Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Definition of the Iron Age.
#16
Quote: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?

Quote: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:
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#17
No :?: , it is some one else who insists the iron age ends with the invasion of britain.
I am the one who is of the opinion it did not, and also pointed out the varying times of other places.
I was always of the opinion, and understood the term to apply to the technology of the ages.
Iron age Britain may have ended with the invasion, but the iron age did not, as it was the dominant technology.(at least in my humble opinion)
When I said the Romans were part of the iron age, someone else decided to contradict that.
I said I think the terminology is illogical, if that was the basis of its criteria, as opposed to the technology it uses for its name....
Which is partly my point of starting this thread.
To generate a little debate on this.
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
#18
Quote:I was always of the opinion, and understood the term to apply to the technology of the ages.
But with one important proviso: the Stone Age-Bronze Age-Iron Age terminology is designed to make sense of prehistoric cultures; that's its only purpose. So the system ends whenever (and wherever) the historic period begins. In (most of) Europe, that's the Roman period. In Ireland and Scotland, it's different, because there isn't really a "Roman" period there.

Once you realise that "Iron Age" is just a modern (19th C) invention designed to categorise the prehistoric remains of the later first millennium BC, it all falls into place. Sort of. :wink:

Edit: I just had a look at your Wikipedia link. It makes a pretty good attempt at explaining it, actually.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#19
Quote:No :?: , it is some one else who insists the iron age ends with the invasion of britain.
I am the one who is of the opinion it did not, and also pointed out the varying times of other places.
I was always of the opinion, and understood the term to apply to the technology of the ages.
Iron age Britain may have ended with the invasion, but the iron age did not, as it was the dominant technology.(at least in my humble opinion)
When I said the Romans were part of the iron age, someone else decided to contradict that.
I said I think the terminology is illogical, if that was the basis of its criteria, as opposed to the technology it uses for its name....
Which is partly my point of starting this thread.
To generate a little debate on this.

No one, including early modern historians who came up with all these labels, was ever trying to imply that there was a significant technology change with the arrival of the Romans, nor that the age of the *use* of iron ended in any way! It was just a way to label general stages of pre-Roman history (prehistory, in other words). Nowadays, I have even heard that those terms are used to classify *pottery styles*, and have nothing to do with whether iron or bronze were in use! Archeologists just don't care about that, generally.

But that's the labelling system that is typically used, and you're going to keep running across it. If you're going to try to argue with it, or read into it more than is intended, I fear you are just going to upset yourself needlessly, eh?

Vale,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#20
Quote:
Gaius Julius Caesar:313rbnel Wrote:I was always of the opinion, and understood the term to apply to the technology of the ages.
But with one important proviso: the Stone Age-Bronze Age-Iron Age terminology is designed to make sense of prehistoric cultures; that's its only purpose. So the system ends whenever (and wherever) the historic period begins. In (most of) Europe, that's the Roman period. In Ireland and Scotland, it's different, because there isn't really a "Roman" period there.

Once you realise that "Iron Age" is just a modern (19th C) invention designed to categorise the prehistoric remains of the later first millennium BC, it all falls into place. Sort of. :wink:

Edit: I just had a look at your Wikipedia link. It makes a pretty good attempt at explaining it, actually.

Oh yes, I'm aware it is modern...I think I was fairly lucky with my teacher, mostly.... :roll:
The wiki does mention the Roman iron age..
But, however the scholar who devised this terminology may have ment it, from the technological viewpoint, which perhaps it has been my good fortune to view things from, the technology has determined the ages. True, the rapid pace of change has blurred it's clarity in recent times. But it is a rather more meaningful system to determin an 'age' as defined by the technology,
As Dave pointed out(and I was actually thinking after Jurjen challenged me in the other thread on the iron age topic, this present time period is truely the Petroleum Age(however many other technologies have sprung up within it), the dominant technology is petroleum derived.
Right at this moment, everything, apart from the apple on my desk, tthe wood in a pencil on it, and perhaps the paper covering most of it, has its origin in Petroleum.

if you bog down in terminology though, it is like being stuck in a ice rut in a cart, you will never see the wonders of the valley over the ridge just off the track! Smile

good night!

