8.

Exploring Late Bronze Age Stoneworking

Connections through Metal Tools
Evidence from Crete, Mainland Greece, and Cyprus

Nicholas G. Blackwell1

The incorporation of cut-stone masonry into monumental, public, funerary, and other elite Bronze Age structures
contrasted the typical prehistoric construction materials employed in the Mediterranean (e.g. stone rubble, timber,
and mudbrick). The smooth stone surface and standardized appearance of ashlar blocks conveyed prestige, sym-
bolic power, and skilled work that impressed viewers (Wright 1987: 176-180; Hitchcock 2003; 2012; Fisher 2009:
J 90-194; 2014). The purpose and meaning of cut-stone masonry, however, depended upon the sociopolitical en-
vironment in which it appeared, Bronze Age ashlar masonry retained distinct regional values, and so the occur-
rence of cut-stone architecture throughout the Aegean and Eastern Mediten-anean projected various messages
al different times. Cretan masons, for instance, utilized cut-stone masonry sporadically at the beginning of the
2nd miUennium BC in elite Protopalatial settings at Knossos, Phaistos, and Malia (e.g. Chrysolak:kos, Quartier Mu,

and the Hypostyle Crypt) (Shaw 2009: 52, 256; 2015: 81-84, 122-127). Ashlar masonry became ubiquitous by the
Neopalatia1 period (I 7lh-J5'11 c. BC) in Cretan palaces and villas, perhaps so much so that its allure declined. This
possibility may explain why Neopalarial craftspeople at Malia plastered over sorne of that Palace's ashlar blocks,
thereby concealing the cut surfaces (Devolder 2018: 347-348). Shaw (2009: 76), however, cites rhe porous narure
of rhe local sandstone as the reason for this coating.
A natural question in assessing stonework trans-regionally is whether a specific area influenced anotber. In such
cases, bow does one explain technological transfer or the dissemination ofthis craft (cf Bevan & Bloxam 2016)?
Similar-looking masonry in disparate locations might indicate transcultural craft links, yet such relarionships
are complicated, and their examination must go beyond visual appearance and outdated concepts of diffusion
(Hitchcock 2012). Differentiating indigenous rnasonry practices from foreign infíuence presents severa! challenges,
though metal implements can aid the evaluation. Tool distributions allude to regional preferences and suggest
cross-cultural similarities, despite such pattems rarely proving technological exchange.
Trans-regional craft links are central to inquiries about the architectural and stoneworking impact of Minoan
Crete on the Greek mainland as well as that ofthe Aegean on Cyprus. Cur-stone masonry emerged in the Aegean
during the early 2 1<1 millenniurn BC on Crete, and eventualJy became a prominent architectural feature ofthe Greek
1

mainland (Wright 1978; 2006; this volume) and Cyprus (Wright 1998; Fisher 2009; 2014; this volume) by the Late
Bronze Age. To what degree tben, if any, did the tool and stoneworking traditions ofCrete affect Mycenaean Greece
and Late Bronze Age Cyprus? Since Cretan traditions likely inspired the development of refined masonry on the
Greek mainland, it is unsurprising that comparable too! assemblages exist i11 each region. The exact preferences
for and distributions of implements, on the other hand, revea! that the Greek mainland selectively adopted and
rnodified Cretan tools. For Cypriot rnasonry, Hnlt (1983: 44-48, 88-90) cited Minoan architecture as a secondary
infiuence on the island after Syria. Hitchcock (2003; 2008; 2012) also discussed the similarities between Minoan
and Cypriot (and Levantine) architecture at Iength. Related to these cross-cultural commonalities is a srnall group
of Late Cypriot metal irnplements, often overlooked, that resemble Cretan versions and coincide with a floruit of
ashlar construction on the eastem island. The implications of these too Is drive the second half of this paper.
Does the existence of cut-stone masonry on Crete, Mainland Greece, and Cyprus reflect cultural dissemination
in one direction or the other, ínter-regional relationsbips, deliberare emulation, or perhaps unrelated, independent
developments? If stoneworking links do exist, what dynamics account for such cross-cultural craft relationships?
This paper addresses these questions by considering tool traditions and stoneworking practices in tbese th:ree
regions. I argue that Mycenaeans and Cypriots each independently incorporated Minoan craft rraditions into their
tool assemblages based on regionally-specific needs.

