Talk:Iron Age/Archive 2

Irrelevant parts about Israel
What on earth is a large paragraph about "the states of Judah and Israel" doing on this page? Please move that to some page about the history of Palestine/Israel or similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.136.49.54 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well spotted, I've removed it. May have been copyvio too.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical/formatting note
This article has a horizontal scrollbar in Firefox (latest version) at 1280-pixel screen width (although, strangely, not at 1024). Jdtapaboc (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

sharpening
"Additionally, iron can be sharpened by grinding whereas bronze must be reforged." How did they put a sharp edge on bronze in the first place? --Random832 (contribs) 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Old news about oldest steel?
I'm just wondering why this hit the news last month as it seems 4 years old, see and our Kaman-Kalehoyuk article. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition is very rough and misleading
"the Iron Age is the prehistoric period in any area during which cutting tools and weapons were mainly made of iron or steel" According to this, Egyptians, Anatolians, Greeks, middle easterns had never lived an iron age cos their recorded history predates iron technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.99.181 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this just reflects the fuzziness and weakness of the three-age system.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In what ways are the policies and practices of iron age cities and empires similar to those of peoples, countries, and government in the present day?05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
In what ways are the policies and practices of iron age cities and empires similar to those of peoples, countries,and government in the present day?Kpmfisherman (talk)


 * Talk pages are not considered suitable for general questions or discussion about a subject, but you can ask at our reference desk for the humanities, Reference desk/Humanities. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Africa Iron Age
I think we should look at iron age in Africa as a whole;east Africa,North Africa,West Africa and South Africa.An African expert with credible sources and references should compile an entirely new section with Africa as its heading.The sub-saharan title is misleading and skeletal.--Mwenemucii (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

End of the Iron Age
This sentence (Thus, for instance, the British Iron Age ends with the Roman Conquest.) from the introduction got me thinking. Why is the Iron considered to have ended then? After all the Roman still used iron as their principal metal. Indeed Britain and the world still used Iron as their principal metal until the introduction of steel, which is just treated iron, until the 19th century. Just a question of nomenclature I know but why is the Iron Age not still with us now? Cars are made from steel (just treated iron, as said). Anyone else got any thoughts on this matter?  Smokey TheCat  20:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on the Iron Age, but I would think it's to do with how economically and socially important iron was rather than simply the use of iron. Niall Sharples for instance suggests that the increasing importance of iron ore led to the rise of a new elite from the Bronze Age as deposits were in different locations, leading to shifting patterns of trade. The Roman expansion into northern Europe brought a new economy and social structure. Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In large part, the Iron Age is >defined prehistoric< period. When extensive histories are available (such as British history after the Roman invasion), it is possible to think of history in much smaller chunks -- the reign of Claudius, the reign of Nero -- rather than in multi-millennium-long "ages."  Only when there is no more specific history available do you have to resort to the "iron age" generality.  If your specific interest is metallurgy or other aspects of technology, I think you would be right to think of the Iron Age as continuing for many more centuries -- even to the present day, although we have perhaps now entered the "Plastic Age."  Regarding iron vs. steel:  "Iron Age" is (my opinion) a misnomer, or maybe shorthand, for the "Carbon Steel Age."  Very early in the Iron Age, people learned to alloy the iron for hardness.  Pure iron doesn't make very strong tools or weapons.  It might be argued that the Iron Age doesn't even start until the invention of carbon steel.70.179.92.117 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the light of the above I have added a sentence to the end of the introduction to this effect. No link but fairly obvious and uncontroversial I would have thought. Other editors may disagree of course.  Smokey TheCat  10:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's showing in the edit summary but not in the article. Some Wiki glitch? I will return later and have another look.  Smokey TheCat  10:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really up to analysis and vote by editors. Needs WP:RS. More like the "Steel Age" or "Petroleum Age." Student7 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it. If a WP:RS can be found, it can be reinserted. Student7 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gay age?
I don't know how to remove this, but there's some text next to the box to the right, saying "i am gay Age]]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiMiculita (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone's fixed that. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Tubal-Cain
I have been asked by NEV1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndromedaHeo2 to explain here why I wanted to insert this text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Age&action=historysubmit&diff=415773891&oldid=415749392

I believe I have given valid reasons already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndromedaHeo2 but not sure If I have listed on the correct page i.e my talk page?

If I have read correctly then the earliest date on the wiki Iron Age Page is given as approx. 2000 B.C I dont find this Helpful in the context that it could quite possibly be 2000 years earlier than this i.e Tubal-Cain fourth millennium B.C

I think it would be very helpful to researchers and students worldwide for the sake of intellectual honesty to be informed that there is written reference that far predates 2000 B.C.

All the references works given on the Iron Age page date from 1967 to 2009 and all are written works, thats a very narrow window of literature in the history of the written word. All I have done is contribute a very significant reference to Iron work that predates all these references written in the last 43yrs by a few thousand years!

