax, trunnion/lugged LH III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 ce = 3.8 Deshayes 1131, plate XIV.15; Lindos I, p. 67, pl. 3, 27
Knife LH III Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 233 entry 033.0.3a
Rhodes: Passia - LBA
Knife LH IIIC Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 231 entry 026.2.4a
Rhodes: Siana - LBA
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 231 entry 018.0.3a
Rhodes: Theologos - LBA
Knife; Cypriot? LH IIIA1 Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 230 entry 008.1.1a
Rhodes: Trapezies Paraelis - LBA
Razor LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 231 entry 019.0.1a
Rhodes: Trianda - LBA
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement Catling 1964, 89 note 6; Clara Rhodos X, 139, figure 89: 7, p. 150: 4
Knife LH II-IIIA Utilitarian Settlement? 17.2 Deshayes 2416; Clara Rhodos X (1941), p. 64, fig. 89,2)
Rhodes: Tzigani - LBA
Knife LH IIIA2 Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 231 entry 022.1.1a
Rhodes: Yennadi - LBA
Knife LH IIIA2-C Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 231 entry 025.1.2
Salamis: Kanakia - LBA
Chisel, narrow LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard Lolos 2003, 83-93
Chisel, broad LH IIIC early Carpentry/masonry Hoard Lolos 2003, 83-93
Knife LH IIIC early Utilitarian Hoard? Lolos 2003, 83-93
Sickle LH IIIC early Agricultural Hoard Lolos 2003, 83-93
Skopelos: Cape Staphylos - LBA
Ax, single/flat LH I-IIA; LM II Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 2028; Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1146; Iakovidis 1982, 218
Double Ax LH I-IIA Carpentry/masonry Burial Tripathi 1988 346 entry 1147; Iakovidis 1982, 218
Knife 15th century Utilitarian Burial On display in the Athens National Museum, prehistoric section
Knife 15th century Utilitarian Burial On display in the Athens National Museum, prehistoric section
Razor 15th century Utilitarian Burial On display in the Athens National Museum, prehistoric section
Razor 15th century Utilitarian Burial On display in the Athens National Museum, prehistoric section
Skopelos: general - LBA
Knife LH I-IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1133; Platon 1949, 551, no. 6
Knife LH I-IIA Utilitarian Burial Tripathi 1988 345 entry 1134; Platon 1949, 551, no. 7
Syros: general - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 14 Deshayes 2598, plate XLIV, 11; A. Eph. 1899, p. 121, pl. X, 43
Spatula Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 6 Deshayes 3004; A. Eph. 1899, p. 102-103, pl. X, 33, 34
Spatula, shovel, scraper Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown about 6 cm Deshayes 3005; A. Eph. 1899, p. 102-103, pl. X, 33, 34
Thera: Akrotiri - LBA
Chisel, narrow LBA I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.6 0.5 Mariantos, S. 1969, 50-51, figure 39.d
Chisel, long, Minoan-type LBA I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 25 about 3.0 Palyvou 2005, 114, fig 155; Marinatos 1968-76, II:49-51, III: 43-5; IV:16
Knife LBA I Utilitarian Settlement 16 Mariantos, S. 1971, 20, 38 plate 89b
Knife LBA I Utilitarian Settlement 14.7? Marinatos, S. 1969, 49-51, fig 38a
Piercer? LBA I Small crafts Unstratified or unknown On display in the Athens National Museum, Akrotiri section
Razor LBA I Utilitarian Settlement Mariantos, S. 1971, 38 plate 89a
Saw LBA I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 59 9 Doumas 1997; praktika 1994, 161 plate 87d, 88a-b
Sickle, serrated LBA I Agricultural Settlement 15 Mariantos, S. 1969, 50-51, figure 39.b
Sickle, serrated LBA I Agricultural Settlement Mariantos, S. 1971, 38 plate 89b
Sickle, serrated LBA I Agricultural Settlement Mariantos, S. 1971, 38 plate 89b
GREEK ISLANDS 600

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Sickle, serrated LBA I Agricultural Settlement Mariantos, S. 1971, 38 plate 89b
Sickle, serrated LBA I Agricultural Settlement 20 Mariantos, S. 1969, 50-51, figure 39.a
Sickle, serrated LBA I Agricultural Settlement 25 Mariantos, S. 1969, 50-51, figure 39.c
Thera: Akrotiri? - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 169 entry 752
Saw with teeth Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 22 5 Deshayes 2919
Thera: Megalochori quarry -MBA
Double Ax early 17th century Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Doumas, Martharē, and Televantou. 2000, 10 entry 11, figure11
GREEK ISLANDS 601

Sites & Object types
Akaki-Trounalli - LBA
Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Double spatula
Akhera - LBA
LC IIIA Small crafts Burial: tomb 6 9.1 cm 3.85- 4.4 cm Catling 1964,264, E3
Awl LC IA Small crafts Burial: tomb 1 Karageorghis 1965, 80, figure 30; Balthazar 1990, 374
Awl LC IA Small crafts Burial: tomb 1 Karageorghis 1965, 94, figure 30
Chisel early LC IIC Carpentry/masonry Burial: tomb 3 Kling and Muhly 2007, 311, referred to under the chisel entry from Apliki
Knife with blunt butt LCIA Utilitarian Burial: tomb 1 13.0 cm Karageorghis 1965: 80, fig. 30; Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89
Knife with blunt butt LCIA Utilitarian Burial: tomb 1 16.3 cm Karageorghis 1965: 88, fig. 30; Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89
Knife with sinuous butt LCIA Utilitarian Burial: tomb 1 16.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Karageorghis 1965: 90, fig. 30
Scraper
Alambra - MBA
LC IA Utilitarian Burial: tomb 1 Karageorghis 1965, 88, figure 30; Balthazar 1990, 355.
Awl MC Small crafts Settlement; area A 9.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 365; Fasnacht 1986, 42
Awl Small crafts Settlement, surface 2.85 tip = 1.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 379, table 138; Fasnacht 1986, 49; Coleman 1996 141, fig. 33, plate 19, entry A40
Ax, single/flat MC Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb Al. 102 8.7 cm 3.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 238, 363, table 22, fig. 61b; Fasnacht 1985, 47; Coleman et al. 1996, 139, figure 69, plate 48
Ax, shaft hole MC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.6 cm about 3.3 Deshayes 1410; Catling 1964 66.3; Buchholz 1979, 79; Balthazar 1990, 371
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement About 15 Balthazar 1990, 363; Cesnola 1903, pl. LXX.2,3,4
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement About 15 Balthazar 1990, 363; Cesnola 1903, pl. LXX.2,3,4
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement About 15 Balthazar 1990, 363; Cesnola 1903, pl. LXX.2,3,4
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement Balthazar 1990, 363; Cesnola 1878, pl. V
Knife 14th-13th century Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2527; Cesnola, Cyprus, pg 93, pl V; 1878
Knife MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb Al. 101 5.1 cm 2.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 237, 342, tble 96, figure 61a; Coleman et al. 1996, 137, fig 68
Knife MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb Al. 101 4.2 cm 3 cm Balthazar 1990, 238, 342, tble 96, figure 61h; Coleman et al. 1996, 137, fig 68
Knife MC Utilitarian Settlement, surface 5.8 cm 1.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 237, 342, table 96 and figure 61g; Coleman et al. 1996, 141, fig 33
Mold, limestone Metallurgical Settlement, Building I, room 7 7.5 cm Coleman et al. 1996, 135, figure 31
Mold, terracotta Metallurgical Settlement, room 1 7.8 cm 4.1 cm Coleman et al. 1996, 135-6, figure 31, plate 18
Mold, terracotta Metallurgical Settlement; Building VI, room 17 8.2 cm 6 cm Coleman et al. 1996, 136, figure 31
Scraper Utilitarian Burial, tomb Al. 103 2.8 blade = 1.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 379, table 138; Fasnacht 1986, 48; Coleman et al. 1996, 140, figure 71, plate 49, entry A35
Scraper Utilitarian Burial, tomb Al. 102 11.8 tip = 1.3 Balthazar 1990, 354, table 111; Swiny 1986: 77; Coleman et al. 1996, 139 figure 69, plate 48, entry A32
Scraper EC III - MC Utilitarian Settlement, Building I, room3 10.8 cm 2.2 cm Coleman et al. 1981, pl. X, 2; Balthazar 1990, 356, table 114; Coleman et al. 1996, 133, A2, figure 30, plate 18
Scraper-spatula MC Utilitarian Settlement, surface 11.3 2.7 to 3.15 Balthazar 1990. 365, table 112; Coleman et al. 1996, 141 figure 33, plat 19
Sickle Agricultural Settlement Deshayes 2848; Cesnola 1878, Cyprus, pg. 93, plate V
Alassa Pano Mandilaris - LBA
Ax, single/flat
Amathus - LBA
LCIB-LCIIIA (site) Carpentry/masonry Settlement Webb 1999, 123; Hadjisavvas 1989, 37
Chisel
Anoyira Peralijithias - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown about 11 Deshayes 802; Balthazar 1990, 378; Cesnola 1903; plate LXIX.6
Knife MC I-II or MC III Utilitarian Burial 12.2 cm 2.8 cm Swiny 1986, 71 figure 65
Knife
Apliki-Karamallos - LBA
MC I-III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 8.3 cm 1.9 cm Swiny 1986, 73 figure 65; Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89
Awl? LC IIC Small crafts Settlement, Area A; room 8 11.3 cm Taylor 1952, 142; Kling and Muhly 2007, 312, entry A8:14, plate 89
Awl or chisel/stylus LC IIC Small crafts Settlement, Area A 1.65&3.3 cm Deshayes 156; Taylor 1952, p. 113; Kling and Muhly 2007, 312 entry A8:9, plate 89
Awl or chisel/stylus LC IIC Small crafts Settlement, Area A 1.5&3.75 cm Deshayes 156; Taylor 1952, p. 113; Kling and Muhly 2007, 311, entry A5:35, plate 89
Chisel, tanged LC IIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.1 cm ce = 0.4 Deshayes 993, Taylor 1952, pl. 29:a,Kling and Muhly 2007, 311, entry A6.6
Chisel and drill LC IIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement, room 2, doorway Deshayes 801; Taylor 1952, 138; Kling and Muhly 2007, 311 entry A2:23
Drill and chisel or stylus LC IIC Small crafts or carpentry/masonry Settlement, Area A 14 ce = 0.5 Deshayes 939 - Taylor 1952, 163; Kling and Muhly 2007, 311 entry A5:34, plate 89
Drill, chisel or stylus LC IIC Small crafts Settlement, Area A 12.8 cm Deshayes 939 - Taylor 1952, 140, pl. XXIX.5; Kling and Muhly 2007, 311, entry 4.11.
Drill LC IIC Small crafts Settlement, Area A 15.5 cm Taylor 1952, 140, 163; Kling and Muhly 2007, 311 entry A4:1
Knife blade LC IIC Utilitarian Settlement, B III, pit 4 6.7 cm 1 cm Taylor 1952, 148, 163, figure 13:2; Kling and Muhly 2007, 312, plate 89
Small implement LC IIC Small crafts Settlement, Area A 2.2 cm Taylor 1952, 140, 163; Kling and Muhly 2007, 311 entry A3W:25
CYPRUS TOOLS
602

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Stylus? LC IIC Small crafts Settlement 13.5 cm Kling and Muhly 2007, 312, entry Apliki V(9); plate 89
Arpera Chiftlik - LBA
Ax, single/flat LC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 205 gamma 13.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 365
Arpera Mosphilos - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.6 about 4.45 Balthazar 1990, 364; Catling 1964, 86
Ax, single/flat MC III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 5.3 about 1.7 Balthazar 1990, 364; Catling 1964, 86
Knife with ogival butt MCIII Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 15.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Merrillees 1974: 52, fig. 31
Arsos - LBA
Ax, single/flat After 1600 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 274; SCE III, p. 597, pl. CCIV 2 and 3
Ax, single/flat After 1600 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 274; SCE III, p. 597, pl. CCIV 2 and 3
Athienou - LBA
Awl 16th-13th century Small crafts Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel, small 16th-13th century Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel, small 16th-13th century Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel, small 16th-13th century Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel, small 16th-13th century Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel, small or punch 16th-13th century Small crafts Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel? Small implement 16th-13th century Small crafts Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel? Small implement 16th-13th century Small crafts Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Chisel? Small implement 16th-13th century Small crafts Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Small implement 16th-13th century Small crafts Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Small implement 16th-13th century Small crafts Hoard, Pit in area F8 Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 134-135; figure 57; plate 47.
Avdimou-Kamares - LBA
Awl? Small crafts Burial, tomb 25/22 Mangines, G. and G. Vavouranakes 2004, RDAC 102, entry 22
Ayia Paraskevi - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC or earlier Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 28 12.9 5.4 ?? (Recent RDAC? 2002 or later?)
Knife with rivets MCII-III? Utilitarian Burial? Tomb 8? Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Kromholz 1977: 279
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.3 Deshayes 405; Civil Preh., p. 257-258, fig. 185, 9 and 10
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.7 Deshayes 405; ; Civil Preh., p. 257-258, fig. 185, 9 and 10
Ax, shaft hole MC? Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.7 ce = 4.1 Buchholz 1979, 78.4; Balthazar 1990, 371; Deshayes 1409; Catling 1964, 66 entry 2
Ax, shaft hole MC? Carpentry/masonry Burial Buchholz 1979, 78.5; Balthazar 1990, 371; Deshayes 1409; Catling 1964, 66 entry 2
Ayia Paraskevi - LBA
Awl 1600-1450 BC Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 89; Kypros, p. 34-35, figure 34, i and pl. 452, pl. CXLVI, 6B, n
Awl Late MC - LC I Small crafts Burial? Tomb 6? Balthazar 1990, 374
Awl Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Balthazar 1990, 374; OR 1893, pl. CXLVI.6Bn
Ax, single/flat 1600-1450 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 7 cm Deshayes 361; Kypros, p. 34-5, fig. 34, n
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 7.5 cm Deshayes 315; Kypros, p. 452, pl. CXLVI 6, B,r
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 246; Kypros, p. 34-5, fig. 34, n
Cutting or slashing tool Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2925; Civil. Preh. 2nd ed., p. 258, fig. 185.8
Knife with round butt late MC or LC I Utilitarian Burial? Tomb 6? 11.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Kromholz 1977: 280
Ayia Paraskevi - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown about 19 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; OR 1893: pl. CXLVI.6Bj
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown about 15 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94; OR 1893: pl. CXLVI.6Bk
Ayios Iakovos - MBA
Chisel MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 6.144 8.2 Balthazar 1990, 378; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 320
Knife with round butt MC III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 12 9.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934; 343, pl. LXIII.5
Knife with round butt MCII Utilitarian Burial, tomb 7 12.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 336 table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 324, pl. LX.6
Knife with pointed butt MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 6 10 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 320, pl. LXII.1
Knife with pointed butt MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 6 10.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 320, pl. LXII.1
CYPRUS TOOLS
603

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife with pointed butt MCII Utilitarian Burial, tomb 6 14.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 321, pl. LXII.1
Knife with pointed butt MCII Utilitarian Burial, tomb 7 18.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 324, pl. LX.6
Knife, tanged MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 6 14.3 cm Balthazar 1990 333, table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 319, pl. LXII.1; Astrom 1972: 140, fig. 10.8
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 6 11.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 320, 321, pl. LX II.1
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 6 7.7 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 320, pl. LXII.1; Astrom 1972, 143, fig. 11.8
Scraper or knife MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 6 11.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 354, 331 table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 320, 321, pl. LX II.1
Spatula or shovel
Ayios Iakovos - LBA
17th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 3006; SCE pg. 320, pl. LXII, number 143...
Awl LC IA Small crafts Burial, tomb 10b.8 Catling 1964, figure 10.6, page 97 entry L.1; SCEi 339
Ax, trunnion/lugged LC IA Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 10b.6 Catling 1964, 87 entry C.1; figure 8.11, plate 6g; SCEi.339
Ax, single/flat LC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 8 5.6 ce = 4 Balthazar 1990, 116, 365, figure 19,365; Deshayes 314; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 332, LXIII, 65
Knife with sinuous butt LCI-II Utilitarian Burial, tomb 8? 17.7+ cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 333, pl. LXIII
Ayios Nikolaos, Limassol - MBA
Awl MC Small crafts Burial? 7 cm 0.35 cm Swiny 1986, 83, figure 67; Balthazar 1990, 374
Ax, single/flat MC Carpentry/masonry Burial? 5.9 cm 1.6-3.3 cm Swiny 1986, 84, figure 65, 67; Balthazar 1990, 365
Knife, tanged MC Utilitarian Burial? Tomb 30 11.0 cm Swiny 1986, 71; Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78
Knife, tanged MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 30 11.2+cm Swiny 1986: 72, figure 65
Knife, tanged MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 31 10.8 cm Swiny 1986: 71-2, figure 65; Balthazar 1990, 332 table 81
Knife, tanged MC Utilitarian Burial? Tomb 1.6 11.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 82; Karageorghis 1940-8: 143-4
Knife w pointed butt MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 30 10.8+cm Swiny 1986: 72, fig. 65, Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87
Chomazoudhia (Politiko) - MBA
Ax, shaft hole
Dali - 2nd millennium
18th-17th century BC; MC Carpentry/masonry I-III
Burial, tomb 3 18.5 cm ce = 3.8 Catling 1964, 66 entry 1; Deshayes 1408; Buchholz 1979, 77, fig 3; Balthazar 1990, 371
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 11.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Cesnola 1903: pl. LXXI.3
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 16.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Cesnola 1903: pl. LXXI.2;
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 11 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Cesnola 1903: pl. LXXI.4
Knife
Deneia-Kafkalla - MBA
Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown about 9 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Cesnola 1903: pl. LXXI.1
Knife
Dhali Kafkallia - MBA
MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 225 (M1) Frankel and Webb 2006, 120 (2004 excavations)...
Ax, single/flat
Dhali Kafkallia - LBA
MC III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10 cm about 4.2 Balthazar 1990, 365; de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 7, figure 1
Ax, shaft hole MC III - LC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb G 20.5 cm about 3.2 Buchholz 1979, 80, figure 7; Balthazar 1990, 371
Scraper
Dhenia - MBA
Utilitarian Settlement Balthazar 1990, 365; Cesnola 1903, pl. LXXI.5
Scraper
Enkomi - LBA
MC I-II Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Balthazar 1990, 364
Adze, single/flat LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.1 cm ce=3 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 18 entry 138, figure 6.16
Adze, single/flat LC III? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.9 cm 5 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 19, entry 141, figure 6.17
Adze, trunnion/lugged LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.6 cm ce= 3.85 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 18 entry 137, figure 6.3
Adze, necked LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 14.15 ce = 4.7 cm Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-Matthaus 1
Adze-hammer LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 12.4 ce = 4.35 Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 93 entry 1, plate 8:h; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmache
Adze-hammer Late LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Brunnen 212 10.35 ce = 3.85 cm Lagarce 1971, 409 entry 9, Fig. 17 b, no. 5 on pg 408 and Fig. 21c-d on pg 416; Hundt 1971; Matthaus 1985, 363ff; Matth
Adze-hammer Late LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Brunnen 212 14.5 ce = 3.9 Lagarce 1971; Matthaus 1985, 363ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
Agricultural tool LC III or 12th century BC Agricultural Hoard - horned god Dikaios 1969, 195-199
Anvil Metallurgical Settlement
Awl LC III Small crafts Settlement 9 cm 0.45 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry 152, figure 4.31
Awl LC IIC or III Small crafts Settlement 7.4 cm 0.45 Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry 154, figure 4.36
Awl Small crafts Settlement 11.15 cm 0.45 Courtois et al. 1984, 21, entry 159, figure 5.15 or 19
CYPRUS TOOLS
604

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl or stylus? Small crafts Settlement 14.25 cm 0.45 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 20 entry 149, figure 4.6
Awl Small crafts Settlement 11.9 cm 0.4 Courtois et al. 1984, 20 entry 148, figure 4.2
Awl Small crafts Settlement Courtois et al. 1984, 20, entry 146, figure 4.53
Awl LC II Small crafts Settlement Courtois et al. 1984, 20 entry 151, figure 4.25
Awl Small crafts Settlement Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry 160 figure 5.24
Awl LC II Small crafts Settlement Courtois 1984
Awl Small crafts Settlement Catling 1964, 97 entry L3
Awl or drill? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.8 cm; middle = 0.5 Courtois et al. 1984, 24, entry 209, figure 5.15
Ax, trunnion/lugged LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Foundry 8.5 ce= 4.75 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964 87,4; plate 6:j; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Ax, single/flat LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174; Catling 1964, 86 no. 5, plate 6:e.
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Stylianou 16 4.9 Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2; Catling 1964, 285.
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Stylianou 19.3 5.5 Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Stylianou 9.8 4.5 Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.2 cm ce = 3.8 cm Catling 1964,86, 1, plate 6a; Dikaios 1969, plate 130.6, figure 157.5
Ax, trunnion/lugged LC III or later Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.8 cm ce = 4.1 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 19, entry 140, figure 12.1 and plate I.7
Ax, single/flat LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.45 cm ce = 6 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 19 entry 142, figure 6.15 and plate I.15
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry and metallurgical
Settlement? 16.6 ce = 3.1 Courtois et al. 1984, 18 entry 135, figure 6.9 for reference to inventory flat Ax, 5119p. (previously published in Enkomi-A
Ax-adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Foundry 9.8 ce = 4.3 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964 91, 4 (plate 8:d); Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Ax-adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Foundry 6.5 ce = 3.7 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 91, 5 (plate 8:e); Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Ax-adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Gunnis 14.9 ce = 3.45 cm Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174; Catling 1964 91, no. 3, Fig. 9:9, Plate 8:c.
Ax-adze LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 14.3 ce = 4.3 cm Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-Matthaus 1
Blade, folded Utilitarian Settlement middle = 1.05 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 153.12 (or maybe figure 157.27)
Castings; 6 casted dirks Metallurgical Hoard -casting Dikaios 1969, plate 126.20; figure 153.16,17,18
Chisel, narrow LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.85 cm 0.4 to 0.75 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 196; no picture published
Chisel, narrow LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.6 cm ce= 0.7 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 197, figure 4.34
Chisel, broad LC IIC or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.75 cm blade tip= 1.6 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 199, figure 6.15
Chisel, narrow LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.3 cm ce= 1 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 206, figure 5.11
Chisel, narrow LC IIC or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.6 cm ce= 0.55 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24, entry 208, figure 5.14
Chisel, narrow LC III or later Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.7 cm tip = 0.6 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 216; figure 7.12
Chisel fragment LC III? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.35 cm 1.45 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 195, figure 5.35
Chisel, broad LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.2 cm ce= 2.4 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 18 entry 136, figure 6.10
Chisel, narrow LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.8 cm ce = 1.35 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 200, figure 10.41
Chisel fragment Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 2.9 cm ce= 0.9 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 207; 41 entry 370; figure 10.51
Chisel, narrow LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.65 ce= 0.85 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 201, figure 7.5, plate XXIV.3
Chisel fragment End of level IIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.55 cm ce= 1.6 cm Dikaios 1969, plate 138.34, figure 171.31
Chisel, narrow LC IIC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.6 cm; ce= 2.4 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 212; figure 5.22
Chisel, mortise Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.5 cm cm= 0.8 cm Dikaios 1969, plate 130.2; figure 157.7-8
Chisel with lugs Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.95 cm 1.45 cm Catling 1964, 95, I.1; figure 10.1
Chisel LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Foundry ce= 1.7 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 95, 4; ; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Chisel, mortise LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 14.8 1.25? Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-Matthaus 1
Chisel, mortise LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 16.6 ce= 1.2 Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii (fig. 3.25); Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-M
Chisel, cold LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 7 1.8 or 1.9 Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-Matthaus 1
Chisel, miniature LC IIIB or early LC IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard - minature 2.1 1.2 Catling 1964, 288; Dikaios 1969, 295-296, plates 36.4 and 146.21; Matthaus 1985, 48ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Mat
Chisel LC III or IA I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.4 0.8 Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 191; figure 4.1
Chisel, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.9 ce= 0.4 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24, entry 202, figure 4.52
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9 0.6 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 213, figure 5.24
Chisel w conical butt Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 18 SCEi, pg 553 or 656, tomb 18, no. 65
Chisel w conical butt Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 19 SCEi,pg 553 or 656, tomb 19, number 92
Chisel, cold Carpentry/masonry Settlement Catling 1964, 96 entry J.2
CYPRUS TOOLS
605

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel, narrow LC IIC or later Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 cm ce= 0.45 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 204, figure 5.7
Chisel and drill LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.65 cm 0.8 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry 163, figure 4.26
Casting, chisel Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 5.95 cm 1.1 to 1.4 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 153.10
Chisel fragment Late LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Brunnen 212 Lagarce 1971; Hundt 1971; Matthaus 1985, 363ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
Chisel fragment Late LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Brunnen 212 Lagarce 1971; Hundt 1971; Matthaus 1985, 363ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
Chisel or drill LC III Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 11.65 cm 0.6cm Courtois et al. 1984, 41 entry 336, figure 7.4
Chisel? LC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.6 cm ce = 0.35 Dikaios 1969, 623, plate 126.22, figure 153.15
Double adze LC IIC or LC IIIA; but not before Carpentry/masonry 1200 BC according Hoard to Catling - Gunnis 16.35 3.75 and 3.95 Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174; Catling 1964, 90 no. 3, Fig. 9.3, Plate 7:c.
Double adze LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Maison des Bronze 17.4 4.8 and 4.75 cm Catling 1964, 90 entry E.2, Deshayes 2094, Missions 87, pl. xxxix:2Schaeffer, C. 1936. Missions en Chypre 1932-1935. Par
Double adze LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 14.4 3.95 and 4 cm Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-Matthaus 1
Double adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Gunnis 16. 7 4.15 and 4 cm Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174; Catling 1964, 90 no. 4, Fig. 9.4 , Plate 7:f.
Double adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Gunnis 14.85 4.45 and 4.25 cm Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174; Catling 1964, 90 no. 5, Plate 7:g.
Double adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Gunnis about 14.6 about 4.1 cm Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174; Catling 1964, 90 no. 6, Fig. 9.5
Double Ax LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Foundry 20 4.5 and 4.35 cm Murray et al. 1900; Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 88, 1, figure 9:2, plate 6:l; Deshayes 2032; Matthäus and Schumacher-
Double Ax LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard - Weapon 25 4.95 and 5 cm Dikaios 1969, 99, 109, 132; Catling 1964, 88 entry D.2, Fig. 9:1, Plate 6:m. Matthäus 1985, tafel 129, no. 37.
Double hammer LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard - Foundry 16.7 6.5 and 6.3 cm Schaeffer 1952; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174. Catling 1964, 99, B1, plate 11:a; Matthäus 1986; D
Double hammer; adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry or Metallurgical Hoard - Foundry 14 3.6 and 4 cm Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 100, C1, plate 11c; Deshayes 2318; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Double spatula LC II-III Small crafts Burial, tomb 406 6.7 cm 2.1 to 2.2 cm Catling 1964, 263, E1; figure 23.7; but catling may be wrong in the identification as coming from tomb 6 number 104; De
Double spatula LC III Small crafts Burial, tomb 406 5.5 &2.05 cm 2.95 Catling 1964, 264, not 1; Deshayes 2939; Missions 139, figure 41. French tomb #6 (1934) no. 105.
Double spatula LC III or later Small crafts Settlement 9.3 cm 3.3 cm and 2.75 cmCourtois et al. 1984, 22 entry 177, figure 5.4
Double spatula LC III or later Small crafts Settlement 5.5&3.35 cm 2.4 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 18, entry 139, figure 6.8
Double spatula LC II-III Small crafts Burial, tomb 406 11.6 cm 1.5 to 1.65 cm Catling 1964, 263, E12; figure 23.8; Deshayes 2958; Missions 139 fig. 41.
Double spatula LC II-III Small crafts Burial, tomb 406 Catling 1964, 263; Deshayes 2957; Missions 139 fig. 41.
Double spatula Small crafts Settlement
Double spatula LC III or later Small crafts Settlement
Double spatula Small crafts Settlement
Drill LC III Carpentry/masonry Burial, sondage IX 8.9 cm 0.7 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry 162, figure 4.24
Drill LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.45 cm drill tip = 1 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry 164, figure 4.43
Drill LC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.25 cm drill tip = 1.3 cm; middle= Courtois 1 et cmal.
1984, 21, entry 166, figure 4.48
Drill LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14 cm tip = 0.45 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry167, figure 5.9
Drill LH IIIC or later Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 11.5 cm tip = 0.35 cm; Courtois et al. 1984, 20 entry 148, figure 4.3; Catling 1964, 1964, 97 Kb1, Catling figure 10:3...
Drill LH IIC or IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.3 cm tip = 0.4 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24, entry 203, figure 4.55
Drill LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 15.6 tip= 0.9 Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii (figure 3.23); Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher
Drill LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 16.5 1+ Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-Matthaus 1
Drill Late LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Brunnen 212 13.3 1.17 Lagarce 1971; Hundt 1971; Matthaus 1985, 363ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
Drill, fragmentary LC IIIB or early LC IIIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard, miniature 7.1 tip = 0.9 Catling 1964, 288; Dikaios 1969, 295-296, plates 36.4 and 146.21; Matthaus 1985, 48ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Mat
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement Dikaios 1969, plate 134.9, figure 163.23
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.3 cm 0.7 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 163.20
Drill bit? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.7 cm tip = 0.1 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 171.20
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 tip = 0.5 Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 192, figure 4.8
Drill LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14 tip= 0.45 Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry167, figure 5.9
Drill LC III Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 6.13 Catling 1964 97 Kb3, figure 10.5
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.55 tip = 0.45 Catling 1964, 97, entry Kb2; figure 10.4
Drill with bone handle LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.35 cm 0.6 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 194, figure 7.2
Drill with handle crank LC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.9 cm 0.6 cm Dikaios 1969, plate 130.7, figure 157.35
Drill and chisel? LC III or later Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8 cm 0.45 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24, entry 211, figure 5.20
Drill or awl 15th or 14th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.6 cm 0.35 to 0.6 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 153.12; Catling 1964, 97 entry L3
Drill or stylus LC III Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 5.6 cm; 0.65 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21, entry 165, figure 4.46
Drill? LC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.1 cm 0.25 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 163.6.
CYPRUS TOOLS
606

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Hammer, trapezoidal Metallurgical Settlement 6.55 4.05 Courtois et al. 1984, 28, entry 230, figure 6.11 and plate II.14
Implement fragment? Small crafts Settlement Courtois et al. 1984, 27 entry 228, figure 6.7 and plate I.1
Knife LC IIC or LC IIIA Utilitarian Hoard, Foundry 14.25 tip = 0.75 Schaeffer 1952; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174. Catling 1964 102, Ba, 1 (Fig. 10: 11; plate 11:f) ; De
Knife with bone handle - notes LC IIC or LC IIIA Utilitarian Hoard, Foundry 15.5 tip = 0.75 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964 103, a3 (Fig 10:12, plate 11:g); Matthäus 1986; Deshayes 2670.
Knife fragment LC IIIA Utilitarian Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Catling 1964, 286-87; Courtois 1982
Knife tip fragment LC IIIA Utilitarian Hoard - Point 1458 4.75 cm tip = 0.7cm Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus. 1986, 175 entry 11.Courtois 1982, 167; Alasia III… Courtois, J. et al. 1984, 40 no. 3
Knife fragment LC IIIA Utilitarian Hoard - Point 1458 Courtois et al. 1984, 40 no. 343-345 ; Figure 13 : 19, 22, 23.
Knife tip Utilitarian Settlement 4.7 cm 0.9 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 157.9
Leather working knife 13th century Utilitarian Settlement 19.1 cm middle = 1.5 cm Catling 1964, 81, plate 4g and 11h; Dikaios plate 138.40, figure 171.53
Knife, single edged 12th century Utilitarian Settlement 8.65 cm Catling 1964,103, entry Bb2; Dikaios 138.39, figure 171.19
Knife, iron Utilitarian Settlement 15.85 Dikaios 1969, figure 176.37
Knife, iron Utilitarian Settlement 4.7 cm 2.1 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 172.17
Leather working knife Utilitarian Settlement Dikaios 1969, figure 150.4
Knife, single edged Utilitarian Settlement 12.8 tip = 0.6 - 1.75 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 217, figure 8.4 and 7
Knife w spatula end Utilitarian Settlement 12.4 1.2 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 218, figure 8.8
Knife w chisel-like end Utilitarian Settlement 14.7 1.3 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 219, figure 8.5
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 9.8 cm 1.4; tip = 0.45 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 220, figure 8.3
Knife w spatula end Utilitarian Settlement 11.1 1.3 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 221, figure 8.6
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 10.25 1.55 Courtois et al. 1984, 26, entry 222, figure 8.9
Knife w spatula end Utilitarian Settlement 18.6 2.55 Courtois et al. 1984, 26 entry 223; figure 8.11 and plate I.12
Knife, single edged Utilitarian Settlement 16.3 blade = 2 Courtois et al. 1984, 26 entry 224; figure 8.10 and plate I.13
Knife, decorated Utilitarian Settlement 10.45 broken tip = 2 Courtois et al. 1984, 26 entry 225, plate I.10
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 7.9 1.35 Courtois et al. 1984, 26 entry 226,figure 3.60 and plate I.9
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Courtois et al. 1984
Knife single edge Utilitarian Settlement 6.4 1.65 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 217, figure 8.4 and 7
Knife 12th century Utilitarian Settlement Catling 1964, 103, entry Bb1, figure 10:13
Mold for many objects 12th century Metallurgical Settlement Catling 1964, 274, b3, plate 51, a,b,c, Dikaios 1969, plate 146.24-28, 173.17
Mold, metal for plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard - Gunnis 27.1 10.05-14.2 Catling 1964, 272 entry 1, Plate 50:a.; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Mold for daggers Metallurgical Settlement Dikaios 1969, plate 127.25,49
Mold for bun ingots Metallurgical Settlement Dikaios 1969, plate 8/3-4; 127/48a
Mold for bun ingots Metallurgical Settlement Dikaios 1969, plate 127, 48
Mound for long tool Metallurgical Settlement Dikaios 1969, plate 130.19; figure 157.40
Mold for sickle-like tool Metallurgical Settlement Dikaios 1969, plate 130.17, figure 157.36.
Mold for sickle 12th century Metallurgical Settlement Catling 1964, 274, entry 2, plate 50 d and e; Dikaios 1969, plate 132.24, figure 164.12
Mold Metallurgical Settlement Dikaios 1969, figure 164.9
Mold, multiple 12th century BC Metallurgical Settlement Catling 1964, 274b2.
Pick fragment LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Pick fragment LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Pick, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Pick, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Pick, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Pick, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Pick, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Pick, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Pick, socketed Agricultural Hoard - Stylianou Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2; Catling 1964, 285.
Pick, socketed Agricultural Hoard - Stylianou Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2; Catling 1964, 285.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
CYPRUS TOOLS
607