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Classical Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington.

En: Devolder, M. & I. Kreimerman (eds.) Ashlar: Exploring the Materiality of Cut-Stone Masonry in the Eastern
Mediterranean Bronze Age. Aegis 17: Actes de Colloques. Louvain-La-Neuve: Presses Universitaries de Lovain,
Université Catholique de Louvain, pp. 215-240.
8. Exploring Late Bronze Age Stoneworking Connections through Metal Tools

Cuttingand dressingstone with metal tools

Metallurgical innovations in the 2°d millenniurn BC enhanced the assortment of bronze implements avai]able to
stonernasons. Tin-bronze became prevalent in the early Middle Bronze Age aJongside other copper alloys, but the
full transition to rin-bronze in the Aegean occurred relarively late - between 1600 and 1400 BC (Pare 2000). The
far-reaching accessibility of tin-bronze in the Late Bronze Age produced a more di verse and extensive repertoire
of metal too Is that nearly tripled the number of Middle Bronze Age implernents in circulation (Deshayes 1960;
Iakovidis J 982; Tripathi 1988; Balthazar 1990; Evely 1993; Blackwell 2011 ). The possibility of state oversight
of certain Late Bronze Age craft industries (e.g. Blackwell 20 i 8b) may have contributed to the spike in tool
production and consumption. The too! quantities and percentages provided in this paper stem from an extensive
database of 2"d millennium tools from the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean assembled in my PhD dissertation
(Blackwell 2011 ). In creating that catalogue, T included implements not only from excavated and published si tes
but also objecrs that lacked contextual details other than the general región from whicb they originated, Due to
different factors in archaeological preservation, including object reuse and recycling, the consumption numbers
presented here are distorted, however slightly, from the original reality. Despite this caveat, this macroscopic
approach uncovers general spatial and temporal trends that are unlikely to change substanrially with more too]
data.
The ubiquity of tin-bronze tools in the Late Bronze Age aided the stoneworking industry, contributing to the
widespread adoption and appeal of ashlar masoruy. Second millennium workers also employed non-bronze
implements to fashion blocks (Boleti, this volume), depending on the materiality oftbe stone. Devolder (2018:
348, :fig. 3e) noted tbat masons at Malia utilized hard stone implements - evident from preserved percussion
marks - to shape tbe surface of limestone boulders (Kreimerman & Devolder, this volume: fig. l. l 9a-b ). Stone
hammers are indeed reported from severa! Minoan contexts (Blitzer 1995; Shaw 2009: 43-44; Tsoraki 2012:
202, 206, 219-220), though not comprehensively across the island. Hammered stone blocks occur in Mycenaean
settings as well, notably within severa! tholoi at Mycenae (Wace 1949: 34, 36, 44, 135-136). The Jongevity ofthis
technique in Late Bronze Age masoruy practices is evident by its appearance aJongside more sophisticated, sawn,
masonry- like tbe dromoi and facades ofMycenae's Treasury of Atreus and Tomb ofK.lytemnestra (Wright 1987;
2006: 16-18, fig. 1.4). Hammered masonry is also found througbout the citadel of Tiryns (Küpper 1996: 8), though
it remains uncertain if the tools - bammers or pick-harnmers - were made of stone or bronze. Masons could
fashion rock with hammering and picking too Is made of stone but less effectively tban bronze versions. The ability
to dress masonry edges and surfaces with stone implements is attested in Egypt as early as tbe Predynastic period
(Stocks 2003: 10-20). Tools made of soft copper alloys fashioned stone as well, but tin-bronze too Is offered more
efficiency in stonework. Thus, a general correlation exists between the spread of ashlar masonry in the Bronze Age
Mediterranean and the prominence of tin-bronze too Is (Hult 1983: 62). These implements offered new ways of
cutting and shaping various types of rock. Craftspeople, however, did not abandon older stoneworking techniques
as the continued use of stone tools illustrates. Still, metallurgical advancements improved cutting efficiency and
contributed - alongside other factors - to the pervasiveness of ashlar architecture in the Middle and Late Bronze
Age.
Roughly 40 % of tbe preserved 2°d millennium BC metal tools from the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean
are construction implements (Blackwell 2011: l 15-125), making them the most common too! category during
this period. Axes, adzes, chisels, drills, hammers, and saws comprise the corpus of masonry and carpentry too Is.
Axes and chisels, each with severa! subtypes, make up a substantial element of this grouping, The challenge
of identifying metal tools intended for masonry as opposed to carpentry has hindered detailed assessments of
stoneworking practices (Shaw 2009: 53-54). Similar implement types - namely percussion, cutting, and paring
devices - can treat botb stone and wood marerials. Only in rare cases can an implernent's purpose be restricted to
stonework since the boundaries of distinction are blurry. Double axes migbt be used primarily for woodworking,
but modem experimental work has demonstrated their effectiveness in dressing, tbough not necessarily splitting,
stone (Lowe Fri 2011: 52-53, 58-60). Carpenters certainly utilized adzes when paring wooden surfaces smooth, but
masons also rnay bave applied the tool lo stone when fashioning rock. Preserved cutting edges of Cypriot double
adzes are heavily worn, perhaps indicating that masons did use such tools occasionally on stone (Fíg. 8.1).