Thanks for that Matt, but no I'm not too worried about it.
I'm quite happy with my warped view ofthe wolrd! :wink:
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
#21
Quote:I was actually thinking after Jurjen challenged me in the other thread on the iron age topic

Where I was only advocating the definition now repeated by Duncan and Matthew...
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
#22
I'm reminded of the National Lampoon's "Third, or Cold-Rolled Sheet Metal Age of Middle-Earth."
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#23
Well gents, I am sure the classification works for most people, but I find it well, a bit shakey....
I doubt the world will end if continue to look at it from a technological standpoint, and others want to jiggle the criteria
for academic reasons. But, the iron age obviously, did not end with the invasion, just a term used by historians. 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
#24
Quote:So the system ends whenever (and wherever) the historic period begins
So when the revisionists have their turn at things, does that start the system up at a different point.
Never mind. I'm just throwing fuel on the fire.

Don' keel me.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#25
The situation in the English Isles is, as Duncan states, pretty logical if you take the Iron Age as a term to describe one phase of the prehistoric period. Now, when you face something like the situation in Israel, where the Iron Age emerges at the beginning of (or, if you include some limited foreign correspondence on tablets, some time into) the historical period, only to be terminated by a foreign conquest which effected little material change in the country itself, things get perplexing...
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#26
Quote:Well gents, I am sure the classification works for most people, but I find it well, a bit shakey....
I doubt the world will end if continue to look at it from a technological standpoint, and others want to jiggle the criteria
for academic reasons. But, the iron age obviously, did not end with the invasion, just a term used by historians. Smile


Just a sidenote; if a term like "iron age" is to be disputed, then "antiquity", "middle ages" and "modern times" are also under fire, these being just a classification by renaissance scholars (and even "renaissance" itself, because there were also renaissances in the 9th century and in the 12th century).
That's just the problem with history, nothing went so easily, people didn't or did hardly notice when a new period began, so it's all just artificial. May be, once, there will come new classifications, but up to that point, I suggest you (and we all) use the current terminology, by the way it is generally accepted. Smile D
Valete,
Titvs Statilivs Castvs - Sander Van Daele
LEG XI CPF
COH VII RAET EQ (part of LEG XI CPF)

MA in History
Reply
#27
Quote: I find it well, a bit shakey....
But of course it's shakey.. it's just a label for the sake of convenience.
Quote:But, the iron age obviously, did not end with the invasion, just a term used by historians. Smile
No, the Roman Age was as Iron as the Anglo-Saxon or the Viking or the Middle Age(s).
It's just a term for archaeologists. :wink:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#28
Quote:
Gaius Julius Caesar:30isfkr7 Wrote:I find it well, a bit shakey....
But of course it's shakey.. it's just a label for the sake of convenience.
Quote:But, the iron age obviously, did not end with the invasion, just a term used by historians. Smile
No, the Roman Age was as Iron as the Anglo-Saxon or the Viking or the Middle Age(s).
It's just a term for archaeologists. :wink:
Which is what I said to start with.
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
#29
D'oh ... there's no pleasing some folks! :wink:
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#30
Sandrus, you are misunderstanding my point entirely. i am saying the technology label is quite relevant, but the use is a bit shakey.
I am quite happy with my use of the terms and understanding of the relevant ages. Smile
The other terms are quite adequate to describe sub parts of the ages.
And I am easily pleased, Duncan. Some of the time. :wink:
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


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  High definition picture of the Moorlands patera Caballo 0 1,024 12-22-2007, 06:15 PM
Last Post: Caballo
  Definition of defeat, victory, etc. Jona Lendering 1 1,055 04-19-2006, 07:59 AM
Last Post: Carlton Bach

Forum Jump: