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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

attachment places for handles on both sides. There were rods inserted into these to function as bucket handles. Those attachment points were soldered and they are suggested to be cast as well as the body (Temizer, 1954: 326). The technology applied in the vessel makes it clear that the dagger of a simple type found at Kayapinar does not mean that the site was bereft of developed metallurgical products, or highly developed types of daggers. Unfortunately, this is one of the EBA sites which were targets of extensive looting activities. Therefore, we do not know if other weapons, which might have had more sophisticated morphology, were recovered from the site by illicit excavations. It is also possible that daggers or other weapons were not commonly used as grave offerings in Kayapınar. 6.3 “Universal” Typologies Some of the daggers in the EBA age seem to have a “universal” morphology. The spatial and temporal distribution of these daggers makes it almost impossible to track their origin. Two of the daggers types in Central Anatolia, a dagger from Horoztepe (Cat.No:18) and another one from The Ankara Collection (Cat. No: 40), are good examples to demonstrate this difficulty. Similar daggers are found in İkiztepe (Fig.25), Karaz (Fig.26), Karkamış (Fig.27), Hassek Höyük (Fig.28), Ur (Fig.29) and in the cultural realm of Ezero (Fig.30). There are clear metallurgical connections between İkiztepe and Central Anatolian in almost all the dagger typologies. As it was mentioned earlier, the Halys River Valley was a convenient trade route between the Central Anatolian and the 72
Black Sea region. It is not a controversial suggestion that this route was utilized during the EBA era. Karaz is an important site for the interactions between the Central Anatolia and the Transcaucasia in the EBA. The importance of the Caucasus as a metallurgical center was recognized by Frankfort early in the 20 th century, but the lack of evidence for the Caucasian copper ores caused difficulty in the general acceptance of this theory (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1946:4). The metallurgical materials recovered from the Caucasus region has dramatically change this opinion and the importance of Caucasus in the development of metallurgical technologies was realized (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1946:4). The first Transcaucasian cultural horizon to be considered in the discussion of the Anatolian EBA is the Kura-Araxes culture, which was located between the Kura, and Araxes (Araks) rivers. The morphology of the Kura-Araxes metalwork, as well as the chemical analysis of the artifacts, is similar in character to those found in the southwestern region of the CMP (Circumpontic Metallurgical Province), including Anatolia (Chernykh, 1992: 66). Although the northeastern borders of the culture are located in the mountainous regions of Dagestan and part of the Checheno-Ingushetia region, the southern border is not yet fully defined (Chernykh, 1992:57). The Kura- Araxes (Kura-Araks) cultural material, however, has been found at sites in the eastern half of Anatolia, such as Karaz and Pulur, and as far as the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates (Lamb, 1954: 28). The date bracket for the Kura-Araxes culture is proposed to be between 3500 and 2500 B.C. by Chernykh (Chernykh, 1992: 57). Although the date bracket given for Kura-Araxes culture seems too early for most of the dagger finds in Anatolia, it is not too early for constructing a metallurgical 73
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 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: No.71-71), without an illustration,
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?