EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS IN CENTRAL ... - Bilkent University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

As a background of the developments in the Early Bronze Age, the Late Chalcolithic will be discussed briefly but the scope of the research on the typology and the chronology of daggers starts in the Early Bronze Age I (EB I, or alternatively the Late Chalcolithic, ca. 3200-3000 B.C.) and covers EB II and III, terminating with the appearance “intermediate” ware at the end of Early Bronze Age IIIb (ca. 2000-1950 B.C). This also coincides with the appearance of the Karum-Kültepe (level II), Old Assyrian trade colonies in Anatolia along with the written records associated with it. The greatest challenge one has to face concerning any study in the EBA Anatolia is the problematic chronological framework of Central Anatolia. There are several alternative theories and approaches of Low, Middle and High chronologies. One of the alternative theories is that some scholars suggest that the conventional Near Eastern oriented approach to the chronology of Anatolia might be partly responsible for the chronological problems we are facing today. As it will be presented, there are pottery sequences in Central Anatolia with some possible connections to Southeast European cultures and the Caucasus region. It seems that the Near Eastern influences were only visible in the late third millennium. Therefore, it is well worth exploring the possibility that Anatolia was at the fringes of the traditional Near East and the Bosporus was not an impenetrable obstacle as apparently once thought. Although these issues will be further discussed in the chronology chapter, this study will utilize the more conventional approach of the Middle chronology as much as possible. At the end of this study, the dagger typology and chronology of the third millennium B.C. will support the other types of evidence concerning the cultural makeup of Central Anatolia. The research shows that the dagger typologies and 6
chronology shows the existence of what we can call “Hatti” culture, possible regional interactions of this cultural sphere during its formation/development. 7
Page 1 and 2: EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS IN CENTRAL
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS I
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I am
Page 7 and 8: 3.5 Chronological Labels………
Page 9 and 10: CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The beginnin
Page 11 and 12: Western Europe which covers a time
Page 13: There are a limited number of excav
Page 17 and 18: 2.1 Definition Nevertheless, a simp
Page 19 and 20: It should be accepted, at least the
Page 21 and 22: 3.1 Chronological Limits of Early B
Page 23 and 24: accepted as belonging to the second
Page 25 and 26: If this is taken as a starting poin
Page 27 and 28: The majority of the dagger finds in
Page 29 and 30: 4.2 The Key Sites in Central Anatol
Page 31 and 32: evidence cannot be taken as a defin
Page 33 and 34: dated to the second half of the thi
Page 35 and 36: Hans Henning Von der Osten suggeste
Page 37 and 38: Depata with red cross decoration fi
Page 39 and 40: intentionally mutilating metal vess
Page 41 and 42: elations between Kültepe and Troy.
Page 43 and 44: Phase III in Polatlı is characteri
Page 45 and 46: place. This is most obvious by the
Page 47 and 48: destroyed in Anatolia and none of t
Page 49 and 50: of Yazır Höyük, Demirci Höyük
Page 51 and 52: CHAPTER V CENTRAL ANATOLIAN DAGGER
Page 53 and 54: and Önder Bilgi (1989), does not c
Page 55 and 56: Type Ic1 A dagger from the Ankara C
Page 57 and 58: has a wooden core wrapped in electr
Page 59 and 60: Type IId The flat midrib’s edges
Page 61 and 62: and Type IVb (Cat. No: 20), come fr
Page 63 and 64: 5.8 Type VII The only example of a
Page 65 and 66:
6.1 Pontic Interactions When the ge
Page 67 and 68:
39). Yenihayat is not a formaly exc
Page 69 and 70:
A shaft-hole axe hammer; a mace hea
Page 71 and 72:
of such a dagger in the Central Ana
Page 73 and 74:
daggers were, without a question, e
Page 75 and 76:
Some of the Yenihayat daggers’ mi
Page 77 and 78:
egional variance in the production
Page 79 and 80:
No.71-71), without an illustration,
Page 81 and 82:
Black Sea region. It is not a contr
Page 83 and 84:
lades have wide midrib; sloping sho
Page 85 and 86:
With the advancement of archaeometa
Page 87 and 88:
Similarly, there are cultural conne
Page 89 and 90:
Another benefit of experimental arc
Page 91 and 92:
-----. 1984. “Metal Objects from
Page 93 and 94:
Lloyd, Seton, Howard Frederick, and
Page 95 and 96:
Reade, J. 2001. “Assyrian King-Li
Page 97 and 98:
Yalçın, Ü. 2010. “ Alacahöyü
Page 104 and 105:
Fig. 1 APPENDIX C FIGURES 96
Page 106 and 107:
. Fig. 22 Fig. 26 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 F
Page 108 and 109:
11. Stronach 1957:93, fig. 2/7. 12.
Page 110 and 111:
Type IId Type II b Cat. No: 4 Cat.
Page 112 and 113:
Type I f1 Type I F2 Cat. No: 7 Fune
Page 114 and 115:
Çadır Höyük Type I c Cat. No: 1
Page 116 and 117:
Type I c Type IV a1 Type IVb Cat. N
Page 118 and 119:
Type II a1 Cat. No: 24 Kalınkaya n
Page 120 and 121:
POLATLI: Ankara province. Type II c
Page 122 and 123:
YAZILIKAYA: Afyon province. Type I
Page 124 and 125:
Type V b Type II a2 Type II a1 Cat.
Page 126 and 127:
Type I c2 Type ? Type III a Cat. No
Page 128:
Type I a Cat. No: 47 Sadberk Hanım
show all

EARLY BRONZE AGE DAGGERS IN CENTRAL ... - Bilkent University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?