Definition of the Iron Age.

[D B Campbell]

Having always viewed the world from my own perspective, I suddenly find there seems to be quite a disparity in opinion as to the
term Iron Age.

Others in this thread have pointed out that such "ages" vary from Continent to Continent (e.g. no Bronze Age in Africa, as far as I know; and the so-called Rhodesian Iron Age continued into the 18th century).

But I think you maybe have Britain in mind, Byron?

Some people view it as ending with the invasion of Britain by the Romans (which really only applies locally anyway.)
Why this should actually be so I cannot fathom, as the use of iron did not end with the invasion of Britain by the Romans, even in Britain.

The use of the terms Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age is nowadays a pretty-well universal shorthand for categorising prehistoric cultures. When Christian Jürgensen Thomsen "invented" the terms in the 1830s, he was trying to make sense of Scandanavian prehistory. But the same general sequence can be observed all over Europe.

Thank goodness for the Romans. :wink: Their arrival in the various areas of Europe and the Near East gives us a neat cut-off date for the prehistory-history transition, so (in those areas) we no longer require the term "Iron Age". Strictly speaking, the "Iron Age" ought to end in Britain in 55 BC, the date on which the island was dragged from prehistory into history. But some archaeologists (as Robert pointed out) refer to the "Pre-Roman Iron Age", as if we need reminded that the Romans were aware of iron technology.

But the Stone Age-Bronze Age-Iron Age-Roman timeline only applies to those areas that were occupied by Rome. So, for example (perhaps the example you have in mind, Byron), the Iron Age continued in Scotland, where it merges seamlessly into the early medieval period.

Confused? No wonder. Stick to the Romans. That's my advice. :wink: