Fine Tools for Fine Work. The Form and Function of ‘Small Craft Tools’ from Bronze Age Kaymakçı (Türkiye)
Abstract
95
Full text
Fine Tools for Fine Work. The Form and Function of ‘Small Craft Tools’ from Bronze Age Kaymakçı (Türkiye) KathleenC. Schaupp– Magda Pieniążek– Tunç Kaner– Christopher H. Roosevelt ABSTRACT Tools have always played an extremely important, defining role in human life. Acloser look at Small Craft Tools (SCTs), such as drills, awls, punches, and small chisels, not only allows us an insight into the exact production techniques of artefacts but can also provide information on regional exchanges of goods and craft specializations in individual settlements. Nevertheless, these artefacts have been largely neglected in previous studies, and there seems to be no agreement among the few authors who have described such small bronze tools in more detail. The large number of middle and late Bronze Age SCTs found at Kaymakçı (Türkiye) was used as an opportunity to study their typology, characteristics, and use -wear. Atotal of 31 SCTs were found in only six years of excavation (2014–2021). In relation to the years of excavation, this is comparable to the number of SCTs found at Hattusa. This indicates the importance of Kaymakçı as apotential leather/textile production center. This study describes and characterizes the SCTs from Kaymakçı in detail. The authors are able to identify distinct differences between these tools and make suggestions for amore unified classification, underlining that such items are worthy of closer consideration in future studies. KEYWORDS Bronze age; western Anatolia; Kaymakçı; craftmanship; leather; small craft tools; typology; use wear DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/23368144.2025.1.7 INTRODUCTION The making of ornaments, the drilling of gemstone beads, the carving of bone or ivory objects, and the intricate work of cobbling– all these artisanal and technical crafts played avery significant role in everyday household activities as well as in specialized manufacture in elite- -sponsored workshops. Undoubtedly, fine tools and fine craftmanship were important fields of Bronze Age production of both mundane and luxury goods. However, this type of tool has been neglected in previous studies or at least has not received the treatment it surely deserves. This paper focuses on bronze ‘Small Craft Tools’ (SCTs) such as awls, drills, small chisels, and punches. These are classified here as small tools of about 5.0 to 15.0 cm in length, usually (but not always) composed of an edge (working head) and ashaft. The working head should not be wider than ca. 1 cm.1 Exceptions with two working heads are also known from Kaymakçı and other sites 1 Detailed analysis of all known SCTs would be necessary in order to define the average dimensions more precisely. The longest SCT from Kaymakçı (awl 108.522.13.7) is 9.2 cm, the widest working head is 0.9 cm (chisel 99.526.185.1). Awls longer than 10 cm are known from Hattusa (e.g. Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, Bo 79/89; Bo 86/413). Therefore, the length limit was set at 15 cm. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1, 95–119
96 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 (see below). These types of objects have never been the subject of aspecific publication, although they are common archaeological finds. The current state of research does not provide aconvincing classification but rather overlaps and confuses whole classes of tools. Awls and drills have often been defined simply as pointed pins or sticks, sometimes distinguished by their cross -section or the position of the shaft shoulder, while punches have been defined simply as ‘blunter’ awls and small chisels by their typical cutting -edge. Previous typologies varied according to each set of relevant research questions, so certain characteristics were sometimes included and sometimes not. Typology should be seen as atool in scientific analysis, however, aiming to group artefacts by shape as objectively as possible, balancing accuracy with aminimum number of types (cf. Brew 1946). The paper begins with ageneral review of SCTs, followed by the presentation and classification of small bronze tools found at the Bronze Age citadel of Kaymakçı (central western Anatolia, Türkiye). Typological assignments are based on shape, specific morphological features, and traces of use, depending on the state of preservation and where possible, the contextual situation. Finally, new definitions for specific bronze tools and their functions are proposed, contributing to ongoing and future research on fine tools used for fine work in Bronze Age societies. STATE OF RESEARCH As mentioned above, SCTs made of bronze have never been treated in acomprehensive way. Instead, they have been included in broader discussions of metalworking and related equipment. As aresult, their classifications lack consistency. J. Deshayes (1960, 39–44), for example, defined pointed pins as awls and classified four types according to the position of the tang and shoulder. R. M. Boehmer (1972, 115) followed similar logic but described the same objects as chisel -like tools, distinguished from real chisels only by their tips. Both definitions prevent separation of awls from drills or even pointed punches. K. Branigan (1974, 27) added the cross -section as acharacteristic feature, which should be angular in awls and punches but round in drills. Cross -section details were noted by A. Müller -Karpe (1994, 166–167) too, but because he focused on metalworking in general, he did not focus on awls at all, even though his chisel types 8a and 9b, and perhaps even 7e and 7h, might have been used as awls. R. D. G. Evely (1993, 86) distinguished between awls, points, and punches, defining them by their sharp or blunt tips, their sleeves and their sizes, but did not go into further detail. Avery detailed description was given by S. Herbordt and A. Van Wickede (2021, 109–113). They used the general size, cross section, and shape of the tips to define and describe in detail seven main types of awls, partly based on Boehmer’stypology and with comparison to Müller -Karpe’sdefinitions. However, they also mentioned the great difficulty of distinguishing awls from drills (Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, 105). As there were many different opinions on the definition of awls in this case, N. G. Blackwell (2011, 33) decided to call all pointed tools used in textile and leatherwork awls. He was also the first to introduce the term ‘Small Craft Tool’, which is used here also as ageneric term. As briefly outlined above, previous research used varying approaches to investigate SCTs. Different classifications were developed for Anatolia and the Aegean. Furthermore, two crucial studies for both regions appeared almost simultaneously and did not refer to each other: that of Evely (1993) and Müller -Karpe (1994). Nevertheless, regardless of the type of classification, detailed description and illustration of the finds, even of those that appear less sophisticated and/or unimportant, are essential for any kind of research aiming to point ways forward. Even if the way in which these SCTs are referred to in the literature is inconsistent, it is the function of the awl that most authors agree is to be found in leather workshops to produce
97KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT objects such as shoes, cloth, bags, or saddles, in purposes for which it continues to be used today (cf. Jacobi 1974, 54–55; Blackwell 2011, 107; Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, 109). Illustrations of awls used in this context, for example by shoemakers (Fig. 1), are known from the House Books of the Twelve Brothers Foundation (Nuremberg, Germany, 15th–19th century CE). In abook from 1706 an awl smith is explicitly mentioned (Sauer 2023). In addition, some authors have suggested the use of awls in metal and woodworking for perforating or marking contours (cf. Maryon 1938, 245; Untracht 1968, 55; Jacobi 1974, 54; Evely 1993, 93). Others have suggested that this type of tool was used as acosmetic utensil (Hochstetter 1987, 27), for wax modelling (Armbruster 2000, 151), or functioned as aspur or atattoo needle (Zimmermann 2009, 146). Fig. 1: Illustration of an awl, used by ashoemaker. Twelve Brothers Foundation Nuremberg, 1595. (Sauer 2023, Amb. 279.2° Folio 64 verso– Landauer I). Drill bits, which are usually the only preserved part of drills, can be divided into solid, and hollow drills (Evely 1993, 77). While the former grinds into the drilled material, the latter perforates acircle and leaves acharacteristic drill core2 (cf. Evely 1993, 77; Seeher 2005, 14; Ludviketal. 2015, 13). Some authors defined drills by their round cross section, size, and weight (Branigan 1974, 26; Müller -Karpe 1994, 174), while others consider the shape of the tip (Brepohl 1980, 218, fig. 178; Evely 1993, 77–78), although this should not be the primary feature used for characterization (Evely 1993, 86). Müller -Karpe (1994, 174) mentions the danger of confusion with other tools and encouraged searching for use -wear marks (abrasive marks), which should run crosswise to the shaft (Fig. 2a); these marks come from the use of abrasive materials such as emery or quartz. This additive was particularly necessary or at least advantageous for drilling harder materials such as hard stones, which could not be drilled without these abrasives by a‘soft’ bronze drill. 3 However, softer stones or ivory are also 2 See for example the SEM image of acarnelian bead from the Aigina treasure in the British Museum, illustrating an abandoned drilling made using ahollow drill (Fittonetal. 2009, 24, fig. 107). 3 For experimental work related to this topic, refer to Gorelick– Gwinnett 1983; Gwinnett– Gorelick 1987 and Ludviketal. 2015.
98 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 likely to have been treated using abrasives to make the process more effective (cf. Untracht 1968, 399–400; Gorelick– Gwinnett 1983, 41; Gwinnett– Gorelick 1987, 20; Evely 1993, 84, 158; Müller -Karpe 1994, 174–175; Ludviketal. 2015, 4–6; Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, 105). Herbordt and Van Wickede (2021, 105; e.g., Bo 85/120, Bo 85/290) mentioned some drills with use -wear from drilling, but did not describe the marks in detail, except for the fact that they were spirally threaded up the shaft. In these particular cases, the use as adrill is clearly visible. It is usually not possible to differentiate between simple -pointed solid drills and awls without any traces of use. The shape of the tip has also been used as adistinctive feature of punches. In most cases, punches are described as points without ahandle, and with hammer -blow marks, so called burrs or beards, and with specific names given to them according to their tip shapes (cf. Braun -Feldweg 1968, 68, 184; Brepohl 1980, 230; Brepohl 1999, 52; Evely 1993, 86; Müller- -Karpe 1994, 160). These tools were used for chasing and punching patterns into gold, silver, and bronze plates4 or leather (cf. Loweryetal. 1971, 173; Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, 85). Therefore, they were used for chip -less (non -removal) deformation of the material, whereas chisels were used for permanent cutting (removal) of the material, which is the most important distinguishing factor between them (cf. Maryon 1938, 243; Braun -Feldweg 1968, 177; Loweryetal. 1971, 172; Brepohl 1980, 213). Some authors have used the term chisel -shaped punch or punching chisel to describe tools that resemble chisels but were used for chip -less shaping, also known as chasing (Maryon 1938, 243; Brepohl 1980, 231; Armbruster 2000, 56; Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, 85; a.o. no: Bo 85/181, Bo 86/151). Such punches, also called tracers,5 were used to create lines or other linear designs. According to G. Jacobi (1974, 24) they can be recognized by the asymmetrical 4 Drescher (1968) questioned the use of bronze punches on bronze sheets due to their similar hardness. However, experimental studies have shown that it is possible to use them by using different alloy percentages and taking advantage of their varying degrees of hardness (Loweryetal. 1971, 173; Armbruster 2000, 116). 5 Punching chisel by Herbordt and Van Wickede (2021, 85, a. o. No.: Bo 85/181, Bo 86/151). Fig. 2: Schematic explanation of use wear marks described by Müller ‑Karpe 1994, 174. a– transverse or crosswise to the shaft; b– parallel to the shaft. Graphic by E. Kaner and K. C. Schaupp; ©Gygaia Projects.
99KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT shape of the cutting edge (Fig. 3). Müller -Karpe (1994, 160) and A. Hänsel (2014, 140) observed the same pattern in SCTs. This asymmetric shape is due to ‘tracing’ aline, where only one side of the cutting edge impresses new material and the other side runs in the previous impression, resulting in less wear. The difficulty of distinguishing between tracers and chisels has led some scholars to classify punches as belonging to the chisel -family (Jacobi 1974, 24; Brepohl 1980, 230), which has contributed to the general confusion in defining SCTs. Finally, the last group of SCTs, the small ‘real’ chisels, were described in detail by Müller -Karpe (1994). Chisels are typically identified by their variable size, cutting edges, and compression marks, also known as burrs or beards (cf. Jacobi 1974, 19; Evely 1993, 11; Müller -Karpe 1994, 162–170; Armbruster 2000, 56). The cutting -edges are the most distinctive and simultaneously the most sensitive part of chisels in terms of preservation. Evely (1993, fig. 2) described different shapes– with flare, without flare, curved, and straight– to distinguish between straight chisels and punches or pointed chisels and drills/awls or punches. Müller -Karpe highlighted the importance of use -wear traces in tool identification. For chisels, use -wear marks should run parallel to the shaft and follow the direction of hammer blows (Fig. 2b) (Müller -Karpe 1994, 174). The case of ‘fine bronze tools’ becomes even more complex when considering specific implements such as mandrels, bolt -shaped arrow tips, or styli, which can look very similar to the aforementioned tools. Aproper definition through use -wear analysis should assist in distinguishing between them, at least in theory. SMALL BRONZE TOOLS FROM ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN One of the most intriguing sites regarding SCTs is Hattusa (Fig. 4). With more than 600 SCTs from the 2nd millennium BCE registered to date, this site has produced far more SCTs than any other Bronze Age Anatolian or Aegean site, based on available publications. The SCTs found at Hattusa consist mostly of awls, but possible drills and punches are also represented (Boehmer 1972; 1979; Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021). Fig. 3: Asymmetric wear on the cutting edge of atracer. Gra‑ phic by E. Kaner and K. C. Schaupp.
