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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

within a region. Whenever possible, <strong>the</strong> LBA implements are classified chronologically<br />

by early LBA (1600-1400 BC), peak LBA (1400-1200 BC), <strong>and</strong> late LBA (1200-1050<br />

BC). It should be noted that <strong>the</strong> early LBA includes <strong>the</strong> transitional phases that<br />

awkwardly fall across <strong>the</strong> traditional divide of <strong>the</strong> MBA <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> LBA (see chronological<br />

table on page xxiii). Therefore, tools <strong>from</strong> Neopalatial (MMIII-LMI), Shaft Grave era<br />

(MHIII-LHI), <strong>and</strong> Old Hittite kingdom (1650-1500BC) contexts are included in <strong>the</strong><br />

“early LBA” grouping. Unfortunately many tools that are published lack chronological<br />

precision <strong>and</strong> are broadly attributed to <strong>the</strong> LBA. A tool’s exact date often may be<br />

questioned; this is especially true for hoard implements, whose contexts may be poorly<br />

understood. Numerous hoards date to <strong>the</strong> transitional period of LH III B-C on <strong>the</strong><br />

mainl<strong>and</strong> or <strong>the</strong> equivalent LC IIC-IIIA on Cyprus, <strong>and</strong>, as is <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> Tiryns<br />

hoard, can contain much earlier material in <strong>the</strong>m. 497<br />

When broadly dated to <strong>the</strong> transition<br />

<strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> 13 th to <strong>the</strong> 12 th century, tools are placed in <strong>the</strong> “peak LBA” ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> “late<br />

LBA” group.<br />

The total count of carpentry <strong>and</strong> masonry tools at each site is impacted by <strong>the</strong><br />

scope of excavations <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir publication. Despite this important caveat, several regions<br />

include one mega-site as judged by <strong>the</strong> level of carpentry/masonry tool consumption. For<br />

example, Mycenae, Enkomi, Boğazköy <strong>and</strong> Ugarit (<strong>and</strong> Byblos) each yielded a<br />

disproportionally high count of wood- <strong>and</strong> stone-working tools within <strong>the</strong>ir respective<br />

Mycenaean, Cypriot, Anatolian, <strong>and</strong> Syro-Palestinian tool assemblages. Crete is <strong>the</strong><br />

exception, as numerous palatial sites yielded comparable quantities of carpentry/masonry<br />

tools. Excavations at Knossos <strong>and</strong> Zakros have provided a similar number of <strong>the</strong>se<br />

implements, even though one may have expected Knossos to have been <strong>the</strong> primary tool<br />

497 For <strong>the</strong> Tiryns hoard, see Maran 2006, 141.<br />

195

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!