Of interest last night I watched Neil Oliver on the BBC Iplayer History of Ancient Britain episode 3 cosmology, he had the Knowth Macehead found in Ireland and dated to 3000 B.C if you manage to watch the programme at 39'20" he asserts that because metal tools are not used at this date the maker of this amazing find must have used sand or quartz and a wooden peg to drill a perfect hole through flint! Its purely my POV but look at the Knowth Macehead and draw your own conclusions, sand and a wooden peg or a metal tool?

The earliest reference to a Iron worker, Tubal-Cain, is very relevant for many who research all kinds of metal work and archeology.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubal-cain AndromedaHeo2 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Our articles are based on what we refer to as 'reliable sources', please see WP:RS. Archaeologists do not believe that the Knowth mace head was made with metal tools and there is reconstructive work not on this but on other artefacts showing that it can be done. A story written at the most 3000 years ago about someone can't be used as evidence for something 5000 years ago, we need physical evidence for this. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * However, see the lead paragraph of WP:V. Also see WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." It seems to me that, if the sourcing can be improved, a good argument based on DUE can be made for including this, or something like it, in the article &mdash; but not as the lead sentence, and probably not in the lead section. Re possibilities for improving the sourcing,, , , , , and others may be sourcing candidates. There seem to be plenty of sources out there supporting an assertion that Tubal-Cain is mentioned in literature as an ironworker, and this dates him at around 3300 BC. Also, see this re possible mistranslation of the word translated as "iron" in conjunction with Tubal-Cain. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronology
This section currently begins with the following sentence:

"Archaeological evidence as it was known until the 1980s generally identified the start of this production as taking place in Anatolia around 1200 BCE."

What does this mean? That "Archeological evidence" is now known as something else? Or that the evidence from the 1980s has now been superseded? I presume the latter given how the paragraph proceeds, but this needs to be reworked, as it's a very clunky sentence. I'd rather not attempt it myself, as I know nothing about this topic and don't want to muddy the waters. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the next paragraph in this article section clarifies this, but agree that the section could use a rework. Like you, I am disinclined to be bold here due to lack of expertise.
 * Seeing that the section is very sparse on supporting cites. I did some googling and, from some light reading of the sources I found, it seems that current understanding is that there was an increase in usage of iron beginning about 1200 BC. More usage after 1200 BC suggests more discoverable finds dating after 1200 BC. Perhaps the less numerous and less discoverable finds didn't show up enough to make an impact until after 1980ish. Anyhow, see some sources turned up by this google books search. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Iron age and the advent of writing
A paragraph in the lede says:

The principal feature that distinguishes the Iron Age from the preceding ages is the introduction of alphabetic characters, and the consequent development of written language which laid the foundations of literature and historic record.[1] The prehistoric Iron age in the various regional areas then transition to the historic Iron Age,[5] i.e. the local production of ample written sources. The Iron Age is followed in chronological progression by the Middle Ages, with the Iron Age ending around 500 A.D..

This seems quite incorrect to me. There was writing in Sumer and Akkadia long before 1300-1000 BCE. Am I misunderstanding the point that's being made, is this statement simply inaccurate, or are the dates I'm using for the beginning of the Iron Age mistaken? modify 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sumer and Akkadia are outliers. The bulk of the age is characterized by this.--J. D. Redding 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably it means alphabetic written sources. But the idea of the Iron Age covering all of the subject matter of historic archaeology, which extends up to the eighteenth century AD, is a neologism; without a source which indicates prevalent usage, this is misleading.


 * Unless sources are presented, I would remove the entire passage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't remove it. Should explain it, with sources. --J. D. Redding 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC) [btw, it's not a neologism]

Horrible Lack of Clarity
"The work of blacksmiths,[3] developing implements and weapons, are hammered into shape, and as a necessary consequence the stereotyped forms of their predecessors in bronze, which were cast, but are gradually departed from, and the system of decoration, which in the Bronze Age consisted chiefly of a repetition of rectilinear patterns, gives place to a system of curvilinear and flowing designs...."

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? IF it does make any sort of grammatical sense (and I can't see that it does), it's atrocious and incomprehensible writing. Can someone who understands it fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.9.169 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Spam words -- cannot remove
Article "Iron Age" starts:

you monkey fool u dont know The Iron Age is the archaeological …

but the editable text does not show the first six words, so cannot delete them.

Robin Hilborn (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Robin Hilborn Southampton, Ontario, Canada

I fixed it, they were hiding in editable text for the box on the right.

Sublamp (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Near east - Finds of Iron table
The table in this section needs modification. The first line of the table data "1300–1200 BC" is exactly the same as the second last line "Total Bronze Age". What is this trying to state? Either this is wrong, misleading or inappropriately displaying the information. Or is it meant to indicate that the iron items found in 1300–1200 BC exist in the Bronze age? Terry Macro (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would surmise that it was to 'indicate that the iron items' existed then. --J. D. Redding 15:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)