100 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 Fewer SCTs, even in relation to the size of the site, have been found in western Anatolia. For instance, in Troy, less than 20 SCTs belonging to the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) and Late Bronze Age (LBA) were documented (Blegenetal. 1953; 1958; Pieniążek 2020a; 2020b). The definition of such tools at Troy remains problematic in some cases. Blegenetal. did not provide adetailed description of the awls, except for two small ones from the LBA. These awls were found inside bone handles, one complete and one fragmented (Blegenetal. 1953, 22; Blegenetal. 1958, 15, no. 37:425, 37:494). About adozen additional SCTs, alarge drill, achisel, three awls, and some poorly preserved, undefinable tools were described in detail by Pieniążek (2020a, 605–606). Fig. 4: Map showing the locations of sites mentioned in the text, with inset showing general locati‑ on. Background from ESRI topo map data. The published inventory from the older excavations at Beycesultan, one of the largest sites in western Anatolian, only offered around nine SCTs (Mellaart– Murray 1995, 115–117, pl. O.5–O.11). During the new excavations, however, additional examples have been discovered (Erdem 2015, 64, cat. no. 9, 11, 22). From Kocabaş Tepe only nine SCTs have been published (Aykurt 2021, 420, fig. 6k–ö), and other sites have yielded only afew SCTs each.6 Additionally, six tools identified as chisels by C. Pulak were found in the Uluburun shipwreck near Kaş (Bachhuber 2006, 352; Pulak 2008, 301). Müller -Karpe (1994, 174) described two of these objects as large drills, while Blackwell (2011, 295) referred to them as chisels or drills. One of the drills has an angular (diamond -shaped) tip and is similar to adrill found in Troy (cf. Müller -Karpe 1994, 175, pl. 76:24, 25; Pieniążek 2020a, 602, no. A07.0606). 6 Additional find sites in Anatolia included: four SCTs from Çine -Tepecik (exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Aydın); three SCTs from Panaztepe (Erkanal -Öktü 2018); three SCTs from Liman Tepe (Aykurt 2020); and one SCT from Seyitömer Höyük (Bilgen– Bilgen 2015).
101KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT On the Aegean side, the number of SCTs seems to be lower in relation to the intensity of archaeological work. Among the larger sites in Mainland Greece, around 53 SCTs appeared in Tiryns (Kilian 1982; Rahmstorf 2008; Blackwell 2011) and 40 SCTs have been reported from Mycenae (Stubbings 1954; Shear 1987; Blackwell 2011). However, the number of SCTs published from other sites is much lower.7 The picture is similar in Crete. Regarding the larger sites, around 60 SCTs were found at Knossos, mostly defined as chisels, awls/punches, or awls/punches/points (Evans 1906; Catling– Jones 1977; Branigan 1974; Popham 1984; Evely 1993); around 40 in Malia (Chapouthier– Joly 1936; Demargne– DeSanterre 1953; Deshayes– Dessenne 1959; Chapouthieretal. 1962; Van Effenterre– Van Effenterre 1969; Amouretti 1970; Van Effenterre 1980; Evely 1993); and 28 at Zakros (Hogarth 1901; Shaw 1973; Evely 1993; Platon 1966a; 1966b; 1966c; 1968; 1969; 1973; 1981; Platon 1988). As elsewhere, these small tools are much less represented at other sites.8 Considering the total numbers of previously published SCTs from these archaeological sites in the Aegean and western Anatolia, the importance of Kaymakçı as asource of new information becomes clear. As described below, the site has produced anumber of SCTs similar to that known from Troy, Mycenae, and Malia, but in only six years of excavation and in amuch smaller total excavated area. THE SITE OF KAYMAKÇI The archaeological site of Kaymakçı is located in central western Anatolia, near the modern town of Gölmarmara on the western margin of the currently desiccated Lake Marmara in the Gediz River valley (Roosevelt 2014, 33). It is one of six roughly contemporary citadels around Lake Marmara and is situated at the end of amountain range in astrategic position (Roosevelt– Luke 2017, 136; Rooseveltetal. 2018, 646). Kaymakçı is the largest of these citadels (8.6 ha); together with the nearby cemetery and extramural sacred and settlement areas, its total built environment probably covered about 25 ha (Luke– Roosevelt 2017; Roosevelt– Luke 2017, 137). Although Kaymakçı was already settled in the local MBA, the site’s heyday was in the early local LBA. The core area of the settlement around an inner citadel was fortified most probably already within the local LB 1 phase (ca. late 18th/early 17th–16th centuries BCE). It was during the first part of the following local LB 2 phase (late 16th–15th century BCE) that the site seems to have expanded architecturally across the full 8.6 ha of its citadel, with most of the outer fortifications and blocks of building complexes on the southern terrace initially dating to this period (Roosevelt 2024). 7 Other sites in Mainland Greece included: 18 SCTs from Midea (Walberg 1998; 2007; Blackwell 2011); 17 SCTs from Nichoria (Blackwell 2011); 11 SCTs from Lerna (Blackwell 2011); 10 from Pylos (Blegen– Rawson 1966; Blegenetal. 1973; Blackwell 2011) and nine SCTs from Sparta (Blackwell 2011). 8 Further collections of Crete include: 15 SCTs from Phaistos (Pernier 1935; Pernier– Banti 1951; Levi 1976; Levi– Carinci 1988; Evely 1993); 10 SCTs from Mochlos (Soles– Stos -Gale 2004; Soles– Giumlia -Mair 2022); 10 SCTs from Palaikastro (Bosanquet 1901–1902; Dawkingsetal. 1904–1905; Bosanquet– Dawkins 1923); four SCTs from Kommos (Blitzer 1995) and only two SCTs from Pseira (Betancourt 1995; 1998). Hakulin 2013 summarised 118 SCTs from Bronze Age Crete, excluding chisels.
102 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 Fig. 5: Site plan of the Kaymakçı citadel, showing the excavation areas mentioned in the text (Roo‑ seveltetal. 2018, 649, fig. 2). During excavations between 2014 and 2021, seven excavation areas (EAs) were opened so as to gain insights into different parts of the settlement (Fig. 5). EAs 81.551 and 95.555 provided information about the fortification systems. The core area including the inner citadel and surrounding slopes were investigated in EAs 93.545, 97.541, and 98.531, while the adjoining southern terrace was examined in EAs 99.526 and 108.522/109.523 (Rooseveltetal. 2018, 648–661). The highest number of awls and drills was documented in contexts from the LB 2 phase. These finds add to the picture of an intense international exchange with the Aegean and central Anatolia, as documented by other artefacts from this period (Rooseveltetal. 2018, 682; Pieniążeketal. 2019, 199). As has been suggested elsewhere (e.g., Rooseveltetal. 2018, 646), based on the site’slocation, architecture, size, and material culture, Kaymakçı was undoubtedly an important regional center in the LBA Gediz River valley, first likely apart of the Arzawa Lands, and later identified as the core of the Seha River Land in Hittite texts. TOWARDS ANEW DEFINITION OF ‘SMALL CRAFT TOOLS’: BASIC GUIDELINES As demonstrated above, use -wear traces are the most reliable arguments for defining the function of prehistoric tools, including SCTs (cf. Loweryetal. 1971, 172; Müller -Karpe 1994, 174). Tool shape is also very important, but not decisive. Here we provide some basic guidelines with the hope of presenting amore standardized approach for future studies (Fig. 6).
103KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT Fig. 6: Idealised examples of SCTs. a– Punches; b– Drills; c– Awls; d– Chisel. Graphic by E. Kaner and K. C. Schaupp. It can be concluded that awls were used primarily to pierce and widen holes in leather, but also in other materials such as thicker clothes, thin metal sheets, and wooden panels. These actions can be performed by bare muscle power or careful hammering. These small tools, sometimes only afew centimeters long, could be fitted with abone or wooden handle to make them easier to handle. It was also possible to wrap the awl with acord without aspecial tang (Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, 113). In both cases of operation, the use -wear traces should be parallel or at aslight angle to the shaft, due to the twisting motion of making ahole without ahammer. All these marks should also be distributed fairly symmetrically around the working tip. If harder materials are pierced without asupport underneath the material being pierced, the use marks should extend beyond the foremost tip, because the awl may have slipped through the material during the blow and must have been pulled out again. Conversely, frequent working with leather and the associated rotating movement of the awl, would result in asmooth, polished, rather asymmetric tip.
110 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 THE POTENTIAL USE OF SCTS With regard to the craft activities in which the SCTs from Kaymakçı were used, it is possible to make some general suggestions based on the tool identifications above, other finds from the site, and the state of research in western Anatolia. Awls (like 97.541.511.1 or 108.522.13.7, Pls. 1/1b, 1/2h) were most probably used for leather working. Rich zooarchaeological material confirms the importance of animal husbandry at Kaymakçı (Rooseveltetal. 2018, 679; Slim et al. 2020; Marstonetal. 2021; Fındıklaretal. 2024; Irvineetal. 2024), supporting this probability. Additionally, SCTs were undoubtedly also used for the decoration of objects made of other materials, such as antler (95.555.137.1– Rooseveltetal. 2018, 671, fig. 21: 6). Small drills could have been used to drill stone, ceramic, or wooden objects such as pendants and beads, or to fix broken tools (e.g. Rooseveltetal. 2018, fig. 21). Carefully drilled holes are visible on several small finds from Kaymakçı made of bone, shell, ceramic, and stone (e.g. 93.545.301.1– Rooseveltetal. 2018, 671, fig. 21:7). For instance, in addition to acalcite bead that was perforated from each side with the help of asolid drill (108.522.18.10, Fig. 10, left), afragment of transparent raw material has also been found at the site, suggesting the possibility of local production (Fig. 10, right).10 Fig. 10: Example of bead types and materials– shown here with acalcite bead (108.522.18.10) and raw material from Kaymakçı– possibly worked using drills and/or other SCTs. ©Gygaia Pro‑ jects. Small chisels (such as 99.526.172.1; 99.526.185.1, Pl. 1/2e, 1/2f) may have been used primarily with wood and stone working. Because of their size and delicate design, they are even more likely to have been used for the detailed shaping and/or decoration of objects by removing some kind of softer material. The leaf -shaped chisel (99.526.185.1, Pl. 1/2f) is aspecial case. It is very likely that the chisel was used at an acute angle, as indicated by its pronounced use- -wear marks. The orientation of the cutting edge, perpendicular to the widest part of the shaft, makes these chisels suitable for making mortises (as amortise chisel) in both wood and stone, although other types of carving cannot be ruled out (cf. Müller -Karpe 1994, 168). 10 The preliminary identification of material by C. O’Grady and M. Pieniążek.
111KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT Asimilar but slightly different use can be assumed for punches (such as 108.522.7.9, Pl. 1/2 g). Mainly for decorative purposes, punches were used to ‘print’ their head shape into another material, like metal or leather. This can be seen, for example, on abronze knife from Kaymakçı, the handle of which was given aherringbone pattern by individual punch marks (Pieniążeketal. 2019). This decoration must have been made with apunch with a chisel-like head. Punch 108.522.7.9 could have been used to make oval indentations, either as adecoration on sheet metal or during production processes. Again, aspecial use might apply to the small double chisel (98.531.23.6, Pl. 1/1c); because of its size, it is likely to have been held between the thumb and the index or middle finger to do fine work in softer materials or eventually to be used for other kinds of fine work, for example related to the preparation of cosmetics. CONTEXTUALIZING THE FINDS The majority of the SCTs found so far at Kaymakçı come from fills and other secondary deposits. However, continuity in the spatial distribution of SCTs can be observed over time. Of the six SCTs found in contexts securely dated to the local LB 1 phase, five were found in the southern terrace, far from the core area of the citadel (in EA 99.526 and 108.522/109.523). This supports the idea that this part of the settlement was used for various small -scale industrial activities already during the earlier stages of the local LBA, as suggested previously (e.g., Rooseveltetal. 2018; Roosevelt 2024) (Fig. 11). One awl (99.526.112.1) was found together with spindle whorls and aneedle, possibly indicating sewing, textile production, and leatherworking in this area. The number of SCTs clearly increased during the local LB 2 phase, but the spatial distribution seems to follow the pattern known from the previous period: the majority of tools were found again on the southern terrace (11 of 18 LB 2 SCTs were recovered in EAs 99.526 and 108.522/109.523). Asimilar picture emerges when we include the total number of small tools found at Kaymakçı, including ones that cannot be precisely dated: out of 31 SCTs coming from the site, 21 were recovered from excavation areas located on the southern terrace. This suggests that the southern terrace was the main area of at least some branches of production from the 18th to the 15th century BCE. Five of these SCTs were found on or near the street in EA 108.522/109.523 (Fig. 12), four of them were complete and very well preserved. Most probably the street was used as adisposal area, especially given that the SCTs were recovered from the secondary contexts of fills. However, it is reasonable to expect that activities involving SCTs took place somewhere in the vicinity. Interestingly, four SCTs were also found in the inner citadel (EA 97.541), mainly in the fills of various pits of the local LB 2 phase. Consequently, it seems that some of the ‘fine work’ took place also in the core of the citadel. It may be significant that the tiny SCT that could be used for the drilling of small beads (97.541.213.1, Pl. 1/1a), as well as the piece of raw calcite mentioned above (97.541.205.5), were found in the same excavation area in the inner citadel. This kind of calcite could theoretically be used for the production of beads such as 108.522.18.10. The near complete absence of SCTs from the northern excavation areas associated with the fortification system is also telling, additionally highlighting the different functions of the northern parts of the settlement. This spatial distribution may indicate acentrally controlled organization of production, with certain craft activities being delegated to the southern terrace. The high number of SCTs found at Kaymakçı in only six seasons of excavation may be compared to the situation in Hattusa in central Anatolia to acertain degree. At this Hittite center, several hundred SCTs were found over many seasons of excavation, but they were spread over amuch larger area than at Kaymakçı. Interestingly, other large sites with long excavation histories, such as Troy, Beycesultan, Mycenae, and Knossos, have significantly lower numbers of
