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

issue should be acknowledged when evaluating the general tool patterns, especially when
having to deal with comparisons between the MBA and LBA as well as between palatial
and rural sites. Although the disparate and incomplete nature of archaeological data is
recognized, it is hoped that the study’s broad lens minimizes the effects of narrowly-
focused archaeological excavations to provide valid patterns of tool consumption.
This dissertation does not compare the metal and stone tool industries
comprehensively. Despite the similarity in function of some stone and metal tools, these
categories are rarely considered concomitantly. 68 Lithic studies are prominent in
prehistoric analyses, but more so in the Paleolithic to Neolithic/Chalcolithic periods.
There is an outdated perception that stone tools gave way to metal versions entirely in the
third and second millennium B.C. 69 Karimali notes the coexistence of metal and stone
tools during the second millennium and advocates that these two media be evaluated
concurrently. 70 A similar observation has been made regarding stone and metal weapons;
Iakovidis notes that the majority of Late Helladic arrowheads were produced in bronze
but that flint, chert and obsidian were also exploited. 71 The preservation of lithic
industries and technology should not be underestimated since “flaked lithics may have
retained similar functions (e.g., as cutting tools) over long periods.” 72 That stone tools
were desirable when metal versions were available may be surprising at first. Raw
materials for lithics, however, are readily obtainable and less expensive alternatives to
metal versions. 73
In fact, Kardulias notes the persistence of flaked stone production in the
68
Karimali 2005, 201-204.
69
Runnels 1982, 363-364; Runnels 1985, 357-359;Hartenberger and Runnels 2001, 280; Karimali 2005,
201-204.
70
Karimali 2008, 315-317.
71
Iakovidis 1982, 222.
72
Kardulias 2009, 310.
73
Kardulias 2009, 341.
45