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

Mesopotamia” (Stronach, 1957: 101). There are possible parallels to this dagger (Cat.
No: 7) in the Royal Cemetery of Ur (Fig. 15). The rivet arrangement of the dagger,
however, grouped closer as the Cilician examples (Fig. 16). Unfortunately, the tang of
the iron dagger is not illustrated. The morphology of the tang would enable a
researcher to compare the tang morphology between this dagger and the examples
from Cilicia and Ur. On the other hand, the second iron dagger, with a crescent-
shaped pommel (Cat. No: 8), has stylistic connection to Ur (Fig. 17). The Kültepe
dagger (Cat.No: 26) also falls into this stylistic category, as well as a dagger from
İkiztepe (Fig. 18). Nevertheless, the origin of the crescentic pommel is likely to be
from Mesopotamia as suggested. The construction techniques employed in all of the
four daggers differ from each other. While the daggers from Horoztepe, İkiztepe and
Ur have cast pommels, the Alaca Höyük dagger has a separate, elaborate handle and
pommel construction which was then attached to the blade with five rivets. The first
three rivets are fashioned as the first iron dagger (in a triangular style), but has two
additional rivets further below, parallel to each other. The handle of the blade has a
very complicated construction scheme composed of five gold/electrum parts. The
pommel is lightly constructed with a thin sheet of electrum wrapped around a wooden
core. It is attached to the handle under “a loop of gold which was riveted to the butt”
(Stronach, 1957: 103). Some rivet use is also visible in the Ur dagger but they seem
not to be structural but rather to attach decorative pieces. These considerations of
manufacture technique and the evidence of iron working in Alaca Höyük suggest that
this dagger was produced in Alaca Höyük by the local metal smiths. Both of the iron
64