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare fragment LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Plowshare Agricultural Hoard? Maison des Bronzes? 18.8 blade = 7.05 Catling 1964, 90
Plowshare Agricultural Hoard - Stylianou Catling 1964, 285.; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Plowshare Agricultural Hoard - Stylianou 23.5 blade tip = 7.7 Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Plowshare Agricultural Hoard - Stylianou Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Plowshare Late LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Brunnen 212 19.8 blade = 6.6 Lagarce 1971; Matthaus 1985, 363ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
Plowshare Agricultural Settlement 18.8 cm tip = 7.95 cm Catling 1964, plate 4b; Dikaios 1969, plate 126.19a; figure 153.13
Plowshare LC III Agricultural Settlement Courtois et al. 1984, 18, entry 134, figure 9.6
Plowshare, socketed LC III Agricultural Settlement 7.6 cm 3.2 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 18, entry 139, figure 6.8
Plowshare Agricultural Settlement Catling 1964
Plowshare 12th century BC Agricultural Settlement ca 20 cm Deshayes 1217, page 139; Enkomi, p. 29, pl. LXV, 8
Plowshare 12th century BC Agricultural Settlement ca 18.5 cm Deshayes 1218, page 139, plate XVII.5; Enkomi, p. 29, pl. LXV, 9
Pointed objects Small crafts Settlement 6.2&4.25 cm 0.4-0.7 Courtois et al. 1984, 24, entry 209, figure 5.16-18
Possible tool? LC IIIB or early LC IIIC Small crafts Hoard, miniature Catling 1964, 288; Dikaios 1969, 295-296, plates 36.4 and 146.21; Matthaus 1985, 48ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Mat
Pruning hook LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Saw with teeth LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Foundry 7.75 2.0-4.0 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Saw with teeth LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Foundry 3.25 2.25 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Scraper or knife 12th century Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 3052, pg 376, plate XLIX.19; Enkomi, p. 43, fig. 3.22
Shepherd's crook, socketedLC IIIA Ritual or prestige item Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 7.3 8.2 Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii;
Shepherd's crook, socketed Ritual or prestige item Hoard - Stylianou 14.1 Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Shovel, charcoal LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Shovel, charcoal LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Shovel, charcoal LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Shovel, charcoal LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard - Gunnis 13.5 9.5 Catling 1964, 101 entry 4, Fig. 11:6, Plate 10:f. ; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Shovel, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Shovel, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard - Gunnis Catling 1964, 281-82; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 174
Shovel, socketed Agricultural Hoard - Stylianou Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2; Catling 1964, 285.
Shovel, socketed LC II - Knapp Agricultural Hoard - point 438 29.8 shovel tip= 17 Courtois 1982, 166; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175. Courtois et al. 1984, 38, entry 323, figure 9.4 and p
Shovel 12th century Agricultural Settlement 23.5 cm Deshayes 3036, page 375, plate XLIX,7; Enkomi, p. 29, pl. LXV, 2
Sickle, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Sickle LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Sickle, tanged Agricultural Hoard -Stylianou Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Sickle, tanged Agricultural Hoard -Stylianou 18.3 tip = 1.4 Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Sickle, tanged Agricultural Hoard -Stylianou Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Sickle Agricultural Hoard -Stylianou Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Sickle, socketed Agricultural Hoard -Stylianou Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Sickle Agricultural Hoard -Stylianou Catling 1964, 285; Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2
Sickle, tanged LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard -Weapon 16.2 tip = 1.4 Catling 1964, 287ff, plate 5e; Dikaios 1969, 99, 109, plate 132.54
Sickle Agricultural Hoard -Weapon 10.4 blade tip = 2.45 Dikaios 1969, 99, 109, plate 132.45, figure 163.35; Catling 1964, 287ff...
Sickle LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, Point 1458 4.35 cm 2.2 cm Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus. 1986, 175 entry 11.Courtois 1982, 167; Alasia III… Courtois, J. et al. 1984, 40 no. 3
CYPRUS TOOLS
608

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 15.8 cm tip = 1 to 1.1 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 157.26
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 5.7 cm tip = 1.6 cm Dikaios 1969, figure 163.31
Sickle Agricultural Settlement Dikaios 1969, figure 171.41,
Sickle LC II Agricultural Settlement 24.5 cm tang= 2.65-3 cm Courtois et al. 1984, figure 8.18
Sickle LC III Agricultural Settlement 11.85 cm tip =1.15 Courtois et al. 1984, figure 8.16
Sickle LC II - Knapp Agricultural Hoard - point 438 15.7 middle = 2.3 Courtois et al. 1984, 38, figure 8.14; Courtois 1982, 166; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 175.
Sickle LC II - Knapp Agricultural Hoard - point 438 17 greatest = 3.05 Courtois et al. 1984, 38, entry 325 figure 8.17
Sickle 12th century BC Agricultural Settlement ca 12 cm Deshayes 2846, pg 348, 351, plate XLVII.7; Enkomi, p. 29, pl. LXV, 3
Sickle or razor Agricultural or utilitarian Settlement 12.9 cm middle = 1.6 -7 Dikaios 1969, plate 130.3, figure 157.11
Sickle, miniature Agricultural or Ritual or prestige Settlement item
7 cm 4.4 cm Dikaios 1969, plate 147.45a, figure 176.47
Small implement LC IIIB or early LC IIIC Small crafts Hoard - minature Catling 1964, 288; Dikaios 1969, 295-296, plates 36.4 and 146.21; Matthaus 1985, 48ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Mat
Small implement Utilitarian Settlement Dikaios 1969, figure 162.24
Small implement or punch Small crafts Settlement 4.3 1.1-1.25 Courtois et al. 1984, 41 entry 363, figure 14.14a
Socketed chisel LC IIC or III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.55 cm 1.3-2.1 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 216; figure 7.12
Socketed chisel LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard, Foundry 6.2 blade =1.7 Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Socketed chisel LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.6 cm 0.4-0.85 Courtois et al. 1984, 21 entry 155, figure 4.38
Socketed chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17 tip = 1.25 Courtois et al. 1984, 24, entry 211, figure 7.11
Spatula LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Spatula LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Spatula LC IIIA Metallurgical? Hoard -Trésor de Bronzes 22.5 tip = 5.3 Schaeffer 1952, 37ff, figures 1-4, plates ii-iii; Courtois 1982; Matthaus and Schmacher-Matthaus 1986, 174; Catling pl. 10
Spatula Utilitarian Hoard - Stylianou Karageorghis 1959, 338, figure 2; Catling 1964, 285.
Spatula LC IIIB or early LC IIIC Utilitarian Hoard - minature Catling 1964, 288; Dikaios 1969, 295-296, plates 36.4 and 146.21; Matthaus 1985, 48ff; Matthäus and Schumacher-Mat
Spatula LC III Utilitarian Settlement 19.9 cm; 2.8 Courtois et al. 1984, 22 entry 172, figure 6.1
Spatula Utilitarian Settlement
Spatula or chisel LC III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.8 cm tip = 1.15 Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 193, figure 4.12
Spatula or chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.9 cm tip = 1.9 Courtois et al. 1984, 28 entry 229, figure 7.1
Spatula or stylus Utilitarian Settlement 8.55 cm tip = 0.4 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 22 entry 173, figure 4.19
Stylus LC III Small crafts Settlement 15.05 cm 0.2 to 0.25 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 20 entry 150, figure 4.14
Stylus Small crafts Settlement 3.75 cm 0.8 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21, entry 157, figure 5.12
Stylus Small crafts Settlement 9.3 0.1-0.25 Courtois et al. 1984, 22 entry 176, no picture
Stylus Small crafts Settlement 14.5 0.75 Courtois et al. 1984, 21, entry 158, figure 5.15
Stylus or awl LC III Small crafts Settlement 16.5 cm 0.7 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 21, entry 156, figure 4.56
Stylus or spatula LC III Utilitarian Settlement 5.85 cm 0.5 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 196; no picture published (or see 22 entry 174, figure 4.29-30)
Stylus or spatula LC III Utilitarian Settlement 4.1 cm 0.5 cm Courtois et al. 1984, 24 entry 196; no picture published (or see 22 entry 174, figure 4.29-30)
Stylus? Small crafts Settlement 10.4 tip = 0.15 Courtois et al. 1984, 25 entry 214; figure 5.28
Stylus? Small crafts Settlement 8 0.1-0.3 Courtois et al. 1984, 41, entry 369, figure 5.10
Swage block late 12th century Metallurgical Settlement Catling 1964, 275 entry 1, plate 51 d and e
Tongs
Enkomi - EIA?
LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard, Foundry Schaeffer 1952; Catling 1964, 278-281; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 173-174.
Sickle
Ephtagonia - MBA
Iron age Agricultural Settlement Courtois et al. 1984, figure 8.15 and 8.19
Knife MC III or MC II-LC I Utilitarian Burial 8 cm 2 cm Swiny 1986, 72-3 figure 65
Knife MC II to MC III Utilitarian Burial, 1.4 7.1 cm 1.5 cm Swiny 1986, 72 figure 65; Balthazar 1990, 334, table 85
Knife MC Utilitarian Burial, 1.3 8.0+ cm Swiny 1986, 72, figure 65; Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88
Episkopi Phaneromeni - LBA
Awl MC III-LC I Small crafts Settlement, room 3 6.2 cm 0.3 cm Swiny 1986, 83, figure 63; Balthazar 1990, 374
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Settlement 5 cm 0.3 cm Swiny 1986, 83; Balthazar 1990, 374
Knife MC III-LC I Utilitarian Settlement, room 9 9.8 cm 2 cm Swiny 1986, 69, entry M16, fgirue 63; Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Settlement, Area 20 9.9 cm 2.4 cm Swiny 1986, 70, entry M34, figure 63; Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91
CYPRUS TOOLS
609

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife MC III-LC I Utilitarian Settlement, Area 26 2.7 cm 2 cm Swiny 1986, 70, figure 63, entry M60; Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91
Spatula Utilitarian Settlement, Room 3 4 cm head = 0.8 cm Swiny 1986, 85 figure 63
Episkopi-Bamboula - LBA
Awl LC IA2 Small crafts Burial, tomb 12.54b 6.3 Benson 1972, 125, pl. 34, B1250; Swiny 1986, 83 and note 191;
Awl LCIIIA Small crafts Settlement 8.6 0.3 Benson 1972, 125, B1251
Chisel LC IIB Carpentry/masonry Burial, Tomb 6.t 5.6 1.8 Benson 1972, 126, B1260, plate 34
Chisel LC IIB Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 12.54b 5.5 2 Benson 1972, 126, B1261, plate 34
Double spatula LCIIIA Small crafts Settlement 8.8 1.8 Benson 1972, 127, plate 34
Plowshare Agricultural Settlement Catling 1964
Pointed implement LC IIIA Small crafts Settlement 15.5 Benson 1972, 127, B1305, plate 34
Pointed implement LC IIIA/B Small crafts Settlement 10.1 0.4 Benson 1972, 127, B1306, plate 34
Saw LC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 13 Catling 1964, 94 H.b.1 (figure 9:7); Catling claims the tomb is unpublished...
Socketed chisel LC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 31 12 1.7 Catling 1964, 98 entry M1; figure 10.8; Benson 1972, 126, B1262
Socketed chisel LC? Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 37.1 13.8 1 at dull end Benson 1972, 127, B 1304, plate 34
Socketed chisel LC IIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12 blade = 2.6 Benson 1972, 128, B1317, plate 34
Galinoporni - MBA
Knife MC II or MC I Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 9.4+cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Astrom 1960: 127, fig. 5
Galinoporni-Vasili - LBA
Saw with teeth LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in large pithos Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008.
Shovel, charcoal LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard, found in large pithos Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008.
Sickle LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, found in large pithos Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008.
Sickle LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, found in large pithos Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008.
Sickle LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, found in large pithos Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008.
Sickle LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, found in large pithos Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008.
Sickle LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard, found in large pithos Bartelheim, M., B. Kizilduman, U. Muller, E. Pernicka, and H. Tekel. 2008.
General Cyprus - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 7.2 cm about 2.8 Balthazar 1990, 363; de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 1, figure 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8.3 cm about 3.4 de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 3, figure 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10.5 cm about 4.6 de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 4, figure 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.6 cm about 4.2 de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 8, figure 1
General Cyprus - LBA
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.3 ce =4; butt = 2.5 Catling 1964, 87 (Fig 8:12, Pl. 6:f)
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ce = 5 cm Catling 1964, plate 6i
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964; plate 6h?, Deshayes 1066?
Ax-adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2304; published by Gjerstad without note of dimensions; Catling 1964...
Knife w handle Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, under knives
Plowshare Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964
Saw with teeth; band saw? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 34.3 2.8-3.8 Catling 1964, 94 H.b.3 (Figure Pl. 9 :c)
Shovel, charcoal Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown 10.85 cm 6.3 Catling 1964, 101, entry 6, plate 10g
Shovel Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 3035; Catling 1964, plate 3c
Shovel, charcoal Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, under charcoal shovels; Deshayes 2040
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, figure 10.9
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, figure 10.10
Spatula, socketed Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964...
General Cyprus - 2nd millennium
Awl Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Cesnola 1903, pl. LXIX.3
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12 cm ce = 3.6 Balthazar 1990, 363; Frankel 1983: 50, pl. 244
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.5 cm ce = 4.2 Balthazar 1990, 363; Frankel 1983: 50, pl. 241
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.4 cm ce = 3.9 Balthazar 1990, 363; Frankel 1983: 49-50, pl. 240
CYPRUS TOOLS
610

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 363; Coghlan 1951, 116, pl. X.1
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.8 ce = 0.8 Balthazar 1990, 378; Frankel 1983, 50, pl. 245
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10.3 ce = 0.7 Deshayes 859, plate XI.5; AJ XVIII (1938), p. 246, figure 8
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 19 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Frankel 1983, 50, pl. 247
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 13.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 81; de Jesus 1982: 15, figure 3
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 13.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 82; de Jesus 1982: 14, figure 3
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 10.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Morris 1985: 11, pl. 6b
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 21.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Morris 1985: 11, pl. 6a
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 13.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 333, table 83; Webb 1986: 29, figure 2
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 16.0+ cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 85
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 16 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 86
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 9.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 36, table 88; de Jesus 1982: 15, figure 3
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 14/6 Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Webb 1986, 29, figure 2
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 8.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87; Morris 1985:11
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 336 table 87; Webb 1986: 29, fig. 2
Shepherd's crook Ritual or prestige item Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, 259 entry 4 plate 47c
Shepherd's crook Ritual or prestige item Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, 260 entry 6 plate 47e
Spatula handle Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 17.1 tip= 1.6 Catling 1964, 264, entry 1934/IV-27/14, figure 23.4
Sickle, tanged Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964...
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.5 cm ce= 3.05 cm Buchholz 1979, 83 figure 13.; Catling 1964, 87, entry 87.2; plate 6h; Karageorghis BCH 92, 1968, 276, figure 29
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20 cm about 2.2 Buchholz 1979, 82, figure 11.
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16 cm about 3.2 Buchholz 1979, 82, figure 12; Karageorghis BCH 85, 1961, 270, fig. 22
General Larnaca region - LBA
Ax-adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.55 3.3 and 3.8 cm Catling 1964, 91, entry 1,figure 9.8, pl. 8.9?
Hala Sultan Tekke - LBA
Awl? Small crafts Settlement Öbrink 1979, 44, figure 215
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.15 ce = 0.8 Öbrink 1979, 44, figure 204.
Chisel, lead Carpentry/masonry Settlement Öbrink 1979, 44, figure 227.
Chisel or awl LC IIC/LCIIIA Carpentry/masonry Workshop, room 94N, area 8 Astrom 2000, 33.
Chisel fragment? LC IIC/LCIIIA Carpentry/masonry Workshop, room 94N, area 8 Astrom 2000, 33.
Implement? Chisel? Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 1.7 0.5 Aström P. et al. 1977. Hala Sultan Tekke. 3. Excavations 1972. Göteborg, , 143, figure 148.
Double edged knife? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 23 Niklasson 1983, HST 8, 205, figure 492...
Mold for 5 sickles LC IIC/LCIIIA Metallurgical Workshop, room 94N, area 8 Astrom 2000, 33 plate 4.1
Mold for tripod, terracotta LC IIC/LCIIIA Metallurgical Workshop, room 94N, area 8 Astrom 2000, 33, plate 4.5
Mold for strips LC IIC/LCIIIA Metallurgical Workshop Astrom 2000, 34, plate 4.4; Herscher 1988, 324 figure 10
Pruning hook Agricultural Settlement 22 Hult, G. 1981. Hala Sultan Tekke. 7. Excavations in Area 8 in 1977, 80 figure 88, 90.
Shovel, charcoal Metallurgical Settlement, area 22 Öbrink, U. 1979. Hala Sultan Tekke. 5. Excavations in area 22. Göteborg, 44, figure 208.
Spatula Utilitarian Settlement Öbrink 1979, 44, figure 209
Trident Ritual or prestige item Burial, tomb 23 87 Niklasson 1983, HST 8, 206, figure 493...
Unknown implement Small crafts Settlement 6.05 1.05 Astrom et al. 1983, pg. 199, figure 445, page 206, figure 494
Idalion - MBA
Ax, single/flat 1700 - 1300 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 cm Deshayes 470; HAA III, p. 868, figure 635
Idalion-Ambelleri - LBA
Knife, iron LC IIIA or LC IIIB Utilitarian Settlement Webb 1999, 90
Kalavasos - MBA
Knife Utilitarian Burial?, tomb 8? 12.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Karageorghis 1940:129
Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios - LBA
Awl Small crafts Settlement 12.9 0.15 - 0.5 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1981, A. 54, 4.1
CYPRUS TOOLS
611

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl or point Small crafts Settlement 2.8 0.2 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1983, A.43 W 3.1
Awl or stylus Small crafts Settlement 17.7 0.1 - 0.7 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1982, A.204 5.1
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.45 4.8 cm excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 205
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.6 5.35 cm excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1990, S3B, 4.12
Bronze fragment; chisel? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.2 0.65 - 0.7 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1983, A.43W, 3.4
Chisel, double ended Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.7 ce = 0.85 and 1 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1981, A.51 6.1
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.1 ce = 1.4 cm excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1990, S.3A, 4.2
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.7 ce = 0.55 cm excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1990, S3B, 4.12
Chisel-like, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.9 ce = 0.7 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1990, S3A, 16.1
Chisel or drill Carpentry/masonry? Settlement 12.2 ce= 0.45 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1982, 0.50A, 3.1
Chisel point? Small crafts Settlement 3.75 ce= 0.6 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980, A.45 3.1
Chisel-like object Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.3 ce= 1 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980, A. 45 3.2
Chisel? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.2 0.45 - 0.6 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1982, P51C, 5.1
Dagger or knife Utilitarian Settlement 16.4 1.7 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1990, S3A 4.4,
Implement? Small crafts Settlement 3.8 0.75 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980, A.45 5.1
Implement? Small crafts Settlement 5.6 tip = 0.6
Implement? Small crafts Settlement 2.8 0.45 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1995, A.154 (N), cleaning floor
Implement? stylus? Small crafts Settlement 9.05 eraser = 0.6 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1983, O.51A, 4.9
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 11.95 2.5 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980 or 81; A.45 5.1
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 13 tip = 0.3 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1982, A. 76 3.3
Bronze blade, knife Utilitarian Burial, T.14 6.3 2.5 1.6 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1994, T.14:107
Plowshare Agricultural Settlement 12.55 ce = 4.3 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980 or 81; S. 165
Point fragment Small crafts Settlement 4 1 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980, A.45 3.2
Point fragment Small crafts Settlement 6.4 tip = 0.2 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980, A.45, 3.2
Point Small crafts Settlement 3.4 0.6 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1993, O51D, 2.1
Punch? Small crafts Settlement 4.3 1.2 - 1.3 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1990, S3B, 24.1, pit 23.1
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 16.6 2.7 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1980 or 81; A.45E 4.1
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 15.25 2.4 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1991, S3c, 77.3
Small implement or awl Small crafts Settlement 15.3 0.5 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1982, A.76, 3.3
Small implement? Small crafts Settlement
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17 tip= 2.25 cm excavation #: Kalavasos-AD, A.63 2.1
Spatula, socketed Utilitarian Settlement 9.95 tip = 2.3 excavation #:Kalavasos-AD 1980 or 81; A.45, 3.2
Spatula or blade? Utilitarian Settlement 15.1 3.2; tip = 2.7 excavation #:Kalavasos-AD 1997, M 50C, 6.3
Stylus Small crafts Settlement 13 tip = 0.4 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1982, O 51 C, 4.6
Stylus Small crafts Settlement 14.7 0.15 - 0.6 excavation #: Kalavasos-AD 1990, M51A, 5.8
Kalavasos-Laroumena - 2nd millennium
Chisel fragment MBA? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 2.2 Todd 1993, 93.
Kalavasos-Panayia Church - MBA
Awl MC II Small crafts Burial, Tomb 36 14.5 cm 0.3 - 0.9 cm Todd 1986, 64, figure 41.15; Balthazar 1990, 374
Ax, single/flat MC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 37 12.8 cm 4.5 cm Todd 1986, 97 figure 40.11, plate XXXIII.3, right; Balthazar 1990, 363
Ax, single/flat MC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 37 15.7 cm blade = 5 cm Todd 1986, 93, figure 40.10, pl. XXXIII.3, left; Balthazar 1990, 365
Knife, tanged MCII Utilitarian Burial, tomb 37 17 cm Todd 1986: 93, figure 41
Knife MCII Utilitarian Burial, tomb 37 13.3 cm Todd 1986: 93, figure 41; Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84
Knife MC II Utilitarian Burial, tomb 37 10.4+cm Todd 1986: 98, figure 41; Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84
Knife MCI-II Utilitarian Burial, tomb 39 11.5 cm Todd 1986: 100, fig. 41; Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84
Knife MC II Utilitarian Burial, Tomb 36 9.7 cm Todd 1986; Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88
Knife MCII Utilitarian Burial, Tomb 36 11.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Todd 1986
Knife or dagger MC II Utilitarian Burial, Tomb 36 18.1 cm Todd 1986, 64 figure 41; Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78
Scraper MC I/II? Utilitarian Burial, Tomb 47 4 cm 1.8 Todd 1986, 122, figure 41.14; Balthazar 1990...
CYPRUS TOOLS
612

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Scraper MC II Utilitarian Burial, Tomb 36 9 cm 2.5 cm Tood et al. 1986, 48, figure 41.12; Balthazar 1990
Scraper or knife MC II Utilitarian Burial, Tomb 36 10.8 cm 2.8 cm Todd 1986, 64 figure 41.8; Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78
Scraper or razor MC II Utilitarian Burial, Tomb 37 13.9 cm 3.1 cm Todd 1986, 95 figure 41.2, pl. XXXIII.4, right
Kaliana, Manjapierides - LBA
Spatula, soceted LC I? Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 20.1 tip = 1.4 Catling 1964, 106 entry 2 figure 11.9, plate 9.i
Kalopsidha - MBA
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 9 Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Astrom 1966; Myres-OR 1899: 53 (#517)
Knife MCI-II Utilitarian Burial, tomb 20 7.0+cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Astrom 1966: 25-6
Knife MCI-II Utilitarian Burial, tomb 20 7.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Astrom 1966: 25-6
Knife MCII? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 21 Gale and Stos-Gale 1985: 66; Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87
Knife Utilitarian Burial, tomb 8? Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Astrom 1966, 16
Knife Utilitarian Burial, tomb 8 Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Astrom 1966, 16
Knife Utilitarian Burial?, tomb 12? Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Astrom 1966, 23
Kalopsidha - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Burial, tomb 14 Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Astrom 1966: 23
Kalopsidha Koufos - LBA
Chisel MCIII-LC II? Carpentry/masonry Settlement Webb 1999, 115; Watkins 1966; Bachmann in Astrom, Bailey and Karageorghis 1976: 127-8
Razor MC III-LCII Utilitarian Settlement Webb 1999, 115; Watkins 1966; Bachmann in Astrom, Bailey and Karageorghis 1976: 127-8
Karmi - MBA
Drill or awl Carpentry/masonry Burial? Catling 1964, 65 entry 4b1; called an awl by Balthazar 1990
Knife MC I late Utilitarian Burial, tomb 11 13.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Stewart 1962: 200, figure 11
Karmi - 2nd millennium
Knife Unknown Utilitarian Burial Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Catling 1964: 61
Karpass, Cyprus - MBA
Ax single/flat MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 8.5 cm about 3.8 Balthazar 1990, 364; de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 2, figure 1;
Ax single/flat MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 12.7 cm about 4.7 Balthazar 1990, 364; de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 5, figure 1, plate II
Ax single/flat MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 9.5 cm about 5.5 Balthazar 1990, 365; de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 8, entry 6, figure 1
Ax, shaft hole MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 14.6 cm ce= 3.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 371; Buchholz 1979, 83, figure 14; de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 10 entry 9, figure 1, plate 1; Masson 19
Chisel, narrow MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 13.7 cm about 1.7 de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 11 entry 10, figure 1
Flesh hook MC III - LC I early Utilitarian Hoard? 12 cm de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 12 entry 12, figure 2
Saw with teeth MC III - LC I early Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 43 cm 3.7 and 4.4 cm de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 12 entry 11, figure 2, plate I; Astrom 1967, 12
Tubular implement MC III - LC I early Small crafts Hoard? 9.3 cm de Jesus et al. 1982. SMEA 23, 13 entry 13, figure 2
Karpass, Cyprus - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 13.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; de Jesus 1982: 15, fig. 3
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 10+ cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; de Jesus 1982, 15, fig. 3
Katydata - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC II Carpentry/masonry Burial? Tomb 29? Balthazar 1990, 365; Markides 1916.8
Knife MCII Utilitarian Burial, tomb 57 Balthazar 342, table 96; Markides 1916:9;
Knife MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 67 Balthazar 342, table 96; Markides 1916:9;
Knife MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 67 Balthazar 342, table 96; Markides 1916:9;
Knife MC? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 82 Balthazar 342, table 96; Markides 1916:9;
Katydata - LBA
Awl Small crafts Burial? Tomb 71 Markides 1916, 9
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 50 Catling 1964, 86.; ARCA 1916, 10
Saw with teeth, handle Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 5 36.3 cm middle = 3.6 cm Catling 1964, 93 H.a.1 (Fig 9:6, plate 9:a); Deshayes 2918
Kissonerga Ammoudhia - MBA
Razor or spatula MC - LC I Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 8.2 cm 1.8 cm Swiny 1986, 76-7, figure 65
Razor or spatula EC-MC Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 4.2 cm 1.4 cm Swiny 1986, 77 figure 65
Knife MC I-II Utilitarian Burial 12.3 cm 2.5 cm Swiny 1986, 71; Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78
CYPRUS TOOLS
613

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Kition - LBA
Casting, plowshare LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard 23.5 tip = 6.1 Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 109, plate 88.4, 6; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Casting, plowshare LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard 23.5 ce = 6 Karageorghis 1975, 831-833, figure 54; Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 109, plate 88.4, 6; Matthäus and Schumacher-Ma
Knife, small Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 94, plates CVIII, CLXXXVIII,
Knife, fragment Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 149, # 5274, plates CXXXI, CCIV
Point Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 74, # 1062, room 13B, pl XXXV, LVII
Pruning hook Agricultural Cultic site or sanctuary 22 Ax ce = 3.4 Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 55, plates 32, 52
Saw with teeth, fragmentary Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 32; 1102, plate 21, 49
Sickle, fragment Agricultural Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 238, 5252, CLXX, CCXXVIII
Small implement Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 22, plate XVII, XLI
Small implement Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 32, Kition room 32a, 1102/2, pl 21
Small implement Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 94, plates CVIII, CLXXXVIII
Small implement Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 5.1 cm Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 31; Kition room 31 inv. 1082, pl XXI, XLIX
Small implement Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 117, # 4274B, plates CXIX, CXCVI
Klavdhia - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC III Carpentry/masonry Burial Catling 1964,63 entry 1c4; Balthazar 1990, 364
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 11.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 337 table 89
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 11.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90;
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 18.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90;
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90;
Knife Utilitarian Burial, tomb 11 16.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Catling 1964: 60
Knife MC? Utilitarian Burial 11 cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 81
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 17 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 85
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 13.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 85
Knife Utilitarian Burial? 15.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 85
Knife Utilitarian Burial 13 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91;
Scraper MC? Utilitarian Burial Balthazar 1990, 365
Scraper MC? Utilitarian Burial Balthazar 1990, 365
Klavdhia - LBA
Awl Small crafts Burial Catling 1964, 97 entry L.2; figure 10.7
Awl Small crafts Burial? 13.4 cm Catling?, Balthazar 1990, 374
Awl Small crafts Burial? 14.4 cm Catling?, Balthazar 1990, 374
Knife LC Utilitarian Burial 9.0+ cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94; Catling 1964: 126
Mold for spatula 12th century? Metallurgical Settlement Catling 1964, 273 entry Ba1
Mold for multiple items 12th century? Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown Catling 1964, 274 b1
Plowshare Agricultural Burial? Catling 1964?
Spatula, tanged Utilitarian Burial Catling 1964, 264, 1
Klavdhia - LBA - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 17.7 cm Catling 1964: 61; Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87
Kouklia-Kaminia - LBA
Awl 12th century Small crafts Burial, tomb 9 Catling 1964, 97 entry 4
Awl 12th century Small crafts Burial, tomb 9 Catling 1964, 97 entry 4
Lapithos - EBA-MBA
Knife ECIIIB -MC Utilitarian Burial, 301C 15.0+ cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 95; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 37, pl. CXLIII
Lapithos - MBA
Adze, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 320 9.5 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 134, pl. XXXIV.3; Astrom 1972, 140, fig. 10.2; Catling 1964, 64 entry 21; Desha
Awl EC IIIc or MC II Small crafts Burial, 323 Catling 1964, 65 entry 4a1
Awl 24th - 17th century BC Small crafts Burial Deshayes 172
Awl MC I Small crafts Burial, 313 8.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. XXIII.2
CYPRUS TOOLS
614

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl MC I-II Small crafts Burial, 313 Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 95, pl. XXXIV.2
Awl MC II Small crafts Burial, 315 9.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 112, pl. XXX.2;
Awl MC II Small crafts Burial, 315 Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 112, pl. XXX.2
Awl MC II-III Small crafts Burial, 315 Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 135, pl. XXXIV.2
Awl MC II-III Small crafts Burial, 316 Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 120, pl. XXXII.1
Awl MC II-III Small crafts Burial, 320 Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 137, pl. XXXIV.2
Awl MC II-III Small crafts Burial, 320 Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 135, pl. XXXIV.2
Awl MC I Small crafts Burial, 322 10.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 37; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 147
Awl MC I Small crafts Burial, 322 15.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 148
Awl MC I-III Small crafts Burial, 804 9.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 374
Awl MC I-III Small crafts Burial, 804 9.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Herscher 1978, 108
Awl MC I-III Small crafts Burial, 804 8.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Herscher 1978, 114
Awl MC I_III Small crafts Burial, 804 7.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Herscher 1978, 114
Awl MC I-III Small crafts Burial, 804 4.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Herscher 1978, 116
Awl EC IIIB-MC II Small crafts Burial, 805 5.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Herscher 1978, 159
Awl MC II Small crafts Burial, 201 25 cm Balthazar 1990, 374
Awl MC I Small crafts Burial, 313 9.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 375; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. CXLIII.16;
Awl MC I Small crafts Burial, 313 9.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 375; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. XXIII.2
Awl w chisel like tang MC I Small crafts Burial, 322 Balthazar 1990, 375; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 149
Awl w chisel like tang MC I-III Small crafts Burial, 804 9.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 375; Herscher 1978, 114
Awl MC I Small crafts Burial, 322 9.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 375; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 149
Awl or punch MC I or MC II - III Small crafts Burial, 18 25 cm Catling 1964, 65 entry 4.3; Balthazar 1990, 375
Awl or punch MC I or MC III Small crafts Burial, 8 Catling 1964, 65 entry 4.4
Awl or punch MC I or MC III Small crafts Burial, 50 Catling 1964, 65 entry 4.5
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 204 12.6 cm about 3.7 Catling 1964, 63 entry 1a3, figure 4.1; Balthazar 1990, 361; Deshayes 532?
Ax, single/flat ECIIIA-MCI Carpentry/masonry Burial, 302 5.9 cm Bathazar 1990, 361; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 44, pl. XVI.2
Ax, single/flat MC III mid Carpentry/masonry Burial, 8 ca. 8 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II end Carpentry/masonry Burial, 10B ca. 13 cm Bathazar 1990, 362
Ax, single/flat MC I end Carpentry/masonry Burial, 15 12.6 cm Bathazar 1990, 362
Ax, single/flat MC I end Carpentry/masonry Burial, 15 ca. 12 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 18 9 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 18 11 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 18 10 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat ECI/MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 21 11 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1913: figure 21.182; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 29 12 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1913: fig. 29.179; Myres 1940-5, pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 10 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 10 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 10 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 14 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 10 Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 13 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 12 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 9 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 9 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 8 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 51 9 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1913, fig. 51.36; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 51 16.4 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1913, fig. 51.62; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.1; Catling 1964: 63 entry 1b5, fig. 4.3
Ax, single/flat MC I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial, 203 11 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial, 203 12 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
CYPRUS TOOLS
615

