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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the previous cultural layers. The Chalcolithic red ware was tempered with fine grit, unlike the Early Bronze Age red ware which had plant base tempering (Von der Osten, 1937: 110). Painted ware comes from the last two levels of the cultural deposits of the Early Bronze Age. Interestingly, the decoration techniques of the painted ware resemble the painted ware of the last two levels of the Chalcolithic period (Von der Osten, 1937: 155). There are also finely made fragments which might belong to depata of Troy II type (Von der Osten, 1937: 158). One of the sherds illustrated (fig. 165) in the 1930-32 Alişar season report has interior groove decorations which are found in other Anatolian sites. In the first phase of the Early Bronze Age only the citadel was occupied, but during the later phases the settlement spread out to the terrace of site on virgin soil. There are a total of five cultural layers (7 to 11 M, 14 to 16 L) which compose the Early Bronze Age culture in Alişar. Level 7 M was dated to the Troy II phase according to the pottery finds. The end of the Early Bronze Age in Alişar was dated to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. (Von der Osten, 1937: 110-111). The burials were located underneath the houses and were the same types as the Chalcolithic burials, but there seems to be no favored orientation to the graves, unlike the Chalcolithic burials. The deceased might have been buried with clothes on due to findings of large pins in situ, about the shoulder level of the individual (Von der Osten, 1937: 111). Of the 46 burials recovered from the Early Bronze Age deposits, 25 were pithos burials (Von der Osten, 1937: 134-135). Twenty of the burials had grave offerings. These offerings were composed of simple jars, earrings, bent pins, bracelets and, in one of the burials, a necklace (Von der Osten, 1937: 136). 28
Depata with red cross decoration first appear in level Ib. There are also parallels of depata with this type of decoration in Kültepe. Although the origin of the depas is considered to be Northwest Anatolia, the depata from Alişar and Kültepe are closely related to the cups from EB III Tarsus (Stronach, 1957: 65). After the excavation reopened in 1993, the project diverted its attention the following year to other sites in the region, threatened by the Gelingüllü dam project (Gorny, 1995: 52). The work later resumed in Alişar. The most interesting, but coming as a no surprise to many, result of the reconsideration of the Chalcolithic pottery was its possible connection to Balkan cultures. These findings are paralleled in Güzelyurt and Kamankale Höyük in Anatolia and Precucutine phase of the Thracian Vinca culture (Gorny, 1995: 53). Horoztepe Horoztepe is the furthest site to the northeast to be considered for this study of regional dagger typologies. The cemetery of Horoztepe provided rich metal finds comparable to Alaca Höyük. As is the case in Alaca Höyük, the daggers recovered from Horoztepe come from burial contexts, rather than the settlement site. The extramural cemetery of Horoztepe is located at the neighborhood of Erbaa, not too far from the ancient flat settlement of Horoztepe. The ancient cemetery of Horoztepe is serving the same purpose today as it was in EBA. Modern graves have caused wide destruction and looting at the site. The first the rich EBA graves came to the attention of scholars in 1954, but the first controlled excavations under T. Özgüç and M. Akok did not start until 1957. Özgüç reported that the burials were the same 29
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 and 14: There are a limited number of excav
Page 15 and 16: chronology shows the existence of w
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: Hans Henning Von der Osten suggeste
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?