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

Tool count and frequency 4 (14.3%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 1 total: 1 single/flat ax
Other objects 2 razors, 1 scraper; 3 tweezers, 4 pins, 5 finger rings, 12
small stone objects
Bibliography Hastings 1905; Branigan 1974, 153
Context and date of Found in a vineyard by a local; assemblage found together
discovery
with pithoi fragments on March 30 th , 1903.
Likelihood of hoard Possible, but unclear
Traditional interpretation From a tomb group?
15. Cyprus: Pera bronzes (Troodos foothills, southwest of Nicosia): MC III-LC I
Various museums: Stockholm, Lund, Gothenburg, Malmö, and Helsinki
Total objects in hoard 117
Tool count and frequency 48, not including two iron tools (59.1%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 26: 2 shaft hole axes, 16 flat axes, 1 saw, 1 socketed chisel, 5
narrow chisels, 1 drill; (later intrusions are 1 iron axe-adze
and 1 iron shaft hole ax)
Other objects 31 knives, 8 awls, 1 whetstone, 2 spatulae, 1 flesh-hook, 6
swords, 26 daggers, 1 spearhead, 1 arrowhead, 6 toggle-pins,
4 tweezers, 3 stone mace-heads
Bibliography Åström 1977-1978. Catling 1964, 278, note 1.
Context and date of Reportedly found in a field in 1896
discovery
Likelihood of hoard Possible
Traditional interpretation Could be an agglomeration of looted grave goods
16. Cyprus or Croatia: Makarska hoard (Mesaoria valley or Dalmatia): MC II-III? 3
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford England (inv. 1927:1220-23+)
Total objects in hoard 9
Tool count and frequency 7 (77.8%)
Carpentry/masonry tools 6 total: 2 single/flat axes, 2 shaft-hole axes, 2 socket chisels
Other objects 1 socketed (smith?) hammer, 1 spear butt, 1 miniature ingot
Bibliography Vagnetti 1971; Åström 1977-1978, 40
Context and date of Unknown; purchased in 1879 and later acquired by Evans
discovery
and placed in the Ashmolean Museum in 1927.
Likelihood of hoard Uncertain
Traditional interpretation Bronzes could be a hoard or a collection of grave goods.
3 Two major problems exist with these bronzes. First, contextual information is sparse thus casting doubt
on the hoard’s authenticity, and a typological study purports that the metals represent different
chronological periods. Second, the reported provenance is in doubt. Catling argues that “Makarska” is a
mis-spelling of a modern Cypriot village in the Mesaoria valley: “Makrasyka.” Typologically, the
Makarska bronzes appear Cypriot, yet it is impossible to ascertain whether they originated within a hoard
or a tomb. Although difficult to substantiate, it is possible that these bronzes represented a bronze hoard
from Cyprus.
523