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 204 10 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Myres 1913: fig. 204.84; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1; Deshayes 531
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 313A 9.5 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 90, pl. XXV.2
Ax, single/flat MC I mid Carpentry/masonry Burial, 313A 11.5 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 90, pl. XXV.2
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 313A 8.8 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. XXV.2; Astrom 1972: 140, fig. 10.1
Ax, single/flat MC I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial, 313B 12.6 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 96, pl. XXIV.2
Ax, single/flat MC I-II Carpentry/masonry Burial, 313B 10.6 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 96, pl. XXIV.2
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 313C-D 8.8 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 97, pl. XXIV.3
Ax, single/flat MC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, 315 13.2 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 111, pl. XXX.2
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial, 315 12 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 112, pl. CXLII.14
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 316 14.3 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 120, pl. XXXI.2
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 320 9.5 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 135, pl. XXXIV.3; Deshayes 343?
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 320 9.1 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 137, pl. XXXIV.3; Deshayes 343?
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 12.2 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Gjerstand et al. 1934; 148, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC I-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 804 11.2 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Herscher 1978:95
Ax, single/flat MC I-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 804 6.9 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Herscher 1978:106
Ax, single/flat MC I-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 804 10.3 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Herscher 1978:114
Ax, single/flat MC I-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 804 11.6 cm Bathazar 1990, 362; Herscher 1978:114
Ax, single/flat MC III mid Carpentry/masonry Burial, 8 12 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC III mid Carpentry/masonry Burial, 8 13 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC I end Carpentry/masonry Burial, 15 12.8 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Myres 1913: fig. 15.70; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MCII-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 21 15.4 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Myres 1913, fig. 21.181; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.1; Catling 1964, 63 entry 1c3
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 315 8.3 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 110, pl. XXIX.2; Deshayes 399
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322 12 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 147, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 17 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 148, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 16.8 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 149, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 16.8 cm Bathazar 1990, 364; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 149, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, 315 15.2 cm Bathazar 1990, 365;Gjerstand et al. 1934: 112, pl. CXLII.15 or pl. XXX,2 no. 38; Astrom 1972, 140, fig. 10.4; Deshayes 579
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 18.9 cm Bathazar 1990, 365; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 147, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 20.4 cm Bathazar 1990, 365;; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 148, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 19.6 cm Bathazar 1990, 365; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 149, pl. XXXV.3
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 18 7 cm Bathazar 1990, 365; Myres 1904-5, pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 6 cm Bathazar 1990, 365; Myres 1904-5, pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 50 7 cm Bathazar 1990, 365; Myres 1904-5, pl. 24.1
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 316 7.9 cm Bathazar 1990, 365; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 120, pl. XXXI.2; Deshayes 636?
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 702 4.8 cm Bathazar 1990, 365; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 170
Ax, single/flat 18th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 636
Ax, single/flat 20th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 579
Ax, single/flat 24th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 531
Ax, single/flat 24th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial, 204 8.5 ce = 2.6 Deshayes 532 (multiple examples under Deshayes 532), plate V.12
Ax, single/flat 20th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 399
Ax, single/flat 24th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 343
Ax, single/flat 24th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial Deshayes 245
Chisel MC I or MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 29 Bathazar 1990, 378; Myres 1913; fig. 29.139; Myres 1940-5; pl. 24.3; Catling 1964, entry 3.5, 4.9
Chisel MC I or MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 204 Catling 1964, 64 entry 3.6
Chisel MC I or MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 21 27.2 cm Bathazar 1990, 378; Myres 1913, fig. 21.180; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.3; Catling 1964: 64 entry 3.7
Chisel MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 313 11 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. XXIII.2; Balthazar 1990, 378; Deshayes 857; BSA XLI 1940-45, p. 84, fig. 6 and pl. 24.3, no 43
Chisel MC III Carpentry/masonry Burial, 29 14 cm Balthazar 1990, 378
Chisel MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 23.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 378; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 148
Chisel MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 11.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 378; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 147; Deshayes 858;
CYPRUS TOOLS
616

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial, 43 16 cm Balthazar 1990, 378; Myres 1913, fig. 43B.50; Myres 1940-5: pl. 24.3
Chisel MC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, 322A 25.4 cm about 1.5 Balthazar 1990, 378; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 147, pl. CXLIII.20
Chisel MC II Carpentry/masonry Burial, 315 26.3 cm ce = 1.7 Balthazar 1990, 378, 146 figure 48; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 112; Astrom 1972, 143, figure 11.1
Double spatula MC I or MC II Small crafts Burial, 201 Bathlazar?
Knife MC III Utilitarian Burial, 8 9.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 329 table 76; Myres 1913, figure 8f
Knife MC III Utilitarian Burial, 8 10.0+ cm Balthazar 1990, 329 table 76; Myres 1913, figure 8G
Knife, tanged MC II Utilitarian Burial, 39 13.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Myres 1913, figure 39.28; Myres 1940-5: pl. 26.1
Knife, tanged MC III Utilitarian Burial, 39 10.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Myres 1913: fig. 39.no#
Knife, tanged MC I late Utilitarian Burial, 46 23.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Myres 1913: fig. 46.40; Myres 1940-5: pl. 26.1
Knife, tanged EC IIIA-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 302B 15.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 44, pl. XVI.2
Knife, tanged Utilitarian Burial, 306 11 cm Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 61, pl. XVIII.3
Knife, tanged ECIIIB/MCI Utilitarian Burial, 306 9.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 61, pl. XVIII.3
Knife, tanged MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 14.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. CXLIII; Astrom 1972, 140, fig. 10.7
Knife, tanged MC I-II Utilitarian Burial, 313 19 cm Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 95, pl. XXIV.2
Knife, tanged MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 13.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 119, pl. XXXII.1
Knife, tanged MC I Utilitarian Burial, 322A 24.3 Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 148, pl. XXXV.3
Knife, tanged MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 702 9 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 805 9.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78; Herscher 1978: 35
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 806 21.9+cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Grace 1940: 47, fig. 31
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 813 6.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Herscher 1978: 335
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 813 4.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Herscher 1978: 335
Knife, tanged ECIIIB/MCI Utilitarian Burial, 827 10.9+cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 78; Herscher 1978, 540
Knife, tanged ECIIIA-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 828 16.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 331 table 78; Herscher 1978, 559
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 806 14.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 79; Herscher 1978: 206
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 813A 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 331, table 79; Herscher 1978: 327
Knife, tanged MC I Utilitarian Burial, 307 22.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 80; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 65, pl. XIX.3
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322A 15.6+ cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 81; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 147, pl. XXXV.3
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322A 12.9+cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 81; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 148, pl. XXXV.3
Knife, tanged ECIII-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 805 10.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 81; Herscher 1978: 167
Knife, tanged MCII Utilitarian Burial, 201 18.0+cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 82; Myres 1913: 201B.15
Knife, tanged MC I late Utilitarian Burial, 313A 21.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 82; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. XXIV.1
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 805 11.4+cm Balthazar 1990, 332 table 82; Herscher 1978: 166
Knife, tanged ECIII-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 212 19.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Catling 1964: 60
Knife, tanged MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 18 27.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 333, table 83; Catling 1964, 60, fig. 3.6
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 307A 9.8 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934: 64, pl. XIX.2
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 313A 16.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 333, table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 90, pl. CXLIII.5
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 313A 23.3+cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. XXIV.1
Knife, tanged MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313A 16.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 91, pl. XXIV.1
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 313A 25.9+ cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. XXIV.1
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 313A 19.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. CXLIII
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 318 14.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 127, pl. XXXII.5
Knife, tanged MC I Utilitarian Burial, 322 18.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 148, pl. XXXV.3
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322 17.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 148, pl. XXXV.3
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322 13.7+cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 148, pl. XXXV.3
Knife, tanged ECIII-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322B 14 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 149, pl. XXXVI.3
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 802 14.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Herscher 1978:36
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 803 13.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Herscher 1978:65
Knife, tanged MCI Utilitarian Burial, 803A 14.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Herscher 1978:68
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 805 16.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Herscher 1978: 167
CYPRUS TOOLS
617

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 805 17.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Herscher 1978: 171
Knife MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 13.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 118, pl. XXXII.1
Knife ECIII-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322B 16.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 149, pl. XXXVI.3
Knife ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 805 15 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84; Herscher 1978: 166
Knife ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 806 12.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 84; Herscher 1978: 196
Knife w one rivet in butt MCI-II Utilitarian Burial, 313B 13.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 334, table 86; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 95, pl. XXIV.2
Knife with pointed butt MCII end Utilitarian Burial, 10B 13 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87
Knife with pointed butt MC III Utilitarian Burial, 49 12.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 50 about 18 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Myres 1940-5; pl. 26.1
Knife with pointed butt MCI-II Utilitarian Burial, 311A 16.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 80, pl. XXII.2
Knife with pointed butt MCI Utilitarian Burial, 313A 6.7+ cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934:92, pl. XXIV
Knife with pointed butt MCI-II Utilitarian Burial, 313B 22.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 95, pl. XXIV.2
Knife with pointed butt Utilitarian Burial, 804 7.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Herscher 1978: 129
Knife with round butt MC II Utilitarian Burial, 315B-C 12.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 112, pl. XXX.2
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 11.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 134, pl. XXXIV.2
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 15.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 135, pl. XXXIV.2
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 7.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 135, pl. XXXIV.2
Knife with round butt MCI-III Utilitarian Burial, 804A 10.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Herscher 1978: 113
Knife with round butt MCI end Utilitarian Burial, 15 11.1 cm Myres 1913: fig. 15.O
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 18 10.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Myres 1913: fig. 18.319; Catling 1964, 61, fig. 3.11
Knife with round butt Unknown? Utilitarian Burial, 37 9.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Myres 1913: fig. 37.4
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 315A 8.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 110, pl. CXLIII.2
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 15.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 36, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 134, pl. XXXIV.2
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 36, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 134
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 15.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 36, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 134, pl. XXXIV.2
Knife with round butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 10.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 36, table 88; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 137, pl. XXXIV.2
Knife with round butt MCIII mid Utilitarian Burial, 8 Balthazar 1990, 336, table 88; Catling 1964: 61
Knife with blunt butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 10.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 37, table 89; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 137, pl. XXXIV.2;
Knife with blunt butt MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322D 12.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 151, pl. XXXVI.4
Knife with blunt butt MCI end Utilitarian Burial, 15 15.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 337 table 89; Catling 1964: 61, fig. 3.10
Knife with blunt butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 18 about 18 cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Myres 1913: fig. 18.177; Myres 1940-5: 26.1
Knife with blunt butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 315A 12.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Gjerstand et al. 1934:111
Knife with blunt butt ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 802 10.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Herscher 1978: 38
Knife with blunt butt MCI Utilitarian Burial, 802 12.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Herscher 1978:51
Knife with blunt butt MCI-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 6.4+cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Herscher 1978: 115
Knife with sinuous butt Utilitarian Burial, 19 16.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Catling 1964, 60, fig. 3.7
Knife with sinuous butt MCI end Utilitarian Burial, 15 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Myres 1913, fig. 15.39
Knife with sinuous butt MCI end Utilitarian Burial, 15 13.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Myres 1913, fig. 15.Q
Knife with sinuous butt MCIII late Utilitarian Burial, 35 16.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Myres 1913: fig. 35.19
Knife with sinuous butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 804D 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Herscher 1978: 121
Knife with ogival butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 13 15 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Myres 1940-5; pl. 26.1; Catling 1964, 61
Knife with ogival butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 18 about 11 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Myres 1913, fig. 18.113; Myres 1940-5; 26.1
Knife with ogival butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 50 about 16 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Myres 1940-5: pl. 26.1
Knife with ogival butt MCII Utilitarian Burial, 315B-C 12.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 112, pl. XXX.2; Astrom 1972, 140, fig. 10.9
Knife with ogival butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 8.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94 and pg. 339, table 91; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 119, pl. XXXII.1; Astrom 1972, 140, fig. 10.12
Knife with ogival butt MCI-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 16.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Herscher 1978: 101
Knife with ogival butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 9.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Herscher 1978: 121
Knife with ogival butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 12.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Herscher 1978: 121
Knife with bulging butt MCI end Utilitarian Burial, 15 10.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 92; Myres 1913, fig. 15.14
CYPRUS TOOLS
618

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife with bulging butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 14.1+cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 92; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 119, pl. XXXII.1
Knife MCI Utilitarian Burial, 48 13.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93;
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 315A 15.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 110, pl. XXIX.2
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 7.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 137, pl. XXXIV.2; Astrom 1972, 140, fig. 10.18
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 702 7.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 171
Knife ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 802A 31.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 95; Herscher 1978.33
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 14.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 95; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 138, pl. XXXIV.3
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 50 10 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 95; Myres 1913: fig. 50.19; Myres 1940-5: pl. 26.1
Knife with rivets MCI end Utilitarian Burial, 15 15.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Myres 1913: fig. 15I
Knife with rivets MCI Utilitarian Burial, 313 Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 90
Knife with rivets MCI Utilitarian Burial, 313A 16.3+cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 91, pl. XXIV.1
Knife with rivets MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322A Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 147
Knife with rivets MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322A 18.9+ cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 147, pl. XXXV.3
Knife with rivets MCI-III Utilitarian Burial, 804A 10+cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Herscher 1978: 111
Knife with rivets MCI-III Utilitarian Burial, 804A 8+cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Herscher 1978: 115
Knife with pointed butt MCIII-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 12 16.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Catling 1964, 61, fig. 3.8
Knife with pointed butt MCI end Utilitarian Burial,15 14.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Myres 1913: fig. 15.41
Knife with pointed butt MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 18 13 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Myres 1913: fig. 18A.307
Knife with pointed butt MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 28 14.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Myres 1913: fig. 28.4; Myres 1940-5, pl. 26.1
Knife with pointed butt MC III late Utilitarian Burial, 35 about 6 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Myres 1913: fig. 35.54
Knife with pointed butt MC I Utilitarian Burial, 307A 9.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 64, pl. XIX.2
Knife with pointed butt MCI-II Utilitarian Burial, 311A 13.3+cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 80, pl. XXII.2
Knife with pointed butt MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313A 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 91, pl. CXLIII.3
Knife with pointed butt MCI-II Utilitarian Burial 313B 15.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 96, pl. XXIV.2
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 315 12.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 111, pl. XXIX.2
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 315A 9 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 111, pl. XXIX.2
Knife with pointed butt MC II Utilitarian Burial, 315B-C 14.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 112, p. XXX.2
Knife with pointed butt MC II Utilitarian Burial, 315B-C 17.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 112, p. XXX.2
Knife with pointed butt MC II Utilitarian Burial, 315B-C 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 112, p. XXX.2
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 16.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 119, pl. XXXII.1; Astrom 140, fig. 10.10
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 12.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 120, pl. XXXII.1
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 14.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 120, pl. XXXII.1
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 15.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 120, pl. XXXII.1;
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 15.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 121, pl. XXXII.1
Knife with pointed butt MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 14.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 121, pl. XXXII.1
Knife with pointed butt MC I-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 8.2+cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Herscher 1978: 105
Knife with pointed butt MC I-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 17.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Herscher 1978, 111
Knife with pointed butt MC I-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 13.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Herscher 1978, 115
Knife with pointed butt MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 10.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Herscher 1978, 121
Knife with pointed butt MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322E 18.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 153, pl. XXXVII.2
Knife with pointed butt MCI-III Utilitarian Burial, 804A 15.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 336 table 87; Herscher 1978: 113
Knife with pointed butt MCIII Utilitarian Burial, 49 15.3 cm Catling 1964: 61; Balthazar 1990, 336 table 87
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 816 18.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 388; Herscher 1978: 388
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 13.1+cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 137, pl. XXXIV.2
Razor EC III or MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 Catling or Balthazar?
Scraper MC III Utilitarian Burial, 33 14 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Myres 1913, fig. 33.6
Scraper MC III late Utilitarian Burial, 35 11.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Myres 1913: 35.19
Scraper MC II Utilitarian Burial, 201 14 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Myres 1913: 201B,17; Myres 1940-5; 26.1
Scraper MC II end Utilitarian Burial, 10B 8.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 356; Myres 1913, fig. 10B.34
CYPRUS TOOLS
619

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Scraper EC IIIB-MC I Utilitarian Burial, 314 8.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 355; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 102, pl. XXVII.3
Scraper EC IIIA-MC I Utilitarian Burial, 302 12.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934.44, p. XVI.2
Scraper MC I mid Utilitarian Burial, 313 14.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. XXIV.1
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 13.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. XXIV.1
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. XXIV.1
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 15.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. XXIV.1
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 15 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 92, pl. XXIV.1
Scraper MC I-II Utilitarian Burial, 313 13.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 95, pl. XXIV.2
Scraper MC I-II Utilitarian Burial, 313 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 95, pl. XXIV.2
Scraper MC I-II Utilitarian Burial, 313 13.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 96, pl. XXIV.2
Scraper MC I-III Utilitarian Burial, 313 9.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 96, pl. XXIV.2
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 11.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 96, pl. XXIV.3
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 13.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 121, pl. XXXII.1
Scraper Utilitarian Burial, 320 Gjerstand et al. 1934
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 322 14.5 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 148, pl. XXXV.2
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 322 11.7 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 148, pl. XXXV.2; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 322 14 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 147, p. XXXV.2
Scraper MC IIe Utilitarian Burial, 323 Balthazar 1990, 354; Gjerstand et al. 1934, 159, p. XXXIX.3
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 803 12.5 cm Herscher 1978, 68
Scraper MC I-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 11.3 cm Herscher 1978, 101; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC I-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 12 cm Herscher 1978, 113; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper EC IIIB - MC II Utilitarian Burial, 805 10.8 cm Herscher 1978, 159; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper ECIIIB-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 806 10.9 cm Grace 1940, fig. 31; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 806 6.5 cm Herscher 1978.196; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 702 11.6 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 171; Balthazar 1990, 355
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 13.3 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 134, pl. XXXIV.2; Astrom 172, 143, fig. 11.5; Balthazar 1990, 355
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 13.3 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 90, pl. CXLIII.13; Balthazar 1990, 355
Scraper EC IIIB-MC I Utilitarian Burial, 827 9.1 cm Herscher 1978.541; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper EC IIIB-MC I Utilitarian Burial, 828 10.5 cm Herscher 1978.560; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC I-III Utilitarian Burial, 804 11.5 cm Herscher 1978, 578; Balthazar 1990, 355
Scraper EC IIIB-MC I Utilitarian Burial, 816 8+ cm Herscher 1978.387; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 702 8.4 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 171; Balthazar 1990, 356
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 320 11+cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 137, pl. XXXIV.2; Astrom 1972, 140, fig. 10.14
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 322 8.3 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 148, pl. XXXV.3; Balthazar 1990, 356
Scraper ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 802 7.8+cm Herscher 1978, 36; Balthazar 1990, 356
Scraper ECIIIB-MCII Utilitarian Burial, 805 10.5 cm Herscher 1978.168; Balthazar 1990, 356
Scraper MC I-II Utilitarian Burial, 313 11.5 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 96, pl. XXIV.2; Astrom 1972, 143, fig. 11.7
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 803 12.6 cm Herscher 1978, 65; Balthazar 1990, 356
Scraper MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 702 10.7 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 167; Balthazar 1990, 356
Scraper MCII-III Utilitarian Burial, 316 19.7 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 120, pl. CXLIII.10; Astrom 1972, 143, fig. 11.6
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 15+cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 91, pl. XXIV; Balthazar 1990, 357
Scraper ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 809 6.2+cm Herscher 1978.246; Balthazar 1990, 357
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 322 12.8+cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 96, pl. XXXV.2; Balthazar 1990, 357
Scraper or razor MC II Utilitarian Burial, 30 13.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 354; Myres 1913, fig.30.9; Catling 1964, figure 5.3
Scraper or razor MC I Utilitarian Burial, 313 10.6 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 97, pl. XXIV.3; Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper or razor EC III - MCI Utilitarian Burial, 322 9.5 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 149, pl. XXXVI.3
Scraper or razor MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 18 16.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 355; Myres 1940-5; pl. 26.1; Catling 1964, 67
Scraper or razor ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, 318 9.4 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934, 127, pl. XXXII.5; Balthazar 1990, 356
Spatula MC I or MC II-III Utilitarian Burial, 315 Deshayes 3012 bis; Catling 1964, 75 entry E.2
CYPRUS TOOLS
620

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Lapithos - LBA
Ax, single/flat LC II - LC IIIB Carpentry/masonry Burial, 2.123 12.5 cm ce = 3.45 cm Catling 1964, 88.1, figure 8.9, plate 6k
Chisel LC II - LC IIIB Carpentry/masonry Burial, 2.150 6.2 tip = 0.5 Catling 1964, 95 entry 1
Lapithos - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Burial, 2 7.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94;
Tongs Metallurgical Burial?, 204.38 53.5 1.2 to 1.55 Catling 1964, 99, entry A2, figure 11.5, plate 10b
Larnaca region, Cyprus - MBA?
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 cm about 2.8 Buchholz 1979, 81, figure 10; Balthazar 1990. 371; Karageorghis BCH 93, 1969, 494, #2, plate 127.a,b
Leondari - 2nd millennium
Knife with sinuous butt Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 19.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; James 1888, 158
Limassol - MBA
Knife MC Utilitarian Burial 11cm Swiny 1986, 71.
Knife EC III - MC III Utilitarian Burial 10.8 cm 2.5 cm Swiny 1986, 71-2, figure 65
Knife MC I-MC III Utilitarian Burial 10.8 cm 2.1 cm Swiny 1986, 72 figure 65
Knife MC I-MC III Utilitarian Burial 11.5 cm 2.2 cm Swiny 1986, 72 figure 67
Knife MC II-III Utilitarian Burial 11.5 cm 2 cm Swiny 1986, 72 figure 65
Razor or spatula EC IIIA-MC III Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 10.6 cm 2.3 cm Swiny 1986, 77
Limassol Katholiki - MBA
Scraper or razor EC IIIA - MC III date Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 10.6 cm 2.3 cm Swiny 1986, 77; Balthazar 1990, 354
Linou Ayii Saranta - MBA
Awl MC Small crafts Burial, tomb 5 7.5 cm Swiny in press (as of 1990): "Analyses of Metal Objects from Linou Ayii Saranta Tomb 5. OpAth, forthcoming; Balthazar 1
Knife with ogival butt MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 5 16.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Swiny in press (as of 1990)
Knife MC Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94; Swiny in press (in 1990)
Maa-Palaekastro - LBA
Awl, fragmentary LC IIC -LC IIIA Small crafts Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 243, plate CXX.8, CCXXI.8
Awl, fragmentary LC IIC -LC IIIA Small crafts Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 243, plate CXX.325, CCXXI.325
Awl or point LC IIC -LC IIIA Small crafts Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 60, 232, plate LXXXIII.320
Awl or pointed implement?LC IIC -LC IIIA Small crafts Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 237, plate C.224, CCVIII.224
Chisel LC IIC -LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 60, 229, plate LXXXIII.523
Chisel LC IIC -LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 60, 232, plate LXXXIII.507
Chisel, small LC IIC -LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 236, plate C.82, CCVIII.82
Drill LC IIC -LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 241, 491, plate CV, CCXIII
Drill LC IIC -LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 241, 488, plate LXXXIII.308, CXCVIII.308
Knife LC IIC -LC IIIA Utilitarian Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 247, plate CXXXV.643, CCXXXII.643
Knife LC IIC -LC IIIA Utilitarian Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 251, plate CLIV.711, CCXXXVII.711
Knife LC IIC -LC IIIA Utilitarian Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 253, CLVIII.365, CCXLVIII.365
Knife fragment LC IIC -LC IIIA Utilitarian Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1988, 234, plate XCIII, CCV
Magounda - 2nd millennium
Knife with sinuous butt Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 16.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Frankel 1983, 115, pl. 1239
Makarska - MBA
Ax, single/flat possibly MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 9.7 4.8 Vagnetti 1971; Astrom 1977-78, 40; de Jesus 1976 SMEA 17, 221-233
Ax, single/flat possibly MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 14.6 4.6 Vagnetti 1971; Astrom 1977-78, 40; de Jesus 1976 SMEA 17, 221-233
Ax, shaft hole possibly MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 18.5 cm 3.5 Vagnetti 1971; Astrom 1977-78, 40; de Jesus 1976 SMEA 17, 221-233; Buchholz 1979, 81.
Ax, shaft hole possibly MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 19 cm 3.2 Vagnetti 1971; Astrom 1977-78, 40; de Jesus 1976 SMEA 17, 221-233
Double hammer possibly MC II-III Metallurgical Hoard? Vagnetti 1971; Astrom 1977-78, 40; de Jesus 1976 SMEA 17, 221-233
Chisel, socketed possibly MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 14.8 tip = 0.9 Vagnetti 1971; Astrom 1977-78, 40; de Jesus 1976 SMEA 17, 221-233
Chisel, socketed possibly MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 11.6 tip = 0.9 Vagnetti 1971; Astrom 1977-78, 40; de Jesus 1976 SMEA 17, 221-233
Makri-Alonia - MBA
Awl EC III - MC II-III Small crafts Settlement 5.3 cm Frankel and Webb 2006, 188-90, figure 5.27
CYPRUS TOOLS
621

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Razor or scraper EC III-MCI-II Utilitarian Settlement 9.8 cm 2.9 cm Frankel and Webb 2006, 188-89, figure 5.27, pl. 53
Spatula EC III - MC II-III Utilitarian Settlement 7 cm Frankel and Webb 2006, 188-89, figure 5.27
Maroni-Vournes - LBA
Knife LC IIC Utilitarian Settlement Knapp 2008, 214
Mathiati - LBA
Adze-hammer LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 8.6 adze ce = 3.7 Catling 1964, 282ff, plate 52.2; SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Ax, single/flat LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 18.8 about 5.6 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282,plate 52.17; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Ax, single/flat LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 17.6 about 5.5 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.44, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Ax, single/flat LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 20.1 about 5.1 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, 52.22; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Ax-adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 10.8 Ax ce= 4.7 Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.27; SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; ; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Casting, plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, figure 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 1
Chisel, narrow LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 14.4 about 1.75 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282,plate 52.46; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Double adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 12.6 about 4.5 Catling 1964, 282ff, plate 52.3; SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Double adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 11.8 ce=4 & 3.75 Catling 1964, 282ff, plate 52.5; SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Double adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 15.8 ce= 4.8 & 4.6 Catling 1964, 282ff, plate 52.6; SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Double Ax LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard about 18.8 ce = about 6.2 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.45, Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Double Ax LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.3 about 8.2? SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282,plate 52.47; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Double hammer LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard 11.55 hammer= 6.2 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, figure 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 1
Hoe LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.8; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Hoe LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.33; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Mold for pruning hook LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Hoard 17.9 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, figure 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 1
Pick, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, figure 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 1
Plow scraper LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural? Hoard about 16.4 about 4.4 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, figure 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 1
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282,plate 52.7; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.19; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.21; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Plowshare LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.43; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Pruning hook LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard 14.9 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, figure 49f-g, 52, 53a; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 1
Sickle, socketed LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard 16.6 SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282,plate 52.9; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Sickle, tanged LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.16; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Sickle, tanged LC IIC or LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard SCE III, 641, fig. 328; 665, fig. 374; Catling 1964, 282, plate 52.39; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 176
Meniko - LBA
Double adze Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 31.5 cm 6.25 cm Catling 1964 90, entry 7; plate 7a
Myrtou-Pigadhes - LBA
Adze Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Taylor 1957, 88
Blade, socketed Utilitarian ? Settlement 4.25 0.7 Taylor 1957, 87
Knife Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Knapp 2008, 232; Webb 1999: 47-53; Taylor 1957, 88
Knife Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary Knapp 2008, 232; Webb 1999: 47-53; Taylor 1957, 88
Knife Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 19 Knapp 2008, 233; Webb 1999: 47-53; Taylor 1957, 88
Plowshare LCIIC - LC IIIA Agricultural Hoard? room 15 Taylor 1957, 20, 86-90
Shovel, charcoal 13th-12th century Agricultural Cultic site or sanctuary Catling 1964, 102 entry A1; Deshayes no. 3034bis; Tayor 1957, 87, entry 372, plate Vc
Nitovikla - MBA
Knife, tanged MC III Utilitarian Burial, 2 10.1 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934: 412; Balthazar 1990, 329, table 77
Knife, tanged MC III Utilitarian Burial, 2 11.3 cm Gjerstand et al. 1934: 413; Balthazar 1990, 329, table 77
Knife MCIII Utilitarian Burial, 2 9.5+cm Gjerstand et al. 1934: 413; Balthazar 1990, 334, table 85
Knife with sinuous butt MCIII Utilitarian Burial, 1 18.5+ cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 409
Knife with sinuous butt MCIII Utilitarian Burial,? 2 15.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Gjerstand et al. 1934:412, Astrom 140, fig. 10.13
Knife MCIII Utilitarian Burial, 1 9.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 94; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 408, pl. LXIX.2
Knife MCIII Utilitarian Burial, 1 10.5+cm Gjerstand et al. 1934: 409, pl. LXIX.2; Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87
CYPRUS TOOLS
622

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife MCIII Utilitarian Burial,? 1 10.1 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 409, pl. LXIX.2
Scraper MC III Utilitarian Burial, 2 Gjerstand et al. 1934, 412, Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC III Utilitarian Burial, 1 Gjerstand et al. 1934, 409, pl. LXIX.2; Balthazar 1990...
Nitovikla - LBA
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Hoard - well 10.3 ce = 5.4 Balthazar 1990, 118; Gjerstad et al. 1934, 372; Matthaus and Matthaus 1986, 143
Knife LC I Utilitarian Burial, 2 18.1+ cm Gjerstand et al. 1934: 413; Balthazar 1990, 329, table 76
Knife MCIII-LCI Utilitarian Burial? 2 10.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 95; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 413
Plowshare Agricultural Hoard - well Gjerstad et al. 1934, 372; Catling 1964, 289; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 143
Shovel Agricultural Hoard - well Gjerstad et al. 1934, 372; Catling 1964, 289; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 143
Paleoskoutella - LBA
Knife MCIII-LCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 7 10.3+cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Gjerstand et al. 1934: 434
Pendayia - LBA
Awl MC III - LC IA Small crafts Burial, 2? Karageorghis 1965, 57, figure 17 (Une necropole du chypriote recent I a Pendayia in Nouveaux Documents pour l'Etude
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1? 13.5 cm Karageorghis 1965: 39, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 334 table 85
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1? 18.6 cm Karageorghis 1965: 39, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 334 table 85
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1? 8.5+ cm Karageorghis 1965: 43, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 334 table 85
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 3? 17 cm Karageorghis 1965: 61, fig. 18; Balthazar 1990, 334 table 85
Knife LC IA Utilitarian Burial, 3 12.3+cm Karageorghis 1965: 63, fig. 18; Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87
Knife MCIII-LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1 16.9 cm Karageorghis 1965, 23, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89
Knife MCIII-LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1 14.7 cm Karageorghis 1965, 39, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89
Knife with sinuous butt MCIII-LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1 Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Karageorghis 1965, 35, figure 13
Knife with ogival butt LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1 16.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Karageorghis 1965: 37, fig. 13
Knife with ogival butt LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1 15.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Karageorghis 1965: 41, fig. 13
Knife with ogival butt LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1 11.8+cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Karageorghis 1965: 41, fig. 13
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 3 8.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Karageorghis 1965, 63, fig. 18
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1 8.7+cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 95; Karageorghis 1965: 41, fig. 13
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 3 12.8+cm Balthazar 1990, 341, table 95; Karageorghis 1965: 61, fig. 18
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1? 16.5 cm Karageorghis 1965, 39, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 1? 17.8 cm Karageorghis 1965, 41, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 2? 9.8 cm Karageorghis 1965, 57, fig. 17; Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial, 3 16.5 cm Karageorghis 1965, 63, fig. 18; Balthazar 1990, 336, table 87
Scraper MC III - LC IA Utilitarian Burial, 1? Karageorghis 1965, 31 fig. 15
Scraper MC III - LC IA Utilitarian Burial, 1? Karageorghis 1965, 41 fig. 15
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial,1 19.0 cm Karageorghis 1965, 27, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89
Knife LCIA Utilitarian Burial 8.3 cm Karageorghis 1965, 29, fig. 13; Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89
Pera - MBA
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 11.5 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; SCE IV:1B, p. 142, figure 24
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 11.7 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 11.1 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; cf. SCE IV:1B, pp. 142 and 247; Catling p. 65
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 10.9 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 13.2 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1, p. 65...
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 14.5 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; Cypern, p. 95, no. 287:1; SCE IV:1B, 142,200, 247
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 13 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; Cypern , p. 95, no. 287.2
Awl MC III - LC I Small crafts Hoard, found in a field? 15.07 cm 1.07 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, shaft hole MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 16.2 cm 4.4 Astrom 1977-78, 11-12, entry 3; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, shaft hole MC III - LC I or MC II Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 16.6 3.3 Astrom 1977-78, 12 entry 4; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; Deshayes 1411; Balthazar 1990, 371; Buchholz 1979, 78.3
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 16.6 ce = 5.3 Astrom 1977-78, 12 entry 5; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; Deshayes 357
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 15.9 cm ce = 6 Astrom 1977-78 13 entry 6; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 9.2 cm 3.8 Astrom 1977-78, 13 entry 7; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
CYPRUS TOOLS
623

