10.04.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

demonstrating <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong> Anatolian ax on Crete, <strong>the</strong> mainl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> isl<strong>and</strong>s during<br />

<strong>the</strong> latter half of <strong>the</strong> second millennium. The tool type, never<strong>the</strong>less, was not widely<br />

accepted in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Aegean</strong> in its Anatolian form. The precise chronology of <strong>the</strong> lugged<br />

blade’s appearance in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Aegean</strong> cannot be pinpointed, but at least six of <strong>the</strong> eight LBA<br />

examples are dated to LBA III. 361<br />

Given that <strong>the</strong> trunnion/lugged blades are primarily<br />

found in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Aegean</strong> during <strong>the</strong> 14 th <strong>and</strong> 13 th -centuries, this may testify to limited contact<br />

<strong>and</strong> exchange between Hittite <strong>and</strong> Mycenaean craftspersons.<br />

D2: Single/flat axes (Plates 4.14-4.15)<br />

A single ax blade is simple, lacks a shaft hole, <strong>and</strong> consists of one cutting edge<br />

(Plates 4.14-15). Because of its plain appearance, <strong>the</strong> implement is not easily<br />

distinguishable <strong>from</strong> flat adzes <strong>and</strong> wide chisels. 362 Consideration of <strong>the</strong> length-width<br />

ratio, as displayed in Figures 4.5a, b, helps to differentiate <strong>the</strong> ax <strong>from</strong> similarly shaped<br />

tools. In recognizing single axes <strong>from</strong> adzes, <strong>the</strong> statistical measurements are not very<br />

useful because many adzes are fragmentary. Evely deems this challenge of identification<br />

“probably impossible…[even though] adzes tend to be less robust than axes <strong>and</strong> have a<br />

preference for a single bevel.” 363 While Deshayes avoids differentiating single axes <strong>from</strong><br />

adzes, Shaw interprets <strong>the</strong>m as adzes, <strong>and</strong> Catling attempts to distinguish <strong>the</strong>m while<br />

acknowledging <strong>the</strong>ir similarity. 364<br />

In this study, most single/flat blades are classified as<br />

axes ra<strong>the</strong>r than adzes. Only when <strong>the</strong>re is clear evidence of a single bevel on <strong>the</strong> cutting<br />

edge is a tool identified as an adze. Consequently, <strong>the</strong> overall count of single axes <strong>and</strong><br />

adzes may be distorted in favor of <strong>the</strong> axes. Axes <strong>and</strong> adzes are difficult to distinguish by<br />

361<br />

The earliest appearance of <strong>the</strong> trunnion/lugged blade in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Aegean</strong> is <strong>from</strong> MM I-II Mallia, but this<br />

single case can hardly explain <strong>the</strong> appearance of <strong>the</strong> tool during <strong>the</strong> <strong>Aegean</strong> LBA III period.<br />

362<br />

Evely 1993, 5.<br />

363<br />

Evely 1993, 75.<br />

364<br />

Deshayes 1960, 51ff; Shaw 1973, 47ff; Catling 1964, 86; Evely 1993, 75.<br />

151

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!