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

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