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

3.2 Current Arguments
There seems to be a chronological abyss in the early first half of the third
millennium B.C. One solution to this issue was to pull in many of the sites which were
dated to the second half of the third millennium into the first half of the millennium.
Which means, many of the sites which were dated to the EBA III were proposed to be
re-dated to EB I and EB II (Bertram, 2008: 74; Yalçın 2010: 62). The traditional dates
given for many of the Central Anatolian sites are disputed by some of the scholars,
such as Thissen (1993), Bertram (2008) and Yalçın (2010). Thissen and Bertram
based their suggestions on the framework of more traditional approach, such as pottery
and metal typologies. Bertram’s argument is based on correlating the pottery
typologies of Ahlatlıbel, Etiyokuşu and Koçumbeli in the Ankara region, which all
shared the same cultural and chronological characteristics, with of the EBA II pottery
assemblages of Demirci Höyük in Western Anatolia. As a result of this correlation,
Bertram concluded that Ahlatlıbel, Etiyokuşu and Koçumbeli should be dated to the
first half of the third millennium B.C. rather than the second half. At the same time, he
offered a caveat that correlating the cultural materials of sites separated by such
distances, as Central Anatolia and Western Anatolia, may result in false chronological
correlations (Bertram, 2008: 74). Another issue Bertram raised was the metallurgical
connections between Ahlatlıbel and Alaca Höyük, based on spiral pins which were
found in both sites. Interestingly, these pins were dated to the first half of the third
millennium B.C. (Troy II, 2600-2300 B.C.) by Seton Lloyd (Bertram, 2008: 74). The
same pins, however, are dated to the EB III at Alaca Höyük. According to Bertram,
instead of reversing the dates at Alaca Höyük, the date of Ahlatlıbel strata was
14