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

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