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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

pedigree. Therefore, it is possible that the Kura-Araxes culture indeed played an important role in the distribution of certain early dagger typologies in the Eastern Anatolia in the upper reaches of Tigris and Euphrates to Mesopotamia. The cultural interactions between Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia in the EB III period are clear. The artistic and the cultural influences of Mesopotamia cannot be denied. Yet, the crescentic pommel daggers are the only solid evidence for the stylistic influence of Ur on the Central Anatolian dagger types. The Mesopotamian daggers, in general, show great variety in form and many of the dagger types are not found in Anatolia (Fig. 31). We are aware of the interactions between Troy, Central Anatolia and Cilicia in the EBA, especially in EBA III. An important cultural horizon to consider for the study of dagger is the Ezerovo-Sozopol group which was developed in the Bulgarian Black Sea coast (Mazura, 1999: 207). The Northwestern Anatolian contacts with the Ezero culture is evident in the early 4th millennium (Nikolova, 1999: 249). These interactions continued into the later phases and based on the common ceramic elements between Troy I-II and the Ezero 10-5 (Nikolova, 1999: 344). The daggers illustrated from Central Anatolian sites, İkiztepe, Karaz, Karkamış, Ur and Ezoro are very similar to each other yet we cannot determine it if these daggers are result of indigenous development or these cultural interactions. 6.3 Evidence from Caucasus There is a Type II dagger, which is very similar to an Alaca Höyük dagger (Cat. No: 5), found in a grave belonging to Sachere culture (Fig.32). Both of the 74
lades have wide midrib; sloping shoulders and long, rivet-less tang. The tang of the Alaca Höyük dagger ends angular while the Sachkhere dagger terminated blunt, but not angular. An elongated blade shape is similar in both daggers as well. In addition, the tools types of Sachere are found as far as Armenia and Çoruh Valley in Turkey (Chernykh, 1992: 107). The large portion of the Sachere grave offerings, however, are composed of ornaments. The most unusual type of ornament found in the Sachere graves is the “T” shaped or hammer-shaped pins. Similar pins made of bone, bronze or gold had a wide distribution in Transcaucasia, the northern Caucasus, the northern Black Sea region and the central Anatolia (Alaca Höyük) (Chernykh, 1992: 107). Also various medallions and pendants in Alaca Höyük graves H, F and S (Koşay 1951: pl. CXXXV.2; CLXIX.2; CCIV.2; CCVI) which have their parallels in Transcaucasia (Chernykh, 1992: fig. 34.8-9, 11, 14, 16) (Chernykh, 1992: 110). There is possibly a metallurgical connection between the Caucasian region and central Anatolia. The Caucasian cultural interaction with Central Anatolia is a sensitive topic due to unproven Indo-European migrations into Anatolia from Caucasia. The main evidence for this migration theory is the kurgan burials, which show some the construction parallels with the Alaca Höyük burials. The main evidence against the migration theory, in turn, is the lack of ceramic evidence and chronological correlations between Central Anatolia and Caucasia. 6.4 Further considerations There is no need to choose between migration, diffusion or local development of cultures as more than likely the truth lies between these three options. As far as the 75
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 and 80: No.71-71), without an illustration,
Page 81: Black Sea region. It is not a contr
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?