112 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 Fig. 11: The distribution of SCTs in EA 99.526. ©Gygaia Projects. SCTs relative to their sizes and periods of excavation. One possible reason for these differences could be aprevious lack of interest in such small bronze tools, especially in older excavation publications. On the other hand, it is also possible that some of the activities in which SCTs were involved, such as leather working, took place elsewhere, outside the main centers. Therefore, if lower towns, satellite settlements, and other direct peripheries of the main areas of settlement centers are more intensively explored, the picture could change. Hattusa stands out in this respect, clearly indicating that leatherwork was an extremely important branch of local production (Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021). This is demonstrated by the sheer number of objects, their diversity, and is also indicated by the written sources (Burgin 2022). As shown by Herbordt and Van Wickede (2021, 399, 400), the highest concentrations of tools, including leatherworking implements such as awls, have been documented in the side wings of temples, as well as in the temples themselves, in contexts dating to the 13th century BCE. According to them (Herbordt– Van Wickede 2021, 476), this high number of mundane tools suggests that craft activities and workshops moved to temple areas, what might be related with partial secularization of the district during this late period of the Empire. On the other hand, craft activities using
113KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT Fig. 12: The distribution of SCTs in EA 108.522/109.523. ©Gygaia Projects. SCTs may have formed an important segment of the temple economy. We cannot rule out that leatherwork was one of its most important focuses, especially given that the numbers of SCTs recovered in other areas of the site were lower (Boehmer 1972; 1979). On the other side, because the outer areas around Hattusa have not been excavated yet, the use of SCTs on alarger scale in the periphery, in the satellite settlements surrounding the capital, also cannot be ruled out. It seems that not only in Hattusa but probably also in Kaymakçı, the branches of production involving SCTs, such as leatherwork, played important roles in the local economy. As mentioned above, in Hattusa this craftsmanship might have been especially connected to the
114 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 temples. No such evidence pertain in the case of Kaymakçı: leatherworking appears to have been practiced predominantly (but not exclusively) in the peripheral domestic and working spaces of the settlement such as southern terrace. The same may be true for ‘finer’ work, such as the manufacture of jewelry and other ornamented objects. The increasing number of tools over the course of the LBA is also significant. Asimilar tendency was observed by Müller -Karpe (1994, 161, fig. 101) for other Anatolian sites during the 2 nd Millennium BCE. This could be due to increasing population sizes, as well as to the rising importance of craft activities involving SCTs. Leatherwork must have been an important economic activity not only in Hattusa and Kaymakçı, but throughout Anatolia. In the treaty of Mursili II with Targasnalli of Hapalla, it is said that the king of Hatti is not obliged to return fugitives who come to his land from the vassal states, but specialized workers are excluded from this rule: ‘But [if] he is acultivator, or aweaver, acarpenter, or aleatherworker [sic]– whatever sort of craftsman, and he does not [deliver] his assigned work, [but] runs off and comes to Hatti, Iwill arrest him and give him back to you’ (Beckman 1999, 71). It emphasizes the importance of this craft by specifically mentioning leatherworkers.11 It is not surprising that these four professions were especially valuable for Anatolian economies, since they represent crucial and vital industries: construction of houses and production of food, clothes, and textiles. Linear B texts, too, highlight the importance of these branches of local economies in the Aegean. One Pylos tablet (PY Ub 1318), which represents the earliest document in Greece regarding the processing of hides, contains information not only about the manufacture and trade of this material but also about the different uses of hides, some according to the animal species (Tantalidou 2001, 285). This tablet, other archaeological remains, and ethnographic parallels and later testimonies make clear that leather was used for abroad variety of products and purposes in many areas of work and life: garments (e.g., clothing, footwear); transportation (e.g., sacks, flasks, saddles, shipsails); supporting materials (e.g. thongs, baldrics, ropes); weaponry (e.g., shields, helmets, bows, bellows for metal casting); furniture, housing, and protection (e.g., folding stools, beds, tents, doors); and artistic and administrative areas (e.g., musical instruments, toys, writing materials, book binding) (Tantalidou 2001). This evidence provide aclear picture of the importance of leather and leatherwork in the life of the Bronze Age peoples of the Mediterranean and Anatolia. Leather was used in almost every aspect of life; therefore approaching this versatile branch of craftsmanship through its best preserved remnants– the tools– should be aworthwhile focus of effort and interest in future excavations and research. CONCLUSIONS In this article, the state of research on SCTs has been highlighted and critically analyzed. The SCTs from Kaymakçı were used as an opportunity to take acloser look at awls, drills, punches, and chisels. Inconsistencies in previous definitions were demonstrated, and appropriate guidelines for new definitions were proposed. Building on Blackwell’s (2011) original coining of the term, the authors suggest using SCT (‘Small Craft Tool’) as a collective term for all such tools, to apply it to tools that cannot be more precisely classified, and to adopt the guidelines proposed here for identifying specific types of SCT. Although SCTs may appear small and inconspicuous, they can provide valuable information about ancient craftsmanship. 11 The same is probably included in the treaty with Kupanta -Kurunta of Mira -Kuwaliya and with Alaksandu of Wilusa, but the relevant parts of the text are not preserved (cf. Beckman 1999, 80, 91).
115KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT Even though all SCTs seem to be very similar at first sight, it is possible to characterize them by size, shape, and use -wear traces into groups of awls, drills, chisels, and punches. The relatively high number of SCTs found at Kaymakçı in comparison with other settlements in the Aegean and Anatolia, with the single exception of Hattusa, suggests that leatherwork and other fine crafts may have been an important local economic branch. The specific uses of these tools appear to include the production of decorative or even luxury objects, such as metal vessels, belts, ivory objects, stone seals, beads, and pendants, and, especially, the production of leather goods, such as clothing, shoes, bags, saddles, and tents, to name just afew possibilities. We hope that ongoing and future research will shed more light on contextual and chronological significances, further highlighting the importance of this previously neglected class of object not only at Kaymakçı, but across Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age sites. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research at Kaymakçı is conducted with thanks to permissions and assistance from the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums of Türkiye’sMinistry of Culture and Tourism and its annual representatives, as well as from the director and staff of the Manisa Museum Directorate. Field research for this study was supported by Koç University, the Merops Foundation, and private donors, to all of which we acknowledge our debt of gratitude. We would like to thank all members of the Kaymakçı Archaeological Project for their support and cooperation, with special gratitude to Christina Luke, for previous discussion of production at Kaymakçı, Caitlin O’Grady, for advice on various aspects of metal tools, Peter Pavúk, for discussions of pottery and chronology, and Ebru Kaner, who prepared all initial hand illustrations. Last but not least we wish to thank the German Science Foundation (DFG) for its support (project no. 391366721), as well as the anonymous reviewers who helped improve the quality of the article. BIBLIOGRAPHY Amouretti, M.C. 1970: Fouilles exécutées aMallia. Le centre politique ii. La crypte hypostyle (1957–1962). Études Crétoises 18. Paris. Armbruster, B.R.2000: Goldschmiedekunst und Bronzetechnik. Studien zum Metallhandwerk der Atlantischen Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Monographies Instrumentum 15. Montagnac. Aykurt, A. 2020: Liman Tepe i -ii. Orta tunç çağı seramiği ve küçük buluntuları. Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları 145. Ankara. Aykurt, A. 2021: Kocabaş Tepe’de orta tunç çağı’nda metalurji faaliyetleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 38/2, 414–428. Bachhuber, Ch. 2006: Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship. American journal of archaeology 110, 345–363. Bass, G.F. 1967: Cape Gelidonya. ABronze Age shipwreck. Transactions of the American philosophical society 57/8. s.l. Beckman, G. 1999: Hittite diplomatic texts. Georgia.2 Betancourt, P.P. 1995: Other atcaloged objects, building AD center. In: P.P. Betancourt– C. Davaras eds.: Pseira i. The Minoan buildings on the west side of Area A. University museum monograph 90. Pennsylvania, 127–129. Betancourt, P.P 1998: The bronze or copper pin, building AO. In: P.P. Betancourt– C. Davaras eds.: PseiraII. Building AC (the ‘Shrine’) and other buildings in Area A. University museum monograph 94. Philadelphia, 101.
116 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 Bilgen, A.N– Bilgen, Z. 2015: Middle Bronze Age settlement (layer iv). In: N. Bilgen ed.: Seyitömer Höyük i. s.l., 61–118. Blackwell, N.G. 2011: Middle and Late Bronze Age metal tools from the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean, and Anatolia. Implications for cultural/regional interaction and craftsmanship. Bryn Mawr. Blegenetal. 1958 = Blegen, C. W.– Boulter, C. G.– Caskey, J. L.– Rawson, M.: Settlements viia, viib, and viii. Troy iv. New Jersey. Blegen, C.W.– Caskey, J.L.– Rawson, M. 1953: The Sixth Settlement. Troy iii. New Jersey. Blegen, C.W.– Rawson, M. 1966: The buildings and their contents. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia 1. New Jersey. Blegenetal. 1973 = Blegen, C.W.– Rawson, M.– Taylour, W.– Donovan, W.P.: Acropolis and Lower Town tholoi, grave circle, and chamber tombs discoveries outside the Citadel. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia 3. New Jersey. Blitzer, H. 1995: Minoan implements and industries. In: J. Shaw– M. Shaw eds.: KommosI. The Kommos region and houses of the Minoan town i:i. New Jersey, 403–536. Boehmer, R.M. 1972: Die Kleinfunde von Ḫattuša. Aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931–1939 und 1952–1969. Boǧazköy -ḪattušaVII. Berlin. Boehmer, R.M. 1979: Die Kleinfunde aus der Unterstadt von Ḫattuša. Grabungskampagnen 1970–1978. Boǧazköy- -Ḫattuša. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 10. Berlin. Bosanquet, R.C. 1901/1902: Excavation at PalaikastroI. The Annual of the British School at Athens 8, 286–316. Bosanquet, R.C.– Dawkins, R.M. 1923: The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations 1902–1906. The British School at Athens 1.1. London. Branigan, K. 1974: Aegean metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Oxford. Braun -Feldweg, W. 1968: Metall. Werkformen und Arbeitsweisen. Ravensburg. Brepohl, E. 1980: Theorie und Praxis des Goldschmieds. Leipzig. Brepohl, E. 1999: Die mittelalterliche Goldschmiedekunst und Metallgestaltung. Theophilus Presbyter: De Diversis Artibus. Über die verschiedenen Künste (und Handwerkstechniken) 2. Köln. Brew, J.O. 1946: The use and abuse of taxonomy. The archaeology of Alkali Ridge Utah. Papers of the Peabody museum of archaeology and ethnology 21, 44–66. Burgin, J.M. 2022: Studies in Hittite economic administration. Anew edition of the Hittite palace -temple administrative corpus and research on allied texts found at Ḫattuša 2. Studien zu den Boğazköy -Texten 71. Wiesbaden. Catling, H. 1964: Cypriot bronzework in the Mycenaean world. Oxford. Catling, H.W.– Jones, R.E. 1977: Analysis of copper and bronze artefacts from the Unexplored mansion, Knossos. Archaeometry 19, 57–66. Chapouthier, F.– Joly, R.1936: Fouilles exécutées aMallia. Deuxième rapport. Exploration du Palais (1925–1926). Études Crétoises iv. Paris. Chapouthier, F.– Demargne, P.– Dessenne, A. 1962: Fouilles exécutées aMallia. Quatrième rapport. Exploration du palais. Bordure méridionale et recherches complémentaires (1929–1935 et 1946–1960). Études Crétoises xii. Paris. Dawkins, R.M.– Hawes, C.H.– Bosanquet, R.C. 1904/1905: Excavation at Palaikastro iv. The annual of the British School at Athens 11, 258–308. Demargne, P.– De Santerre, H.G. 1953: Fouilles exécutées aMallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’ habitation (1921–1948). Études Crétoises ix. Paris. Deshayes, J.– Dessenne, A. 1959: Fouilles exécutées aMallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation (1948–1954). Études Crétoises xi. Paris. Van Effenterre, H. 1980: Étude de synthèse i. Le palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne. Roma. Van Effenterre, H.– Van Effenterre, M. 1969: Fouilles Exécutées aMallia. Le Centre Politique ii. L’Agora (1960–1966). Études Crétoises xviii. Paris.
117KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT Erdem, Y.M. 2015: Yeni dönem Beycesultan Höyük kazılarında tespit edilen Geç Tunç Çağ dönemi metal buluntuları. Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Master’sThesis). Izmir. Erkanal -Öktü, A. 2018: PanaztepeI. Die Friedhöfe von Panaztepe i -ii. Ankara. Evely, R.D.G. 1993: Minoan crafts. Tools and techniques 1. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 92/1. Göteborg. Fitton, J.L.– Meeks, N.– Joyner, L. 2009: The Aigina treasure. Catalogue and technical report. In: J.L. Fitton– N. Meeks eds.: The Aigina treasure. Aegean Bronze Age jewellery and amystery revisited. London. Fındıklaretal. 2024 = Fındıklar, S.– Slim, F.G.– Luke, Ch.– Çakırlar, C.: Conspicuous cattle. Zooarchaeological evidence for elite consumption in 2 nd Millennium BCE Western Anatolia. In: P.Pavúk– M. Pieniążek– C.H. Roosevelt eds.: WANAT. Western Anatolia in the Second Millennium BCE. Recent developments and future prospects. Research center for Anatolian civilizations (ANAMED) series. İstanbul, 91–105. Geyken, A.– Lemnitzer, L. 2023: „Ahle“. In: Berlin -Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaft (ed.): DWDS– Digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [online]. Accessed on Juni 30th 2021 from URL: https:// www.dwds.de/wb/Ahle Gorelick, L.– Gwinnett, A.J. 1983: Ancient Egyptian stone -drilling. An experimental perspective on ascholarly disagreement. Spring 25/3, 40–47. Grác, J. 2023: Pet Hardware. Ihre sattelfesten Beschläge -Experten [online]. Accessed on May 28th 2021 from URL: https://www.pethardware.com/de/stechahlen/gebogene -nahahle -craftool -pro-3353/ Groz -Beckert 2023 = Sewing. Maschinennadeln und Ahlen für die Herstellung von Schuhen [online]. Accessed on March 14th 2023 from URL: https://grozbeckert.com/mm/media/de/web/pdf/Machine_needles_and_awls_for_shoemaking.pdf Gwinnett, A.J.– Gorelick, L. 1987: The change from stone drills to copper drills in Mesopotamia. An experimental perspective. Expedition 29/3, 15–24. Hakulin, L. 2013: Metal in LBA Minoan and Mycenaean societies on Crete. Aquantitative approach. Unpublished PhD. thesis, University of Helsinki. Hänsel, A. 2014: Untersuchungen zu den Schatzfunden, den Silberund Bronzeartefakten, der Gusstechnik, den Gefäßmarken und den Bleigewichten. In: M. Wemhoff– D. Hertel – A. Hänsel eds.: Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung Troianischer Altertümer 2. Berlin, 129–322. Herbordt, S.– Van Wickede, A. 2021: Kleinfunde aus der Oberstadt von Ḫattuša. Das zentrale Tempelviertel und die Tempelviertel am Köngisund Löwentor. Boğazköy -Ḫattuša. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 29. Wiesbaden. Hochstetter, A. 1987: Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronzeund Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Kleinfunde. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 6. Berlin. Hogarth, D. 1901: Excavations at Zakro, Crete. The Annual of the British School at Athens 7, 121–149. Irvineetal. 2024 = Irvine, B.– Luke, Ch.– Çakırlar, C.– Kaner, T.– Özbal, R.– Fındıklar, Ş.– Roosevelt, Ch.H.: Stable isotope analysis of faunal remains from Bronze Age Kaymakçı, Western Anatolia. The Holocene 1/1. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836241297077 Jacobi, G. 1974: Werkzeug und Gerät aus dem Oppidum von Manching. Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 5. Wiesbaden. Kilian, K. 1982: Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1980. Bericht zu den Grabungen. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 393–430. Levi, D. 1976: Festòs e la Civiltà MinoicaI. Incunabula graeca 60. Roma. Levi, D.– Carinci, F. 1988: Festòs e la civiltà minoica II. L’arte festia nell’età protopalaziale. Ceramica ed altri materiali. Incunabula graeca 77. Roma. Lowery, P.R.– Savage, R.D.A.– Wilkins, R. L. 1971: Scriber, Graver, Scorper, Tracer: notes on Experiments in Bronzeworking. In: J. Coles ed.: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37, 167–182. Ludvik 2015 = Ludvik, G.– Kenoyer, J.M.– Pieniążek, M.– Aylward, W.: New Perspectives on Stone Bead Technology at Bronze Age Troy. Anatolian Studies 65, 1–18. Marston 2021 = Marston, J.M.– Çakırlar, C.– Luke, C.– Kováčik, P.– Slim, F.G.– Shin, N.– Roosevelt, C.H.: Agropastoral economies and land use in Bronze Age Western Anatolia. Environmental archaeology 27/6, 539–553.
