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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A dagger from Horoztepe (Cat. No: 22) is similar to Type Ia but its shoulders are sloping, unlike Type Ia daggers. The shoulders are bulgy and the edges of the blade are curving in. The peculiar morphology of the Horoztepe dagger is most likely the result of the repeated re-sharpening of the dagger blade. The areas closer to the handle, and underneath the handle, were protected, resulting in the bulbous shape below the shoulders. Another evidence of this sharpening process is the concave sides of the blade. The possible morphological change to a dagger blade due to re- sharpening is also suggested by Maxwell-Hyslop (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1946: 9). Type Ib Another dagger (Cat. No: 33) which can be included in Type I typology comes from Yazılıkaya. It looks very similar to the Type Ia daggers with is long tang, but its rhombic shape sets it apart from them. Although rhombic section might serve the purpose of a midrib, there is no midrib morphology to discern. Type Ic Another Type I dagger, Type Ic, in Central Anatolia has a triangular shaped tang but it is wider and stubbier than Type Ia and Type Ib. Çadır Höyük dagger (Cat. No: 13) and a dagger from Horoztepe (Cat. No: 18) have triangular tangs without rivets. As the other Type Ia2 dagger from Horoztepe, Type Ic dagger from the same location shows evidence of reshaping. Both of the Type I daggers from Horoztepe were found along with the more advanced Type IV daggers, which showed no evidence of wear pattern (Tezcan, 1960: 42). 46
Type Ic1 A dagger from the Ankara Collection (Cat. No: 40) is the only example of this type of dagger in Central Anatolia. The end of the tang in Type Ic1 dagger ends in more rounded fashion that the other Type I daggers and have a single rivet hole at the end of the. Type Ic2 Another dagger from Ankara Collection (Cat. No: 42) has a wide, triangular tang which nearly merges with the shoulders of the blade. The short tang might have necessitated for its width for a stable attachment to the handle with a single rivet. Type Id The Type Id daggers’ tang morphology is not as triangular as the other type I daggers. The tang is pierced with a single rivet. A dagger from Kayapınar (Cat. No: 25) has this basic morphology with its rounded shoulders and a medium length tang pierced with a single rivet. Type Id1 A dagger from Ahlatlıbel (Cat. No: 4) can be included in Type Id1 category. With the shoulders dropping down in a straight line, however, the morphology of the blade might suggest that this blade has a flat midrib. The 1934 illustration is not clear enough to make definite statements. Type Id2 A dagger in Sadberk Hanım Museum has typological character of Type Id daggers but the shoulders of the dagger are rounded and bulging. The proportions of 47
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 and 52: CHAPTER V CENTRAL ANATOLIAN DAGGER
Page 53: and Önder Bilgi (1989), does not 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?