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

likelihood, these implements were unnecessary given the island’s soft limestone and
sandstone materials. The Aegean-like tools on Cyprus clearly recall Cretan versions
rather than anything used by the Mycenaeans. In like manner Cypriot ashlar masonry has
little in common with the Mycenaean world; it is linked most closely to Ugarit and
Crete. 774
Orthostates, pillars, stepped capitals, gypsum veneering, and horns of
consecration are some traits that occur in LC stone working that recall Minoan practices.
The carpentry/masonry tool preferences revealed in this study implore us to reconsider a
Cretan-Cypriot technological link.
Despite the possible connection between Cyprus and Crete, it is difficult to
envision the particular mechanisms of interaction. Minoan craftspersons may have
journeyed to Cyprus after the fall of Knossos (LM IIIA1/2—c. 1375 BC), but a
significant temporal break occurs before the onset of the LC IIC-IIIA ashlar constructions
in the 13 th and 12 th centuries. Furthermore, the Minoan-like carpentry/masonry tools on
Cyprus are limited in number, informing us that the Cypriot tool industry was hardly
overrun with foreign implements by the end of the second millennium. Yet the
appearance of new Cypriot types, probably Cretan inspired, illustrates that Cyprus
blended indigenous carpentry/masonry preferences with some foreign elements. Traces of
a Minoan construction tradition on Cyprus may be detectable through a close study of
tool marks and architectural observations, while the probability of Ugaritic influence and
indigenous Cypriot developments in craftsmanship cannot be overlooked.
The Cypriot double-sided tools are not exact copies of their Neopalatial
prototypes, as slight variations exist between the Minoan and Cypriot versions. Yet it is
reasonable to postulate that the latter were inspired and/or adapted from the former.
774 Hult 1983, 89.
336