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

detail for the carpentry/masonry tools. Different tool depositions reveal various
mechanisms of tool use and disuse. Additionally, there are chronological issues that must
be noted when dealing with evidence from numerous cultures. Many cultural divisions
and ceramic phases (e.g. MH III-LH I, MMIII-LM I, Old Hittite, etc) do not align
perfectly within the framework of the Middle or Late Bronze Age, yet these broad
chronological divisions were employed for the sake of comparison. At least for the study
of the LBA carpentry/masonry implements, more specific (though still rather broad)
chronological categories were used. It must be emphasized that tools themselves are poor
indicators of time outside of a few cases, and generally should not be employed to
evaluate chronology. Although the frequency and distribution of tools cannot be used as a
primary method for dating implements, the patterns may provide a general guide for the
consumption tendencies over time and space.
Roughly 20% of the tools in the dataset were seen and/or handled in person. This
percentage reflects a great deal of time and research spent in numerous museums from
several different countries, yet an even better understanding of the tool industries would
have been gained if more tools had been examined. As previously mentioned, the study
does not utilize any current scientific, archaeometallurgical techniques of analysis.
Although such procedures would enhance the interpretation and overall comprehension
of metal tools, it was not essential for resolving the posed research questions on tool
distributions, interregional links, and craft mobility.
Historically, excavations have been conducted more often at large, impressive
sites in part because of a greater scholarly interest for the LBA than the MBA. Such
weighted archaeological research may naturally result in disproportional datasets. This
44