Talk:Iron Age

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egypt is not in the Middle East[edit]

The claim in the article is that Egypt is in the Ancient Near East. That is wrong, Egypt is in Africa, but often articles are written to remove any historic evidence that points to Africa. Thanks for your post also, we must continue to ensure academic integrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.13.182 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is usually cultural rather than geographic - Egypt is, indeed, in Africa, but despite relations with Meroe and Kush etc. upriver, most of their interactions seem to be with other fertile crescent cultures ... which is why they get hooked into the Near East region. Much like Carthage - the city itself was in North Africa, but they were very much a Mediterranean culture and related more to Europe and the Near East than any sub-Saharan cultures. Unless there have been some radical new discoveries... 82.1.7.156 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole use of terms like "Near East" and "Far East" are hopelessly colonial and Eurocentric. We should be using Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) sigh...[reply]

BC or BCE[edit]

Given articles written about the Bronze and Stone Age refer to dates in BCE, shouldn't this article follow the same convention? Also, is there any way to easily change all the BC references to BCE?Magpieram (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the already established format of the article is kept unless it's verified that a different format is more appropriate, per WP:ERA. In other words, it's probably best we keep the format to BC/AD (even though I personally believe it should be BCE/CE). You can still try to argue it, though, if you have some *better* reasons. — InvaderCito (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also favour BC and BCE as academic texts. Adèle Fisher (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
(A blocked sockpuppet writes) Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality and accessibility seem good enough reasons; English language pages have an especially broad readership and I'd argue BCE/CE terms are less archaic and more decolonised terms. No reason seems to be given in WP:ERA although I suspect that it is to keep colonial Christians happy! Jackalus Again (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of BCE/CE, but either way right now there is both BC and BCE being used and it's sloppy-looking Drchazz (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the template (shared by many articles) uses BCE, no? Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it turns out someone had recently mixed the styles there. Now restored to all BC/AD. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology section[edit]

The chronology section is badly ordered, and seems to contradict itself. It says that the earliest steel manufacture was is 1800BC, then says the earliest iron production was 1200BC. Is this supposed to mean the extensive iron production began in 1200BC, but some had been going on earlier? Or does it mean 1200BC was thought to be the earliest date, but recent discoveries push it back to 1800BC? Also, what is meant by "Modern archaeological evidence" vs. "contemporary archaeological evidence"? Finally, the section "Recent archaeological work has modified not only the above chronology..." seems to be falling into the "history as detective story" style used by too many documentary makers of presenting a load of evidence, making conclusions, then surprising the audience by revealing more data that overturns the original conclusion. Shouldn't we be giving a more straight-forward description of what archaeologists currently think to be the case? Iapetus (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section mentions Iron I and Iron II without any explanation. It seems to start with an explanation of Iron I and maybe explains it. But never tries to explain Iron II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macktennyson (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about Iron Age I and II was carelessly cut and pasted from an article here. https://www.bu.edu/anep/Ir.html#:~:text=Iron%20II%20(1000%2D550),from%20about%201200%20to%20900. Someone who knows about the topic may be able to use that source to rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macktennyson (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of the Iron Age III (or Haftavan Period III) that started in Iran around 800BC? And of course the Iron Age III technology/revolution was then centuries later spread across the Middle-East, Greece and Pakistan via the expanding Achaemenid Empire.
And also what happened to Iron Age IV, or maybe it's now simply called the post-Iron Age for some reason, which spread from Pakistan, through the Middle East and to Europe by the Roman era, but did not reach the rest of Asia before the modern era, 1500 AD? (unsigned)
The "Ancient Near East" section is pretty weak, with too much on the earliest uses of iron, as opposed to the actual "Iron Age" much later. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence unclear[edit]

the Iron Age in Europe is being seen as a part of the Bronze Age collapse in the ancient Near East, in ancient India (with the post-RigvedicVedic civilization), ancient Iran, and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages).