118 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 Maryon, H. 1938: Some prehistoric metalworkers’ tools. The antiquaries journal being the Journal of The Society of Antiquaries of London 18, 243–250. Mellaart, J.– Murray, A. 1995: Beycesultan. Late Bronze Age and Phrygian pottery and Middle and Late Bronze Age small objects 3/2. Occasional publications of the British institute of archaeology at Ankara 12. Ankara. Müller -Karpe, A. 1994: Altanatolisches Metallhandwerk. Neumünster. Pernier, L. 1935: Gli strati più antichi e il primo palazzo. Scavi e studi della Missione archaeologica italiana aCreta dal 1900 al 1934. Il palazzo minoico di FestòsI. Roma. Pernier, L.– Banti, L. 1951: Il secondo palazzo. Scavi e studi della Missione archaeologica italiana aCreta dal 1900 al 1950. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs ii. Roma. Pieniążek, M. 2020a: Kleinfunde– Funde aus Metall. In: M. Pieniazek– P.Pavúk– D. Thumm -Doğrayan– E. Pernicka eds.: Troia 1987–2012. Grabungen und Forschungen iii. Troia vi bis Troia vii. Ausgehende mittlere und späte Bronzezeit 2. Studia Troica 7. Bonn, 582–681. Pieniążek, M. 2020b: The small finds from the 1987–2012 excavations. Troy vi and viii. In: M. Pieniazek– P.Pavúk– D. Thumm -Doğrayan– E. Pernicka (eds.): Troia 1987– 2012: Grabungen und Forschungen iii. Troia vi bis Troia viii. Ausgehende mittlere und späte Bronzezeit 2. Studia Troica 7. Bonn, 978–1025. Pieniążeketal. 2019 = Pieniążek, M.– Roosevelt, C.H.– Luke, C.– Pavúk, P.: Of networks and knives. Abronze knife with herringbone decoration from the Citadel of Kaymakçı (Manisa İli / TR). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 49, 197–214. Platon 1966a = Πλaτων, N.: Άνασκαφη Ζάκρου. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 1962, 142–168. Platon 1966b = Πλaτων, N.: Άνασκαφη Ζάκρου. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 1963, 160–188. Platon 1966c = Πλaτων, N.: Άνασκαφη Ζάκρου. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 1964, 142–168. Platon 1968 = Πλaτων, N.: Άνασκαφη Ζάκρου. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 1966, 139–173. Platon 1969 = Πλaτων, N.: Άνασκαφη Ζάκρου. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 1967, 162–194. Platon 1973 = Πλaτων, N.: Άνασκαφη Ζάκρου. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 1971, 231–275. Platon 1981 = Πλaτων, N.: Άνασκαφη Ζάκρου. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 1979, 282–322. Platon, E.M. 1988: The workshops and working areas of Minoan Crete. The evidence of the Palace and town of Zakros for acomparative study. Diss. University of Bristol. Popham, M.R.1984: The Minoan Unexplored mansion at Knossos. Oxford. Pulak, C. 2008: The Uluburun shipwreck and Late Bronze Age trade. In: J. Aruz– K. Benzel– J.M. Evans eds.: Beyond Babylon. Art, trade, and diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. New York, 298–385. Rahmstorf, L. 2008: Kleinfunde aus Tiryns. Terrakotta, Stein, Bein und Glas/Fayence vornehmlich aus der Spätbronzezeit. Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 16. Wiesbaden. Roosevelt, C.H. 2014: Mapping site -level microtopography with Real -Time Kinematic Global Navigation Satellite Systems (RTK GNSS) and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Photogrammetry (UAVP). Open Archaeology 1, 29–53. Roosevelt, C.H. 2024: Spatial structure and stratigraphy at Second -Millennium BCE Kaymakçı. In: P.Pavúk– M. Pieniążek– C. H. Roosevelt eds.: WANAT. Western Anatolia in the Second Millennium BCE. Recent developments and future prospects. Research center for Anatolian civilizations (ANAMED) series. İstanbul, 295–319. Roosevelt, C.H.– Luke, C. 2017: The story of aforgotten kingdom? Survey archaeology and the historical geography of Central Western Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC.European journal of archaeology 20/1, 120–147. Rooseveltetal. 2018 = Roosevelt, C.H.– Luke, C.– Ünlüsoy, S.– Çakırlar, C.– Marston, J. M.– O’Grady, C.R.– Pavúk, P.– Pieniążek, M.– Mokrišova, J.– Scott, C.B.– Shin, N.– Slim, F.G.: Exploring space, economy, and interregional interaction at aSecond Millennium B.C.E. citadel in Central Western Anatolia. 2014–2017 Research at Kaymakçı. American journal of archaeology 122, 645–688. Sauer, Ch. 2023: Die Hausbücher der Nürnberger Zölfbrüderstiftungen [online]. Accessed on June 21st 2023 from URL: https://hausbuecher.nuernberg.de/index.php?do=page & mo=2 Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1952: Enkomi -Alasia. Nouvelles missiones en Chypre, 1946–1950. Paris.
119KATHLEENC. SCHAUPP– MAGDA PIENIĄŻEK– TUNÇ KANER– CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT Seeher, J. 2005: Bohren wie die Hethiter. Rekonstruktion von Bohrmaschinen der Spätbronzezeit und Beispiele ihrer Verwendung. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 55, 13–32. Shaw, J.W. 1973: Minoan architecture. Materials and techniques. Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente 1971. Roma. Shaw, J.W.– Harlan, D.K. 2000: Bronze and iron tools and weapons. In: J. Shaw– M. Shaw eds.: Kommos iv. The Greek Sanctuary i:i. New Jersey, 336–414. Shear, I.M. 1987: The Panagia houses at Mycenae. University museum monograph 68. Philadelphia. Slim, F. – Çakirlar, C. – Roosevelt, C.H. 2020: Pigs in Sight. Late Bronze Age Pig Husbandries in the Aegean and Anatolia. Journal of Field Archaeology 45, 315–333. Soles, J.S.– Giumlia -Mair, A. 2022: Metal objects, materials, and sources. In: J.S. Soles– C. Davaras eds.: Mochlos ivA. Period iii. The House of the metal merchant and other buildings in the Neopalatial town. Prehistory monographs 68/1, Pennsylvania, 223–276. Soles J.S.– Stos -Gale, Z.A. 2004: The metal finds and their geological sources. In: J.S. Soles– C. Davaras eds.: Mochlos iC. Period iii. Neopalatial settlement on the coast. The artisans’ guarter and the farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The small finds. Prehistory monographs 9. Pennsylvania, 45–59. Stubbings, F.H. 1954: Mycenae 1939–1953. Part vii. Bronze Founder’sHoard. The annual of the British school at Athens 49, 292–296. Trantalidou, K. 2001: Producing and recording leather and other animal products. In: A. Michailidou ed.: Manufacture and measurement. Counting, measuring and recording. Craft items in early Aegean societies. Μελετήματα 33. Athens. 266–317. Untracht, O. 1968: Metal techniques for craftsmen. Abasic manual for craftsmen on the methods of forming and decorating metals. London. Walberg, G. 1998: The excavations on the lower terraces 1985–1991. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea 1/1. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet iAthen 4– 49/1. Stockholm. Walberg, G. 2007: Midea. The megaron complex and shrine area. Excavations on the lower terraces 1994–1997. Prehistory monographs 20. Pennsylvania. Yalçın, Ü.– Pulak, C.– Slotta, R.2005: Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Deutsches Bergbau -Museum Bochum 138. Bochum. Zimmermann, Th. 2009: Zu möglichen Tatauierbesteck und Treibstacheln (Stimuli) in frühbronzezeitlichen Prunkgräbern aus Alaca Höyük, Türkei. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 84, 141–150. KathleenC. Schaupp Institute of Prehistory and Protohistory Tübingen University Tübingen, Germany kc [email protected] Tunç Kaner Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED) Koç University, Istanbul, Türkiye [email protected], [email protected] Magda Pieniążek Institute of Prehistory and Protohistory, Tübingen University Tübingen, Germany [email protected] -tuebingen.de Christopher H. Roosevelt Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED) and Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Koç University, Istanbul, Türkiye. [email protected]