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

dataset with which to compare the Mediterranean implements. Such a task must be
relegated to a future study, since expanding the current project in that geographic
direction was not viable. 67
As for the veracity of the tool percentages and quantities presented, some
inaccuracies based upon data entry mistakes are inevitable. The database has been
continually updated and tweaked, yet with a dataset of over 5,300 objects, a small margin
of human error is to be expected. Moreover, even with the strict attention paid to
terminology, a few tools are possibly misidentified, based either upon incorrect published
identifications or fallacious personal observations. The process of tool classification can
be subjective, perhaps best illustrated by the distinction between knives and sickles. Very
small tools whose exact functions were not verifiable also proved problematic; they were
thus classified into a catch-all category representing minor crafts. A more meticulous
study is required if the accurate identification of these small tools is to be achieved. In all
likelihood, such work will have to rely a great deal upon ethnographic and experimental
comparisons.
There are limitations to a study with broad spatial and temporal parameters such
as this one. Yet, in addition to the “big picture” interpretation of the general tool
preferences by region and period, a refined study on the carpentry and masonry tools is
possible. Contextual issues also must be acknowledged. Many tools lack proper
contextual details other than the general region from which they are said to have
originated. The lack of provenience for many objects does not preclude their inclusion in
this investigation. Although tools without provenience are not securely dated, they are
helpful in assessing overall regional tool preferences. Find contexts are examined in some
67 Petrie 1917; Scheel 1989; Davies 1987.
43