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 8.8 cm about 3.9 Astrom 1977-78 14 entry 8; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 13.3 cm about 4.9 Astrom 1977-78, 15 entry 10; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 16.5 cm about 5.7 Astrom 1977-78, 15 entry 11; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 9 cm about 3.1 Astrom 1977-78, 15 entry 12; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 10.6 cm 4.12 cm Astrom 1977-78, 16 entry 13; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 12.1 cm 4.8 Astrom 1977-78, 16 entry 15; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 8.3 cm about 5.4 Astrom 1977-78 17 entry 16; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 11.6 cm about 5.3 Astrom 1977-78, 17 entry 17; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 8 cm about 4.3 Astrom 1977-78, 17 entry 18; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 13.6 cm about 4.3 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 5.3 cm 3.62 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Ax, single/flat MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 5.9 cm about 3 Astrom 1977-78, 14-15 entry 9; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Chisel MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 8.9 cm 2.38 Astrom 1977-78, 16 entry 14; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Chisel MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 11.2 cm about 0.6 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; SCE IV:1B, p. 142; Catling, pp. 64f, figure 24
Chisel MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 27..2 cm about 1.4 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; SCE IV:1B, p. 143, fig. 11:1,
Chisel, fragment MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 10.54 cm 1.2 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Chisel MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 12.3 about 0.4 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; SCE IV: 1B, p. 142, Type 1
Drill? MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 18.5 cm ce = 0.6 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; Cyprern, p. 95, no. 286; Catling, 65, fig. 23
Flesh-hook MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 9.7 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1, p. 66, pl. 2H
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 19.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 13.6 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 23.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 19.7 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 19.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 19.5 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 18.1 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 16.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 18.9 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 18.3 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 16.1 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 14.6 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 16.4 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 13.6 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife fragment MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 10.2 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 6.3 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 11.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 10.6 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 12.6 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 12.3 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife fragment MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 13.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife fragment MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 18.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 16.4 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 14.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 13.8 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife fragment MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 10.7 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 14.3 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 11.7 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 9.3 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
CYPRUS TOOLS
624

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 14.1 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Knife MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 18.2 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Saw with teeth MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 32.8 cm 4.2 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Chisel, socketed MC III - LC I Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 17.2 cm about 1.1 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Spatula MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 7.9 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Spatula or small spade MC III - LC I Utilitarian Hoard, found in a field? 17.4 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Pera - LBA - EIA
Ax-adze MC III - LC I? Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 18.8 cm adze ce = 3.6 Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1; BCH XCVI 1972, p. 1017,
Pera - EIA?
Ax, shaft hole MC III - LC I? Carpentry/masonry Hoard, found in a field? 13.6 cm Astrom 1977-78; Catling 1964, 278, note 1
Phlamoudhi Vounari - LBA
Ax, single/flat LC I-II Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary? Webb 1999, 138; Al-Radi 1983: 116-18;
Scraper LC I-II Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary? Webb 1999, 138; Al-Radi 1983: 116-18;
Phoenikiais - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 496; OR 1893, 451, pl. CXLVI, 3B.d
Ax, single/flat MC II-III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11 cm Balthazar 1990, 363; Walters 1899, 4, 49b
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 363; Walters 1899, 4, 49a
Knife MCII-III Utilitarian Burial? about 12 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; OR 1893, pl. CXLVI.3Bc
Politiko Lambertis - MBA
Awl MC? Small crafts Burial 7.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Catling 1964, 65 entry 4a.2, figure 4.15
Awl Small crafts Burial 9.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Frankel 1983, 126, pl. 1391
Ax, single/flat MC Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 28? 18 cm 6.5 Balthazar 1990, 365; Buchholz 1978.157
Ax, single/flat MC Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 42? 17.6 cm about 5.8 Balthazar 1990, 365; Buchholz 1978.162, figure 4.1
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb B2? 11.2 cm about 5 Balthazar 1990, 364; Buchholz 1973, 306-7, fig. 8
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 42? 17.8+cm about 1.65 Balthazar 1990, 378; Buchholz 1978, 161, fig. 4g
Drill MC? Carpentry/masonry Burial 8.4 cm Catling 1964, 64 entry 4b.2; Balthazar 1990, 375
Drill MC? Carpentry/masonry Burial 9 cm Catling 1964, 64 entry 4b.3; Balthazar 1990, 375
Drill MC? Carpentry/masonry Burial 11.5 cm Catling 1964, 64 entry 4b.4; Balthazar 1990, 375
Knife MC? Utilitarian Burial? Catling 1964: 61; Balthazar 1990, 336 table 87
Knife MC? Utilitarian Burial? Catling 1964: 61; Balthazar 1990, 336 table 87
Scraper Utilitarian Burial 14.5+cm Balthazar 1990, 365; Buchholz 1978, 161, fig. 4e
Scraper Utilitarian Burial 8.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 355; Buchholz 1973, 306-7, figure 9
Scraper or razor MC II-III? Utilitarian Burial 10 cm Catling 1964, 68; Balthazar 1990, 355
Politiko Lambertis - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Burial, tomb 42? 17.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Buchholz 1978: 161, fig. 4d
Knife Utilitarian Burial? Tomb 42? 7.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 339, table 91; Buchholz 1978: 161, fig. 4f
Knife Utilitarian Burial?, tomb 28? about 18+ cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Buchholz 1978: 158, figure 3
Politiko-Troullia - LBA
Mold Metallurgical Settlement Falconer 2009 - ASOR 2009 Annual Meeting poster session
Tongs MC II-LC I Metallurgical Settlement Falconer 2009 - ASOR 2009 Annual Meeting poster session
Pyla-Kokkinokremnos - LBA
Adze, trunnion/lugged LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.8 ce = 4.6 Karageorghis and Demas 1984, pg 36 (plate XXVII and XLV) Excavation number 37
Awl LC IIC or LC IIIA Small crafts Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 58, plate XXVII.125
Ax-adze LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Catling 1964, 91, entry 1,figure 9.8, pl. 8.9? Karageorghis and Demas 1984
Crucible scraper LC IIC or LC IIIA Metallurgical Settlement 10.1 ce = 4.35 Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 33, 57 entry iv.b (plate XXVII, XLV)
Double spatula Small crafts Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 57, plate XXVII.4
Drill LC IIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.2 0.2-0.5 Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 38, 63, Plates 25, 26, 44; Karageorghis 2002, 85, figure 164; Matthäus and Schumacher-M
Drill LC IIC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 13. 8 0.5-0.6 Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 38, 63, Plates 25, 26, 44.; Karageorghis 2002, 85, figure 164; Matthäus and Schumacher-
Drill LC IIC or LC IIIA Carpentry/masonry Settlement Karageorghis and Demas 1984, 58, plate XXVII.115
CYPRUS TOOLS
625

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife LC IIC or LC IIIA Utilitarian Settlement Karagoerghis and Demas 1984, pg 33.
Pyrgos - MBA
Awl EC II to MC II Small crafts Burial, tomb 2a 7.7 cm Swiney 1986, 83, figure 65 ; Balthazar 1990 263, figure 75c
Awl EC-MC Small crafts Burial, tomb 21 6.4 cm Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12:31; Giardino et al. 2002, 39
Awl EC or MC Small crafts Settlement 6.3cm Giardino RDAC 2002, 37
Ax, single/flat EC-MC Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 21 16.4 cm about 5.9 Belgiorno 1997, 121, figure 12:6; Giardino et al. 2002, 39
Ax, single/flat EC-MC Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 21 11.4 cm around 3.9 Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12:27; Giardino et al. 2002, 39
Chisel EC-MC Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 21 9.4 cm about 1 Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12:30; Giardino et al. 2002, 39
Chisel EC-MC Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 21 12.6 cm around 1.2 Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12:26; Giardino et al. 2002, 39
Knife EC-MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 21 Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12.29
Knife EC-MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 21 Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12.35
Knife EC-MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 21 Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12.44
Scraper EC-MC Utilitarian Burial, tomb 21 Belgiorno 1997, 125, figure 12.37
Razor MC? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 44 6.6 cm Giardino et al. 2002, 41
Sinda - LBA
Ax, single/flat LC IIICA2; Sinda III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.5 5.3 Furumark and Adelman 2003, 105 entry Br.13, plates 19, 20
Blade or knife LC IIIA1, Sinda III Utilitarian Settlement 2.2 0.55 Furumark and Adelman 2003, 105 entry Br.16, plate 20
Double pointed implement LC IIICA2; Sinda III Small crafts Settlement 4.7 0.7 Furumark and Adelman 2003, 105 entry Br.7a, plates 19, 20
Knife LC IIC2; Sinda level II Utilitarian Settlement Furumark and Adelman 2003, 105 entry Br.18, plates 19, 20
Knife LC I-III Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2588; Catling 1964, 103, entry Bb3; Furumark and Adelman 2003, 104, note 100
Knife fragment LC IIIA:2 Utilitarian Settlement 2.8 1.2 Furumark and Adelman 2003, 105 entry Br.3, plates 19, 20
Pick, socketed Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Hoard - pit Karageorghis 1973; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 177
Point, fragmentary LC IIICA2; Sinda III Small crafts Settlement Furumark and Adelman 2003, 105 entry Br.7b, plate 20
Shepherd's crook, socketed Ritual or prestige item Burial Catling 1964, 259; Furumark and Adelman 2003, 104, n 100; Schaeffer 1952, 58 ff
Shovel, charcoal Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Hoard - pit Karageorghis 1973; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 177
Small implement Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Hoard - pit Karageorghis 1973; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 177
Spatula, socketed Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Hoard - pit Karageorghis 1973; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 177
Tongs Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Hoard - pit Karageorghis 1973; Matthäus and Schumacher-Matthäus 1986, 177
Stephania - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC III Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 10 12.5 cm about 5 Balthazar 1990, 364; Hennessy 1964, 30, pl. XLVIII
Knife MC III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 10 18.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 333, table 83; Hennessy 1964, 29, pl. XLVIII
Scraper MC III Utilitarian Burial, tomb 10 Balthazar 1990, 355; Hennessy 1964, 30, pl. XLVIII
Stephania - LBA
Awl LC IA Small crafts Burial, tomb 14 7.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Hennessy 1964, 42
Awl LC IA Small crafts Burial, tomb 14 8 cm Balthazar 1990, 374; Hennessy 1964, 42;
Ax, single/flat LC IA Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 12 13.5 cm about 5.1 Balthazar 1990, 364; Hennessy 1964, 33, pl. LI
Tamassos? - 2nd millennium?
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown 12+cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96
Toumba tou Skourou - MBA
Awl MC III (or LC I early) Small crafts Burial, Tomb V 7.8 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 306 B120
Ax, single/flat MC III (or LC I early) Carpentry/masonry Burial, Tomb V 10.6 blade edge = 5 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 298 B98, plate 104
Ax, single/flat MC III (or LC I early) Carpentry/masonry Burial, Tomb V 11.5 4.8 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 305 B112, plate 104; Vermeule and Wolsky, Mound of Darkness figure 49C
Knife MC III (or LC I early) Utilitarian Burial, Tomb V 6 1.8 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 298 entry B101
Knife MC III (or LC I early) Utilitarian Burial, Tomb V 16.8 2.6 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 305 B114
Razor MC III (or LC I early) Utilitarian Burial, Tomb V 12.5 3 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 305 B111
Razor MC III (or LC I early) Utilitarian Burial, Tomb V 9.5 2.4 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 305 B115
Razor? MC III (or LC I early) Utilitarian Burial, Tomb V 5 2.8 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 298 B94
Toumba tou Skourou - LBA
Ax, single/flat LC I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.8 3.2 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 72.
CYPRUS TOOLS
626

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat LC IB Carpentry/masonry Burial, Tomb VI 7.5 4.3 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 318, B140
Blade LC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb I 3.9 0.6 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 223, B25
Blade LC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb I 1.7-2.4 1.3-1.4 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 241, B90
Chisel, narrow LC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb I 7.8 0.6 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 241 B61
Cleaver LC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb I 14 4.2 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 222, B24, plate 107, C.1s; , figure 49B
Knife or razor LC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb I 8.5 3.7 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 222, B4
Knife or razor LC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb I Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 241, B59
Knife LC IB Utilitarian Burial, tomb III 16.7 3.1 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 269, B75
Knife or blade LC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb I 4.8 2.4 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 222, B49
Chisel, socketed LC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb I 13.5 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 223 B1, plate 103; figure 49a
Chisel, socketed LC I Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb I 20.2 Vermeule and Wolsky 1990, 223, B23, plate 103; figure 49a
Troezena Chiflik (Arsos) - LBA
Plowshare Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 22.5 tip = 5.9 Catling 1964, plate 4g
Vasilia Alonia - MBA
Ax, single/flat MC? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.0+ Balthazar 1990?; Karageorghis 1966, 329, fig. 72;
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Balthazar 1990, 365; Karageorghis 1960, 244, fig. 3
Vassa-Argylas - MBA?
Ax, single/flat MC? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.2 cm around 3.1 Giardino et al. 2002, 41, figure 3.26
Vounous - MBA
Awl EC IIIB-MCI Small crafts Burial, tomb 17 Balthazar 1990, 379; Dikaios 1940, 41
Awl EC IIIB-MCI Small crafts Burial, tomb 22 Balthazar 1990; Dikaios 1940, 52
Awl EC IIIB or MCI Small crafts Burial, tomb 26 Balthazar 1990; Dikaios 1940, 57
Awl EC IIIB-MCI Small crafts Burial, tomb 27 Dikaios 1940, 60, p. LX.13
Awl EC IIIB-MC I Small crafts Burial, tomb 27 Balthazar 1990, 379; Dikaios 1940, 60
Awl Small crafts Burial, tomb 59 Balthazar 1990, 379
Awl EC III-MCII Small crafts Burial, tomb 37 Balthazar 1990, 374; Dikaios 1940, 79
Ax, single/flat EC IIIB-MCII Carpentry/masonry Burial, tomb 37 5.7 ce = 3.3 Balthazar 1990, 124, 362, figure 26; Dikasios 1940, 79, pl. LX.11
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 2 11.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 8
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 7 15.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 18
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 13 20.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 32, pl. LX.5
Knife, tanged EC IIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 17 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 41
Knife, tanged EC IIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 19 11.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 46; Schaeffer 1949: 137, fig. 2.33
Knife, tanged EC IIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 19 20.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 46; Schaeffer 1949, fig. 2.33
Knife, tanged EC IIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 22 16.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 52
Knife, tanged EC IIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 22 8.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 52
Knife, tanged EC IIIB or MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 26 26.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 57, not pl. L.3
Knife, tanged EC IIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 27 9.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 60
Knife, tanged EC IIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 27 16.5cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; 333 table 83; Dikaios 1940: 60
Knife, tanged MC II Utilitarian Burial, tomb 32 13.2 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Dikaios 1940: 67
Knife, tanged ECIII/MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 143 10.4 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Stewart 1950: 331, pl. CIVb
Knife, tanged ECIII/MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 143 10.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 330, table 78; Stewart 1950: 334, pl. CIVb
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 13 15.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 81; Dikaios 1940:32
Knife, tanged EC III or MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 34 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 81; Dikaios 1940:70
Knife, tanged EC III or MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 33 8.8+ cm Balthazar 1990, 332, table 82; Dikaios 1940: 69
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 2 12.3 cm Balthazar 1990, 333, table 83; Dikaios 1940:8
Knife, tanged ECIIIB or MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 26 16.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Dikaios 1940: 57
Knife, tanged ECIII or MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 33 11.8 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Dikaios 1940: 69;
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 47 13 cm Balthazar 1990, 333 table 83; Dikaios 1940: 93
Knife, tanged ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 48 13.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 333, table 83; Dikaios 1940:95
CYPRUS TOOLS
627

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 21 11.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 334 table 84; Dikaios 1940: 49
Knife with round butt ECIII or MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 33 13.6 cm Balthazar 1990, 336, table 86; Dikaios 1940: 69
Knife with blunt butt ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 48 9.0+cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Dikaios 1940: 95
Knife with blunt butt ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 47 11.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 337 table 89; Dikaios 1940: 93
Knife with blunt butt MCI? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 64 12.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Schaeffer 1936: pl. XXIII.2
Knife with blunt butt ECIII/MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 143 11.7+cm Balthazar 1990, 337, table 89; Stewart 1950: 330, pl. CVa
Knife with sinuous butt ECIII or MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 33 12.7 cm Balthazar 1990, 338, table 90; Dikaios 1940: 69
Knife MCI? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 64 12.0+cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93;
Knife MC? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 50 14.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Schaeffer 1936: 123
Knife MCII Utilitarian Burial, tomb 56 15.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93;
Knife ECIII or MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 33 7.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Dikaios 1940: 69
Knife ECIIIA-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 39 11.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Dikaios 1940: 82
Knife with pointed butt ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 27 12 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Dikaios 1940:60
Knife with pointed butt ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 27 14.5 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Dikaios 1940: 60, pl. LX.4
Knife with pointed butt ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 27 11.9 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Dikaios 1940: 60
Knife with pointed butt ECIII or MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 33 17 cm Balthazar 1990, 335 table 87; Dikaios 1940: 69
Knife with pointed butt MCI? Utilitarian Burial, tomb 64 9 cm Balthazar 1990, 335, table 87; Schaeffer 1936: pl. XXIII.3
Knife ECIII or MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 33 9.6+cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93; Dikaios 1940: 69
Knife ECIIIB-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 27 Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Dikaios 1940: 60
Knife ECIIIB or MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 38 Balthazar 1990, 342, table 96; Dikaios 1940, 80
Scraper EC III-MCI Utilitarian Burial, tomb 143 Stewart 1950, 331, pl. CVIc
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 2 Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 17 Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 27 Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, tomb 48 Balthazar 1990, 354
Scraper MC I Utilitarian Burial, 64 Balthazar 1990, 354
Vounous - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Burial, tomb 68 9.0 cm Balthazar 1990, 340, table 93;
CYPRUS TOOLS
628

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Acemhöyük - MBA
Awl or stylus Small crafts Settlement On display in the Ankara museum
Ax, trunnion/lugged Level 2 Carpentry/masonry Burial -pithos grave 20.3 6.9 Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 8, pl 1.8; Özgüç 1966, Anadolu 10, 34f, pl 21.2
Ax, shaft hole level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.4 cm 5.8 cm Erkanal 1977, 15 entry 57, pl 5.57
Ax, shaft hole level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.8 cm 7 cm Erkanal 1977, 15 entry 58, pl 5.58
Ax, shaft hole level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.8 cm 5.4 cm Erkanal 1977, 18 entry 63, pl 6.63
Ax, shaft hole, fenestrated level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.75 cm 5.75 cm Erkanal 1977, 22 entry 70, pl 6.70
Chisel, socketed Agricultural Settlement On display in the Ankara museum
Sickle Carpentry/masonry Settlement On display in the Ankara museum
Akyazi Koyu - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 9.55 cm ce= 0.75 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.25 and pl 96D
Alaca Höyük - MBA
Ax, single/flat Level II Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 472; Koşay 1944, 33 pl. LI, AL/a, 104
Chisel Middle Hittite; level 3a/b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.5 ce = 0.55 Müller-Karpe 1994, 229, pl. 65.18; Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, pl.127, A2.g.69
Chisel Middle Hittite Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 ce - 0.9 Koşay 1973, 35, 95, pl 84, A1, p. 57; Müller-Karpe 1994, 231 pl 67.19
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.3 ce = 1.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 228, pl 65.5
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 ce = 1.9 Müller-Karpe 1994. 228, pl 65.8; Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, pl 127, A1.G.68
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 ce = 0.45 Koşay and Akok 1966, 193, pl 43, h 208; Müller-Karpe 1994, 229, pl 65.13
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.2 0.75 Koşay and Akok 1966 pl 43, h311; Müller-Karpe 1994, 229, pl 65.14
Chisel, socketed Middle hittite level 3a/b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 ce = 0.6 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195 A1 g124,pl 127.2; Müller-Karpe 1994, 246 pl 75.10
Chisel, socketed Middle Hittite level 3a/b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.5 ce = 0.6 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195 A1g71 pl 127.1; Müller-Karpe 1994, pl 75.14
Chisel, socketed MBA, level II-I a/b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.8 ce = 0.9 Koşay and Akok 1966, 198 A1 i 226, pl 45, 127.5; Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.24
Drill 20th-15th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 183; Alaca 1937-1939, p. 140, pl. LXXXVII, fig. , A1d247
Punch Middle Hittite level 3a,b Small crafts Settlement Koşay and Akok 1966, 194, pl 127.7, Al. 1.29; Müller-Karpe 1994, 228, 64.11
Alaca Höyük - LBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged level 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 24 10.35 Erkanal 1977, 4 entry 11, pl 1.11; Koşay 1966, pl 47
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.1 2.9 Erkanal 1977, 5 entry 18 pl 2.18; Koşay 1966, 195, pl?
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.85 6.45 Erkanal 5 entry 22, pl 2.22; Koşay 1966, 197 pl 47
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.8 cm 7.1 cm Erkanal 7 entry 45, pl 4.45
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.9 cm 4.5 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 44, pl 4.44
Chisel Hittite period Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.5 1.9 Koşay 1973, 96, pl 84, A1., 165; Müller-Karpe 1994, 229, pl 65.16
Chisel Late Hittite period Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.6 ce = 0.6 Koşay 1973, 35, pl 83, AL. P.61; Müller-Karpe 1994, 230, pl 67.2
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.7 ce = 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238, pl 71.41; Arik 1937, 56, A1.23; Esin 1969, 122, 153, #6844
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement Koşay and Akok 1966, 198, pl 45, 125, 2 A1.i.229
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Koşay and Akok 1966, 194, pl 42.L98, 128, 7
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.7 0.4 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, pl 126f.75; Müller-Karpe 1994, 244, pl 73.36
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.7 ce = 0.7 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, pl 44, 126f.140; Müller-Karpe 1994, 244 pl 73.40
Chisel End of 2nd millennium BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.7 ce = 0.5 Deshayes 838, pl X.13; Alaca Hoyuk 1935, pl. LXI, A123
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.7 ce = 1.4 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, A1.h 202 pl 43, 127.4; Müller-Karpe 1994, 244 pl 74.7
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 244 pl 74.8
Chisel, socketed Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12 ce = 0.76 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195 A1 h 203, pl 43, H203; Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.16
Mold for trunnion Ax Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 18 8.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 199 pl 18.3; Akok 1966, 180 pl 37, A1. g 260
Mold for Axs, spear Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 21.7 13.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 199 pl 20.2; Koşay and Akok 1973, pl 46, right
Mold for 9 bars Hittite period Metallurgical Settlement 21.2 22.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 200, pl 21.1; Koşay and Akok 1966, 180, pl 37, A1.1.117; 1973 pl 66
Mold, for bars, Ax Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 19.2 11.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 200, pl 21.3; Koşay and Akok 1966, 180, pl 37 g 260
Mold for trunnion Ax Metallurgical Settlement 16.1 6.4 Koşay and Akok 1973, 84 pl 46, Al. r. 75; Müller-Karpe 1994, 204, pl 33.3
Mold for trunnion Ax Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 31 22.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 199 pl 19.4; Koşay and Akok 1966, 180 A1.1. 116; 1973, pl 45 left, under
Punch Hittite level Small crafts Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 228, pl 64.13
Alaca Höyük - 2nd millennium
ANATOLIA TOOLS
629

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.8 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 229, pl 65.20; Koşay and Akok 1966, 191, pl 41, e7
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial, grave D 12.3 ce = 0.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 230 pl 66.4; Koşay 1951, 67, 162, pl 149, D20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial, grave H 14.8 0.7 Koşay 1951, pl 135, 1.99; Müller-Karpe 1994, 232, pl 68.3
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.3 ce = 0.27 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, pl 128, 4 A1. H.206; Müller-Karpe 1994, 234 pl 70.8
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.95 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235 pl 70.27
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.5 ce = 0.4 Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, pl 42, g66, pl 128, A1; Müller-Karpe 1994, 236, pl 71.3
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Koşay and Akok 1966, 195, pl 42, g.77, 128, A1, g77;
Chisel MBA-LBA; 1900-1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 975; Koşay 1944, 33, pl. XLIX, A1/a, 37
Alaçam-Pelit Büküköyü - 2nd millennium
Casting, Ax, trunnion
Alishar Höyük - MBA
Carp/mason or metallurgicalUnstratified or unknown 20 ce = 6.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 227, pl 64.1
Ax, single/flat Level II; early 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 486; Alishar 1927, II, p. 91, fig 70, 2348 and 1844
Ax, shaft hole 2nd millennium BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.3 cm 3.4 cm Erkanal 1977 13 entry 52, pl 5.52; Alishar II 441, fig 497
Chisel Level II; early 2nd millennium BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 7 socket = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.20; Schmidt 1932, 153, fig 192, b 1628
Chisel level II, early 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 973; Alishar 1930-32, II; p. 264, fig 292, c 1084
Chisel level II, early 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 974; Alishar 1930-32, II; p. 264, fig 292, c 1106
Chisel level II, early 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry Settlement Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 264, fig 292, c 213
Chisel Level II; early 2nd millennium BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 851; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 24, fig 292, e1334
Chisel Level II; early 2nd millennium BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 704; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 287, e1, e 1026 and e2612
Chisel Level II; early 2nd millennium BC; Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 689; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 287, e2520
Chisel Level II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237, pl 71.20; Schmidt 1932, 152b 1170
Chisel Level II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.9 ce = 0.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 72.2; Schmidt 1932, 152, fig 191, b 1880;
Chisel, socketed Level 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234 pl 70.10; Schmidt 1932, 152, fig 191, b1170
Chisel, socketed level 2; early 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9 ce = 0.65 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 75.6; Schmidt 1932, 156, fig 195, b2766; Esin 1969, 126, 170, nr. 17804, type 26a;
Drill, socketed 1900-1600 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.3 ce = 0.5 Deshayes 196, Alishar 1928-29, I, p. 151, fig 192, b 165
Knife Level II; early 2nd millennium BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2405; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 289, e 1209 and e 1500
Knife Level II; early 2nd millennium BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2406; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 289, d 2796
Knife Level II; early 2nd millennium BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2409; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 289, c 322
Mold for lead figurines Level II Metallurgical Settlement 5.7 3.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.8; Emre 1971, 22 pl 6.1
Mold for trunnion Ax Metallurgical Settlement Erkanal 1977 6 entry 35, pl 3.35; Osten, Alishar II 96, fig 91
Plowshare Alishar II Agricultural Settlement Catling 1964, 81.; Stratigraphie, fig 195:6
Pointed implement
Alishar Höyük - LBA
Level II; 1900-1600 BC Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 1173; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 264, fig 292, e 2070 and 2136
Ax, trunnion/lugged Hittite period Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.5 cm 1.9 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 36, pl 3.36; Deshayes 1047, Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 286, c. 1648
Ax, trunnion/lugged Hittite empire period Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.2 cm 1.6 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 37, pl 3.37; Deshayes 1047, Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 286, c 1093
Ax, trunnion/lugged Hittite period Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.7 cm 1.45 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 38, pl 3.38; Deshayes 1071; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 287, e1898
Ax, trunnion/lugged Hittite empire period Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.2 ce = 3.3 Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 34, pl 3.34; Deshayes 1085; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 253, fig 286, c 1741
Ax, trunnion/lugged Late Hittite period, but found in Carpentry/masonry a Phryigan level Settlement 8.6 cm 4.1 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 etnry 47, pl 4.47; Deshayes 1165; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 441, fig 497, d 2135
Ax, trunnion/lugged Late Hittite empire, but may belong Carpentry/masonry to Phrygian period Settlement 17.8 cm 5.8 cm Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 26; Osten, H.H. v.d. Osten, Alishar Huyuk III, 110, fig 107
Chisel, fragment Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.75 ce =1.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.18; Von der Osten 1937b, 253, 262, fig 287
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7 ce = 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.35; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 293, c213
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.5 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236, pl 70.39; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 292, e1334
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.3 ce = 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 70.41; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 292, c1084; Esin 1969, 127, #17843 type 2c4
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.35 ce =0.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238, pl 71.38; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 292, c 468
Chisel fragment Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.95 ce =1.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.33; Von der Osten 1937b, 253, 262, fig. 287, e 909
Chisel fragment Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.1 ce = 0.85 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.37; Von der Osten 1937b, 253, 262, fig 287, d2612
Chisel fragment Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.1 ce = 0.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.39; Von der Osten 1937b, 253, 262, fig 287, e 1026
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.5 ce = 1.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.3; Erkanal 1977, 7, nr. 35, pl 3.36; Von der Osten 1937b, 253, 261, fig 286, c 1648
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.2 ce = 1.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.4; Erkanal 1977, 7 nr. 37, pl 3.37; Von der Osten 1937b, 261, fig 286, c 1093
ANATOLIA TOOLS
630

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.8 ce =1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.5; Deshayes 418; Erkanal 1977, 12 entry 49b, pl 4.49b;
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.7 ce = 1.45 Erkanal 1977, 7 nr. 38 pl 3, 38; Müller-Karpe 1994, 242 pl 73.6; Von der Osten 1937b, 253, 262, fig 287, e1898
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.4 ce = 1.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.16; Von der Osten 1937b, 253, 262, fig 287, d 2520
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.4 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.28; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 293, d2149, Esin 1969, 125, 154, nr. 17785, type 2c;
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.25 ce = 0.84 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.30; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 292, e1106
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.7 ce =0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 244, pl 73.38; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 293, d1958
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 292, e 2136
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.1 ce = 1.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 74.14; Von der Osten 1937b, 267, fig 292, e 2070
Chisel, socketed Hittite Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.4 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.19; Von der Osten 1937b, 266, fig 291, e2323
Implement, engraver Hittite level Small crafts Settlement 9.1 socket = 0.95; Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.21;Esin 1969, 126, 170, type 25a, nr. 17805; Von der Osten 1937b 266, fig 291, d, 2964
Mold for bar ingots Period of Hittite empires Metallurgical Settlement 13.7 12.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 197 pl 15.4; Von der Osten 1937b, 273, 281 fig. 306, #e674; Przeworski 1939, 109, 111.
Mold for Ax? Period of Hittite empires Metallurgical Settlement 8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 17.6; Von der Osten 1937, 230; 235, fig 263, e 2155
Mold, stone Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 8.2 5.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 199 pl 20.5; Von der Osten 1937, 230, 234 fig 262, c 2408
Mold for Axs Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 9 8.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 204, pl 34.1; Von der Osten 1937: 234, 236, fig 262, d2852
Mold for Ax Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 9.7 9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 44.4; Von der Osten 1937, 230, 235, fig 262, d 2776
Mold for bar Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 7.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 212 pl 49.6; Von der Osten 1937b, 235, fig 263, d 294
Mold for ornament Hittite level Metallurgical Settlement 11.33 7.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 216 pl 54.7; Von der Osten 1937, 235, fig 263, e 2316
Mold for ornament Period of the Hittite empire Metallurgical Settlement 7.5 6.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 217 pl 55.6; Von der Osten 1937: 230, 235 fig 263, d 2016
Mold cover
Alishar Höyük - EIA?
Hittite empire period Metallurgical Settlement 6 4.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 223 pl 61.1; Von der Osten 1937, 235 fig. 262, d 233
Knife End of the 2nd to the start of the Utilitarian 1st millennium BC; level Settlement IV
Deshayes 2415; Alishar 1930-32, II, p. 442, fig 495, c400
Amasya area - 2nd millennium
Chisel
Beycesultan - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Burial 8.1 ce = 0.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 68.4
Awl level 4b Small crafts Settlement 11.55 cm tip = 0.2 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 130, c28, fig O3
Awl level 5 Small crafts Settlement 12.3 cm tip = 0.4 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, c16
Awl Level 4b Small crafts Settlement 4.4 cm middle = 0.4 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 130, c29, fig O3
Awl or drill Level 5 Small crafts Settlement 10.9 cm tip = 0.15 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, c.15
Ax, trunnion/lugged Level 5 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, d.17, fig O.2
Ax, trunnion/lugged Level 4a Carpentry/masonry Settlement Mellaart and Murray 1995, 130, b35, fig O4
Ax, trunnion/lugged Level 4 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.3 cm ce = 4.3 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 131, c46; Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 43, pl 4.43
Ax, trunnion/lugged Level 4; Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.1 cm ce = 4.85 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 131, c45,Deshayes 1046; Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 42, pl 4.42
Ax, single/flat or razor Level 4a Carpentry/masonry and utilitarian Settlement 11 cm ce =3.35 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 130, B36, fig O4
Chisel level 5 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.7 cm ce = 0.8 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 128, c.9, fig O.1,
Chisel, tanged level 5 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.7 cm ce = 0.45 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, c.10, fig O.1
Chisel Level 5 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.5 cm ce = 0.8 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, c.11, fig O.1
Chisel Level 5 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.95 cm ce = 0.55 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, c.12; fig O.1
Chisel Level 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9 cm ce =0.3 Mellaart and Murray 1995,130, c30, fig O3, level 4b
Chisel, socketed level 5 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.05 cm ce = 0.6 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 128, c.8, fig O.1 (?)
Chisel-like implement Level 5 Small crafts Settlement 14.9 cm ce = 0.6 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 128, c. 7, fig O.1; Deshayes 29; AS, V (1955), p. 91, fig. 21, 15 and 16
Implement Level 5 Small crafts Settlement 6.2 cm ce = 0.25 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, c. 13
Pointed tool
Beycesultan - LBA
Level 5 Small crafts Settlement 11.7 cm 0.9 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 129, c.14, fig O.1
Awl Level 2 Small crafts Settlement 6.75 cm greatest = 0.45 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 134, c96, fig. O7
Awl or chisel bit Level 3 Small crafts Settlement 7.2 cm middle = 0.35 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c73
Ax, trunnion/lugged Level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c76, fig. O6,
Ax, trunnion/lugged Level 2; 13th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21 cm ce =5.7 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 135, c 112, fig O10, Deshayes 1101; Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 33, pl 3.33
Chisel Level I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.6 cm ce = 0.5 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 136, c140, fig. O.11
Chisel Level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.8 cm ce = 2.2 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c. 70, fig O6
ANATOLIA TOOLS
631

