Definition of the Iron Age.

[Matthew Amt]

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