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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Not all of the drawings of the daggers from Central Anatolia are sufficient to make firm conclusions on their typology. One example would be a dagger from the Ankara collection (Cat. No: 43) which has a drawing suggesting a wide midrib in its cross section drawing, but the general drawing of the blade either suggests a line on the actual blade, or a center of the blade was indicated. There is another line at the shoulder level of the blade. Various drawing techniques create complications in the interpretation of the material. Another issue to consider is the provenance of the daggers. A number of daggers presented in the catalog have questionable provenance. These collections of daggers are divided into two groups: Museum collection and Private collection. Some of the museum collection daggers are from what is called the “Ankara Collection”. The daggers (Cat. No: 40-44) from the Ankara collection are included in the discussion due to the reason that the collection, which was purchased in 1965 by Özgüç, contained other cultural artifacts allowing us to make an educated suggestion on the origin of the daggers. Another dagger which has an unclear provenance is the dagger find (Cat. No:14). This dagger was purchased in 1971 by Özgüç as well and included in discussions in this study. Many other daggers from looted graves came into the possession of museums. Collection of five daggers (Cat.No: 35-39) in Çorum Museum has their provenance recorded as Yenihayat. T. Yıldırım (2001) conducted a survey at the said location and was able to confirm the existence of an EBA III cemetery, contemporary with the daggers in Çorum Museum. A dagger in Haluk Perk Museum (Cat. No: 13) has its provenance recorded as Çadır Höyük. On the other hand, the private collection (Sadberk Hanım Museum) published by Çetin Anlağan 44
and Önder Bilgi (1989), does not contain any information on how the decision was made to attribute items as Central Anatolian in origin. Therefore, these daggers (Cat. No: 45-47) from the Sadberk Hanım collection are not included in the discussion. They are, however, part of the catalog to acknowledge their existence. 5.1 Methodology It is most convenient to divide the dagger types in Central Anatolia based on the midrib technologies applied to the blade, or lack of it. The use of midrib was an essential technology which strengthens a blade and enables it to be used as an effective stabbing weapon. At the same time, a midrib allows a metal smith to produce robust, but light and functional weapon. 5.2 Type I Type I daggers do not have midribs and, in general, have curved cross sections. These type of daggers came into the archaeological scene as early as the Chalcolithic period and remained in use as late as 2000 B.C. (Stronach, 1957: 90). They are subdivided in to five categories (a-f). Some of the Type I dagger were further divided, based on the tang and shoulder morphology. Type Ia Type I dagger from Alişar (Cat. No: 9) is the most basic, and the earliest stratified example. It has a long, triangular tang and round shoulders. Type Ia2 45
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 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: CHAPTER V CENTRAL ANATOLIAN DAGGER
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?