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

width formula is used in Chapter 4 to identify general traits of morphologically similar
tools.
Chisels represent the most diverse tool type, as there are major differences in
length, width, thickness, and the absence or presence of a hafting system. 64 Some chisels
are so small that their only identifying feature is their chisel-like point. Most chisels were
for wood- and stone-working, but the smallest chisel-like tools would have been delicate
enough to fashion softer materials like ivory. 65 Evely notes that modern tool kits of
carpenters and stonemasons may contain up to thirty different kinds of specialized
chisels. 66
The common denominator of chisels is the shape of their cutting edge, which
resembles the profile of an ax blade. To compare morphologically-similar tools
throughout multiple regions, this project recognizes the widths of cutting edges as a
defining and distinctive trait in addition to the length-over-width ratio. Problems with
implement terminology could be rendered inconsequential if cutting widths and ratios
prove themselves as useful dividers.
Carpentry/masonry tools that are difficult to distinguish (single axes, adzes,
chisels) may be classified in five grades based upon their cutting edge width. These
groupings are broadly defined to eliminate terminological and typological issues, while
enabling cross-regional comparisons. Category 1 objects have a cutting edge width of 0.5
cm or less. Category 2 implements have a cutting width ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 cm. The
width of Category 3 objects varies from 1.6 to 2.9 cm. The breadth of Category 4 tools
spans 3.0 to 4.9 cm. Finally, Category 5 tools have widths 5.0 cm and greater. Nearly all
flat or single axes fall within Category 5, while Category 2 objects are indubitably
64
Evely’s (1993, 2) criteria for chisel divisions are based on “shape, size, robustness, and so on...”
65
Evely 1993, 2.
66
Evely 1993, 2.
41