Definition of the Iron Age.

[Matthew Amt]

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