216
FIG. 81
o---- -
noon« ADlíS ~ROM hKOMI, C:VPRUS. GUN~IS HOAAD, (VPRUS ARCltMOIO(:IC.AI MUSílJM INV. N• 137
/\NO l39 (COURTESY OF THE OEMRTMENT OF AHT1(1UITIES. (Yl'RUS; PHOTOGRl\PH BY TME AUTHOR)

Nnturally, thc applicahilil) <>Í an wc •~a .iimc..ortcmg 1001 dcpcnd.• cmircly on thc materiolny a1>d hardne<• oí
11 rock JI is p1·c,.,lilltabl" 1b111 nd<K• c•P<'fl"1t".:d J!k1llct pupulnn1y <>11 Cn.-1<. "'th 11~ abundance or .ul\ >lOHt'S, tlmu
un thc Greck mainland (Evdy 1993: 62· 76; Shaw 2009: 41-42). Duc 10 1·hallcn~• of flmcnonal dlsccmmcrn, lhc
follu,ving overvicw uf f\.1yi;cnJc-41Jl.and Cypriot 1001~ ~up:i mJMX\ry and '-JrPL-ntry implemcnts into one cah::gory.
1he1·e~11ll ls n uscful olheit ~~e\\ied picture of rrg1011nl irnple1n1.•01 p1efereoces rela.1M to ~h"'nl!wn1k. 'rnol runrk,;
cnhnucc thc cti~c1L<..~1011 but f)rc~cnt thcir O\Yn ~t nf intcrprcranvc challcng~c. r·on~idcr:u on nfl1()th rtata.Acl.~ must
lh.,;r\!(Ut\: occur CUIJl'OUUbutLJy,

Tools and cut-stona masonry: links botwoon Croto and Mainland

Grooco?
Minoan architce11 cxploned •ntt hrncsronc. <and•l<lllC, and g¡.'¡lSum. ainong other s1c>nt1;. which cnahlcd masons
lo oul l.Jloc.lu l\:b:th.\..:ly easily (Sl!J.t\\' 2WJ: 1 i ~Z7) 111...,")f; $.loo.; w.itlTÍRls lcul.l 10 pH.'&.'J ve tuoJ rnnrks. allbvu,g,11
cruttspeoplcoñcn erudicnrcd uncvcn cuning) by fini;hingsm<>0th ~faibk inawlll)' surfbces, Still, rnarks frum chisels,
pick;. saws, adzes. and drills occur on :.iinoan arcniteeture, oñen a1 thc eods or b3<:ksidc of'a blcck (Shaw 2009: 41 •
4~. 4(~j 1 ). Hased on preserved rnnrkingco. clu~I~ ore tite 1m11le111ent ¡111r rtt elit':J1'"f"for Jlmduc1n& nvhlnr n1a.~onry
(Shav v• 2009: 46}, ideal ror dressing ané retimag a block·, shapc and surfacc. Givca thc ubiquity of ash1ar masonry
on Cretc, the islaml's ricb dataset of IOOls (Evrly 1993). and iL' proximity to Mainland Greece. quesñous abouml
regnrding the retanonship berween .\'linoon cmftspro¡>le and ~tyccn:.c:lll stonework and architecture.
Suh~tnnu.11 changes in masonry rrnn~pired oo the Greek maintand lhough f>tlll L1gging hehincl Crere by the
nuddlc oí' thc 2"' millcnnium BC. AsMar WH>UlllY fir.sl •Pl'""'OO by thc U.le Hclledic 1-JJ period 111 Mcsscnia and
laconia, llkely tnñuenced by Creran c:raftwo.rl:. and possíbly by die physical preseace of Minoan masous on 1he

217
 As.hbtr

thc ~iinoan practiee of s3wing stone (Sh.1\1 2009: 46-51) and Crete's likely impact on cut-stoae masonry on the
(ireek rnmnlnnd, saw hlarle~ ore rnre in all n1ninL1nd c:onte.u~ includ1ng, neathy tSlonct;:;;. Only a handfut of exarnples
exist, ami ncarly all on: Iragmentary, Wlulc 8 smglc MiJdlc HcUailic cxsmplc ni•t> frum Lclkas (Trrpathi 1988:
263 U41 250), ÜlC tool f.tiled tu be..."Onrttpopul¡,rcunoog ~k:r ~tyct'BctC'aama~ TI1t Ionvcst mainland saw (55.7 cm)
CM1CS frMn lhe An<irM>"nOI (í-uhoe,,) Hnnrri OM Í< n pmMb!e Creun rmron (Pn<elulhdi• 211117· ~ 14--115¡. Despire
thc rnfrcqncncy of ,i¡aw~ on rhc (ircck maint:.nd, curtings oo t.f)'Ccn.1.canarchucemrc nnd sculpmrc lfilack'\\\'.':111014:
4 59-464) tlllt'sl w Lh1..1 l"Utph.>)'llh"Olof :ilun..:""urlin~ >U~"S., E~ic.k.-occ furtia; use uf u stonc-cutting ICUIChiuckuown MS
a pendulum saw stcms from preserved cuningsat key síres in the Ar:¡olid and Boeoria - thus a technolog)' curremly
unntrested on Crete. During the late 1411and 13 .. c. BC. m:L«im:. at ~1ycenl!e and Tiryn~ used the pendulum saw lo cut
lrnrd 1ock (Schwon,h1~1 l9'JI: W11gl11 ltk)ñ 14;111aler201)7 l'l~-296. Bl""k"dl Wll<ll) Rcmnanl.S of1hesc cumng
opcrnti<>•>< are dctcc1ahle 011 an1•c, pillar h:t;;:.<. rhn:•hol.i•. and ~ and lin1el hlOl'l.-< 1h1m1ghm111lw:<c ci1•1lcl~ TI1c
urigin of'thc pcndulum suw rcrnains uncertam, hui partial lll.'Cprration from Cn_~I.."j, eoncciveblc fBJal·i.\\it.'l1201lia:
2301. Recent experimental work icknuficd an elongated smiigl\1 blade with slightly curved corners asan efñciem
nlnde rype for the pendulum saw (Blnclcwell 201 lU: ~ZS) \{ycenoenn masons ""'Y hove od1pted the Cremn <lrn1gh1.
l~l,1:1,.: suw 10 t·r,·2-11c a dcvrce th u \OUld \.'11')1Jy cut M.'l tn ti~ A~ohd. lu du~ .>t..'t.'HHno.1'·1yc\.1'Ut~n t1111'-1LU:t 111Lltl1r1cLI
Minw11 blades 10 produce a cutlin,g appQra1~ lh>I mel loc:al dwl<n.~•"'
RclevJnl to thi'\ discussion oí ~v.·1ng practiees are thc lap1s loci!d(l(!1no1111t.f (elsc known as J..-roJ.Tatl.~ /111!0.it