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel Level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.5 Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, C72
Chisel bit? Level 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.5 cm ce = 0.5 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 136, c141
Chisel Level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.8 cm ce = 2.2 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c. 70, fig O6
Chisel Level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.5 Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, C72
Chisel bit? Level 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.5 cm middle = 0.6 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 136, c141
Chisel, socketed Level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.55 cm ce = 1.45 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c71, fig. O.6
Implement, uncertain Level 2 Small crafts Settlement 11.7 cm ce =0.5 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 134, c95
Implement, uncertain Level 2 Small crafts Settlement 9.4 cm middle = 0.55 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 134, c97
Implement, uncertain Level 2 Small crafts Settlement 9.15 cm broken tip = 0.7 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 133, c94
Knife, single edged Level 2 Utilitarian Settlement 12 cm tang w = 1.3 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 134, c105, fig O8
Knife, iron Level 1 Utilitarian Settlement 7.3 cm greatest = 1.85 Mellaart and Murray 1995, 136, c143, fig O11
Knife or dagger Level 3 Utilitarian Settlement 11.7 cm tang w = 2.3 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c.75, fig O6
Knife or dagger Level 3 Utilitarian Settlement 20.1 cm greatest = 3.1 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c.74, fig O6
Sickle Level 3 Agricultural Settlement 15.35 cm middle = 1.85 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c68, fig O5
Sickle Level 3 Agricultural Settlement 10.95 cm middle = 2.1 cm Mellaart and Murray 1995, 132, c67, fig O5
Beycesultan - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.5 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231 pl 67.7; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 281, 291, fig F8.4, pl 34
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.1 ce = 0.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231,pl 67.14; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 284, fig F9, 8
Mold for trunnion Ax
Bitik - LBA
Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 206, pl 37.2; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 272, 276, 287, fig 4.1, F.10
Ax, trunnion/lugged 14th-13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.7 cm 5 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 40, pl 4.40; Bittel, AA 1940-45, 44
Ax, shaft hole
Boğazköy, Hattusha - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.45 cm 4.6 cm Erkanal 1977, 15 entry 61, pl 5.61; Arik, Belleten 8, 1944, 342, pl 52.a,b
Adze, shaft hole Karum level of the unterstadt Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 31 pl XIX, 73/436-J/19, #3404
Awl Karum level of the unterstadt Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 24, pl XVI, #3189, 73/206-J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.9 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235 pl 70.33; Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, 405/o-Ust. J/21, #210
Chisel or drill Karum level of the unterstadt Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.5 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.30; Boehmer 1979, #2574, 73/260 - J/19
Drill? from the Karum level - Unterstadt Carpentry/masonry 4
Settlement 5.2 ce = 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 248 pl 76.23; Boehmer 1979, 32, pl XIX, 75/328-J/20; catalog #3405
Knife Karum level of the unterstadt Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2636, 77/511-K/20, 11 pl LXI
Knife Karum time, early MBA Utilitarian Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 82; Boehmer 1979, #2637 (is this the same or different from #2636?)
Mold for lead figurines
Boğazköy, Hattusha - LBA
Karum period workshop buildign Metallurgical room 8 level 4 Workshop 7.8 5.4 Boehmer 1972, 216 pl 84, 2215; Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.6; Bittel 1939, 25ff, fig 27;
Adze - Egyptian Temple 26 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary and workshop Neve 1996, 29 fig 70. Neve 1987, 383
Adze bit, single/flat Temple 6 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 3.1 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.25
Adze, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 134, pl XLII; #1223, 618/p-Ust. J/20 H/7a
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 26 pl XVII, 73/211-J/20, #3244
Awl Buyukkale 5 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #936, 663/t - Ust. L/18 d/9
Awl Buyukkale 4d Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #937, 819/t-Ust. L/18 b/6
Awl Buyukkale 4d Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #938, 337/h/1 - Ust. K/20
Awl Buyukkale 4d Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #939, Ust. J/20
Awl Buyukkale 4d Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #940, Ust. J/20
Awl Buyukkale 4d Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #941, 386/o
Awl Buyukkale 4d Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #942, Ust. J/20
Awl Buyukkale 4d Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #943, 846/t-Ust. L/18 b/6
Awl Buyukkale 4c Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #944, 218/m - BK.y/11
Awl Buyukkale 4c Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #945, 695/t-Ust.L/18 b/6
Awl Buyukkale 4c Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 115, pl XXXII; #946, 76/x-BK.bb-cc/21-22
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #947, Ust. J-K/20
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #948, Ust. J-K/20
ANATOLIA TOOLS
632

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #949, 403/o-Ust. J/21
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #950, 440/o-Ust. J/20
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #951, 44x-BK.z-aa/23-24
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #952, 103/a-BK.w/8
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #953, 53/x-BK.aa-bb/23
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #953A, 69/1236-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #954, 52/x-BK.aa-bb/23
Awl Buyukkale 4b or 4a Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #955, 770/w-BK
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #956, 2054/g-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #957, 267/h-Ust. K/20
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #958, 224/o-Ust. J/20
Awl Buyukkale 3 or 4b Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #958A, 69/1110 - Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #959, 463/o-BK.cc/10
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #960, 68/447-Ust
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #961 68/430-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #961A, 69/1238-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #961B, 69/1068-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #962, 68/349 -Ust
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #963, 68/188-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #964, 270/h/1-Ust. K/20
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #965, 148/1-Ust. I/20 K/2
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #966, 68/433-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #967, 68-427-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #968, 68/502-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #968A
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #968B, 69/1218-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #969, 396/o-Ust. I/19
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #970, 270/h/2 - Ust. K/20
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXII; #971, 608/w-BK.x/18
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXIII; #972, 245/a-BK.w/9
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXIII; #973, 118/o, Ust. J/20 h/1a
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 116, pl XXXIII; #974, 581/w-BK. bb/16-17
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #974A, 69/1064-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #974B, 69/1158/Ust
Awl Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #975, 252/z-Ust.;
Awl Buyukkale 2a Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #976, 68/150-Ust.
Awl Buyukkale 1 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #977, 330/n - BK. dd/19-20
Awl Buyukkale 1 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #978, 655/t-Ust. K/15
Awl Buyukkale 1 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #979, 347/i-BK.m-n/10
Awl Buyukkale 1 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #981, 1383/z - Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #982, 1377/v-BK. y/19
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #983, 255/k-Buyukkaya
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #984, 349/s-Ust. K/15
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #985, 62/035 -Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #986, 654/t-Ust. K/15
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #986A, 69/1175-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #987, Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #988, 68/149;
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #989, 376/s-Ust. K/15
ANATOLIA TOOLS
633

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #990, 88/o-Ust. I/20 g/1b
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #991, 68/442-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #992, 68/501-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #993, 243/o-Ust. J/20
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #994, 297/o-Ust. J/21
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #995, 140/1 - Buyukkaya
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #995A, 69, 1253, -Ust
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #996, 62/o34-Ust
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #997, 337/s-Ust. L/18f-g/6-7
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #998, 661/t-Ust. K/18
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #999-1000, 1358/v/b.c
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1001, 534/z - Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1002, 338/s- Ust. L/18 f-g/6-7
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1003, 68/384-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1003A, 69/1035 - ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1003B, 69/1120-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1003C, 69/1169-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1003D, 69/1127-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1003E, 69/1113-Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1004, 341/q-Ust. J/20 h/6
Awl Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XXXIII; #1005, 240/z- Ust.
Awl Small crafts Settlement Neve 1984, 371
Awl Unterstadt 3 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 24 pl XVI, #3191, 73/277-J/19
Awl Unterstadt 2 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 25 pl XVI, #3208, 76/385-J/20
Awl Unterstadt 2 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 25 pl XVI, 77/411-J/20, #3209A
Awl Unterstadt 2 Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 25 pl XVI, 77/412-J/20, #3209B
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Awl? Buyukkale 3 Small crafts Settlement 6.45 tang = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.36, Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 211/o -Ust. J/20 i/1b, chisel #239A
Ax, miniature lugged Level 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.7 ce = 1.85 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.7; Boehmer 1972, 38, pl 2.23, Deshayes 1050, MDOG 77, 1939, p. 18, fig 19.c
Ax, trunnion/lugged 14th or 13th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 cm ce = 5.2 Boehmer 1972, 38, 170/h-Ust.K/20, Deshayes 1094, Erkanal 1977, 5 entry 21, pl 2.21;
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14 cm 6 cm Erkanal 1977, 13 entry 54, pl 5.54; Bittel, Bogazkoy 21, pl 13.2
Ax, trunnion/lugged Unterstadt 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 2 pl I (76/361-J/20), catolog #2486
Ax, trunnion/lugged Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 2 pl I (76/264-J/20)
Ax, trunnion/lugged Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 2 pl I (77/199-K/20)
Ax, trunnion/lugged 13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.1 cm 6.1 cm Boehmer 1972, 1255, pl 44; Erkanal 6 entry 27 pl 3.27
Ax, shaft hole Shuppiluliuma on seal Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 36, pl II, catalog #17, pl 2.17, 477/d-BD.s/.15; MDOG 73,23, fig 12; Iraq 11, 1949, 144, pl 35, 22; Desha
Ax, shaft hole Büyükkaya, level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13 cm ce =5.4 cm Boehmer 1972, 36, pl 2.18; Erkanal 1977, 15 entry 62a, pl 6.62a, catalog #18, 254/k
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.15 edge = 5.4 Boehmer 1972, 36, nr. 19, catalog #19, 51/1; Erkanal 1977, 15, 62b, pl 6.62b
Ax, single/flat frag Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.3 cm 8.2 cm Boehmer 1972, 38, Erkanal 1977, 12 entry 49c, pl 4.49c; catalog #25, 171/h-Ust.K/20
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.4 cm 8.65 cm Boehmer 1972, 38, catalog #29, 62/069-Ust.H/21; Erkanal 1977, 12 entry 49a, pl 4.49a
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.2 Boehmer 1972, 38, pl II, catalog #23, 93/h-Ust.K/20; Deshayes 1050
ANATOLIA TOOLS
634

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 25.3 cm 11.2 cm Boehmer 1972, 38, catalog #28, fig 20b; Erkanal 1977, 4 entry 14, pl 2.14; Deshayes 1095
Ax, half oval, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement AA 2003, 11, fig 15
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1530; AA 1934, col. 350
Ax, shaft hole Hittite level; 14th-13th centuryCarpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1531; Bogazkoy Kleinfunde, p. 21, pl. 13, 32
Ax, shaft hole 1st half of the 14th century (date Carpentry/masonry may need to be revised) Settlement Deshayes 1520; Neue Unters, p. 28-29, pl. 10.1
Ax, single/flat Hittite level; 14th-12th centuryCarpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 656; Bogazkoy Hattusa, p. 99, fig 24; MDOG 77 (1939), p. 18, fig 18e
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.4 3.9 Erkanal 1977, 5 entry 16 pl 2.16; S. Przeworski, Archiv Orient, 7,1935,409 (7) abb.1, a
Ax, trunnion/lugged Templ 7 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1996, 37 pl 92a; Bo 82/138
Blade, flanged Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1072; Siatowit XIII (193 (1929), p. 58, fig 20; Archiv Orientalni, VII (1935), p. 409, fig 1,a
Chisel-like bit Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.1 1.3 Müller-Karpe 1994 pg. 225, pl 63.9
Chisel Buyukkale 4d Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.4 ce = 0.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242 pl 72.45; Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, #209, 539/o - Ust.J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.6 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.10
Chisel Outside Temple VI Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.71 1.42 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.17
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.4 ce = 0.42 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236, pl 70.43; Etutluk 1957
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.8 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.28
Chisel Level 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.3 ce = 0.27 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238-9, pl 71.43; Etutluk 1957
Chisel temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 10.05 ce = 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239, pl 71.45
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.85 ce = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 72.26; Eututluk 1959
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.85 0.85 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.42
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 1.6 1.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 72.47
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.7 ce = 1.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.11
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.85 ce = 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234, pl 70.15; Boehmer 1979, #2576 (73/412 - J/19)
Chisel Unterstadt 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.1 ce = 0.12 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234, pl 70.14; Boehmer 1979, #2578
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.3 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.33; Boehmer 1979, #2580, 75/561 -I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.2 ce = 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234, pl 70.11; Boehmer 1979, #2582A, 77/87 - K20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.75 ce = 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243, pl 73.29; Boehmer 1979, #2583, 73/357 - J/19
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.71 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 82, 234, pl 70.13; Boehmer 1979, #2584, 76/395 - J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.65 ce =0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.24; Boehmer 1979, #2587A, 77/413 - J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.35 ce = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235 pl 70.28, Boehmer 1979, #2587B, 77/430-J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2; Carpentry/masonry Workshop, House 19 3.2 ce = 0.65 Müller-Karpe 1994, 343, pl 73.26; Boehmer 1979, #2588, 75/300-I/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.5 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.41; Boehmer 1979, #2589, 73/236 - J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.05 ce = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237, pl 71.14; Boehmer 1979, #2590, 73/233 -J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.3 ce = 0.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.9; Boehmer 1979, 2591, 76/149 - J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.42 ce = 0.21 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234 pl 70.17; Boehmer 1979, #2591A, 77/373-K/20
Chisel Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.1 ce =0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235 pl 70.37; Boehmer 1979, #2593C, 77/296-K/20
Chisel Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.6 ce =0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.16; Boehmer 1979, #2593D, 77/115-K/20
Chisel Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.75 ce =0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.26, Boehmer 1979, #2593E, 77/114
Chisel Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.1 ce= 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 72.17; Boehmer 1979, #2593F, 77/151 - K/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.95 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242 pl 73.12; Boehmer 1979, #2595, 75/311-I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.9 ce = 0.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.15; Boehmer 1979, #2605, 73/71-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.24, Boehmer 1979, #2606, 73/90-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.85 ce= 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 72.16; Boehmer 1979, #2610, 73/267-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.38 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.14; Boehmer 1979, #2613, 75/57-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 ce = 0.28 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.8; Boehmer 1979, #2614, 75/102 - J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.9 ce = 0.38 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.17; Boehmer 1979, #2615, 75/159-I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.95 ce =0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237, pl 71.19; Boehmer 1979, #2618, 75/316-I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.2 ce = 0.31 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.35; Boehmer 1979, #2619, 75/359-J/19
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.45 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 248 pl 76.18; Boehmer 1979, #2620, 75/466-I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.15 ce = 0.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.12; Boehmer 1979, #2622, 76/144-J/21
ANATOLIA TOOLS
635

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.2 ce = 0.22 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.22; Boehmer 1979, #2623, 76/328-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.4 ce = 0.32 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234 pl 70.18; Boehmer 1979, #2628, 75/396 - I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.6 ce = 0.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.22; Boehmer 1979, #2630, 71/82-J/19
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.35 ce = 0.31 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.19; Boehmer 1979, #2633, 75/504-I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.15 ce= 0.95 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.11; Boehmer 1979, #2634, 73/304-J/19
Chisel Unterstadt level III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.8 ce = 0.35 Boehmer 1979, 32, pl 19; Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 72.48, bo 73/318, #3407A
Chisel, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.5 1.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 225, pl 63.6; Boehmer 1979, 34, pl XX, #3447, 75/285-J/19
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 9.2 tip = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 71.12; Boehmer 1979, #2596, 70/78-J/19
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 5.1 tip = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 70.42; Boehmer 1979, #2597, 70/79-J/19
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.1 tip = 0.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.13; Boehmer 1979 #2600, 71/103-J/20
Chisel, small, awl-like Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6 ce = 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.3; Boehmer 1979, #2601, 71/202 -J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 0.48 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.21; Boehmer 1979, #2602, 71/227-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.2 ce = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231 pl 67.5; Boehmer 1979, #2604, 71/375-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement, slope house 5.5 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.34; Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, 660/t-Ust. L/18 c/9; #211
Chisel Buyukkale 4c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.85 ce=0.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 244 pl 73.31; Boehmer 1972, 76, pl XIII, 215/m-BK.x/12, chisel#213
Chisel Buyukkale 4c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.2 tip = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 71.48, Boehmer 1972, 76, pl XIII; 656/t-Ust. L/18 b/6; chisel #214
Chisel Unterstadt, 2c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.15 tip = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237, pl 71.13; Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, 479/1-Ust.J/20, chisel #215
Chisel Buyukkale 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.4 ce = 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241 pl 72.40; Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, 662/t-Ust. L/18 b/6, chisel #220
Chisel Buyukkale 4b, Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.1 ce = 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 71.7; Boehmer 1972, 76, pl XIII, 782/w-BK, chisel#223
Chisel Buyukkale 4a and 4 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.1 ce = 1.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241 pl 72.43; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 146 m- BK. y/11, chisel #226
Chisel Buyukkale 4a and 4 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 ce = 0.55 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 71.10; Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, 150/m - BK. x/11, chisel #227
Chisel Buyukkale level III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.48 ce = 0.49 Müller-Karpe 1994, 228 pl 65.3; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 794/w-BK, chisel #234
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994; Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, 101/h - Ust. K/20, chisel #235
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.2 ce = 0.31 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 70.38; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 144/1-Ust. K/20 a/2, chisel #236
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 ce = 0.62 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.20; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 207/i-BK.t/8, chisel #237
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.6 ce = 0.26 Müller-Karpe 1994, 248 pl 76.19; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 345/q-Ust. J/20 H/4, chisel #238
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.6 ce =0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 227/o-Ust J/20, chisel #241
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.3 ce = 0.21 Müller-Karpe 1994, 244 pl 73.35; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 195/3-BK.u/9; #242
Chisel Buyukkale 3 or unterstadt level Carpentry/masonry 1
Settlement 10.1 ce = 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 71.9; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 100/h-Ust. K/20, chisel #243
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.4 ce = 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.11; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 69/1044 - Ust., #244A
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 6.1 ce = 1.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 67.26; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 68/356-Ust., #244B
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 5.3 1.05 Müller-Karpe 1994, 226 pl 63.14; Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XLI, 68/492-Ust., #1202
Chisel-like, small Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 5.2 1.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 225 pl 63.10; Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XLI, 69/1142-Ust. #1205A
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.3 ce = 0.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.23; Bittel 1937, 20, pl 13
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.7 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.24; Bittel 1937, 20, pl 13.9
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.5 ce = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 72.15; Boehmer 1979, 71/293-J/20, #2579
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979,#2581, 75/19-J/20
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979,#2585, 76/405-J/20; Müller-Karpe 1994, 82
Chisel Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2592, 73/279-J/20; pl XLI
Chisel Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2593A, 77/88-K/20
Chisel Buyukkale 2a Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2594, 70/97-J/19
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2607, 73/98-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2608, 73/122-J/19-20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2616, 75/171-J/10
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2617, 75-287-I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2621, 76/32-J/20, II/3
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2624, 75/546 - J/19-20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.3 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237, pl 71.21; Boehmer 1979, #2624A, 75/55-K/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2625, 71/86-J/19
ANATOLIA TOOLS
636

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2626, 71/133-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2627, 71/297-J/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2629, 71/80-I/19
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2631, 73/46-J/19
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2632, 75/109-I/20
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2635, 70/161-J/19
Chisel Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 32 pl XX, #3418, 76/335-J/20
Chisel, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 34 pl XX, 70/129-J/19, #3446
Chisel, small Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 34 pl XX, #3448, 73/10-J/20
Chisel, iron Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 35, pl XXII, #3473, 73/15-K/20
Chisel, iron Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 35 pl XXI, #3474, 76/220-J/20
Chisel Buyukkale 4d Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 76, pl XIII, #212, 431/v-BK.y/16
Chisel Buyukkale 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 76, pl XIII, #219, 208/a - BK. w/8
Chisel Buyukkale 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, 272/h/2-Ust. K/20
Chisel Buyukkale 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.25 ce = 0.32 Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII; Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.17, #222, 147/1-Ust.K/20 b2
Chisel Buyukkale 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.35 ce = 1.1 Boehmer 1972, 76, pl XIII, #224, 40/a-BK.u/7; Müller-Karpe 1994, 245 pl 74.13
Chisel Buyukkale 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.6 ce = 0.5 Boehmer 1972, 76, pl XIII, #225, 24/a-BK.t/7; Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.15
Chisel Buyukkale 4a and 4 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.05 ce = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.36, Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, #228, 788/w-BK
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.55 ce = 0.85 Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, #229, 259a-BK.v/7; Müller-Karpe 1994 242, pl 72.46
Chisel Unterstadt level 1 or 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.5 ce = 1.05 Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, #230, 230/o-Ust. J/20; Müller-Karpe 1994, 228, pl 65.1
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, #232, 200/a - BK.w/9
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.2 ce = 0.5 Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, #233, 207/a-BK.w/9, Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.27
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, #236A, 68/468-Ust.,
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, #239, 657/t-Ust. K/15
Chisel Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, #244, 932f/-BK. p. 16,
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 3.1 ce = 0.35 Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, #247A, 69/1008-Ust; Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.31
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 5.5 1.3 Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV; #248, 621/z-Ust., Müller-Karpe 1994, 243, pl 73.14
Chisel Hittite Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.7 ce = 0.5 Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, #249, 247/s-Ust. K/15; Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.18;
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.1 ce = 0.49 Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, #250, 171/k-Buyukkaya; Müller-Karpe 1994, 236 pl 71.4
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, #250A, 68/453-Ust.
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 8.3 ce = 0.25 Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV, #251, 154/m-BK. /12, Müller-Karpe 1994, 234, pl 70.7
Chisel Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 4 ce = 0.4 Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV; #251A, 68/325, Müller-Karpe 1994, 238, pl 71.29
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 ce = 0.5 Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV; #251B, 1358/v/a-BK; Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 71.12?
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 77, pl XIV; #251C, 68/382 -Ust.
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 78, pl XIV; #252, 138/1
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 ce = 0.75 Boehmer 1972, 78, pl XIV; #253, 1098/v-Buyukkale; Müller-Karpe 1994, 243, pl 73.21
Chisel, socketed Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.9 tip = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.9 Boehmer 1979, #2592A, 77/534-K/20
Chisel, socketed Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.5 ce = 0.56 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 75.8; Boehmer 1979, #2593, 73/461-J/20
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.45 tip = 0.65; Müller-Karpe 1994, 245 pl 75.7, Boehmer 1979, #2636, 71/369-J/19
Chisel, socketed Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20 cm tip w=1.45 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 245 pl 74.11; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 97/o-Ust. I/2o i/1a, #245
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.4 ce = 0.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.18; Bittel 1937, 20 pl 13.10
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.4 ce = 1.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246 pl 75.25; Przeworski 1939, 43, 193, pl 11.6
Chisel, socketed, iron Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 35, pl XXII; #3475, 70/89-J/19
Chisel-like, small tool Buyukkale 4b Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XLI; #1199, Ust. J/20 K/7d
Chisel-like, small tool Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XLI; #1204, 268/z-Ust
Chisel, cold Hittite level; 14th-13th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1003; Bogazkoy, Kleinfunde, p. 20, pl. XIII, 10
Chisel Hittite level; 14th-13th centuryCarpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 911; Bogazkoy, Kleinfunde, p. 20, pl. 13.8
Chisel, tripled sided Temple 26 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1996, 29 pl 69
Chisel bit Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.9 ce= 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238, pl 71.32
ANATOLIA TOOLS
637

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel bit Yerkapi Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.75 ce= 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 72.22
Chisel bit Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.6 ce = 0.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243, pl 73.23; Boehmer 1979, #2578A
Chisel bit Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 tip= 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.30; Boehmer 1979, #2593B, 77/109-K/20
Chisel bit Unterstadt 1k Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.1 ce = 0.95 Müller-Karpe 1994, 226, pl 63.13; Boehmer 1979, 32, pl XX, catalog #3415, 73/145-J/20
Chisel or awl Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.1 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 82, 238 pl 71.40; Boehmer 1979, #2587, 76/413-J/20
Chisel or Ax Level 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.45 1 Müller-Karpe 1994, pg 225, pl 63.5; Boehmer 1979, 41, #3415AA, , 225, pl 63.4; 77/474
Chisel-like, small Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.85 1.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 225 pl 63.4; Boehmer 1972, 133 pl XLI, Buyukkale 3; #1203, 68/492 or 484 - Ust
Chisel or Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 34 pl XX, #3456, 73/283-J/20
Chisel or drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.5 ce = 0.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239, pl 71.46
Chisel or drill Unterstadt 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.1 ce =0.45 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.39; Boehmer 1979, #2577, 73/216 -J/19
Chisel or drill Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.8 ce = 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 71.44; Boehmer 1979, #2586, 76/408 - J/20
Chisel or drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.75 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241 pl 72.29; Boehmer 1979, #2612, 73/478-I/20
Chisel or drill Buyukkale 4b or c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 ce =0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.5; Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, 219/m-BK. x/12, chisel #216
Chisel or drill Buyukkale 3 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.09 ce = 0.24 Müller-Karpe 1994, 238 pl 71.42; Boehmer 1972, 77 pl XIV, 194/g-BK.n/13, chisel #240
Chisel or drill Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.9 ce = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246 pl 76.1; Boehmer 1979, #2593J or H, 77/528-K/20
Chisel tip? Small crafts Settlement 3.1 ce = 0.15 ?
Chisel or engraver Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.5 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 72.8
Chisel-like implement Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 5.1 1.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 226, pl 63.12; Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XLI, 1369/x-Ust; #1205
Chisel-like implement Temple 6 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 8.15 ce = 0.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.28
Chisel-like implement Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.15 1.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 226, pl 63.11; Boehmer 1972, 117, pl XLI, 123/o-Ust. J/20 k7d, #1200
Chisel-like implement Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 5.8 ce = 1.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 225, pl 63.7, Boehmer 1972, 133 pl XLI, 68/498-Ust., #1201
Cutting implement Hittite level; 14th or 13th century Utilitarian BC
Settlement Deshayes 2956; Bogazkoy, Kleinfunde, p. 20, pl. XIII.3
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement, house 1 3.5 cm ce =0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247, pl 76.7
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.97 ce = 0.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247, pl 76.9
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.1 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.11
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.1 ce = 0.28 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.14; Etutulk 1959
Drill Unterstadt 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.35 tip = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 76.2; Boehmer 1979, #2582, 76/147 - J/20
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.4 tip = 0.24 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.16; Boehmer 1979, 3, pl XX, #3440, 75/509
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.9 tip = 0.3; Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.10; Boehmer 1979, #2603, 71/228-J/20
Drill Buyukkale 4b or c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.45 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.27; Boehmer 1972, 76 pl XIII, 112/1-Ust. K/20, chisel #217
Drill bit Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.9 drill tip = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.4; Boehmer 1979, #2610A, 73/358 - I/20
Drill bit Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.65 drill tip = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.6; Boehmer 1979, #2611, 73/409-J/20
Drill or engraver Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.1 tip = 0.15; Müller-Karpe 1994, 238, pl 71.37, Boehmer 1979, #2593G, 77/144-K/20
Drill or stylus Temple 6 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 8.6 ce =0.1-0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 248, pl 76.22
Drill bit? also chisel-like Temple 1 Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 4.05 ce =0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 247 pl 76.15; Boehmer 1979, #2598, 70/131-J/19
Hammer Metallurgical? Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 226, pl 63.19
Hammer-like tool Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 226, pl 63.17; Boehmer 1979, 34, pl 21, #3449
Hammer point Metallurgical Settlement Boehmer 1979, 41, pl XLII, #3465A, 75-265-I/20
Hoe, socketed Temple 5, level 2 Agricultural Cultic site or sanctuary On display in the Boğazkale Museum (Bo 8-551)
Hoe, socketed Temple 5, level 2 Agricultural Cultic site or sanctuary On display in the Boğazkale Museum (Bo 86/94)
Hollow cylinder, drill? Carpentry/masonry? Settlement Boehmer 1979, 3 pl 2 catolog #2500, 70/80-J/19
Hollow cylinder, drill? Carpentry/masonry? Settlement Boehmer 1979, 3 pl 2, 73/18-J/20, catalog 2501
Hollow cylinder, drill? Carpentry/masonry Settlement Boehmer 1979, 3 pl 2, 73/244-J/20; catalog #2502
Implement, uncertain Small crafts Settlement 6.6 0.25-0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237, pl 71.23, Boehmer 1979, #2609, 73/262-J/19-20;
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XX 75/271-J/19, #3425
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XX
Implement Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 75, pl XIII, #206, 856/F-BK.Q-r/16
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
ANATOLIA TOOLS
638

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Temple VII Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
ANATOLIA TOOLS
639

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 9 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 10 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 10 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 10 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 10 Neve 1984, 371
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 12 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 12 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 12 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 12 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 12 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 15 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 18 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 19 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 19 Neve 1984, 372
Implement, small Small crafts Settlement, house 19 Neve 1984, 372
Implement or stylus Temple VI Small crafts Cultic site or sanctuary Neve 1984, 370
Stone cutting tool? Carpentry/masonry? Settlement, house 19 Neve 1986, 381; Zeit O. St. 3-4
Knife Unterstadt 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2638, p. 11, pl VIII, 73/281-J/19
Knife Unterstadt 2 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2638A; Boehmer 1979, 11, pl VIII, 77/33-J/20
Knife Unterstadt 2 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2639, 11 pl VIII; 73/167-J/19,
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2644, 73/276-J/19-20; 11 pl VIII
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2649, 76/121-J/20, 11 pl IX
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, #2651A, 77/297-K/20, 11 pl IX
Knife, iron Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, 35 pl XXII, #3476, 73/388-I/19
Knife Buyukkale 4d Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 78, pl XV; #254, 432/v-BK.z/16
Knife Buyukkale 4d Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 78, pl XV; #255, 347/h/d- US.t.K/20
Knife Buyukkale 4d Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 78, pl XV; #256, 348/h-Ust. K/20
Knife Buyukkale 4d Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 78, pl XV; #256A, 69/1243-Ust.
Knife Buyukkale 4c Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV, #257, 62/048-Ust. L/18 a/5
Knife Buyukkale 4c or b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #258, 645/t-Ust. L/17 c/1
Knife Buyukkale 4b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #259, 502/o-Ust. J/20
Knife Buyukkale 4b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #260, 289/d-BK.w/17
Knife Buyukkale 4b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #261, 92/a-BK.w/8
Knife Buyukkale 4b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #262, 136/o-Ust. J/10 K/1a
Knife Buyukkale 4b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #263, 24/x-BK.bb/22
Knife Buyukkale 4b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #264, 238/o-Ust. J/20 i/1b
ANATOLIA TOOLS
640

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife Buyukkale 4b Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XV; #265, 1606/c-BK.1/14
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #266, 95/o-Ust. I/20 g/1 a to g/1b
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #267, 68/339-Ust.
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #267A, 99/h-Ust. K/20
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #268, 1350/z-Ust
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #269, 834/b-BK
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #270, 272/e-Ost
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #271, 92/h-Ust. K/20
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #272, 644/t - Ust. K/15
Knife Buyukkale 3 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #272A, 143/o - Ust. J/20 i/1b
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #273, 241/k - Buyukkaya
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #273A, 68/728-Ust.
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #274, 214K-Buyukkaya
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #275, 1096/v- Buyukkaya
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1972, 79, pl XVI; #275A, 69/1246- Ust.
Knife Templ 26 Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary and workshop Neve 1986, 383
Knife Utilitarian Settlement AA 2006, 173, from quadrant building 2, excavation #293/306.425
Knife 13th century Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2643 bis; MDOG 89 (june 1957), p. 17, fig. 13
Knife 14th-13th century; Hittite levelUtilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2626; MDOG 77 (1939) p. 18, fig. 18b; Boagzkoy-Hattusha 99, fig 24
Knife 1450-1300 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2580 bis; MDOG 89, June 1957, p. 17 fig 10
Knife 14th-13th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2535; Neue Unters, p. 31, pl. 10.4
Knife Temple 20 Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary On display in Boğazkale Museum (Bo 84/544)
Knife Temple 7 Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary On display in Boğazkale Museum (Bo 82/141)
Knife or blade Unterstadt 1 Utilitarian Settlement Boehmer 1979, 32 pl XX, 70/175-J/19, #3419
Knife or sickle Utilitarian or agricultural Settlement AA 2003, 9, fig 12...
Knife or sword Utilitarian Settlement AA 2004, 65, fig 11
Mold for tools? Metallurgical Settlement AA 1998, pages 220-221
Mold Oberstadt, level 2 Metallurgical Settlement On display in Boğazkale Museum (Bo 84/115)
Mold for multiple tools Oberstadt, level 2 Metallurgical Settlement On display in Boğazkale Museum (Bo 86/667)
Mold for chisel or Ax ? Metallurgical Settlement 8.2 3.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 201 pl 24.3; Boehmer 1972, 218 pl 87, 2227
Mold, four sided Level Vc Metallurgical Settlement 8.5 7 Boehmer 1972, 217 pl 85, 2214; Müller-Karpe 1994, 202 pl 25.5
Mold, double sided Level III Metallurgical Settlement 11.7 4.3 Boehmer 1972, 217 pl 85, 2217; Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 39.5
Mold for shaft hole Ax surface find but area is primarily Metallurgical LBA
Settlement 8 3.3 Boehmer 1972, 217 pl 86, 2223; Müller-Karpe 1994, 209 pl 44.3
Mold for ring objects Metallurgical Settlement 4.9 4.15 Boehmer 1972, 218 pl 87, 2230; Müller-Karpe 1994, 215 pl 54.1
Mold, double sided Metallurgical Settlement 9.3 7.7 Boehmer 1972, 218 pl 87, 2229; Müller-Karpe 1994, 218 pl 56.4
Mold for round ornament Level I Metallurgical Settlement 4 3.3 Boehmer 1972, 217 pl 86, 2221; Müller-Karpe 1994, 216 pl 54.3
Mold Level I of the unterstadt, temple Metallurgical 1?
Cultic site or sanctuary Boehmer 1972, 217 pl 87, 2226; Müller-Karpe 1994, 206 pl 38.2
Punch Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 32 pl XIX, 73/437-I/20, #3406
Punch Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XX, 70/188-J/19, #3441
Punch Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XX, 71/46 - J/19, #3442
Punch Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XX, 73/475-J/20, #3443
Punch Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XX, 75/369-J/19, #3444
Punch Small crafts Settlement Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XX, 71/55 - J/19, #3445
Saw with teeth Unterstadt 1 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 68.5 cm 12.4 cm Boehmer 1979, 33 pl XLII, 77/146-K/20, #3420D; Neve 1989
Sickle Temple 7 Agricultural Cultic site or sanctuary On display in Boğazkale Museum (Bo 82/139)
Small implement Small crafts Settlement 3.9 tip = 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 237 pl 71.18; Boehmer 1979, #2599, 71/10-J/19
Peg? Small tool? Small crafts Settlement 3.9 cm peg = 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 225 pl 3.15; Boehmer 1979, 34, pl 21, 3450
Boğazköy, Hattusha - 2nd millennium
Ax, trunnion/lugged Found in a Phrygian level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.85 cm 7 cm Boehmer 1972, 38, pl II, 25/a-BK.t/7, catalog #26; Deshayes 1106; Erkanal 1977, 4 entry 15, pl 2.15
ANATOLIA TOOLS
641

