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

database entries whose contextual category is classified as poor or indistinct (unstratified,
surface, or unprovenienced; Fig. 3.2a).
There is an assumption here that the archaeological record (with its imperfect and
unbalanced investigation of sites) reflects a partially accurate picture of general tool
preferences. The implications of the contextual tool patterns are tempered by the widely
uneven and disparate levels of archaeological information known from each context. For
example, excavated MBA settlements on Cyprus and the Greek mainland are rare and the
corpus of MBA material culture from those regions relies upon mortuary finds. It is
probable that the current contextual record has significant gaps in terms of tool data.
Finds from an MBA shipwreck would certainly enhance the period’s quantity and variety
of tools, for implements found on LBA shipwrecks represent a significant corpus (6.8%)
of the utensils from the later era. With this problem acknowledged, one may expect a
greater number of tools from MBA settlements to be found in future excavations.
The distribution of utensils according to their contextual classification reveals
regional variation. These tool quantities and their corresponding frequencies during the
MBA and LBA are listed in Figures 3.3a-f. Listed as a percentage, the tool proportions
provide a consistent measure of comparison by region, context, and time period. These
patterns of tool consumption demonstrate that regional trends were often consistent over
time. For example, tool frequencies were steady from the MBA to the LBA in the
following contexts: Cretan hoards, Cretan settlements, Greek mainland burials, and
Anatolian settlements (Figs. 3.3a, b, e). Shifts in depositional behavior are also
recognizable. A decrease in the frequency of settlement tools from the MH to the LH
period is unexpected, given the propagation of LH settlements in relation to the MH
68