nnd Spartan 00.•all) stoncs lhat Evan.< (1?30: 26K·271) unco\·cr.:d in lhc: ea.<l "1ng nfthc Kn<mn< Polocc. Thc
)(IU1C..: o!' lhC)U 'ª
blt.K'kll ;l l..fl(X.HU.JU 4Uf1tr) betwcen lhc u)IJ(k;rn \.lllAJ!Cli ef KtQkt:Q JJ;ud Sh.tfiUu8, IU~l1ni11r; lhfll
Crc11111 or malnland crafüp.:<>()k brou~1 1he m:ncri!l$ rrom
\i•inl:md Gn.~c lo Kno~$llS (W~'ll 1992: Z•-:tZJ &
Lnzurini 2002: 261 ·26J), Scv<r~I s1011cs prtstrve str~1gh1 saw c11ttini.$ (Sluw 2009: ~8-50, fig. 57g). :111d Minoan
,.,•(lrkc1-.; lí kel; ¡irndl1cccl rhc<e 1n.1rk< m1her rh-:t1\ "'1)cenntan nnKAn~. <\1m1glu ~\Y c111c; f'ICcur n1on: rifren nn rv1 ionnn
nrchitcct11rc lllan Myt:c1111cM1u~sonry.1ñc 'l'"''!lio11 of Minoan versus Myocnocan s1oocwork u Ki.1ossos is crnicol
IOr lll\C~li~;111n~ lht' Jtvc.Jopn1e1ll ur d ~lvtl~~~ng W\\ un lbc Vn:cl. U1't1nlanlJ. Tiu¡ "unJ (pl•l"i·jc:) dllJ 1J(U).(,I \1r11
("74) for • s~w oc.-u~ on K.oossion Linear O WllC1$ (Mekn3 2014: 151: ralatmo 1015: 629-631): uncmuinty
pcr.<ills whct.hcr lhc r~ordod implcmcm< "ert •tone or woodworl:ing hl:ldes Thc n:fercnc~~ impl)' a fon1iliari1y
\\'hh (_'1·c11l11 ll')\1l t1:id1un11~ ti~ l.in.:ar H $penL~:i. ni Kn~~
Fun<liunal duublc "'e'""' cummuu oa Nc"!M!ah•I Cn:lc und !he ~l)'C..'QU0"'1 mamll!Dd (Bl•clwcU 1011: 13~-
145), but il Í• <lTUnwus lu ª""""' llwl thc nMÍulaml cupi«l lh< Mm""1 duublc •• willwul rnodi(kaliu1~ U.s<nti:il
~tis1 i11c11011< c,.i,t bc1we.!n che 1wo \''\!rStun-t l'hc.! (.'1c1an futlChOflAI doobtc º"·
p111nar1ty di111ng to lhc 1 i""· I ~·c. H<:,
i~ shon •nrl 1"1.• hr"11d cu11111g cd¡¡c• a11d ft cin:ular •h>fl IM'llc (F'i::,. 8Al (F.•cly IQ91· 41-~~). TI>< \·lyccMcftn
vcr>.11111 rdlcct> • ( ,1• • l 3'·c. BC J.:, cloprrn:nl w1lh l"Ultmg "'4c<• lhul 11•1'1: uuh•~•d b.:yund lbc widlh ur lhc objwl'•
midsectíon: 11 a Is<> abandontd lhe eimllor sbnft bolt In illvor of ao O'l'al form fFlg. 8.Sl. Moreovcr. mni11lo11ders
do no1 •eem to ha\-e aoc:epted the ~ymbnlic elemen1 of 1he double ax cniph:i.<i1ed in Míni>:lfl 1conogrophy ond
ccl'<'U1u11111I Vl'r>ioo; vi lite 1uol (><.'<:Ha~""'"2010 loca tl1><USSJQ<1 ufrl.,- ·~ruU..•hc tllllurc uf 1ltc vi 11w1u1dou~lo11x)

FIG.8.4 MINOAN OOUBll AX Fl<OM KhOSSOS, ASHMOlfAN MU!>lUM, IN\I. rt' l.910.183 jCOURIESY Of IHE
AsHMOlEAN MUSEUM, UlllVERSITY OF OXFORD; PHOlOGRAPH BY TH[ AIJTHOR)

221
 Ashlar

the Levant, are absent in the Late Bronze Age. Continuity in tool form, however, <loes not correspond to a steady
value. Although single axes - the par exce/lence implement on Middle Bronze Age Cyprus - appear in the Late
Bronze Age, their popularity declined markedly (Catling 1964: 63-64, 85-86; Balthazar 1990).
The distribution of Late Cypriot tools amongst Cypriot sites is uneven. The extensive excavations at Enkomi
uncovered a rich dataset of implements that form more than half ofthe island's Late Bronze Age construction too Is.
This partern suggests that Enkomi served as the island's primary consumer, and producer, of metal tools. Did the
site control work tools while administering masonry and carpentry projects? Perhaps the clustered dispersa! of
tools merely refíects greater archaeological investigation at Enkomi than elsewbere. Wbatever the explanation, the
relative scarcity of construction implements at orher Late Cyprior IIC urban sites (e.g. Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios,
Hala Sultan Tekke, Kition, Maroni-Vournes, Alassa-Pa/iotaverna, and Kouklia-Palaepaphos) contradicts the
extensive cut-stone architecture at those centers (Blackwell 2011: 205-207).
The continuityoftool fonns from the Middle to the Late Cypriotperiod empbasizes indigenous developments-with
only limited external influence - cu Late Cypriot masonry and carpentry practices. A relatively smaU (e.g. around
30 examples) yet meaningful group ofLate Cypriot tools presents an exception: shafted, double-ended implements,
namely double axes, double adzes, double hammers, ax-adzes, and hammer-adzes (Fig. 8.7). These implements
comprise less than 15 % of tbe Late Cypriot masonry and carpentry tools, yet they have no precedents in tbe
MiddJe Cypriot repertoire. Typically stockpiled in metal assemblages at Enkomi and Mathiati (Catling 1964: 279-
294; Knapp et alii 1988; Kassiandiou 2018a; 2018b), these implements date to the 131h and 12tJ' c. BC. Their limited
appearance implies accessibility issues for everyday craftspeople. Excluding double axes, these shafted, double-
ended tools are idiosyncratic to Cretan and Cypriot tool assemblages, as they are scarce on rhe Greek mainland,
Anatolia, and the Levant. Double adzes and adze-harnmers, for instance, occur solely on Crete and Cyprus. The
shafted, double-ended Cypriot implements may imitare Minoan examples. All Cypriot shafted tools have round
sockets (like most Minoan types) as opposed to oval shafts more characteristic ofMycenaean double axes. Despite
the commonalities with Minoan implements, Cyprus bardly adopted tbe Cretan tool industry in fuU. Preeminent
Minoan rools, like large saws and elongated chisels with broad cutting edges, are missing from the Cypriot dataset.
Furthermore, the double ax, so prorninent on Crete and tbe Greek mainland, appears infrequently on Cyprus with
only four examples. Even then, the Cypriot double ax differed from Minoan types (Fig. 8.15).
The shafted, double-ended tools from Cyprus rnay reflect irnplements used in the production of Late Cypriot
ashlar and cut stone. Since the masonry style appeared on the island before the tools, the latter might correspond
to an introduction of varied, perhaps more sophisticated, stone-cutting techniques. Cypriot ashlars incorporated
limestone or sandstone blocks that readily preserved tool marks. Chisel-like curtings are conspicuous on sandstone
blocks atKalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Maroni-Vournes, and Alassa-Paliotc1verna (Hitchcock 2012: 668, pl, CLTV;
Fisber 2014: 365; Kreimerman & Devolder, this volume: fig. 1.2). Tbe interior western wall ofKalavasos-Ayíos
Dhimitrios Building X bears copious too] marks at different depths and orientations. The cuttings, combined with
remnants of lifting bosses, crea te a unique appearance possibly for aesthetic and mnernonic purposes (Soutb 1984;
1989: 320; Hitchcock 2012: 668; Fisher 2014: 365, 372-373, fig. 17.3) (Fig. 8.8).
The cutting-edge widths of the double-ended tools generally match the breadth of these cuttings (personal
observation). Deep blade cuts in the stone's surface 111ay indicate a blow made by an implement with great force,
possibly from a swinging motion. Shallower impressions Iikely reflect more controlled and precise strikes from
a too!. Sorne cuttings occur in a patterned orientation indicative of the repeated use of a cutting device in a quick
succession of blows from the saine direction (Fig. 8.9). Shafted, double-ended implements, such as tbe double
adzes from Enkomi (Figs 8.J, 8.7 bottom & 8.16), could have produced such cut patterns through a series of
repetitive strikes. Masons might have fashioned these soft sandstone blocks relatively fast with such too Is.
Not only are Cypriot double-ended implements conceptually Cretan in form, but a handful of Cypriot tools
preserve signs - sorne recalling Minoan masons' marks - inscribed 011 tbeir surface, A brief introduction bere
to masons' marks will contextualize the symbols 011 the Cypriot tools. The purpose of individual signs carved
on elite Bronze Age architecture has led to various interpretations ranging from the symbolic to the practica!
(Evans L 901: 111-112; 1921: 132-135; Hood 1987; 2002; Begg 2004a; 2004b; Hitchcock 2008; Devolder 2018).
Altbough the pbenomenon of marking architecture occurs on tbe Greek mainland (e.g. Peristeria), the Cyclades
(e.g. Akrotiri; Notti, this volume ), and Cyprus, the epicenter and origin for the practice is on Crete. Of tbe various
interpretations, the argument that the symbols signify individual stonecurters or teams who marked blocks at the

225
Fto.0.8 TOOL MARICS PRES(RVEO ON THE PUNTH AHO OATllOSTAT! ar TH[ WfSTERN WA1l or BUILDING X'S Pl'fHOS
HAil Ar kAlJ\VASOS·AYIOS DWMJrRl()S(COURTtSYOF A SOU1H, PHOTO<;RAPH BYTHE AUTHOR)

- -- .....
......~.
FtG.8.9
-~~~~~ -
PATTEANED TOOL MMKS PRESERVED
Av1osD1-11tw1TRros (COVRTCSY OF A.
.•

OH THE WESTERN WAll

SOUTH; AfOTOGRAPlt sv TH[
,
OF l!UILDING
AUTHORI
x's PITHOS HAU KALAVASOS·

·121