Talk:Iron Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
plan of the stonehenge site This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Iron Age is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History,
a WikiProject related to the the study of History.
It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please use {{reqphoto}}, {{reqmap}}, {{reqdiagram}}, or {{reqimageother|type of request}} instead of this template to clearly identify the type of image requested.

"In Sweden and partly in other nordic countries, the last part of the Iron Age (about 800 - 1100) is commonly called the Viking Age. "

In Denmark and Norway the period is not "partly" called the Viking Age.

What is it called then? Your statement is open to interpretation - either you mean Denmark and Norway always call it the Viking Age, or you mean they never do it? Nixdorf 01:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yak removed stuff from this page. Please discuss here and outline your reasons for it before removing anything. Nixdorf 23:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, sorry. But I did not think a roman find is particularly illustrative of the Iron age? We face a problem here: in the scandinavian chronology the Iron age continues without interruptions to the early medieval times (but to have it including the Viking period is stretching a bit far), while in Central and parts of western Europe the Roman conquest led to a sharp break. So I think we need to divide the article geographically. And I was tempted to remove the lower part of the article, that deals mainyl with Ireland and Scotland, to "early medieval period". Any reasons why I should not?

--Yak 11:02, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

On Irish, Scot issues, no objections. The Roman artifact image can go too. No problem. On the Viking Age: we Swedes really call the latter part of the Iron Age by that name. We are taught in school to do so. It is presumably not justified to give the Vikings such importance that they have their own "Age" but it is not incorrect to state that the latter Iron Age is sometimes called so, for better or for worse. Nixdorf 01:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


What's a wag? Never heard of it. --Yak 19:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's a kind of souterrain from the north of Scotland
What's the deal with the bullet points at the beginning of the article? They need some work or removing. I don't think bronze tools are harder than iron ones either. Similarly, who exactly is it who thinks the British iron age didn't start till the C1st? Hillforts were built all over Britain save the very north of Scotland so I'm going to change that and I'm not aware of any examples of hillforts working well against Rome. Hallstat and La Tene are valid terms outside central Europe too. adamsan 12:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
of course, but I didn't feel competent to re-write the British section, so I just created the Central-European one. Seems you have taken on the task-great!--Yak 19:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've rewritten this to keep the intro as general as possible, cover wider areas and move the mythology part elsewhere. The Scandinavian part makes some kind of sense now although I question the dating and would probably question the rest too if I were sure I knew what the author was trying to say. As for the Andronovo culture I want some verification of them before we credit them with discovering iron working. adamsan 19:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Adamsan! I'd like to see more in this article on the origin of iron technology in the Near East, and its initial propagation from that area. I put in the first stubby Near East section of this article, months ago, and was rather shocked just now to find it unexpanded... so I expanded it a little bit. I will do more as I find time to do so, but I'm surprised that there seems to be so little interest in discussing the earliest Iron Age periods in this article. Arkuat 06:18, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
Being sat on the edge of Europe, it's a bit outside my field so keep up the good work and I look forward to reading more of your contributions on this thread. I've Googled that Scandinavian stuff and am going to rewrite it unless I see some evidence of Neolithic iron working there. The assertion seems to be based on a misreading of [1] or a similar document. adamsan 10:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Inca and Iron

This line was added:

"It was known by the Incas but they didn't utilize it as much as other technologies." claiming that the Inca knew how to utilize iron. I can not find any evidence to support this claim. Rmhermen 19:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.crystalinks.com/incan.html "Cusco was the center of the Inca Empire, with its advanced hydraulic engineering, agricultural techniques, marvelous architecture, textiles, ceramics and ironworks." http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html" the row of narrow holes forming the line along which it was to be split seem to bespeak the use of a metal tool."http://www.allempires.com/empires/inca/inca1.htm "The metalwork was clearly inspired by the chimú and other capable craftsmen of tradition" The civilization preceding the incas knew... and some neigbours aswell but I dont have time looking that up. They knew, it was just not as important for them like using gold, stone or wood, which they mastered for their needs aswell.. like they knew of the wheel too, their kids played with it but they didnt utilize it... Ahm, which is the point of having that sentence their, becoming a "Iron Age"-civilization doesnt have to happen automagically... Foant 20:01, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
The first link you provide mentions iron working, the second one says How the Inka cut stone without iron tools is not known with any certainty, but in all likelihood stone was cut and shaped mainly with stone tools. Bronze or copper tools may also have been used, but would be of limited use with the hard varieties of igneous rock commonly used by the Inka
I've found some online bits about meteorite iron being significant the Incas but the majority of web sources talk about a non-iron using society with gold and bronze being the only metals they made use of. I don't think they were an iron age society going by the definition in the introduction but then the 3 age system tends to break down in the New World anyway. adamsan 11:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
yea thats what i was trying to get throu :)

[edit] Iron in Africa

My understanding was that Bantu societies in Africa entered the iron age independently of the rest of the world (that is to say, they discovered it without learning it from another culture). Is this correct? And if so, should the article reflect this? Rhesusman 01:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Abstract : The Iron Age in Africa — H. LHOTE had shown as early as 1952, contrary to R. MAUNY's "Carthaginian theory" the autochtonous characteristic of Black Africa's iron industry, but his consistent arguments had not been taken into consideration by historians of Africa, in spite of the publication in 1959 of the first datations of the Nok civilization in

Nigeria : 3500 BC, 2000 BC, 900 BC, + 200 AD (L. M. DIOP, 1968).

The most convincing dates produced later are 1°) those of the Termit massif, in 1972, 10th century BC, in 1988, 14th/15th centuries BC, in 1992, from 1675 to 2900 BC (cf. G. QUECHON), 2°) those of lake Victoria-Nyanza region : 13 th/15th centuries BC, in 1982 (cf. M. C. van GRUNDERBEEK, E. ROCHE, H. DOUTRELEPONT).