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Mold for tools Metallurgical Settlement 16.3 8.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 17.4; Boehmer 1972, 217 pl 87, 2224
Mold for trunnion Ax Metallurgical Settlement 12.1 9.6 Boehmer 1972, 217, pl 86, 2222; Müller-Karpe 1994, 204, pl 32.1
Mold for multiple tools Metallurgical Settlement, slope house 24 16 Boehmer 1972, 217 pl 87, 2225; Müller-Karpe 1994, 204 pl 32.2
Mold, double sided Unknown; no level details Metallurgical Settlement 6.4 6.3 Boehmer 1972, 218 pl 87, 2228; Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 39.4
Mold for round ring Settlement find; no context Metallurgical Settlement 8.6 8.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 212, pl 50.6; Bittel 1937, 23 pl 14.11
Mold round ornament Metallurgical Settlement 3.15 2.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 216 pl 54.4
Mold for ornament Metallurgical Settlement 8.4 5.3 Boehmer 1979, 62 pl 38, 3849; Müller-Karpe 1994, 216, pl 55.1
Mold Metallurgical Settlement 4.3 3.8 Boehmer 1972, 218 pl 87, 2230 A; Müller-Karpe 1994, 220 pl 58.3
Bolu - 2nd millennium
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20.6 cm 6 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 49 pl 4.49; Bittel AA 1934, 354, fig 4; Deshayes 1051; pl XIII.4
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.38 ce = 3.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 229 pl 65.21
Calicakoyu - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 9.2 cm ce = 0.7 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 68.6 and 96e
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Burial 4.8 cm ce = 4.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, pl 96e
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.5 ce = 5.55 Müller-Karpe 1994, pl 96e
Çerkeş - 2nd millennium
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.4 cm 8.8 cm Erkanal 1977 13 entry 55 pl 5.55; Bittel AA 1934, 351, fig 1; Deshayes 1529, pl XXII.11
Çorum area - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.2 cm ce = 1 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 68.8
Dündartepe (Samsun) - MBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged 2nd millennium BC; level III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.7 cm 3.3 cm Deshayes 1048; Belleten IX (1945), p. 380, pl. LXXI, 1: Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 48, pl 71.1
Ax, shaft hole Level IIb; roughly 2000 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1592, pl XXV.8; TTK 1943, p. 401, pl. I, 1
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.9 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.13; Bilgi 2001, 68, pl 89; Kokten 1945, 38, pl 71.2
Blade with tang Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, 68, pl 90
Emet - 2nd millennium
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 9.8 ce = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 75.1 and pl 95
Emirdağ - LBA
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18.7 cm ce = 2.8 Erkanal 1977, 21 entry 68 pl 6.68, Bittel 1967, 418ff, fig 2
Fıraktin - LBA
Ax, shaft hole Hittite; 14th-13th c Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 ce = 4 Erkanal 1977, 12 entry 51, pl 5.51; Özgüç, Belleten 19, 1955, 303, fig. 22
Ax-hammer, small Hittite; 14th-13th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.7 ce = 1.7 Erkanal 1977, 12 entry 50, pl 5.50; Deshayes 1532 pl XXIV.5; Özgüç, Belleten 12, 1948, 265, pl 55.12
Gavur Kalesi - LBA
Mold for Axs Hittite? Metallurgical Settlement 10 8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 205 pl 34.5; Von der Osten 1933, 89 fig 88
Harmancik Koyu/ Gedik Saray - LBA
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 23.4 ce = 1.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 229 pl 65.22; Özgüç 1978, pl 69.3
Hassek Hoyuk - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.8 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 233, pl 68.11; Behm-Blancke 1981
Ikiztepe - MBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, 68, pl 95a.2
Mold Early Hittite period Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown 5.6 3.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 205 pl 36.3
Razor Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, 68, pl 91
Sickle Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, 67, pl 88a
Sickle Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, 67, pl 88b
Inadiktepe - LBA
Chisel, socketed Old Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 6.8 1.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245 pl 74.12; Özgüç 1988, 45.5; 113, 5 pl 65.11
Iskender Koyu - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.2 ce = 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 232-3, pl 68.9
İskilip - 2nd millennium
Awl w chisel-like tang Small crafts Burial? 11.2 cm 0.3 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 234-5, pl 70.20
ANATOLIA TOOLS
642

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl? Small crafts Burial? 14.2 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.21
Chisel, small Carpentry/masonry Burial? 9.1 cm ce = 0.5 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 248, pl 76.21;
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 8.95 cm ce = 3.05 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 229, pl 65.23
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial? 7.5 cm 0.4 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.12
Double hammer, shafted Metallurgical Burial? 14.7 cm 2.7 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 227, pl 64.2
Izmir area - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 10.85 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 68.5
Iznik region (Bursa) - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 6.9 ce = 2.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 229 pl 65.24
Kahramanmarash area - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14 0.85 Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 68.2
Karagactepe - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Branigan 1974, 168, entry 684; Troja 292, fig 136
Karahöyük - MBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.4 cm 4.8 cm Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 9, pl 1.9; Alp, Karahoyuk 108 f, fig 249, 758
Knife Hittite level; 1900-1600 BC Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2407; Karahoyuk p. 94, pl. XXXVI, 11
Blade, flanged Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 1098; Mission en Cappacoe 1893-1894, p. 79, fig 59
Karaoğlan - LBA
Awl? Hittite level 1; 900-1200 BC Small crafts Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 166; Belleten III (1939), p. 58, pl. LI, #302
Kayseri - MBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged MB? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17.8 cm 6 cm Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 6, pl 1.6; Deshayes 1096 and 1097; Archive Orient VII (1935), p. 409, pl. XLIX, a
Ax, trunnion/lugged MB? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.3 cm 9.9 cm Erkanal 1977, 4 entry 12, pl 2.12; Archiv Orient 7, 1935, 409, 2a, pl 49b; Deshayes 1096
Ax, trunnion/lugged MB? Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 18 cm 7.2 cm Erkanal 1977, 4 entry 13, pl 2.13, Archive Orient 7, 1935, 409, 2a, pl 49c
Kayseri - 2nd millennium
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.7 cm 6.1 cm Erkanal 1977, 13 entry 53; Deshayes 1526, Maxwell-Hyslop 1949, p. 114, p. XXXV, 22;
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.5 cm 4.5 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 46, pl 4.46; Archive Orient 7, 1935, 409 (2), pl 49d
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.5 ce = 4.56 Deshayes 528; pl VII.6; ESA X (1936), p. 82, fig. 8; Metals in Antiquity 1950, pl X.5
Kinet Höyük - MBA
Mold for tools MB II (Kinet level V) Metallurgical Settlement Greaves and Helwing 2001, 490.
Kizilkent Koyu/Kilis - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8.1 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235 pl 70.30
Konuralp (Uskub) - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.9 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 233 pl 70.1
Konya region - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.68 ce = 1.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 233 pl 69.8
Korucutepe - LBA
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.3 ce = 1.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 230, pl 66.8; Ertem 1988, 30, #82, inv. #Krct 72/23
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.2 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234, pl 70.6
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.2 ce = 0.72 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.25; Ertem 1988, 31 #83
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.4 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.26; Van Loon 1980, 144, pl 44F
Chisel bit Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.4 1.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 225, pl 63.3; Ertem 1988, 30, #81
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.4 ce = 0.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.11; Van Loon 1980, 144, pl 44, H, 48G
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.9 ce = 0.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.17; Ertem 1988, 31, #84
Hammer-like tool Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 225, pl 63.1; Ertem 1988, 30, #80
Mold LBI; phase I Metallurgical Settlement 4 6.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 89 pl 22.3; Van Loon 1980, 136 pl 43b
Mold for Ax LBI; Phase I Metallurgical Settlement 6 6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 89, 204 pl 34.3; Van Loon 1980, 136 pl 43, A; 47, E
Mold for S-object LBII; 14th-13th Century; phase JMetallurgical Settlement 22.5 14.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 89 pl 49.2; Van Loon 1980, 140 pl 47, O
Kucuk Kalecik Koyu - 2nd millennium
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8.2 ce = 1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 75.3
ANATOLIA TOOLS
643

Sites & Object types
Kültepe - MBA
Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl 17th century BC; level Ia Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 159; Kultepe 1948, p. 200, pl. LXIII, number 374 and 390
Ax, trunnion/lugged Karum Kanesh Ib, 18th centuryCarpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 blade = 2.6 Deshayes 1088; Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 1, pl 11
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.8 cm 8 cm Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 3, pl 1.3; Deshayes 1089; S. Przeworski 1935, p. 409, fig 1, b
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14 cm 5.3 cm Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 2, pl 1.2; Deshayes 1090; Kultepe 1949, p. 195, n. 277, pl. LIV, 512
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 4 Erkanal 1977, 5 entry 17, pl 2.17; Chantre, Cappadoce 79, fig 58
Ax, trunnion/lugged Karum Kanesh IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.3 2.4 Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 39, pl 3.39
Ax, shaft hole Karum Kanesh II Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.3 cm 3.2 cm Erkanal 1977, 18 entry 64, pl 6.64; otherwise unpublished...
Ax, shaft hole 1800 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1574, AfO, XVI (1952-53), p. 150, fig. 15
Ax, shaft hole Karum Kanesh Ib, start of 2nd Carpentry/masonry millennium
Burial 13.8 cm 6 Deshayes 1513; Erkanal 1977, 15, entry 59, pl 5.59; Belleten XIX (1955), p. 69, fig 40, a, b; 42
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1418; AA 1940, col. 580, fig 12; Met. Anat. P. 34, pl. X,1
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.5 cm ce = 7.8 ERkanal 1977, 18 entry 65, pl 6.65; Przeworski Metallindustrie 120 pl 10.1; could this be the same object as Deshayes
Ax, single/flat 18th century BC; level Ib Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 501; Belleten XIX (1955), p. 78, fig 4,a and 17
Ax, shaft hole, fenestrated Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 cm 10.2 cm Erkanal 1977, 22 entry 69 pl 6.69; Özgüç, Kultepe-Kanish 109ff, fig 64, pl 49.1
Ax, shaft hole frag Karum Kanish level II Carpentry/masonry Workshop Müller-Karpe 1994, 52; Özgüc 1986, 48
Ax, trunnion/lugged MB? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.5 cm 8.8 cm Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 32 pl 3.32; Cantre, Cappadoce 79, fig 59
Blade, flanged 18th century BC; level Ib Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1087; Kultepe 1949, p. 195, pl. LVI, 572
Chisel Kultepe, Karum IB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6 ce = 1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 228, pl 65.4; Özgüç 1953, 195ff, pl 56, Ktb/k/559/35
Chisel 18th century BC; level Ib Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 976; Kultepe 1949, p. 195, pl. LVI, 557
Chisel, socketed MB? Carpentry/masonry Burial? 4.6 ce = 1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245 pl 75.5; Özgüç and Özgüç 1953, 68, 195, pl 56, Ktb/K 547 (296), Esin 1969, 138, 170, #6801, typ
Double Ax level II; 19th century; Karum Kanish Carpentry/masonry level II
Burial 16.9 ce = 1.8 and 1.85 Deshayes 2081; Erkanal 1977, 21, entry 66 pl 6.66; Belleten XIX (1955), p. 70, fig 41, a.b., 43
Knife 18th century; level IB Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2421; Kultepe 1949, p. 195, pl. LVI, fig. 553 and 554
Mold for Ax, chisel 18th century BC; Karum Kanesh Metallurgical Ib
Workshop 27.5 14.7 Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 4, pl 1.4; Deshayes 1086, Özgüç 2003, 246, fig 258; Müller-Karpe 1994, 203 pl 31.1
Mold for lugged Axs Karum Kanesh IB Metallurgical Workshop, 1 8.2 9.6 Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 5, pl 1.5; Müller-Karpe 1994, 204 pl 33.2
Mold Karum level Ib Metallurgical Workshop Özgüç 2003 249, fig 266
Mold Karum level IB Metallurgical Settlement 9 6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 16.5; Özgüç 1986, 45 pl 92.3
Mold for round ingot Karum Level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 9.9 3.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 199 pl 20.4; Özgüç 1986,41 pl 86.3
Mold for round ingot Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 8.9 8.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 200 pl 20.6
Mold for bars, blade Karum level IB Metallurgical Settlement 10.5 7.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 200, pl 21.2; Özgüç 1986, 45 pl 91, 7a.b.
Mold for long chisel Karum level IB Metallurgical Settlement 29 17.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 201 pl 25.2; Özgüç 1986 45 pl 91.3
Mold, multi-sided Karum level Ib Metallurgical Workshop, 1 11.4 9.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 203-204, pl 31.3; Özgüç 1955, fig 6 a,c; 1986, 39 pl 80, 3.8
Mold for multiple objects Karum level II Metallurgical Settlement 7.7 4.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 203 pl 31.2; Özgüç 1986, 38 pl 79.10
Mold for rasp/ file MBA? Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 205 pl 35.1; Özgüç 1986 44 pl 90.6
Mold for rasp/ file Metallurgical Settlement 16.5 5.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 205 pl 35.2; Özgüç 1986, 45 pl 91, 1a.b
Mold for rasp/ file MBA; Karum level II Metallurgical Settlement 28.2 10.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 205, pl 35.4; Özgüç 1986, 44 pl 90, 5a-d
Mold Metallurgical Workshop, 1 8.5 6.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 206 pl 37.1
Mold for bars Karum level Ib Metallurgical Workshop, 1 9.3 6.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 206, pl 37.3; Özgüç 1986, 45 pl 92.4
Mold Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 13 9.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 206 pl 38.3; Özgüçh 1986, 42 pl 86.4
Mold Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 14.6 9.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 38.4; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 86.5
Mold Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 11.7 6.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 38.5; Özgüç 1986, 42
Mold Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 12.8 8.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 38.6; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 86.6
Mold Karum Metallurgical Settlement 8.7 5.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 39.1
Mold Metallurgical Settlement 6.3 5.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 39.3
Mold MBA; Karum level IB Metallurgical Workshop, 1 15.4 9.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 207 pl 39.6; Özgüç 1955, fig 7, 1986, 39 pl 80.5
Mold Metallurgical Settlement 12.4 11.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 208 pl 40.7
Mold for shaft hole Ax Karum level IB Metallurgical Settlement 16.8 7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 209 pl 44.1; Özgüç 1986, 43 pl 89, 1, 91, 4-6, 92.2
Mold for shaft hole Ax Karum level II Metallurgical Settlement 21.9 9.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 45.1; Özgüç 1986, 43 pl 88.8 b
Mold for shaft hole Ax Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 16 8.65 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 45.4; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 87.1
Mold Metallurgical Settlement 7.8 5.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 46.1
ANATOLIA TOOLS
644

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Mold for shaft hole Ax Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 9.3 4.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 46.2; Özgüç 1986 42 pl 87.3a
Mold for shaft hole Ax Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 46.3; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 87, 3b
Mold for double Ax Karum level II Metallurgical Settlement 19.5 4.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 211 pl 48.3
Mold for fenestrate Ax Level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 11.2 6.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 211 pl 48.6; Özgüç 1986, 41 pl 86.2
Mold for weapons Level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 212 pl 50.1,2; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 87.2
Mold for lugged Ax Metallurgical Workshop, 1 11.65 9.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 212 pl 50.3; Özgüç 1986 39 pl 80, 4.6
Mold for ornament Karum level IB Metallurgical Settlement 7.55 6.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 213 pl 51.1; Özgüç 1986, 45 pl 92.1
Mold for ornament MBA; Karum level Ib Metallurgical Workshop, 1 11 7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 215, pl 53.8; Özgüç 1955, fig 8; 1986, 39 pl 80.7
Mold for ornament MBA; Karum level Ib Metallurgical Workshop, 1 11.5 7.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 215, pl 53.9; Özgüç 1955, fig 8; 1986, 39 pl 80.7
Mold for ring ornament, 2 sided MBA Metallurgical Settlement 5.4 4.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 215 pl 54.2
Mold for ornament Level II Metallurgical Settlement 9 4.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 216-7 pl 55.2; Özgüç 1950, 130f, 142ff, 205, pl 65, 408; Özgüç 1986, 45
Mold for ornament Level II Metallurgical Workshop, 1 5.3 4.65 Müller-Karpe 1994, 217 pl 55.3; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 87.4
Mold for ornament MBA Metallurgical Settlement 3.1 3.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 217 pl 55.7 one half5/6/2011 Özgüç 1955, 449 fig 22; 1986, 45 pl 91.9
Mold for ornament MBA Metallurgical Settlement 8.8 4.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 217 pl 55.8 second half; Özgüç 1955, 449 fig 22; 1986, 45 pl 91.9
Mold for small objects Karum level IB Metallurgical Settlement 3.67 1.75 Müller-Karpe 1994, 220 pl 58.1; Özgüç 1986, 45, pl 91.8
Mold Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 8 3.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 220, pl 58.2; Özgüç 1986, 42, pl 87.5
Mold for cup? MBA, level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 3.9 3.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 220 pl 58.4; Özgüç 1986, 42, pl 91.11
Mold for Ax Level Ib Metallurgical Settlement 7.6 4.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 220, pl 58.7; Özgüç 1983, 425 pl 87.2
Mold Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 221, pl 58.8,9; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 88.6
Kültepe Level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 4.1 3.65 Müller-Karpe 1994, 221 pl 59.1; Oxguc 1986, 42 pl 88.1
Mold for ornament Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 3.5 3.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 221 pl 59.3; Özgüç 1986, 42 pl 88.2
Mold for ornament Karum Metallurgical Settlement 5.3 4.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, pl 59.5
Mold for lead figurines Level Ib Metallurgical Settlement 6.6 4.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 221 pl 60.1; Özgüç 1986, 89f; pl 79.11
Mold for lead figurines Level 1b Metallurgical Settlement 6.2 5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 221-222, pl 60.2 ; Emre 1971, 28 pl 6.3
Mold for lead figurines Level Ib Metallurgical Settlement 6.2 5.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.3; Emre 1971, 28, 69 fig 28, pl 9.1
Mold for lead figurines Karum level Ib Metallurgical Workshop, 1 6 4.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.5; Emre 1971, 29 pl 8.1
Mold for lead figurines MBA, level II Metallurgical Settlement 5.9 4.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.10; Özgüç 1950, 129; Emre 1971, 16, 26 pl 4.2
Mold for lead figurines Metallurgical Workshop, 5 7.7 5.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.11; Emre 1971, 159f, pl 15.1
Mold for lead figurines Karum level IB Metallurgical Workshop, 6 9.1 4.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 223 pl 60.12; Özgüç 1959 52f; Emre 1971, 16f, 27f, pl 9.2
Mold for shaft hole Ax? Karum level II Metallurgical Workshop, 7 21 9.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 208 pl 41.2; Özgüç 1986, 41 pl 86.1
Mold for shaft hole Ax? Karum level Ib Metallurgical Settlement 16.8 7.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 45.2; Özgüç 1986, 88 pl 134.2
Mold for fenestrate Ax Level II Metallurgical Workshop 13 11 Müller-Karpe 1994, 211 pl 48.5; Özgüç 1986, 44 pl 89.4, 90.1
Sickle
Kültepe - LBA
Karum Kanish level II Agricultural Workshop, 7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 52, pl 84.18
Ax, shaft hole
Kültepe - 2nd millennium
End of 2nd millenium BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1792; AA 1940, col. 580, fig 11
Mold for lead figurines surface find Metallurgical Settlement 5.3 3.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.4; Emre 1971, 29 fig 22; pl 7.2
Mold for lead figurines Metallurgical Settlement 6.1 4.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.7; Emre 1971, 37 pl 11.1
Mold for lead figurines
Kuşaklı - MBA
Metallurgical Unstratified or unknown 6 4.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 222 pl 60.9; Emre 1971, 37 pl 11.4
Knife
Kuşaklı - LBA
Hittite Old Kingdom period Utilitarian Settlement Yildirim and Gates 2007, AJA 111, 299
Chisel, socketed Hittite empire period Carpentry/masonry Settlement, nw gate 21 1.6 Müller-Karpe 2004, MDOG 136, fig 12
Knife Hittite empire period Utilitarian Settlement, se gate 13.5 Müller-Karpe et al. 1999, 131, 78 fig 17a; Müller-Karpe 2004 MDOG 136, 154
Knife Hittite empire period Utilitarian Settlement, east city wall 8.5 cm Müller-Karpe et al. 1999, 131, pg 78 fig 17b
Mold Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 73 fig 4.
Mold Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe
Mold Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe
Mold Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe
ANATOLIA TOOLS
645

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Kusura - MBA Müller-Karpe
Awl 1900-1200 BC; found in level CSmall crafts Settlement Deshayes 41; Archaeogia 86, 1937, p. 41, fig 18, 25-26; Archaeolgoia 87, 1938, p. 258, fig 21, 2 and 5
Awl 1900-1200 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 88; Archaeologia 86, 1937, p. 41, fig 18, 22-24; Archaeologia 87, 1938, p. 258, fig 21.3
Awl found in C; 2nd millennium Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 105; Archaeologia 87 (1938), p. 258, fig 21.4
Ax, single/flat 2000 - 1200 BC; level C Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 500; Archaeologia 87, 1938, p. 258, fig 21.10 and 11
Chisel fragment period C; 1900-1600? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 ce = 1.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.34; Lamb 1937, 258, fig 21.11
Chisel period C; 1900-1600? Carpentry/masonry Settlement Lamb 1937, 258, fig 21.10; Esin 1969, 137, 152, #18082, type 2a1
Chisel Start of 2nd millennium BC; start Carpentry/masonry of level C
Settlement Deshayes 908; Archaeologia 87, 1938, pl. 258, fig 21.6
Chisel 2000-1200 BC; level C Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 852; Archaeologia 86, 1937, p. 41, fig 18.21
Knife
Kusura - LBA
1900-1600 BC, level C Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2408; archaeologia 86, 1937, p. 41, fig 19.6
Awl Third quarter of the 2nd millennium; Small crafts found at end of level Settlement C
Deshayes 56; Archaeolgia 87 (1938), p. 258, fig 21.18
Chisel Hittite level Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.1 ce = 0.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235, pl 70.29; Lamb 1937, 358, fig 21.7
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18 ce = 4.5 Deshayes 473; Archaeologia 86, 1937, p. 41, fig 19.1
Chisel Level VIII Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.7 ce = 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 21 pl 67.13; Esin 1969, 137, 152, #18081 type 21
Chisel
Lidar - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.8 ce = 0.2-0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 234 pl 70.9; Lamb 1937, 258, fig 21.6
Mold for bar ingots MBA Metallurgical Settlement 17.5 14.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 197 pl 15.8
Mold for weapons MBA Metallurgical Settlement 22.5 19.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 16.1
Mold for weapons MBA Metallurgical Settlement 24.9 12.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 16.6
Mold for flat Ax MBA Metallurgical Settlement 17.8 10.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 17.5
Mold for Axs Level 9 Metallurgical Settlement 8.6 10 Müller-Karpe 1994, 202 pl 26.4
Mold for shaft hole Ax
Lidar - LBA
MBA Metallurgical Settlement 19.4 11.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 210 pl 46.4
Mold for lugged Ax
Lidar - 2nd millennium
LBA Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 199 pl 19.1
Mold for ingot Not included in Müller-Karpe's Metallurgical listing
Settlement 22 12.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 17.1
Malatya-Arslantepe - 2nd millennium
Chisel level III Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8 ce = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 235 pl 70.34; Pecorella 1975, 106f, fig 13.25
Chisel, socketed
Maşat Höyük - LBA
Level 4 Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 7.9 ce = 0.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 72.2; Pecorella 1975, 120f, fig 21.1, inv. 272, pl 60, 17
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.8 cm 4.7 cm Özgüç 1982, 113ff
Ax, trunnion/lugged level II; 14th century? Carpentry/masonry Settlement Özgüç 1982, 113
Chisel level II; 14th century? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.1 cm 2.1 cm Özgüç 1982, 113
Chisel level II; 14th century? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.3 cm Özgüç 1982, 113
Chisel level II; 14th century? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.3 cm Özgüç 1982, 113
Knife Hittite level I; 13th century Utilitarian Settlement 17.5 cm 1.8 cm Özgüç 1982, 113
Knife or dagger Hittite level I Utilitarian Settlement 15.6 cm 2.1 cm Özgüç 1982, 113
Knife or dagger Hittite level II Utilitarian Settlement 14.4 cm 1.6 cm Özgüç 1982, 113
Mold for shaft hole Ax Old Hittite; level V Metallurgical Settlement 18.2 6.45 Özgüç 1982, 42, 113 pl 56.2; Müller-Karpe 1994, 209 pl 43.6
Mold for ornament Hittite level II Metallurgical Settlement, west terrace 7 3.6 Özgüç 1982, 47, 119 pl 59.2; Müller-Karpe 1994, 221 pl 58.10
Mold for ornament Hittite level II Metallurgical Settlement, west terrace 10.9 8.9 Özgüç 1983, 47, 118, pl 59.1; Müller-Karpe 1994, 221 pl 59.4
Trident
Mecitozu - 2nd millennium
Hittite level I; 13th century Ritual or prestige item Settlement 27.6 cm 12 cm Özgüç 1982, 113
Chisel
Mersin - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Burial 8.65 cm ce = 1 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 233 pl 69.9 and 96b
Awl 1900-1700 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 106, Mersin p. 232, fig 149.16
Ax, trunnion/lugged ca. 1600 BC; level 9 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17 ce = 6 Deshayes 1092; Mersin p. 211, fig 129
Chisel 1900-1700 BC; level X Carpentry/masonry Settlement, room 117 14.3 ce = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 71.49; Deshayes 910; Garstang (Mersin) 1953, pg 216, fig 131
ANATOLIA TOOLS
646

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel 1900-1700 BC; level X Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.8 ce = 1.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.2; Deshayes 951; Garstang 1953 (Mersin) 232, fig 149, 20; pl 29b; Yumuktepe
Chisel MBA?? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5 3.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243, pl 73.15; Yumuk Tepe, level 17; Garstang 1953, 108, fig 69
Knife MBIII; 17th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2422; Mersin, p. 232, fig 149, 17
Mersin - LBA
Chisel 13th century; level V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 713; Mersin, p. 250, fig 158, 10
Chisel LBA? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 ce = 2.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 228 pl 65.9, level 6/5; Garstang 1953, 251, pl 31a, fig 158
Spatula, shovel or scraper 13th century; level V Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2987; Mersin, p. 250, fig 158, 1 and pl. XXXII, b; high and right
Mersin - 2nd millennium
Chisel bit Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6 1.4 Müller-Karpe 1994 pg 225 pl 63.8; Garstang 1953, pl 31.a
Müftüler Köyü, Boğazlın - 2nd millennium
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown ? Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 7, pl 1.7; Bossert 1959, 76ff, abb 5
Müskebi - LBA
Knife LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239; Boysal, Y. 1967
Knife LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239; Boysal, Y. 1967
Knife LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239; Boysal, Y. 1967
Razor LH IIIA2-B Utilitarian Burial Georgiadis, M. 2003, 239; Boysal, Y. 1967
General Anatolia - 2nd millennium
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20.6 cm 7.5 cm Erkanal 1977, 5 entry 23, pl 2.23; Bittel 1944, Zschr. Assyr. 48, 3f; abb 3
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Erkanal 1977, 5 entry 24, pl 2.24; Bosert, Altanatolien nr. 671
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.8 cm 7 cm Erkanal 1977, 5 entry 25, pl 2.25, Przeworkshki Metallindustire 116, pl 21.1
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.8 cm 4.7 cm Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 31, pl 3.31; Bittel Zschr. Assyr. 48, 1944, 2f abb 3
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 14.8 cm 5 cm Erkanal 1977, 7 entry 41, pl 4.41, Bittel 1944, Aschr. Assyr. 48, 2ff, abb 3
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.4 cm 6.2 cm Erkanal 1977, 13, entry 56 pl 5.56; Przeworski, Archiv Orient 7, 1935, 407 pl 50.c
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.4 ce = 1.45 Müller-Karpe 1994, 230, pl 66.9
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 23.4 ce = 1.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 233 pl 69.3
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 11.9 ce = 0.22 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 71.47
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.5 ce = 1.1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246 pl 75.12
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 26.4 ce = 2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 244, pl 74.1; Buchholz and Drescher 1987, 47, 66, fig 7c
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 22.2 ce = 1.8 Bittel 1944, 6 fig 4; Müller-Karpe 1994, 244, pl 74.3
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 22.3 ce = 1.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 244, pl 74.4; Bittel 1944, 6
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19.4 cm 10.3 cm Erkanal 1977, 3 entry 10 pl 1.10; Archiv Orient 7, 1935 413 pl 50a
General Black sea region - MBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 68, pl 95a
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 68, pl 95b
General Black sea region - LBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 70, pl 109a2
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 70, pl 109b
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 68, pl 95b
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 70, pl 109c2
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 70, pl 109c3
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Bilgi 2001, pg 70, pl 109a1
Ordu - 2nd millennium
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 cm 6.4 cm Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 30 pl 3.30; Archiv Orient 7, 1935, 408 pl 47a
Ortaköy-şapinuwa - LBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged Hittite period Carpentry/masonry Settlement Süel 2004
Ceremonial stone Ax - notes Ritual or prestige item Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Ceremonial stone Ax - notes Ritual or prestige item Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Ax, trunnion/lugged Hittite period Carpentry/masonry Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Punch or chisel Hittite period Small crafts Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
ANATOLIA TOOLS
647

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Sickle w Hittite inscription Hittite period Agricultural Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Sickle w Hittite inscription Hittite period Agricultural Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Sickle w Hittite inscription Hittite period Agricultural Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Sickle w Hittite inscription Hittite period Agricultural Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Sickle w Hittite inscription Hittite period Agricultural Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Chisel, socketed Hittite period Carpentry/masonry Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Stylus Hittite imperial period Small crafts Settlement Unpublished, on display in Çorum Museum
Reyhanı / Kırıkhan - 2nd millennium
Mold, multi-sided
Sakçagözü - MBA
Unknown; may not even be 2nd Metallurgical millennium
Unstratified or unknown 18.6 5.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 205 pl 35.3
Ax, shaft hole, crescent Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.8 8.2 Summers 1991, 178, fig 2, pl XXXIII
Ax, shaft hole early in teh first quarter of the Carpentry/masonry 2nd millennium Hoard 16.7 3.5 Summers 1991, 179-180, fig 3, pl XXXIVa
Ax, shaft hole first half of the second millennium Carpentry/masonry Hoard 16.85 1.9 Summers 1991
Sakçagözü - 2nd millennium
Chisel
Sakyol-Pulur (Elazig) - 2nd millennium
Carpentry/masonry Hoard 35.9 ce = 5.67 Summers 1991, 182-183, fig 5, pls XXXVa, b
Chisel
Şarkışla area - LBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 20.2 ce = 1.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, 233, pl 69.10; Koşay 1976, 225, pl 110, 1053
Ax w mountain deity
Şarköy - LBA
Hittite empire, 14th-13th c Ritual or prestige item Hoard 19.5 9.2 Aruz, J., K. Benzel, and J. Evans, eds. 2008, 179 entry 105
Ax, trunnion/lugged 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Carpentry/masonry argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Ax, trunnion/lugged 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Carpentry/masonry argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Double Ax 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Carpentry/masonry argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Double Ax 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Carpentry/masonry argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Double Ax 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Carpentry/masonry argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
ANATOLIA TOOLS
648

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Sickle 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Agricultural argues for 11th century Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Wedge tool or Ax 12th -11th century BC (Marmankaya Carpentry/masonry argues for 11th or century metallurgical Hoard date)
Harmankaya 1995, 217-254.
Simav area - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 8.8 0.4 Müller-Karpe 1994, pl 73.32 and pl 90a
Drill Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 6.7 ce = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 248, pl 76.20 and pl 90a
Drill Carpentry/masonry Hoard 26.4 1.55 Müller-Karpe 1994, 248, pl 76.26
Drill
Sivas - 2nd millennium
Carpentry/masonry Hoard 25.45 ce = 1.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 248 pl 76.27
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17.1 cm 9.2 cm Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 29 pl 3.29; Bittel Arch Anz. 1944-45, 54, f fig 5; Deshayes 1103, pl XIV.6
Ax, shaft hole
Soli - 2nd millennium
2nd millennium BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19.4 cm 6.3 cm Erkanal 1977, 15 entry 60 pl 5.60 pl 5.60; Bittel arch anz. 1934, 350f, fig 2
Chisel
Sungurlu - 2nd millennium
Carpentry/masonry Hoard? 7.5 ce = 1.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.4; Bittel 1940, pl 5, S 3468
Chisel
Tarsus - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8.05 cm ce = 0.55 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 244, pl 73.37
Awl 2750-1650 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 118, Goldman 1956, p. 289-290, fig 425, #33-35 and 39
Awl 1900-1650 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 157, Goldman 1956, p. 290, fig 425, 40
Awl or drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 246, pl 75.22; Goldman 1956, 283, 290 nr. 40, 39.946, pl 425.40
Ax, shaft hole 1900-1650 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1818; Goldman 1956, p. 305, fig 426.6
Ax, single/flat 2100-1900 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 471, Goldman 1956, p. 305, fig 436, no. 2 and 4; AJA XLIV (1940), p. 65, fig 7,
Ax, trunnion/lugged 19th-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 4.8 Deshayes 1091; Goldman 1956, p. 282, 289 entry 19 fig 424, 19; Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 72.
Chisel 1900-1600 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 781; Goldman 1956, p. 305, fig 436, no. 2, 3, 4
Mold for dagger, chisel MBA Metallurgical Settlement 21.5 16 Goldman 1956, 305 entry 2, fig 436.2; Müller-Karpe 1994, 202 pl 26.3
Mold for many items Metallurgical Settlement, room 32 15.9 12.3 Goldman 1956, 305 entry 3 fig 436.3; Müller-Karpe 1994, 200, pl 22.1
Mold Metallurgical Settlement, room 33 23.6 11.3 Goldman 1956, 305 entry 4
Mold Metallurgical Settlement, room 22 11.1 Goldman 1956, 305 entry 5
Mold
Tarsus - LBA
Metallurgical Settlement, room 19 8.1 6.8 Goldman 1956, 305, fig 436
Awl 1650-1100 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 50, Goldman 1956, 290, fig 425, no. 42, 44, 45, 48
ANATOLIA TOOLS
649

