For comparison to
Petrie XXXV:124. The illustration has rivet holes, which the OP dagger doesn't. But the profile and raised ridges/flanges along the shortened tang seem more or less consistent,
as is the squared-off profile of the tang - although the transition from the shoulders to the flanges is a
bit straighter on the OP, and slightly concave on the illustration.
Sadly, I've never been able to figure out exactly how to use
Petrie for
attribution. In both the text (chapters) and the lists of "System(s) of
Types, with References to Plates and Pages," he seems to provide information for only
a selection of figures from the plates. Sometimes I have been lucky enough where there was a specific reference in the text or "System of
Types" to a particular specimen I was studying.
But, in an example like this - Plate
XXXV (tanged, copper/bronze daggers), Figure 124 - I can find no information, beyond the illustration, that may
help with
attribution. No cross-reference to info about location of manufacture (although the "Laibach" under the image must allude that that) or to size or dating. Perhaps the info is buried somewhere in the book, but I'm not seeing it. I don't quite understand why info for a number of specimens is provided, but then for others there is nothing - or so it seems to me. So frustrating. I must be just missing something. I'd appreciate a CliffsNotes version of a user guide for
Petrie.