I can't make sense of this sentence. The Iron Age in Europe is a part of the end of the Bronze Age elsewhere? AxelBoldt (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed? It now says "the beginning of the iron age starts with the Bronze Age collapse..." --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ends in 500 BCE in Middle East?[edit]

The article says that it is widely accepted that the Iron Age ended in ~500 BCE in the Middle East, because of Herodotus reports on the Achemenid Empire are considered the beginning of History. At the same time it says that the IA is supposed to end when historical records begin. Since the 19th century that date has been pushed back by one or two millennia at least, as extensive historical documents have been found in Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.
So, which is which? Is that 500 BCE date still usedby historians?
If different authors use different criteria, that should be mentioned in the article.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have uncovered the central problem of this article. Please see my comment below. The "Iron Age" concept is antiquated, and it really shouldn't be "ending" with the use of written history. We should be in the fourth Metal Age, the age of multiple metal usage, from lithium in pharmaceuticals, to platinum in semiconductors. I don't know if there is a fix for this, but I will try and change some lines to "Historian X defined the end of the Iron Age in Y location according to..." etc. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World map[edit]

World maps showing the approximate beginning and ending of the period would be very helpful. -- Beland (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Americas[edit]

Iron was never smelted by Native Americans, thus the New World never entered a proper ‘Iron Age’ before European discovery. On the other hand, ‘native’ (unsmelted) iron ore, magnetite, iron pyrite and ilmenite (iron-titanium) was used extensively in the Andes (Chavin and Moche cultures) and Mesoamerica after 900 BC and until c.500 AD. Various forms of iron ore were mined[1], drilled and highly polished. There is considerable evidence that this technology, its raw materials and end products were widely traded in Mesoamerica throughout the Formative era (2000-200 BC).[2]

Lumps of iron pyrite, magnetite and other materials were mostly shaped into mirrors, pendants, medallions and headdress ornaments for decorative and ceremonial effect.[3] However, convex iron ore mirrors were apparently used for firing and optical purposes by the Olmec (1500-400 BC) and Chavin (900-300 BC) cultures, [4]and ilmenite ‘beads’ may have served as ‘hammers’ for fine work.[5] Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). They may have developed a zeroth-order compass using a magnetite bar.[6]

Some Mesoamerican uses of ‘native’ iron seem to have been military. Steven Jones proposed that the Olmec sewed ilmenite ‘beads’ into protective ‘mail armour’ or helmets.[7] Iron pyrite mosaics and ‘plates’ formed protective tezcacuitlapalli (mirrored back flap shields) and breastplate ornaments in the military attire of the Teotihuacan (100 BC – 600 AD), Toltec (800-1150 AD) and Chichen Itza (800-1200 AD) cultures.[8] 101.189.133.214 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you and the article say, there was no Pre-Columbian "Iron Age", so this belongs in Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America, if that doesn't have it already. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://eerkens.ucdavis.edu/uploads/7/9/3/8/79382344/jom2007.pdf
  2. ^ WHEELER PIRES-FERREIRA, JANE and EVANS, BILLY JOE. "Mössbauer Spectral Analysis of Olmec Iron Ore Mirrors: New Evidence of Formative Period Exchange Networks in Mesoamerica: ". Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, edited by David L. Browman, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011, pp. 101-154. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807776.101
  3. ^ http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/Works/Taube[1992]2018a.pdf
  4. ^ https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701328.pdf
  5. ^ https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3259&context=byusq
  6. ^ John B. Carlson, "Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy? Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Olmec Hematite Artifact from San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico," Science 189, No. 4205 (5 September 1975): 753-760.
  7. ^ https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3259&context=byusq
  8. ^ http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/Works/Taube[1992]2018a.pdf

Impact of Iron age?[edit]

The page gives a lot of details about the chronology of Iron age and the evidence for that. An additional section on the impact of Iron age for humanity's development, what kind of new things it enabled that weren't possible in the Bronze age, etc. would be very useful.

SundaraRaman (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like your thinking. Wikipedia is for interesting ideas, more than mundane documentation. Unfortunately, much of the Iron Age seems to relate to more efficient slaughter of people who disagree over religion or government. The machine gun being a prime example. Still, great thinking. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

typography[edit]

It's not a proper noun, so it's the iron age, or, possibly, iron-age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:FD1A:CF1:BDE4:B55D (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup - please help[edit]

Hi all, I'm finding this article to resemble a string of related statements, cut and pasted into a random sequence. Discussions of metallurgy, are repeatedly confused with timelines. I'm going to cut out and collect the two themes where appropriate.

I'm also going to try and clarify, (from the text), how the concept of "The Iron Age" evolved, and is still somewhat relevant. It is a bit weird that the Age is defined by its use of a particular metal, but the definition overlaps with the rise of written history, which is not consistent across the world.

We need to make this clearer for people. Peace and Love. Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iron_Age&oldid=1194065383"