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

ich published dataset, only a few scholars, such as Deshayes and Catling, have
considered broad multi-regional tool links. The creation of typologies within large
datasets is an analytical method that pervades all of these studies. Categories are
instrumental in effectively managing data, but traditional, chrono-typological divisions
are not helpful in revealing the regional consumption preferences of metal tools.
Generally, implements are unsuitable temporal indicators, for metallic items and sub-
forms are not as diverse as ceramic styles. Typological analyses also become confusing
when conflicting standards and nomenclature are applied. Yet typological studies are
valuable and can differentiate local tools from foreign ones, though they overlook
research questions with potentially greater implications—e.g. the preferences for tools
according to their function and find context. Many tool investigations fail to explore the
mechanisms that constitute the final metallurgical stage, including the implications of
regionally-specific consumption patterns.
The foundational studies referenced above provide a basis for this study’s
comprehensive dataset. Although this project considers various categories of objects, it
intentionally does not create new implement typologies. Doing so would cause even more
confusion with terminology for readers of tool studies, since implement names vary (if
only slightly) from scholar to scholar and particularly among regions. Rather, extensive
consideration of the myriad tool preferences by region, chronological period, and context
is given in hopes of elucidating the interregional nature (or lack thereof) of tool
preferences. The distribution of metal tools reveals local and multi-cultural differences
1975; Iakovidis 1982; Downey 2001; Eastern Mediterranean: Bass 1967; Anatolia: Erkanal 1977;
Müller-Karpe 1994.
22