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Awl 1450-1100 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 99; Goldman 1956, p. 290, fig 425, 49
Awl 1650-1450 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 149, Goldman 1956, p. 290, fig 425.41
Ax, single/flat 1650-1450 BC; LB I Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D Goldman 1956, p. 282, 289 entry 24, fig 424.24; Deshayes 359, AJA XLI (1937), p. 271, fig 18, bottom and top to left
Ax, single/flat 1650-1450 BC; LB I Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D Goldman 1956, 282, 289 entry 26, fig 424, 26; Deshayes 360, AJA XLI (1937), p. 271, fig 17, top middle
Ax, single/flat 1650-1450 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D Goldman 1956, p. 282, 289, entry 25 fig 424, 25; Deshayes 236, AJA XLI (1937), p. 271, fig. 18, top right
Ax, single/flat 1650-1450 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D Goldman 1956, p. 282, 289, entry 22
Ax, single/flat 1650-1450 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D Goldman 1956, p. 282, 289, entry 23
Ax, trunnion/lugged 1650-1450 BC; LB I; Old Hittite Carpentry/masonry Kingdom
Hoard? cache in room D 10.8 about 3.27 Deshayes 1049; Goldman 1956, 282, 289, entry 21, fig 424, 21
Ax, trunnion/lugged 1650-1450 BC, LB I; Old Hittite Carpentry/masonry Kingdom
Hoard? cache in room D 16.3 about 4.5 Deshayes 1075, Goldman 1956, p. 282,289 entry 20 fig 424.20
Chisel LBI Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D 18.5 about 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 230, pl 66.2, Goldman 1956, 290 #64, pl 426.64; Deshayes 682
Chisel LB II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.2 0.8 Goldman 1956, 291, #73, pl 426.73; Müller-Karpe 1994, 231, pl 67.15
Chisel LBI Carpentry/masonry Settlement, room C 9.9 about 0.4 Goldman 1956, 290, #65, pl 426.65, Müller-Karpe 1994, 236, pl 71.8; Deshayes 860;
Chisel LB II Carpentry/masonry Settlement, section B 2.4 about 0.8 Goldman 1956, 291, #72, pl 426.72, Müller-Karpe 1994, pl 73.9; Deshayes 793
Chisel 1650-1450 BC; LB I Carpentry/masonry Settlement, section A 4.2 ce =about 1.25 Deshayes 295; Goldman 1956, 290, nr. 66, pl 426.66; Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.13
Chisel with flaring edge 1450-1100 BC; LB II Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.4 about 2.1 Deshayes 1154; Goldman 1956, 291, #70, pl 426.70; Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.1
Chisel LB IIb Carpentry/masonry Settlement, section A 2.3 1.1 Goldman 1956, 291 entry 71
Chisel, socketed LBII Carpentry/masonry Settlement, section A 22.1 about 1.7 Goldman 1956, 291, #69, 26.41, pl 426.69; Müller-Karpe 1994, 244 pl 74.6
Chisel, socketed LBI Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D 13.2 about 1 Goldman 1956, 290 #63, fig 426.63; Esin 1969, 61, 133, 170, #17996 type 26c; Müller-Karpe 1994, 245 pl 74.16
Cutting implement 1450-1100; LBII -temple Utilitarian Cultic site or sanctuary 8.7 Deshayes 2923; Goldman 1956, p. 282, 289 entry 17 fig 423, 17
Double Ax LB I Carpentry/masonry Hoard? cache in room D 21.1 cm ce = 3.3 Deshayes 2079; Goldman 1956, p. 282, 289 entry 27, fig 425.27; Erkanal 1977 21, entry 67, pate 6.67 (#36.656b)
Double scraper or spatula 12th century BC or LBII Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2955; Goldman 1956, p. 290-291, fig 426, nos. 67
Double scraper or spatula 12th century BC or LBII Utilitarian Settlement 7.4 Deshayes 2955; Goldman 1956, p. 291,entry 68
Implement? 1650-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1177; Goldman 1956, p. 290-91, fig 426, 63 and 69
Knife LBII; 1450-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2600, Goldman 1956, p. 281, fig 423.10;
Knife 1450-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2411; Goldman 1956, p. 281, fig 423.9
Knife 1450-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2412, Goldman 1956, p. 281, fig 423.11
Knife 1450-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2399; Goldman 1956, p. 281, fig 423.5 and 7
Mold LBI-II Metallurgical Settlement Goldman 1956, 306 entry 7, fig 436.7; Müller-Karpe 1994, 200 pl 22.2
Mold LBI-II Metallurgical Settlement, section A 19.5 8.2 Goldman 1956, 306 entry 8
Mold for ornament LBA II Metallurgical Settlement, section A 4.7 5.1 Goldman 1956, 306, pl 436.11; Müller-Karpe 1994, 213 pl 51.4
Mold for ring object LBA II Metallurgical Settlement 7.5 6.3 Goldman 1956, 306 pl 436.9; Müller-Karpe 1994, 215 pl 53.4
Mold for ornament LBA II Metallurgical Settlement 5.6 4.4 Goldman 1956, 306 pl 436, 10; Müller-Karpe 1994, 216 pl 54.5
Sickle
Tarsus - 2nd millennium
1450-1225 BC, LBIIA Agricultural Settlement, east house 26.5 3 Deshayes 2734, Goldman 1956, p. 281-282, 288 entry 15fig 423.15; AJA XLI (1937), p. 284, fig 44;
Awl 2400-1200 BC and 1450-1100 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 173; Goldman 1956, p. 290, fig 425 #38 and 47
Double Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2080
Tasova area (Amasya) - 2nd millennium
Chisel
Tell Achana or Alalakh - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 8.85 1.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 67.24
Ax, single/flat level XVI or around 2000 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Deshayes 564, Alalakh, p. 407, fig. 80b
Ax, single/flat level XIV; start of 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 396
Hammer? level 5 Metallurgical Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 226, pl 63.18
Mold for shaft hole Ax level XIV; temple Metallurgical Cultic site or sanctuary 3.3 2.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 218 pl 56.3; Woolley 1955, 272 fig 73, AT/49/11
Tell Achana or Alalakh - LBA
Adze, shaft hole Level II; 13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement about 13 Deshayes 1909, Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXII
Adze, shaft hole level V; 16th to the start of the Carpentry/masonry 15th century BC or agricultural Settlement Deshayes 1892
Awl 13th century; level 2 Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 110; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXIII,
Awl 16th-13th century; found in level Small V - crafts I
Settlement Deshayes 128; Alalakh, p. 283, pl. LXXIII.2
Ax, single/flat 15th-13th century; level IV to ICarpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 267; Alalakh, p. 279, p. LXXIII, ch. 1
ANATOLIA TOOLS
650

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat level II; 13th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 268; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXIII, c2
Ax, single/flat 16th to the start of the 15th century; Carpentry/masonry level V
Settlement 15 ce = 6.5 Deshayes 1519; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXII
Chisel 13th century; level II Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 966; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXIIIc3
Chisel-like implement Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.8 ce = 1.05 Müller-Karpe 1994, 225, ta. 63.2; Woolley 1955, 284, pl 78
Chisel level 2 (13th century BC?) Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12 ce = 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 230, pl 66.5; Woolley 1955, 283, type chisel 6, #37/89, pl 73
Chisel fragment level II (13th century?) Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.6 ce = 1.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.36; Woolley 1955, 283, type ch. 8, number 38/16
Chisel level 2 (13th century?) Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.6 ce = 1.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 73.8
Chisel level 2 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.9 ce = 0.98 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243, pl 73.18; Woolley 1955, 283
Chisel Level III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.6 ce = 1.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 243 pl 73.27
Chisel 17th-13th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 861; Alalakh, p. 379, pl. LXXIII, ch. 6
Chisel Level III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.8 ce = 1.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.32
Chisel, socketed Carpentry/masonry Settlement ? Müller-Karpe 1994, 245 pl 74.10; Woolley 1955, 283, nr. 37/109, pl 73, ch. 5, AT 109
Chisel, socketed Level III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.25 ce = 0.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 75.4; Woolley 1955, 283, nr. 37/53
Cutting implement level II; 13th century Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2954; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXIII, ch. 4
Knife end of 13th - start of 12th century; Utilitarian level I
Settlement Deshayes 2575; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXII, Kn. 10
Knife end 13th through start of 12th Utilitarian century; level I
Settlement Deshayes 2563; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXII, Kn 11
Knife 15th-13th century BC; level IV-II Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2413; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXII, Kn 8
Knife Level III-II; 14th-13th century Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2414; Alalakh, p. 279, pl. LXXII, Kn 7
Knife Level IV Utilitarian Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 145, fig 98
Mold for ornament Level IV Metallurgical Workshop, room C8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 214 pl 52.2; Woolley 1955, 272 f, fig 73
Mold for ornament Level IV Metallurgical Workshop, room C8 9.4 7.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 214 pl 52.3; Woolley 1955, 272 f, fig 73
Mold for ornament Level IV Metallurgical Workshop, room C8 6.45 4.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 215 pl 53.5; Woolley 1955, 272 f, fig 3, AT/ 47 / 139
Mold for ornament Level IV Metallurgical Workshop, room C8 8 7.9 Müller-Karpe 1994, 217 pl 55.5; Woolley 1955, 272
Adze, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1910
Tell Achana or Alalakh - 2nd millennium
Awl Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 136; Alalakh, p. 283, pl. LXXIII
Chisel, cold Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.7 ce = 2.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 228, pl 64.12
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.45 ce = 1.15 Müller-Karpe 1994, 228, pl 65.6
Chisel Level V Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9 ce =0.67 Müller-Karpe 1994, 236, pl 71.1; Woolley 1955, 180
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 236, pl 71.2; Woolley 1955, pl 73
Hammer-like tool Metallurgical? Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 225, pl 63.16; Woolley 1955, 284
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2589
Tell al-Judaidah (Cudeyde) - 2nd millennium
Chisel Tell al-Judaidah phase F Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13 ce = 1.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 230 pl 66.12; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 245ff, fig 185.6, pl 52.1
Chisel, fragment phase H Carpentry/masonry Settlement 2.4 ce = 0.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 242, pl 72.44; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 373, 379 fig 292, f;
Chisel phase h Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.9 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 72.3; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 377, 379, fig 292.2
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 6.6 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 72.4; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 373, 379, fig 292.1
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.82 ce = 0.2 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 72.6; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 245 fig. 185.3; pl 52.5
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.55 ce = 0.35 Müller-Karpe 1994, 239 pl 72.7; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 373, 379, fig 292.3, pl 72.7
Chisel phase G Carpentry/masonry Settlement 3.8 ce = 0.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 72.10; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 298, 313, 344, fig 239
Chisel
Tepecik - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Settlement 4.15 ce = 0.25 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240, pl 72.11; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 298f, fig 239.4
Mold for ornament Level 3a Metallurgical Settlement 3.7 3.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 220 pl 58.6; Esin 1972, 143 pl 110, T. 70-487
Tokat area - 2nd millennium
Chisel
Troy - MBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 37.5 ce = 2.6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 230 pl 66.1
Awl 2nd quarter of 2nd millennium Small BC; level crafts VI
Settlement Deshayes 49, Troy III, p. 145, fig 297, #38.96
Ax, single/flat Level II-V; 2nd half of 3rd to the Carpentry/masonry start of the 2nd millenniumSettlement
Deshayes 505, SS, p. 227, #5835, p. 241, #6046, p. 249, #6180-81; Atlas, pl. 193, #3495e
Ax, single/flat 2nd half of 3rd - start of 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry BC
Settlement Deshayes 468; ss, p. 249, #6170 and 6179
ANATOLIA TOOLS
651

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat 2nd half of 3rd and start of 2nd Carpentry/masonry millennium
Settlement Deshayes 484, SS, p. 255-265, #6726, 6761
Borer Troy II-V Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 171, entry 972, SS 6233
Borer Troy II-V Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 171 entry 973, SS 6234
Borer Troy II-V Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 171 entry 984-6, SS 6344-7
Borer Troy II-V Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 171 entry 987-992, SS 6358-63
Borer Troy II-V Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 171 entry 993-7; SS 6235-9
Borer Troy II-V Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 171 entry 998-1004, SS 6293a
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement 37.5 ce = 2.7 Müller-Karpe 1994, 233, pl 69.1; Schmidt 1902, 251, #6230
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement 23.5 ce = 1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 233 pl 69.2; Schmidt 1902, 251, #6229; Gotze 1902, 348, fig 271b
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.3 ce = 1 Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.24; Schmidt 1902, 251, #6220
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 ce = 0.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 229 pl 65.17; Kat. Berlin/Sofia 1981, 76
Chisel Troy II-V; 2nd half of 3rd - start Carpentry/masonry of 2nd millennium BC Settlement 10 ce = 0.6 Deshayes 915, SS, p. 251, #6220; Troja und Ilion, p. 348, fig 271c
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 849; SS, p. 251, #6221 and 6230
Chisel Troy Vc; 1st quarter of 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry BC
Settlement Deshayes 681; Troy II, p. 277, fig 234, #35489
Chisel Troy Vc Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 168, entry 714, SS 6232
Chisel Troy III Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 169, no. 726; Troy II, fig 47, 37.773
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 169 entry 733-44; SS 6220-30
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 169 entry 769; SS 6213
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 170 entry 825-6, SS 6187-8
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974 170 entry 827-9, SS 6182-4
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 170 entry 830-5, SS 6214-9
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 170 entry 836-45, SS 6170-9
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 170 entry 846-859; SS 6231a-o
Chisel Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 170 entry 894-5; SS 6180-I
Gouge 2nd half of 3rd millennium to the Carpentry/masonry start of the 2nd millennium; Settlement Troy II-V
20.5 ce = 2.1 Deshayes 1030, SS, p. 251 #6232, Troja und Ilion, p. 348 fig 271a
Knife Middle of 2nd millennium; Troy Utilitarian VI
Settlement Deshayes 2492, Troy III, p. 193, fig 297, #38.97
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
15 .0 cm 2.1 cm Deshayes 2369, SS, p. 250 #6193, Branigan 1974, 167 entry 668
Knife 2nd millennium BC, Troy VI Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2366; Troy III, p. 201, fig 297, #35.359
Knife 1st quarter of 2nd millennium Utilitarian BC; Troy Vc
Settlement Deshayes 2362; Troy II, p. 231, fig 234, #35.532
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2350, SS, p. 250, #6208, Troja und Ilion, p. 347, fig 269a
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2351, SS, P. 250, #6210, Branigan 1974, 167, 692
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2354, SS. p. 250, 6200; Branigan 1974, 167, 678
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2354, SS. p. 250, 6202; Branigan 1974, 167, 680
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2355, SS, p. 250, #6203; Branigan 1974, 168 entry 686
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2355, SS, p. 250, #6204; Branigan 1974, 168 entry 685
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2355, SS, p. 250, #6205; Branigan 1974, 168 entry 687
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2355, SS, p. 250; Branigan 1974, 168 entry 688
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2358, SS, p. 250, #6194; Branigan 1974, 167, entry 674
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2358, SS, p. 250, #6195; Branigan 1974, 167, entry 682
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2358, SS, p. 250, #6196; Branigan 1974, 167, entry 675
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 665, SS. 6190
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 666, SS. 6191
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 667, SS. 6192
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 669, SS. 6189
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 676, SS. 6198
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 677, SS. 6199
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 168 entry 681; FWM GR 14, 1927
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 168 entry 687, SS 6205
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167, entry 693; SS 6211
ANATOLIA TOOLS
652

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 694, SS 6212
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium; Troy II-VSettlement
Branigan 1974, 167 entry 698, SS 6207a-d
Mold for bar ingots Level VI Metallurgical Settlement 13.5 14 Müller-Karpe 1994, 198 pl 16.2; Schmidt 1902, 267 #6767
Mold for double Ax Level VI Metallurgical Settlement 16.5 8.3 Müller-Karpe 1994, 211 pl 48.4; Schmidt 1902, 266, #6765; Gotze 1902, 397; Przeworski 1939, 40 pl 7.1
Mold Level VI late Metallurgical Settlement, pillar house 4 3.8 Müller-Karpe 1994, 219 pl 57.5; Blegen 1953, 230 pl 298, #34-148
Saw with teeth 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Carpentry/masonry second millennium BC, Troy Settlement II-V
27.5 5 Deshayes 2881; Branigan 1974, 168 entry 710; SS 6157; Dorpfeld fig 270b;
Saw with teeth
Troy - LBA
Troy II-V Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.1 5.5 Branigan 1974, 168 entry 712; SS. p. 228, #5849; Dorpfeld fig 270a;
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 166, entry 595; Deshayes 228; CNM 3248;
Awl end of 13th and start of 12th century, Small crafts level VIIB1 Settlement Deshayes 174; Troy IV, p. 199, fig 254, #37494
Ax, single/flat Level VI; 1700-1300 BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard? treasure P Deshayes 499; SS, p. 246, #6136, Troja and Ilion, 394, fig 378
Ax, single/flat 1700-1300 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 469, SS, p. 256, #6452
Ax, shaft hole Troy VIIB; 12th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.5 Deshayes 1793, SS. P. 267, #6768, a,b; Troja und Ilion, p. 405, fig 404
Ax-adze Troy VIIB; end of 2nd millennium Carpentry/masonry Settlement 23.5 ce =3.4 Deshayes 2293, SS. p. 257, #6481, Troja und Ilion, p. 404, fig 401
Ax-hammer Troy VIIB; end of 2nd mill Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2108, SS, p. 257, #6479, Troja und Ilion, p. 404, fig 402
Blade, flanged 13th-12th century; Troy VII Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1133; Troja und Ilion, p. 405, fig 406
Chisel Troy VI Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 169 entry 785, SS 6452
Chisel Troy VI Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 170 entry 884; SS 6136
Chisel, socketed Troy 6 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 22 ce = 1.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 244, pl 74.5; Blegen 1953, 352, pl 297, 38-111
Double Ax 1700-1300; Troy VI Carpentry/masonry Hoard? treasure P 18.3 ce = 6.4 Deshayes 2047, SS, p. 246, #6135; Troja und Ilion, p. 394, fig 377
Double Ax Troy VI; 1700-1300 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 22.5 ce = 8.4 Deshayes 2048, Ilios P. 676, #1429-30
Double Ax 1700-1300, Troy VI Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2031; SS, p. 255, #6765, Troja und Ilion, p. 397, Blg. 46, VII
Double Ax Troy VI Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 165 entry 534; Ilios p 605
Double Ax Troy VI Carpentry/masonry Settlement Branigan 1974, 165 entry 533; Ilios 1430
Hammer, shafted Troy VII Metallurgical? Settlement Müller-Karpe 1994, 227, pl 64.5
Knife 3rd quarter of the 2nd millennium Utilitarian BC; end level Troy VI Settlement Deshayes 2651, Troy III, p. 352, fig 297, #36.107
Knife End 13th -12th century; Troy VIIb Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2574 bis; Troy IV, p. 240 fig 254, #36.398
Knife 13th century, Troy VIIa Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2529, SS, p. 256, #6464, Troja und Ilion p. 396, fig 384
Knife 3rd quarter of 2nd millennium, Utilitarian Troy VI-VIIa
Settlement Deshayes 2492 bis; Troy IV, p. 59, fig 219, #36.400
Knife 3rd quarter of 2nd millennium; Utilitarian Troy VI end
Settlement Deshayes 2478, Troy III, p. 270, fig 297, #37.780
Knife 13th century; Troy VII Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2350 bis; Troy IV, p. 12, fig 219, #38.95
Knife 2nd half of 3rd to the start of the Utilitarian 2nd millennium, Troy II-VSettlement
Deshayes 2354, SS. p. 250, 6201; Branigan 1974, 167, 679
Mold, trunnion Level VII Metallurgical Settlement 22.4 14.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 199 pl 19.3; Dorpfeld 1902, 405 fig 406; Przeworski 1939, 192 pl 7.5
Mold for Ax Metallurgical Settlement 13.5 6 Müller-Karpe 1994, 212 pl 49.5; Schmidt 1902, 267 #6769; Przeworski 1939, pl 7.4
Mold for ornament Level VIIa Metallurgical Settlement 8 5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 213, pl 52.1; Blegen 1958, 124, pl 220, 37-289
Mold for ornament Level VII Metallurgical Settlement 8 7.5 Müller-Karpe 1994, 214 pl 52.4; Schmidt 1902, 267 f, #6772
Vermutlich area - 2nd millennium
Chisel, socketed
Yazılıkaya - LBA
Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 13.8 ce = 1.05 Müller-Karpe 1994, 245, pl 74.15
Ax, trunnion/lugged Hittite level; end of the 14th century Carpentry/masonry or first half of 13th century Cultic site or sanctuary 11.3 cm 4.5 cm Deshayes 1100;Boehmer 1972, 38, #27, pl.2; Erkanal 1977, 6 entry 28, pl 3.28
Chisel fragment Hittite? Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 3.9 ce = 1.6 Boehmer 1972, 77 entry 231, pl XIV, Müller-Karpe 1994, 241, pl 72.38; catalog #188
Yeni Hayat Koyu - 2nd millennium
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 16.8 cm ce =1.2 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 232 pl 68.1
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 15.95 cm ce = 1.4 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 233 pl 69.5
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Burial 11.2 cm ce = 1.05 cm Müller-Karpe 1994, 240 pl 72.23 and pl 91,92
ANATOLIA TOOLS
653

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Baisan - LBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged Late Seti I, 1313-1292 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement? Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 81, figure 5.8; Museum Journal XVIII, 436
Beth Shan - LBA
Ax, single/flat 1411-1375; Amen. III Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary 12.5 ce = 5 Deshayes 393 pate V.10; Temples of Beth Shan I, p. 76, pl. XXXII, 1
Ax, trunnion/lugged Late Seti I, 1313-1292 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1059, plate XIII.6; MJ XVIII (1927), p. 436
Ax, shaft hole 1405-1370; Amen. III Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1524, plate XXIV.2; Syria XI (1930, p. 245, fig. 1)
Beth Shemesh (Ain Shems) - LBA
Plowshare level IVa; 1550-1450 Agricultural Settlement 16.6 Deshayes 1208; Ain Shems, III, p. 17, figure 4, no. 5, 146
Ax, trunnion/lugged 13th century? Carpentry/masonry Settlement Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 82; P.E.F. Annual 2, pl. xiv, 7
Byblos - MBA
Awl 19th century BC Small crafts Hoard 12.2 cm Deshayes 42; Dunand 1937-39, 151, pl LXIX, nr. 2195
Awl 19th century BC Small crafts Hoard 9.7 cm Deshayes 42; Dunand 1937-39, 151, pl LXIX, nr. 2196
Awl Small crafts Settlement 7.7 cm Deshayes 120; Bybos II, p. 254, figure 278, #9175
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.8 ce = 6.2 Deshayes 628 plate VIII, 19; Dunand 1937-39, 242, pl. XCVIII, #3550
Ax, single/flat 2100-1900 BC Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 629; Byblos et l'Egypte, p. 104, pl. LVIII#338
Ax, single/flat 2100-1900 BC Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Deshayes 629; Byblos et l'Egypte, p. 104, pl. LVIII#339
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.7 to 19.5 cm Deshayes 595; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2160
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.7 to 19.5 cm Deshayes 595; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2161
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.7 to 19.5 cm Deshayes 595; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2162
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.7 to 19.5 cm Deshayes 595; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2163
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 15.7 to 19.5 cm Deshayes 595; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2164
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20 cm Deshayes 596; Dunand 1954, 454, pl. LXXXI, #11538
Ax, single/flat 18th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 24.7 cm ce = 5.5 Deshayes 550, p 71 plate VIII.1; Byblos et l'Egypte pl. 196, pl. CIX #713
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial 24.7 cm Deshayes 550, p 71 plate VIII.1; Byblos et l'Egypte pl. 196, pl. CIX #714
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial 24.7 cm Deshayes 550, p 71 plate VIII.1; Byblos et l'Egypte pl. 196, pl. CIX #715
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Burial 24.7 cm Deshayes 550, p 71 plate VIII.1; Byblos et l'Egypte pl. 196, pl. CIX #716
Ax, single/flat 18th-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.5 cm Deshayes 551, p. 71; Dunand 1954, 380, pl. LXXIV, #10644
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 cm Deshayes 502; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXVIII, #2156
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.3 cm Deshayes 475; Dunand 1954, 454, pl. LXXXI, #11539
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 476; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI #2135
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 476; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI #2136
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 476; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI #2138
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 476; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI #2141
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 476; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI #2146
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 477, p. 66; Dunand 1937-39, 146 pl. LXX, #2159
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 477, p. 66; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXVIII, #2155
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXVIII, #2152
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXVIII, #2153
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXX, #2158
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2139
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2140
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2142
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2144
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2144
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 12.7 to 19.7 cm Deshayes 355; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXXI, #2147
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 356; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXVIII, #2150
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 258; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXVIII, # 2149
Ax, single/flat 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 258; Dunand 1937-39, 146, pl. LXVIII, # 2151
Ax, shaft hole Ritual or prestige item Cultic site or sanctuary 22.5 Aruz, J., K. Benzel, and J. Evans, eds. 2008, pg 55 entry 25 with photograph
SYRIA-PALESTINE 654

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel, cold 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 24 cm Deshayes 989, p. 102; Dunand 1937-39, 151, pl. LXIX, #2190
Chisel, cold 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 20 cm Deshayes 989, p. 102; Dunand 1937-39, 151, pl. LXIX, #2191
Chisel, mortise 2100-1900 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.6 cm Deshayes 990, p. 102, pl. XII.1; Dunand 1954, 22 pl. CLXXVIII, #6900
Chisel, cold 2100-1900 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.6 cm Deshayes 990, p. 102, pl. XII.1; Byblos et l'Egypte, p. 104, pl. LVIII, #340
Chisel 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 853 pl. XI.3; Dunand 1937-39, 152, pl. LXIX, #2198
Chisel 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 853 pl. XI.3; Dunand 1937-39, 152, pl. LXIX, #2199
Chisel 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 853 pl. XI.3; Dunand 1937-39, 152, pl. LXIX, #2200
Chisel 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Deshayes 853, pl. XI.3; Dunand 1937-39, 152, pl. LXIX, #2201
Cleaver start of 18th century Utilitarian Burial 27 cm Deshayes 2721, p. 333, pl. XLV.12; Byblos et l'Egypte, p. 181, pl. CII, #659
Gouge 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 30.5 cm Deshayes 1013, p. 107; Byblos, I, p. 151, pl. LXIX, #2193
Punch Small crafts Settlement Branigan 1974, 176 entry 1434a; Branigan 95, IIIc, 3
Saw, toothless 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 45.2 cm 7.2 Deshayes 2883, pg, 358; Dunand 1937-39, 147, fig. 137; pl. LXVII, #2174
Saw, toothless 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 28.9 cm 4.04 Deshayes 2884; Dunand 1937-39, 148, pl. LXVIII, #2175
Saw, toothless 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 29.4 cm 4.2 Deshayes 2884; Dunand 1937-39, 148, pl. LXVIII, #2176
Scraper? 19th century BC Utilitarian Hoard 12 cm Deshayes 3049, p. 376, pl. XLIX.21; Dunand 1937-39, 152, pl. LXX, #2202
Spatula or scraper 19th century BC Utilitarian Hoard 11.6 cm Deshayes 3048; Dunand 1937-39, 152, pl. LXX, #2203
Byblos - LBA
Spatula or shovel? 13th-12th century Utilitarian Settlement 9 to 9.8 cm Deshayes 2980; 371, pl. XLVIII.27; Dunand 1937-39, 28, pl. CXLI, #1125;
Byblos - 2nd millennium
Awl Small crafts Settlement 9.6 Deshayes 104, Dunand 1937-39, 16, #1028, plate CI?
Awl Small crafts Settlement 9.4 cm Deshayes 104, Dunand 1937-39, 333, pl. CI, #4967
Awl Small crafts Settlement? 15.7 cm Deshayes 127; Dunand 1937-39, 313, pl. C, #4181
Awl Small crafts Settlement? 10.5 cm Deshayes 127; Dunand 1954, 261, fig. 268, #9244
Awl Small crafts Settlement? 13.5 cm Deshayes 150; Dunand 1954, 319, figure 353, #9841
Egyptian Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.5 cm Deshayes 1978; Dunand 1937-39, 130, pl. XCV, #1916
Egyptian Ax Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.4 cm Deshayes 1978; Dunand 1937-39, 130, pl. XCV, #1917
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 1501; Byblos et l'Egypte, p. 254, pl. CXLIX, #963
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 cm ce = 2.8 Deshayes 1492; Dunand 1937-39, 28, pl. XCVI, #1127
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14 ce = 3 Deshayes 1433; Dunand 1937-39, 347, pl. XCVIII, #5170
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement 5.1 cm ce = 1.3 Deshayes 1274; Dunand 1954, 140, pl. CLXXXII, #7729
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 630, pg 77; Dunand 1954, 322, figure 344, #9879
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 22 cm Deshayes 597; Dunand 1937-39, 282, pl. XCVI, #4052
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.9 cm Deshayes 598, Dunand 1954, 264, figure 277, #9273
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.4 cm ce = 4.7 Deshayes 599; Dunand 1954, 135, figure 108, #7680
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.4 to 19cm Deshayes 600; Dunand 1937-39, 310, #4153, pl. XCVII
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.2 cm Deshayes 601; Dunand 1937-39, 317, pl. XCVII, #4374
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 ce = 5.3 Deshayes 602, plate VIII.3; Dunand 1937-39, 251 and 270, pl. XCVII, #3680
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.5 cm Deshayes 603; Dunand 1954, 380, pl. CLXXVIII, #10653
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.2 cm Deshayes 604; Dunand 1954, 195, figure 198, #8485
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.4 cm Deshayes 604; Dunand 1954, 96, figure 82, #7404
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 cm Deshayes 605; Dunand 1937-39, 375, pl. XCVIII, #5494
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.4 to 19 cm Deshayes 600; Dunand 1937-39, 310, #4154, pl. XCVII
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.4 to 19 cm Deshayes 600; Dunand 1937-39, 310, #4155, pl. XCVII
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.4 to 19 cm Deshayes 600; Dunand 1937-39, 341, pl. XCVIII, #5075
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.4 to 19 cm Deshayes 600; Dunand 1937-39, 427, pl. XCVIII, #6572
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 to 18 cm Deshayes 602; Dunand 1937-39, 251 and 270, pl. XCVII, #3890
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 to 18 cm Deshayes 602; Dunand 1937-39, 251 and 270, pl. XCVII, #4371
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 to 18 cm Deshayes 602; Dunand 1937-39, 251 and 270, pl. XCVIII, #3891
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 608; Byblos II, pl. CLXXVIII, #13922
SYRIA-PALESTINE 655

