Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Definition of the Iron Age.
#1
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.
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..

Wiki not a favourite source, but seems to be the only online one quickly accessable to the uneducated like what I am.... :roll:

The Roman iron age in northern Europe lasted untill 400AD....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... al_periods
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#2
Quote:The Roman iron age in northern Europe lasted untill 400AD....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... al_periods
Which might be used for convenience but is of course totally useles. Yes, the Roman period was still part of the 'Iron Age', but then this was also the case of all the subsequent periods right through the Middle Age, until new (non-iron) materials were invented. I'm mystified what might be the difference between a 'germanic Iron Age' and a 'Viking Age', that one apparently neither germanic nor Iron.. Big Grin
Historians stop using the term 'iron Age' when a historical period starts (ie the Roman period in Northern Europe), but archaeologists may well use a different terminology.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
In the Netherlands, archeologist tent to do the same. When they talk about iron age finds, these are from the pre-Roman period, so ending somewhere around the time of Ceasar and Augustus. This use of therminolgy I've also seen in use in excavation reports and theses from Germany, Belgium and the UK. But yeah, they indeed also note sometimes that the end of the Iron age differs from area to area, so should be viewed locally. This means that no 'hard date' can be given as the end.
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
#4
Which is the view I've always held....no specific end to be given...until technology advances as you say in the medieval period.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#5
No, rather until the past becomes "history", i.e. when there are written sources. Afaik iron age is only the last stage (in Western Europe in any case) of prehistory. When the Romans conquered Gaul, prehistory (and along with it the iron age) ended, because from then on, the civilisation in that area had written sources. No matter how much iron was used by the Romans, they are part of 'history'. Purely technological you could say that iron age lasted, indeed, for centuries more, but that isn't the conventional use of the word.

Correct me if I'm wrong. :?:
Valete,
Titvs Statilivs Castvs - Sander Van Daele
LEG XI CPF
COH VII RAET EQ (part of LEG XI CPF)

MA in History
Reply
#6
Well, its always the view I've percieved.....
To suddenly change the basis of classification from technology to culture shows a flaw of logic.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#7
Quote:To suddenly change the basis of classification from technology to culture shows a flaw of logic.

Why? In general the classification starts with 'prehistory' and 'history'. Within the prehistory we know the 'stone age' the 'bronze age' and the 'iron age'. What flaw of logic is in there? And we're not going to culture. Culture comes in when we take termilogy as 'Halstatt', 'La Tene', etc into account.
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
#8
To use the definition of the 'end of the iron' age as the Roman invasion of Britain, seems you are suddenly changing the criteria.
Rome is a culture/civilisation, not a technological age.
You can break things down in to as you say La tene, within a technological age....that makes sense.
But the use of iron encompases the roman civilsation. Rome was within the iron age, both before and after it invaded Britain, so I find it misleading to use that
as the criteria to say the end of the iron age was marked by this. Rome was the dominant of iron age cultures would be a more consistent
application of terminology.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#9
Guys, guys, best stop bickering about this.

You both have very good points but in this case it has no actual bearing on logic and details, but on bureaucracy. We moderns want label things, and as simple as possible. Hence terminology like this (in the UK, they speak of PRIA: pre-Roman Iron Age), but they can't even agree on what to call the period after that (post-Roman, sub-Roman or other descriptions have been used, but never satisfying all).

Which is the point about all of this: it's a purely artificial label, without any hard definition or hard consequences. The boundaries change all the time, like they do in the current dating system of archaeology and geology: X years BP: before Present. 'Present', in this case being 1950 (because it was the year in which calibration curves for radiocarbon dating were first established. It also marked the publication of the first radiocarbon dates in December 1949). Which is of course silly as it will become increasingly different to recall why the 'present' started in 1950. Big Grin 3pbrbjef]*[/size])

So guys, stop beating each other around the head about the flaws in the system: it was never intended to be a system, just a useful tool. :wink:



([size=150:3pbrbjef]*[/size]) Now, if the had wanted to be really different and even more confusing, the CE people would have opted for the use of the Year Zero, thereby upsetting modern timekeeping and creating havoc in the sources about in which year we were actually living (I recall a recent debate about the end/start of the decade :wink: ..).
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#10
In one way of looking at things, we're still in the Iron Age. However, more likely, we should call it the Petroleum Age, which probably could be said to start in the early 1800s when oil became more widely used as fuel of different sorts. Some say the Atomic Age, but maybe that's less accurate. Information Age has its merit, too, but I wonder how we'll be viewed in 700 years. Probably the Pre-Wisdom Age. :wink:

I never liked saying (or implying) "everybody in the world was in the Iron Age except Rome", when clearly, Rome was as Iron Age as anyone, maybe more. It's almost in the class of racist statements..."those nasty Romans weren't in the same world" sort of thing. But that could lead to a fight, of course, so it's better not to pursue that line of thinking. Sadly, some reenactors take all that much more seriously than they should.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#11
Quote:Guys, guys, best stop bickering about this. .
I'm not bickering Robert, I'm stating my opinion of , as you say, the buraucracies lack lof logical definition of periods.
If people want to correct me every time I use a term when there is no logic to what is used, the yare free to do so.
I'll continue to use the terms which I feel are logical. Simple. Smile
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#12
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:5wt0f47b Wrote:Guys, guys, best stop bickering about this. .
I'm not bickering Robert
Bickering as meant in a light-hearted way. Why don't we have smilies that express that...
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#13
Besides, bickering is what we do best. Well, second best. Well, . . . . :wink:
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil

Ron Andrea
Reply
#14
I suspect that the system was built backwards, from current times moving back in time. It wasn't until the 18th century or so that much at all was really known about the pre-Roman eras, particularly in western and northern Europe. Roman expansion into those areas really was the start of their "history", since before that they had no writing. To this day we don't know what those cultures all called themselves, nor even what languages they spoke, in some cases. So historians could not use terms like "Roman" to define pre-Roman eras, and the idea of simply making up our own names based on findspots had not become widespread at that point. Once they figured out that man started with stone tools and then moved to bronze and then to iron, it was completely logical to use those terms. It's not that any use of iron or any other technology changed, it's just that literate people arrived and History started.

Also note that each major prehistoric era (Stone, Bronze, and Iron) was divided into 3 parts, Early, Middle, and Late. This was originally based on the Victorian belief that every civilization or culture starts with primitive beginnings (Early), reaches its high point (Middle), and then declines or decays (Late) before the next era begins. Utter crap, of course, but the labels have stuck with us! And of course the whole system has been fudged and shifted and tweaked and overhauled in different ways by different people, so "Middle Iron Age" in one area might not even overlap the "Middle Iron Age" in another area!

Believe me, it could be worse--try studying the Bronze Age some time...

Valete,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#15
I was always thinking that there are multiple dates for different cultures'/countries' Iron Age. For Example:

Culture A (somewhere in Europe :wink: ) develops Iron into useful tools or weapons,
Culture B,C, etc. adopts technology through trade and/or warfare

then it gets complicated when around the same time when

another culture(somewhere in China Tongue twisted:

(running for cover... :lol: )

Then again some tribal cultures in the South Pacific remained Stone Age Tech up into WW2(because of isolation).

My point is these ages vary greatly between cultures so maybe being specific about the Roman Iron Age, the Germanic Iron Age etc. may be a rule to follow but I never went to College. :roll: The hard part would naturally be finding the dates for each one which as we all know can be a scary debate with as much heat needed to forge the Iron in the first place. :twisted:
(ending my weird sense of humor now...)
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  High definition picture of the Moorlands patera Caballo 0 1,020 12-22-2007, 06:15 PM
Last Post: Caballo
  Definition of defeat, victory, etc. Jona Lendering 1 1,054 04-19-2006, 07:59 AM
Last Post: Carlton Bach

Forum Jump: