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

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