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20.8 cm Deshayes 623, Dunand 1937-39, 282, pl. XCVI, #4053
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.3 ce = 2.7 Deshayes 624, plate VIII, 18; Dunand 1937-39, 255 pl. XCVI #3721
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.4 cm Deshayes 625, Dunand 1937-39, 352, pl. XCVIII, #5227
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 cm Deshayes 647; Dunand 1954, 113, figure 108, #7553
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 648; Dunand 1954, 438, figure 468, #11323
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.6 cm Deshayes 649; Dunand 1954, 195, figure 198, #8484
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.4 cm Deshayes 585; Bybos II, p. 95, figure 82, #7289
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12 cm Deshayes 586; Dunand 1937-39, 427, pl. XCVIII, #6573
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 cm Deshayes 586; Dunand 1937-39, 427, pl. XCVIII, #6574
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.2 cm Deshayes 587; Dunand 1937-39, 317, pl. XCVII, #4375
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13 cm Deshayes 569, Dunand 1954, 63, figure 36, #7080
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.5 cm ce = 4.7 Deshayes 570, plate VII.18; Dunand 1937-39, 134, pl. XCV, #1962
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.5 cm Deshayes 570, plate VII.18; Dunand 1937-39, 134, pl. XCV, #1963
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21 cm Deshayes 570, plate VII.18; Dunand 1937-39, 231, pl. XCVI, #3377
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.3 cm Deshayes 552, p. 71; Dunand 1954, 133, #7662
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 25 cm Deshayes 552, p. 71; Dunand 1954, 141, figure 108, #7739
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.6 cm Deshayes 562; Byblos I, p 347, figure 278, #5168
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.3 cm Deshayes 503; Dunand 1954, 315, pl. CLXXVIII, #9803
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 8.7 cm ce = 1.8 Deshayes 369, plate IV,14; Dunand 1954, 447, figure 483, #11431
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.4 cm Deshayes 259 pg 58; Dunand 1954, 60, figure 85, #7052
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement 13.7 cm ce = 3.2 Deshayes 1056, pg. 116, plate XIV.1; Dunand 1937-39, 426, pl. XCVI, #6571
Blade, flanged Utilitarian Settlement 16 cm Deshayes 1057, pg 116; Dunand 1954, 69, figure 46, #7126
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 20 cm ce = 2.5 Deshayes 954, pg 98, pl. XI.2; Byblos I, 343, figure 274, #5117
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 cm Deshayes 906; Byblos I, 352, pl. CI, #5221
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 cm Deshayes 894; Dunand 1954, 223, #8863 and figure 173
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.2 cm Deshayes 854; Dunand 1954, 371, #10512
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 855; Byblos II, pl. CLXXVIII, #17075
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.3 cm Deshayes 856; Bybos I, p. 339, pl. CII, #5066
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19 cm Deshayes 788; Dunand 1954, 460, pl. CLXXVIII, #11598
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 cm ce = 0.8 Deshayes 789, figure X.6; Dunand 1954, 117, figure 108, #7574
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.4 cm ce = 1.9 Deshayes 717, pg. 87, plate IX.9; Dunand 1954, 169, figure 173, #8091
Chisel? Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.3 cm ce = 2.2 Deshayes 607, plate VIII, 7; Dunand 1954, 204, pl. CLXXVIII, #8594
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.8 cm Deshayes 192; Dunand 1954, 268, figure 299, #9308
Drill Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.8 cm ce = 0.3 Deshayes 194, pg. 48, plate II.22; Dunand 1954, 113, fig. 113, #7555
Hammer Metallurgical Settlement 9.5 cm Deshayes 2316; Dunand 1937-39, 182, figure 169, #2862
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 12.7 cm Deshayes 2638; Dunand 1937-39, 262, figure 226, #3808
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 8.2 cm Deshayes 2625; Dunand 1937-39, 221, pl. XCIX, #3278
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 7.5 cm Deshayes 2627; Byblos, I, p. 227, pl. XCIX, #3329
Knife Utilitarian Settlement 17.5 cm Deshayes 2370; Dunand 1954, 466, figure 502, #11670
Mold, for shaft hole Ax Metallurgical Settlement 18.8 Deshayes 1511; Dunand 1954, 11 figure 5, #6794 and p. 234
Plowshare? Agricultural Settlement 13.5 cm Deshayes 1188, p. 136, pl. XVI.12; Dunand 1954, 325, figure 260
Saw with teeth Level XVIII Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.6 cm Deshayes 2868, pg. 356; Byblos, I, p. 257, pl. CII, #3743
Scraper? Utilitarian Settlement 8.7 cm Deshayes 3031, p. 374, pl. XLIX.20; Dunand 1954, 413, figure 452, #11031
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 21 cm Deshayes 2769; Dunand 1937-39, 119, pl. XCIX, #1781
Sickle Agricultural Settlement 17.5 cm Deshayes 2769; Dunand 1954, 101, pl. CLXXVIII, #7451
Spatula Utilitarian Settlement 11 cm Deshayes 3016, p. 373, pl. XLIX.2, Dunand 1954, 258, pl. CLXXX, #9215
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 8.5 cm Deshayes 3050, p. 376; Dunand 1954, 208, figure 212, #8641
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 12.5 cm Deshayes 3053, p. 276, pl. XLIX.3; Dunand 1937-39, 373, pl. C, #5447
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 5.5 cm Deshayes 3010, 372, pl. XLIX.23; Dunand 1937-39, 254, figure 222, #3707
SYRIA-PALESTINE 656

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 29 cm Deshayes 3012, p 373; Dunand 1954, 91 figure 80, #7364
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 11.2 cm Deshayes 3015, p. 373; Dunand 1954, 260, pl. CLXXX, #9240
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 8.2 cm Deshayes 3023, p. 373, Dunand 1954, 281, figure 310, #9416
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 10.5 cm Deshayes 2979; Dunand 1937-39, 158 and 218, pl. CXLI #2333
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 7 cm Deshayes 2979; Dunand 1937-39, 158 and 218, pl. CXLI #2334
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 8 cm Deshayes 2979; Dunand 1937-39, 158 and 218, pl. XCIX, #3227
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 7.7 cm Deshayes 2981; Dunand 1954, 269, pl. CLXXXII, #10482
Spatula or scraper Utilitarian Settlement 7.4 cm Deshayes 2986, p. 371, pl. XLVIII.25; Dunand 1954, 208, pl. CLXXXII, #8645
Gezer -MBA
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11.8 ce = 4.6 Deshayes 561, plate VII.13; Gezer II, p. 243 and III, plate CXCII.11
Ax, trunnion/lugged level III Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.5 ce = 7.4 Deshayes 1070, plate XIV.3; Gezer II, p. 243; III, pl. CXCII.7
Gezer - LBA
Ax, single/flat level IV Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 ce = 5.2 Deshayes 568, plate VII.15; Gezer, II. p. 243 and III, plate CCXVIII.12
Ax, trunnion/lugged 1550-1450; LBA I Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 ce = 8.7 Deshayes 1058, figure XIII.7; Gezer I, p. 325, III, pl. LXXXIX.17
Ax, trunnion/lugged 12th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 83, figure 6.13; Macalister, II, figure 415
Saw with teeth Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18.5 3.1 Deshayes 2887, plate XLVIII.11
Hama - 2nd millennium
Ax, trunnion/lugged Carpentry/masonry Settlement? Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 81, figure 4.18
Jericho - MBA
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.5 ce = 5.1 Deshayes 573, plate VIII.5; Jericho, p. 117, fig. 104.9
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.5 Deshayes 567; Jericho p. 117, figure 104.5
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16.5 ce = 5 Deshayes 1169, plate XV.10; Jericho, p.119-120, figure 106
Kibbutz Hahotrim - LBA
Chisel Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Wachsmann 2009, 208-209;
Chisel Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Wachsmann 2009, 208-209;
Plowshare Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Wachsmann 2009, 208-209;
Megiddo - MBA
Awl 1800-1750 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 44
Awl 1800-1750 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 87
Awl 18th-17th century Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 123
Ax, shaft hole 1800 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15 ce = 2 Deshayes 1495; Loud 1948, plate 182.2
Ax, shaft hole 18th-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.8 - 12.9 Deshayes 1502; Guy 1938, p. 167, plate 122.1
Ax, shaft hole 18th-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 13.1 Deshayes 1503; Guy 1938, p. 167, plate 133.4
Ax, shaft hole 1800 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 1504; Loud 1948, pl. 182.1
Ax, shaft hole 1700-1650 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 652
Ax, single/flat 1850-1800 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 635
Ax, single/flat 1850-1800 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 588
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 487
Ax, single/flat 1850-1800 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 12.4 ce = 4.2 Deshayes 453; Loud 1948, plate 182.5
Ax, single/flat 1800-1750 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 368
Ax, single/flat 1650-1550 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 294
Ax, shaft hole 18th-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.8 - 12.9 Deshayes 1502; Guy 1938, p. 167,plate 122.2
Ax, shaft hole 18th-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 10.8 - 12.9 Deshayes 1502; Guy 1938, p. 167, plate 118.3
Blade, flanged 18th-17th OR 14th-13th Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1074
Chisel 16th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 936
Chisel 19th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.3 ce = 0.6 Deshayes 834, plate X.12; Loud 1948, plate 184.2
Chisel 1750-1700 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 782
Chisel 16th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 691
Double ax 1800-1750 BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 17 ce = 5.3 Deshayes 2082, plate XXXV.4; Loud 1948, plate 182.7
SYRIA-PALESTINE 657

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Cutting or slashing tool 16th century BC Utilitarian Burial Deshayes 2964
Knife 16th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2388
Spatula or scraper 18th-17th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2990
Megiddo - LBA
Awl 1550-1479 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 51
Awl 1479-1350 BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes? ; level 8
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10 ce =2.7 Deshayes 1822, figure XXIII.6; Tell el-Mutesellim I, pl. XXVII, D; II, p. 27
Ax, single/flat 11th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 655
Ax, single/flat 1550-1479 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 588
Ax, single/flat 1350-1150 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 589
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 329
Ax, single/flat 1350-1150 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 313
Ax, single/flat 1550-1479 Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 282
Ax-adze 12th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.2 ce = 5.9 &4.8 Deshayes 2236; Loud 1948, plate 183.20
Ax-adze 1150-1100 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17 Deshayes 2236; Loud 1948, pl. 183.19
Ax-hammer Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 2110; plate XXXVI.13;
Blade, flanged 1150-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1062
Blade, flanged 1150-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1063
Chisel 1479-1150 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 12.3 ce = 1.5 Deshayes 684, plate IX.3; Loud 1948, pl. 184.13
Chisel 1479-1150 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement between 6 and 12.3 Deshayes 684, plate IX.3; Loud 1948, pl. 184.16
Chisel 1479-1150 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement between 6 and 12.3 Deshayes 684, plate IX.3; Loud 1948, pl. 184.18
Chisel LB II Carpentry/masonry Burial Catling 1964, 96; Guy 1938, pl. 127.7
Chisel 1350-1150 BC; level VIIB Carpentry/masonry Settlement 10.6 ce = 1.4 Deshayes 942, plate XI.10; Loud 1948, pl. 184.15
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 9.5 ce = 0.85 Deshayes 869, plate XI.7; Tell el-Mutesellim, I. pl. XVII, f; II, p. 16
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 870
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 7.8 ce = 0.8 Deshayes 811; tell el-Mutesellim, I, figure 53, II p. 23
Chisel 1650-1550 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 783
Chisel 1550-1350 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 755
Chisel 14th-13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 710
Chisel 1479-1350 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 705
Chisel 1350-1150 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 696
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 697
Double ax 1150-1100 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.2 ce = 3.7 Deshayes 2059; Loud 1948, plate 183 15
Double ax 1150-1100 BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 ce = 5.5 Deshayes 2059; Loud 1948, plate 183 14; Branigan 1974, 165 entry 539
Cutting or slashing tool 1550-1479 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2938
Knife LB II; 14th-13th century Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2628
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2602
Knife 14th-12th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2590
Knife 1350-1150 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2578
Knife 1150-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2579
Knife 1150-1100 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2580
Knife 12th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2559
Knife Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2476
Knife 1650-1550 BC, level X Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2375
Knife 1550-1479 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2389
Knife 1479-1350 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2398
Knife 14th-13th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2400
Knife 14th-13th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2401
Plowshare? Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 15 Deshayes 1220; Loud 1948, pl. 195, 1 and 2
SYRIA-PALESTINE 658

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Plowshare? 1479-1150 BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 1190; Loud 1948, pl. 195, 1 and 2
Plowshare? level III Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 15 Deshayes 1191; Loud 1948, pl. 195, 1 and 2
Plowshare? Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 13 Deshayes 1220; Loud 1948, pl. 195, 1 and 2
Sickle Level IX; 1550-1479 BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2838
Tongs 14th-13th century; LB II Metallurgical Burial 43.7 Deshayes 3055; Guy 1938, pl. 125:10; Catling 1964, 99
Tongs LBA II; 14th-13th century Metallurgical Burial 20 Deshayes 3056; Guy 1938, pl. 125:10; Catling 1964, 99
Megiddo - 2nd millennium
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2560
Knife Utilitarian Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2396
Minet el Beida, Ugarit - LBA
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 cm Deshayes 835, pg. 92
Cutting/slashing tool Utilitarian Settlement 8.8 cm Deshayes 2971, p. 367
Cutting/slashing tool Small crafts Settlement 9 and 11.8 cm Deshayes 2970, p. 367, plate L.17; Fouilles Schaeffer-Chenet 1929
Knife 14th-13th century Utilitarian Settlement 23.5 cm Deshayes 2518 bis, pg 314-5; MB 4014
Sickle 16th-13th century BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 20.5 cm Deshayes 2768, p. 341; BSPF, XXVIII (1931), p. 75, figure 3
Chisel, cold 14th-13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 7.2 1.8 Galliano and Calvet 2004,, 254 entry 299 with photograph
Double spatula 14th-13th century BC Small crafts Burial 8.1 1.4 Galliano and Calvet 2004,, 254 entry 293 with photograph
Double spatula 14th-13th century BC Small crafts Burial 9.7 1.7 Galliano and Calvet 2004,, 254 entry 295 with photograph
Double spatula? 14th-13th century BC Small crafts Burial 9.8 2.7 Galliano and Calvet 2004,, 254 entry 294 with photograph
Shepherd's crook 14th-13th century BC Ritual or prestige item Burial 17 9.7 Galliano and Calvet 2004,, 254 entry 296 with photograph
Spatula in a deer form 14th-13th century BC Small crafts Burial 9.7 5.5 Galliano and Calvet 2004, 253 entry 292
Nahariya - LBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged above floor VII Carpentry/masonry Cultic site or sanctuary Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 81, figure 5.10
Qatna - LBA
Ax, trunnion/lugged Probably LBI Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 16.1 ce = 5.1 Deshayes 1055, figure XIII.11; Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 82
Ras ibn Hani, Ugarit
Mold for oxhide ingot 13th century Metallurgical Workshop? Bouni et al. 1998; Archaeology of Syria 2003, 340
Ras Shamra, Ugarit - MBA
Ax, shaft hole Start of 18th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial? about 16 cm ce = 2.85 Deshayes 1480; Syria XVII (1936), p. 133, figure 19.j
Ax, shaft hole Start of 18th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial? 18 cm ce = 3.4 Deshayes 1481, p. 184 pl. XXIII.4; Syria XVII (1936), p. 142, figure 17g
Ax, shaft hole 18th-17th century; MB II Carpentry/masonry Burial? Deshayes 1482, p. 184; Strat. Comp. figure 49.6
Ax, shaft hole 18th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 14.5 cm ce = 3.1 Deshayes 1483, p. 184; Syria XIX (1938), p. 240, figure 32,
Ax, shaft hole 18th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 17.5 cm ce = 3.7 Deshayes 1485; Syria XIX (1938), p. 240, figure 32, T
Ax, shaft hole 18th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 16 cm ce = 2.75 Deshayes 1486; Syria XIX (1938), p. 240, figure 32, S
Ax, shaft hole 18th century BC Carpentry/masonry Burial 15 cm ce = 3 Deshayes 1487; Syria XIX (1938), p. 246, figure 39, H
Ax, shaft hole 18th-17th century Carpentry/masonry Burial? Deshayes 1491, p. 185; Schaeffer 1949, p. 50, figure 18, 15
Ax, single/flat 21st-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 9.5 cm Deshayes 646; Schaeffer 1949, p. 63, figure 26.4
Ax, single/flat 21st-17th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 4.7 cm 1.6 Deshayes 291, plate IV.4; Schaeffer 1949, p. 62, figure 25, C,b
Ax, fenestrated, tiny MBA, level II Ritual or prestige item Cultic site or sanctuary 4.1 3.1 Contenson 1992, 189, plate CLXIX, 3
Ax, fenestrated, tiny MBA, level II Ritual or prestige item Cultic site or sanctuary ? ? Contenson 1992, 189, plate CLXIX, 3
Chisel 21st-17th century Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 6.1 cm ce = 0.7 Deshayes 703;, p. 87, 99, pl. IX>8; Schaeffer 1949, p. 62, figure 25c, A
Ras Shamra, Ugarit - LBA
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 23 6.7 Schaeffer 1956, 251-275; Galliano and Calvet 2004, 33 entry 6
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard 23 6.4 Schaeffer 1956, 251-275; Galliano and Calvet 2004, 87 entry 63
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
SYRIA-PALESTINE 659

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Adze, shaft hole 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 23 ce = 6.3 Deshayes 1893; Schaeffer 1956, p. 259, fig. 228, 229, 231, 233
Awl 16th-13th century BC Small crafts Settlement Deshayes 94; Syria, XVIII (1937), pl. XIX
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Ax, shaft hole 1450-1365 BC Carpentry/masonry or Ritual Settlement or prestige item 18.3 5.7 Deshayes 1820; Galliano and Calvet 2004, 195 entry 186
Ax, shaft hole 1450-1365 BC; LB II Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 19.5 cm ce = 5.7 Deshayes 1522, p. 187-8, pl. XXIV.6; Strat. Comp. figure 44.3
Ax, shaft hole 14th-13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown about 14 cm ce = 3.9 Deshayes 1523; p. 188; Schaeffer 1956, p. 279, pl. X and figure 242
Ax, shaft hole 1450-1365 BC Ritual or prestige item or Cultic carpentry/masonry
site or sanctuary 19.5 cm 8 Deshayes 1293, Galliano and Calvet 2004, 166 entry 150
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 to 21 cm Deshayes 362; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.1
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 363, Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.4
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11 to 16.5 cm Deshayes 364; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.10
Ax, single/flat 15th-14th century Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 23 ce = 6.2 Deshayes 263; Ugaritica I, p. 112, pl. XXIII
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19.5 cm Deshayes 264; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.6
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 265, p. 58; Ugaritica, III, p. 261, figure 234.14
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement about 20 cm Deshayes 266, pg. 58; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.5
Ras Shamra, Ugarit 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 to 21 cm Deshayes 362; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.2
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 to 21 cm Deshayes 362; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.3
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.5 to 21 cm Deshayes 362; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.23
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 to 21 cm Deshayes 363, Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.17
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 to 21 cm Deshayes 363, Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.20
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15 to 21 cm Deshayes 363, Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 235, bottom
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11 to 16.5 cm Deshayes 364; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.11
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11 to 16.5 cm Deshayes 364; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.27
SYRIA-PALESTINE 660

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 23 cm Deshayes 263, plate III.15; Ugaritica I, p. 278, pl. X and figure 240
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.5 cm Deshayes 264; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 234.21
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 265, p. 58; Ugaritica, III, p. 261, figure 234.18
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 265, p. 58; Ugaritica, III, p. 261, figure 234.22
Ax, single/flat 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 265, p. 58; Ugaritica, III, p. 261, figure 234.25
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 19 5.2 Galliano and Calvet 2004, 237 entry 262
Ax, trunnion/lugged LM II; 1450-1365 Carpentry/masonry Settlement 17.6 ce = 5.4 Deshayes 1078, plate XIII.5; Ugaritica, III, p. 261, fig. 234.19
Blade, flanged 1450-1365 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1054
Blade, flanged 1450-1365 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes1077
Blade, flanged 1450-1365 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes1078
Blade, flanged 1450-1365 BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 1079
Chisel 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Chisel 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Chisel 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Chisel, cold 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 11 cm Deshayes 999; p. 103; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 233.12
Chisel 14-13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 955, p. 98, plate XI.12; Syria XVIII (1937), pl. XIX, right
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 14.1 cm Deshayes 862; Schaeffer 1956, p. 261, figure 233, 10 and figure 237, middle
Chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 15.3 1.67 Deshayes 791; Ras Shamra 1934; RS 6309
Chisel 14th-13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 792; Syria, XVIII (1937) pl. XIX center
Chisel 14th-13th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes 711, p. 87; Syria XVIII (1937), pl. XIX, 2nd from left
Cutting or slashing tool Utilitarian Settlement 16.7 Deshayes 2966
Drill 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Drill 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Drill 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement Deshayes190
Drill 14th century BC Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.8 ce = 1.7 Deshayes 191, plate II.21; Schaeffer 1956, p. 262, figure 233.13
Hoe 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard 23 6.7 Schaeffer 1956, 265 figure 230; Galliano and Calvet (2004) 190 entry 179
Hoe 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Hoe 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Hoe 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Hoe 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Hoe or spatula LBA Agricultural? Settlement 11 3.7 Galliano and Calvet 2004, 193, entry 184 with photograph
Implement Small crafts Settlement 12.3 Deshayes 2927
Implement Small crafts Settlement 8.6 ce = 1.95 & 2 Deshayes 2952; Ras Shamra 1930; discovered on 19.01.1930
Implement Small crafts Settlement 9.3 ce = 1.8 and 2 Ras Shamra 1930; Deshayes 2953
Implement Small crafts Settlement 10.8 ce = 1.35 &1.4 Deshayes 2952
Implement Small crafts Settlement 8.6 ce = 2.05&2.15 Deshayes 2952; Fouilles 1930
Implement Small crafts Settlement 9.25 ce = 1.1 Deshayes 2952; Ras Shamra, Schaeffer-Cheuet 1930
Knife 14th-13th century BC Utilitarian Settlement Deshayes 2397
Mold for multiple tools LBA? Metallurgical Settlement 38 23 Galliano and Calvet 2004, 193, entry 183
Mold for jewelry LBA Metallurgical Settlement 9.3 8 Galliano and Calvet 2004,, 291, entry 182 with photograph
Plowshare 14th century BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 17.5 Deshayes 1207, plate XVI.11; Schaeffer 1956, p. 259, figure 227 and 232.4
Plowshare Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 1209
Plowshare 14th century BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 23.5 Deshayes 1210; Schaeffer 1956, p. 259, figure 230, on the left
Plowshare 14th century BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown 20 Deshayes 1211; Schaeffer 1956, pg 259, figure 227 and 232, 1 and 3
Plowshare Rougly 1300 BC (Catling) Agricultural Hoard Between 18 and 23 Schaeffer, Ugartica III, 263, figure 227; 267, figure 232:1-4 and 6
Plowshare Rougly 1300 BC (Catling) Agricultural Hoard Between 18 and 23 Schaeffer, Ugartica III, 263, figure 227; 267, figure 232:1-4 and 6
Plowshare Rougly 1300 BC (Catling) Agricultural Hoard Between 18 and 23 Schaeffer, Ugartica III, 263, figure 227; 267, figure 232:1-4 and 6
Plowshare Rougly 1300 BC (Catling) Agricultural Hoard Between 18 and 23 Schaeffer, Ugartica III, 263, figure 227; 267, figure 232:1-4 and 6
Plowshare Rougly 1300 BC (Catling) Agricultural Hoard Between 18 and 23 Schaeffer, Ugartica III, 263, figure 227; 267, figure 232:1-4 and 6;
SYRIA-PALESTINE 661

Sites & Object types Specific object date Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Plowshare 14th century Agricultural Settlement 22.7 Deshayes 1211; Schaeffer 1956, pg 259, figure 227 and 232, 1 and 3
Pruning knife Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2865
Razor in form of sickle Utilitarian Settlement 10 3.6 Galliano and Calvet 2004, 228 entry 241 with photograph
Razor, double edged Utilitarian Settlement 17.2 12.2 Galliano and Calvet 2004,, 228 entry 242 with photograph
Shovel Agricultural Settlement 33.2 15 Galliano, G. and Y. Calvet 2004, 189 entry 176 with photograph
Sickle 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Sickle 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Sickle 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Sickle 14th century BC Agricultural Hoard Schaeffer 1956, 251-275
Sickle Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2766
Sickle 14th century BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2767
Sickle 14th century BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2753
Sickle 14th century BC Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2754
Sickle 16th-13th century Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2755
Sickle LBII, 1450-1365 Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2756
Sickle 14th-12th century Agricultural Unstratified or unknown Deshayes 2732
Sickle Agricultural Burial 18 2.7 Galliano and Calvet 2004, 46 entry 30 with photograph
Socketed chisel Carpentry/masonry Settlement 21.6 2 Galliano and Calvet 2004, 237 entry 261
Spatula, furnace Metallurgical Settlement Catling 1964, under furnace spatulae
Spatula Metallurgical? Settlement 22.5 ce = 6.13 Deshayes 2974
Double spatula w Bes fig 14th century Utilitarian Settlement? 10.4 2.2 Aruz, J., K. Benzel, and J. Evans, eds. 2008, 150 entry 90 with photograph
Tongs Metallurgical Settlement Deshayes 3054; Catling 1964, 99
Ax, shaft hole Carpentry/masonry Unstratified or unknown 15.5 cm ce = 4.7 Deshayes 1521, p. 187-8; Syria XIII (1932), p. 21, figure 14
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 23.8 3.5 to 7 Chavane 1987, 358 figure 1 and 2; Yon et al 1983, figure 9b, p. 210
Ax, single/flat Carpentry/masonry Settlement 18 5.5 Chavane 1987, 359 figure 3 and 4; Yon 1983, fig. 9, p. 210
Ax, shaft hole end of the 13th century Carpentry/masonry Settlement 16 6.5 Chavane 1987, 360 fig. 5 and 6; Yon, Caubet, Mallet 1982, 175 and fig. 8a
Mold for tools LBA? Metallurgical Settlement Galliano and Calvet 2004, 193 entry 183
Mold for tools
Tell el Ajjul - MBA
LBA? Metallurgical Settlement Galliano and Calvet 2004, 193 entry 183
Ax, trunnion/lugged
Tell Siyannou - MBA
1600 BC - MB - LB I Carpentry/masonry Burial Maxwell-Hyslop 1953, 82; Petrie III, pl. XXII, 93
Ax, shaft hole, crescent Carpentry/masonry or weapon? Settlement? 4.7 1.1 Galliano, G. and Y. Calvet 2004, 111 entry 84 with photograph
SYRIA-PALESTINE 662

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Cape Gelidonya- LBA
Adze, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 7.2 cm 4 cm Bass 1967 figures 109 and 110 on pg 97 and 98
Adze, trunnion/lugged Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 17 cm 4.5 cm Bass 1967 figure 109 and 110 on pg 97-98
Adze, trunnion/lugged Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 15 cm 6.4 cm Bass 1967 figure 109 and 110 on pg 97-98
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 5.35 cm break edge = 4 cm Bass 1967
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 5.85 cm tip = 5.45 cm Bass 1967
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 5.5 cm 5 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 8.8 cm 5.9 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 6.3 cm 3.6 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 5.4 cm 4.8 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 10.5 cm 4.5 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 7.9 cm tip = 5 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 3.2 cm 4.2 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 5.6 cm 5.4 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 4.7 cm 4.7 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 7.4 cm tip = 5.25 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 2.8 cm Bass 1967, 97
Adze frag, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 4 cm 6.7 cm Bass 1967, 97
Awl, elongated Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 12.55 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 3 cm diam = 0.4 x 0.4 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 6.5 cm diam = 1 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl or engraver Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 5 cm socket = 0.95 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl or engraver Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 5.3 cm tip = 0.3 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl or implement bit Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 6.7 cm diam = 0.5 x 0.5 Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl or nail Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 4.3 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl or nail Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 4.3 cm 0.6 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Awl or needle Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts Shipwreck 10.5 cm diam = 0.3 x 0.35 cm Bass 1967, 100-101, figures 112 and 113
Axe, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 15 cm tip = 5.05 cm Bass 1967 figures 109 and 110 on pg 97 and 98
Axe, trunnion/lugged Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 18.1 cm tip = 4.65 cm Bass 1967, figure 109 and 110 on pg 97-98
Axe, trunnion/lugged Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 20.9 cm tip - 5.05 cm Bass 1967 figure 109 and 110 on pg 97-98
Axe-adze Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 10.8 cm Bass 1967, figures 109 and 110, pg 98-99
Axe-adze Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 16.5 cm? Bass 1967, figures 109 and 110, pg 98-99
Axe-adze Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 7.8 cm tip = 3.75 cm Bass 1967, figures 109 and 110, pg 98-99
Axe-adze or double axe Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 2.9 cm 4.8 cm Bass 1967, 99...
Casting, unworked Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck Bass 1967
Casting, unworked Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck Bass 1967
Casting, unworked Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck Bass 1967, 114
Casting or tripod leg Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck 13.8 cm Bass 1967, 114
Casting of metal strip Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck 28 cm greatest = 2.35 Bass 1967, 113
Chisel, cold Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 8.5 cm 2.4 cm Bass 1967, 99 figures 112 and 113 on page 100 and 101
Chisel Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 12.5 cm 1.5 cm Bass 1967, figures 112 and 113 on pg 100 and 101
Chisel, mortise Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 11.5 cm 1.2 Bass 1967, figures 112 and 113 on pg 100 and 101
Chisel Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 3.7 cm tip = 2.15 Bass 1967, figure 112 and 113
Chisel Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 1.8 cm 1.6 cm Bass 1967, 101 figure 113
Double axe Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 17.5 cm 6 Bass 1967, figure 107 and 108 on page 94 and 96
Double axe Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 11.5 cm 6 Bass 1967, figure 107 and 108 on page 94 and 96
Double axe Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 10.5 cm 4.8 cm Bass 1967, figures 107 and 108 on page 94 and 96
Double axe Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1967 figures 107 and 108 on page 94 and 96
Hammer or anvil Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck 8.4 cm 2.2 cm Bass 1967, 102...
SHIPWRECK TOOLS

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 11.1 cm 5 cm Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 9.05 cm 4.3 cm Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967, 93
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967, 93
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967, 93
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967, 93
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967, 93
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967, 93
Hoe fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967, 93
Hoe Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1988, 2-5; Pulak 1988, 13-17
Hoe-like object Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 11 cm blade = 2 cm Bass 1967
SHIPWRECK TOOLS

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 17 cm 1.5 Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 8.2 cm 0.9 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 12.7 cm 2 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 7.5 cm 2.2 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 10.5 cm 1.3 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 7.3 greatest = 1.4 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 7.6 cm 2.5 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 6.2 cm 1.6 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 15 cm 2.3 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 4.8 cm 2 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 6.5 cm 1.8 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 5.2 cm 2.2 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 10 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 14 cm 2 cm Bass 1967, 102-103, figures 114 and 115
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck Bass 1988, 2-5; Pulak 1988, 13-17
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck Bass 1988, 2-5; Pulak 1988, 13-17
Knife Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck Bass 1988, 2-5; Pulak 1988, 13-17
Mattock Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 14.5 cm 12.3 cm Bass 1967, 94
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 8.1 cm 3.2 Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, bar fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
SHIPWRECK TOOLS

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Pick, socket fragment Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1967
Tang of implement Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 13.5 cm broken tip = 3.25 cm Bass 1967, 112-114
Tang of implement Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 5.3 cm 2 cm Bass 1967, 112-114
Tang of implement Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 3.7 cm 1.8 cm Bass 1967, 112-114
Tang of implement Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 3.6 cm Bass 1967, 112-114
Tang of implement Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 7.1 cm 1.9 cm Bass 1967, 112-114
Pruning hook Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 14.8 cm Bass 1967, 95
Pruning hook Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 11.5 cm socket diam =2.2 Bass 1967, 95
Pruning hook casting Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural or Metallurgical?Shipwreck Bass 1967
Punch or bit holder Roughly 1200 BC Small crafts or metallurgicalShipwreck 5 cm diameter = 1.2 cm Bass 1967
Razor or axe, single/flat Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry or Utilitarian Shipwreck 8.4 cm 4.6 cm Bass 1967, 103-104, figure 114 and 115
Shovel Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 18.5 cm socket diam. = 6.3 cm Bass 1967
Sickle or razor Roughly 1200 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 9.55 cm tip = 3 cm Bass 1967, 95...
Socketed chisel Roughly 1200 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 4.5 cm 1 cm Bass 1967, 100, figure 112
Spatula; crucible scraper? Roughly 1200 BC Utilitarian or metallurgical?Shipwreck 7.4 cm 1 cm Bass 1967, 105
Swage block
Uluburun - LBA
Roughly 1200 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck 10 cm 3.8 cm Bass 1967, 102
Adze, necked, single 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 20.5 cm 6.3 cm Pulak 1988, 16 figure 12
Adze, necked, single 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 21.8 cm ce= 5.25 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 631 entry 190
Adze, necked, single 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 23.3 cm ce= 5.45 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 630 entry 189
Adze, trunnion/lugged 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 28.6 cm ce= 6.9 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 631 entry 191
Awl 1320 BC Small crafts Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Axe, trunnion/lugged 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 19.5 cm 5.2 cm Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Axe, shaft hole 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 13 cm estimated ce = 4.45 INA Newsletter 18.4
Axe, trunnion/lugged 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 19.5 cm ce= 5.8 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 630 entry 188
Chisel, broad 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Pulak 1988, 17; Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999, Yalcin et al. 2005
Chisel, broad 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 20.1 cm 4.3 cm Pulak 1988, 17 figure 14
Chisel, broad 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 16.9 cm 3.6 cm Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Chisel, mortise 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 25.3 cm ce= 1.5 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 631 entry 193
Chisel, mortise 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 20.5 cm 2.3 cm Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Chisel, mortise 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Chisel, circular shaft 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 20.4 cm ce= 2.4 cm Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Chisel 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 17.2 cm ce= 1.9 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 631 entry 192
Chisel 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 17.7 cm ce= 1.8 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 631 entry 195
SHIPWRECK TOOLS

Sites & Object types Specific period Tool type category Context L W Bibliography
Chisel, cold 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 15.6 cm ce= 2.8 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 631 entry 194
Chisel, cold 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 9.2 cm estimated ce = 1.7 Bass et al. 1989, 10 figure 18
Chisel, cold 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 11.2 cm 4.8 cm Pulak 1992, INA 19.4,pg 7, figure 5
Chisel bit 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 19.5 cm Pulak 1993, INA 20.4 pg 10 figure 12
Dagger or knife 1320 BC Utilitarian or weapon? Shipwreck 31 cm Pulak 1993, INA 20.4, pg 12 figure 14
Double axe 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 18.8 cm ce= 6.6 and 6.7 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 630, 187
Double axe 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Drill 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 13 cm 1 cm Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Drill 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 14.9 cm estimated ce = 1.7 Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Harpoon 1320 BC Ritual or prestige item Shipwreck INA 24.3 pg 16; earlier INA publications; check out INA 1993 or 1994
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Slender tool; unpubl. 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Knife, single edged 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 22.9 cm 1.45 Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Knife, double edged 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck INA Newsletter, vol. 17.4
Knife 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 25.2 cm middle = 1.3 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 624 entry 175
Knife or dagger 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 32 cm Bass 1986 ,282-283, figure 17
Knife or dagger 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck Bass 1986, AJA 90, pg 282
Knife or dagger 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 28.4 cm Pulak 1988, AJA, 23, figure 24
Plumb bob 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Razor 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck Bass 1986, 293 ill. 33
Razor 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck 19.6 cm ce= 2.55 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 625 entry 176;
Razor 1320 BC Utilitarian Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Saw 1320 BC Carpentry/masonry Shipwreck 48 cm INA Newsletter, vol. 18, no. 4
Sickle 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 17.7 cm ce= 1.05 Yalcin et al. 2005, 632, 196
Sickle 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Sickle 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Sickle 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Sickle 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Sickle 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Sickle 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck Bass 1986, Bass et al. 1989, Pulak 1988, Pulak 1998, Pulak 1999
Trident 1320 BC Ritual or prestige item Shipwreck Pulak 1993, INA 20.4 pg 11, figure 13
Hoe 1320 BC Agricultural Shipwreck 30.3 cm ce= 6.6 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 630 entry 186
Tongs 1320 BC Metallurgical Shipwreck 52.3 cm ce= 1.1 cm Yalcin et al. 2005, 632 entry 197
SHIPWRECK TOOLS