The first dates of Nok and Ndalane in Senegal (around 2800 BC, cf. C. A. DIOP and G. DELIBRIAS, 1976) impose us to multiply investigations and datings in these two regions. Their correlation with the last dates concerning the Termit massif, suggest that iron metallurgy appeared in Western Africa around 2800 BC, if not earlier.

The iron found in Asia and in Nubia is too late to give an explanation for the presence in Egypt, of a few samples of an iron deposit dating back to the Pyramid period even though Egypt is lacking in this ore. It is not impossible that the iron should have come from Eastern and central Soudan by Ennedi (cf. notes by P. HUARD) in the framework of a very large spread network of exchanges, when the Sahara was less a desert.

Source: http://www.ankhonline.com/metallur.htm --84.130.18.47 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1400 BC?

The earliest known production of steel occurred around 1400 BC in East Africa (Washington State University (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM)) ?

This seems an astonishingly early date. The reference given just states this date without explanation. Another site [2] says that steel appeared in the "middle of the first millennium B.C.", and this one says "fourth century BC". I'm not saying that the earlier date is wrong, but I'm suspicious about the lack of evidence. --Heron 20:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sceptical too. If true, it would be a spurious find, certainly not systematic large scale production. I suggest we require a better (printed) reference. dab (ᛏ) 19:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


The Iron Age in Africa

— H. LHOTE had shown as early as 1952, contrary to R. MAUNY's "Carthaginian theory" the autochtonous characteristic of Black Africa's iron industry, but his consistent arguments had not been taken into consideration by historians of Africa, in spite of the publication in 1959 of the first datations of the Nok civilization in

Nigeria : 3500 BC, 2000 BC, 900 BC, + 200 AD (L. M. DIOP, 1968).

The most convincing dates produced later are 1°) those of the Termit massif, in 1972, 10th century BC, in 1988, 14th/15th centuries BC, in 1992, from 1675 to 2900 BC (cf. G. QUECHON), 2°) those of lake Victoria-Nyanza region : 13 th/15th centuries BC, in 1982 (cf. M. C. van GRUNDERBEEK, E. ROCHE, H. DOUTRELEPONT).

The first dates of Nok and Ndalane in Senegal (around 2800 BC, cf. C. A. DIOP and G. DELIBRIAS, 1976) impose us to multiply investigations and datings in these two regions. Their correlation with the last dates concerning the Termit massif, suggest that iron metallurgy appeared in Western Africa around 2800 BC, if not earlier.

The iron found in Asia and in Nubia is too late to give an explanation for the presence in Egypt, of a few samples of an iron deposit dating back to the Pyramid period even though Egypt is lacking in this ore. It is not impossible that the iron should have come from Eastern and central Soudan by Ennedi (cf. notes by P. HUARD) in the framework of a very large spread network of exchanges, when the Sahara was less a desert.

Source: http://www.ankhonline.com/metallur.htm --84.130.18.47 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steel in Arabic

in The Iron Age in Africa and India it is mentioned that the high-carbon steel produced in India by means of the crucible technique was known in Arabic as pulad. The name of steel in Arabic if fūlāḏ فولاذ. Arabic hasn't got the sound /p/. Unless this name is of Hindi origin, and in this case fulaḏ would be the Arabisation of Hindi pulad. If you have evidence for that, please make the necessary clarification. --Alif 19:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles: removing references to contemporary constructions

In the British Isles section it says: "Defensive structures dating from this time are often impressive, for example the brochs of northern Scotland and the hill forts that dotted the rest of the islands."

I think it is inconsistent with the rest of the article to mention defensive structures that are not directly related to the development of iron. The mentioned structures are contemporary of the Iron Age, but it is not clear how those structures became a product or an enabler of the Iron Age in the British Isles.

I think the references to those defensive structures should be removed.

Luiscolorado 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verify

Can someone check this edit ? I refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 15:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

i think this iron age stuff is true and gold

[edit] Iron Age Article Needs Work

Why is there no extensive mention of Anatolia/Hittite iron production? Good archaeological resources (World Archaeology, a juried journal, for example) places Anatolian mining/discovery of meteoritic iron at 2000BC - and its introduction into tool making at 1800 BC. There are iron weapons in Mycenae and Troy by 1300 BC. Why is Asia first? Either Sub Saharan Africa or Anatolia should be first. Why is Anatolia not considered part of Europe, in this context?

The continental masses/regional designations of where things are need some work. If one is going to look at prehistory in an area, use prehistoric terminology - not modern, historical names.Kaimiikekamaila 21:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Kaimiikekamaila

Indeed, let's all try to make this a 'good article'. The basics are there but the sub-sections may need some rejigging as Kaimiikekamaila suggests. Also, I started a references section. Let's reference the statements made in the article. 64.229.146.220 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have put in table for introduction of Iron and added references. Can the tag be deleted now? Regards John D. Croft 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears as though there has been some progress in citations and appropriate references. Indeed things look much better, I'm sure Kaimiikekamaila would be pleased. However, large parts of the description of Europe and the Indian subcontinent still lack any references. Perhaps we could remove the tag while requesting a little more loudly that several sections still need a little work? Mumun 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs work, but there is a need to distinguish between the Iron Age (as a prehistoric period) on the one hand and the discovery of iron technology on the other. This is also dealt with the history of ferrous metallurgy. It is important that Wiki should not keep developing parallel articles, as that is liable to lead to it contrdicting itself.
Anatolia ought not to be part of Europe, since it is also called Asia Minor. I was taught that Europe ended at the Bosphorus. Peterkingiron 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/r/o/Talk%7EIron_Age_4e20.html"