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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION ON DAGGER TYPOLOGIES <strong>IN</strong> THEIR REGIONAL AND <strong>IN</strong>TERREGIONAL CONTEXT The dagger typologies in Central Anatolia, as indicated in Chapter IV, show a certain cultural unity. The developments in dagger typologies, and the metallurgical advancements, cannot be seen as an isolated event. Therefore, the study of the Central Anatolian daggers and their distribution will not only enable us to track the development of dagger typologies in Central Anatolia, but also guide us to construct regional and interregional interaction models. The discussion of the Anatolian chronology and the cultural context of Central Anatolia in the previous chapters showed the close relationship between the sites and interregional interactions of Central Anatolia. 56
6.1 Pontic Interactions When the geographical limits of the region were outlined in the introduction chapter, however, the Central Black Sea region, north of Çorum district, was not included. Two important sites in the Central Black Sea region are very important for the cultural realm of Central Anatolia. İkiztepe and Dündartepe are so indispensable; they cannot be left out of any discussion concerning the EBA Central Anatolia, especially metallurgical realm. Both of these settlements show strong Central Anatolian cultural connections based on the pottery as well as metal forms. The Bafra plains importance (including Samsun) as a settlement site is the existence of the Halys River valley which served as a communication route between the Central Anatolia and the Black Sea region. The importance of this route is evident in the discussion of the dagger typologies. No one makes it clearer than Stronach when he states: “[the] oldest stratified type I dagger in Central Anatolia comes from Alişar. Similar ones also come from Dündartepe and Tekeköy” (Stronach, 1957: 90). In the following discussion, it will be clear that the Central Anatolian dagger typologies reflects the interactions between the local sites as well as the far reaching trade network of Central Anatolia from Troy to Mesopotamia. As it was stated, the organization of the dagger typologies into six main types did not indicate a certain developmental sequence or chronological framework. For example, Type IIIe dagger is not less developed nor placed in an earlier chronological frame than Type IVb dagger. The reason behind this approach is made clear by Maxwell-Hyslop when she stated that “…typological development must not be 57
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 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: 5.8 Type VII The only example of a
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?