Talk:Three-age system

message: I wonder, should we put an end date to the iron age in different cultures, and add things like "Industrial age" and "Information age", and possibly others? It feels weird to think that we are still living in the iron age. Although iron is obviously the most widely used metal, metalworks just isn't that important anymore. Maybe "Plastics age" would be even more descriptive.
UnHoly 17:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the archaeological three age system so adding a fourth and fifth age wouldn't make sense. It was developed as a system for putting prehistoric artefacts in chronological sequence and isn't necessary for the historical period where we already have descriptive names and matching articles on them. The end dates for the iron age in different regions are being covered in Iron Age. adamsan  21:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense! Thanks. UnHoly 20:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: End date

message: I am a casual reader, not a historian. I would like to see  specific dates ranges. If they vary from culture to culture then at least give the date ranges for quite a few of the cultures: Mesopotamian, European, Mesoamerican, etc. If necessary give various ranges suggested by various authorities.
     
207.195.254.46 16:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Dates Please

message: The given URL "List of archaeological periods" is the kind of thing I have in mind--but confined to the three age system.
:Agree, what's the point of talking about periods of history without clear indications of when they occurred?  
:—DIV (120.17.130.58 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: more on dates please

message: The discovery of thousands of carved jades in the Liangzhu region of Ancient China lends support for a "Jade Age" previous to the Bronze Age ).
I have problems with this for the following reasons:
*The article linked talks only about high status items items being made from jade, suggesting it was not the "predominant tool making technology"
*Jade is a type of stone, so are flint, chert and the other stones used during the Stone Age, so why are we making a distinction for China?
*The three age system falls apart more and more the further away you get from Europe and I imagine Chinese archaeology has a different system of dividing up prehistory anyway.
adamsan 15:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it is used by some and gets a healthy 11,000 Google hits. I suppose I am concerned that its use is more down to journalistic exuberance than being based on sound archaeology. I still don't think it conforms to the definition of the other prehistoric ages, copper age included, as jade does not seem to have been a predominant tool-making material in China and is really just another type of polished stone. I am aware of Jadeite axes being traded in Neolithic Europe for example as just one mineral in use in the time. In response to your other question, as I responded to another user above, the three age system was about bringing order to the nascent study of prehistory, archaeologists are able to use historic terms for later periods and so it is not necessary for them to extrapolate and use the predominate tool-making material to name recent periods in this way. Uses of terms like Jet Age or Silicon Age do get Google hits but archaeologists tend to use more prosaic terms like post-medieval, industrial or the even duller "modern". adamsan 22:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Would you accept putting it in a separate section detailing the various other Ages discussed in the media (and possibly elsewhere) but which archaeologists wouldn't include in the three age system? Eg Jet Age, Oil Age etc? adamsan 10:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the Jade Age, or the Copper Age, are meant as alternatives to the Stone Age.  I think they're subdivisions of the Stone Age.  So they aren't exceptions to, or variations of, the 3 age system.  And I don't think the oil age, silicon age, and nuclear age are as legitimate as the older ages.  Our view of our own time period will probably be very different than the view of our time period that people will have thousands of years from now.  But it doesn't matter, since the oil age, silicon age, and nuclear age don't apply to this article, since this is only about prehistory. - Shaheenjim 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jade Age

message: When were slaves first used?Sleigh 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you ask? - Shaheenjim 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slaves

message: It should be made clear in the article that this classification does not describe the evolution of a society, but several societies, that have replace others. Paleolithic could mean neanderthals, while neolithic could mean homo-sapiens, Most of the prehistory is not our history, but the history of our 'cousins'.
*  For clarification sake, according to science as it is generally recognized, "neolithic" ONLY refers to homo-sapien sapiens...  Prehistory refers to our ancestors, not our "cousins."  Prehistory (which is a debunked term at this point) refers to your and my predecessor lineage... Stevenmitchell 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This classification ignores that we speak about different people

message: The more generalized "three-age system" (savagery, barbarism, civilization) developed by Lewis H. Morgan.  This was very important in the history of anthropology, and is still of some (though reduced) relevance today.--Pharos 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like it should be a separate page, and there can be a disambiguation page with links to this page and that other page.  I nominate you to write the other page. - Shaheenjim 02:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well folks I have not been over this in detail yet but I can tell you right now that if you are going to argue that the three ages- stone, bronze, iron - are archaic, passe, unsuitable, what have you - you might as well go howl on the steppes with whatever wolves are available still. This system here replaced Morgan, who was never very popular to start with, and is so worked into the scholarship it would require a major dark age to get it out and all the books to be burned and all the scholars executed. I can't even imagine what you might say would replace it. That reminds me, I left Morgan hanging a while back. First of all, I have not seen anyone for a very long time attempt to find modern names for modern times that would continue this system. It is generally agreed the growth of technology is accelerating at an increasing rate so by the time you found a proper name for some of it both would be obsolete. We can pretty much figure the iron age ended with the fall of Rome unless there might be some isolated cultures in remote parts of the earth who followed the traditional development for a while. Usually that development is abrogated by intrusions, a popular topic. What are we in now? What indeed, wouldn't most of us like to know! Now, if you take a substantial look at Morgan, you will find that his understanding of the past, like that of Hegel, suffers from a deficit of all the study done on those topics from then until now. In fact I was laughing so hard reading Hegel that I just threw the book down as of no interest any longer. You might just as well read a comic book. These people are only of interest for their general approach and philosophy than pioneering. Morgan was still taken seriously by socialist anthropologists prior to WWII but subsequently got dropped totally except for such reverent lip service as yours just now. Take a look at his language - you couldn't use that racist stuff today. So if you please, no more here about Morgan. This is the appropriate topic and it is generally appropriately written although needing some clean-up.Dave (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: FYI, I deleted part of this article about Thomsen, the guy who came up with the Three-age system.  The part of the article I deleted said:
"Thomsen and his predecessors argued that nobody would have used stone tools if bronze ones had been available, and that similarly, no one would have wanted to use bronze tools if there had been iron ones around instead. Reasoning that the advances must therefore have come in chronological sequence, he suggested this as a workable basis for dating artefacts and sites."
I'm not sure, but I think his argument was not entirely true, and is misleading, and that's why I deleted it.  Some iron tools (specifically, steel ones) are superior to bronze tools.  But I think most of the iron tools in the iron age were made from wrought iron, which is inferior to bronze.  Most people think they switched just because iron was more common, and therefore cheaper, than bronze.  See the Iron Age page, which I also recently updated, for more information. - Shaheenjim 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we are here to cover the history of the theory, as well as its current state (if it has indeed evolved on this point).  We shouldn't omit this historical aspect just because it may be incorrect, just like we don't omit Pluto#Incorrect_prediction.  By the way, if you have a definite source that goes against Thomsen's theory, that should definitely be added to the article.--Pharos 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the deleted argument has no ref. Actually it is a valid argument used by the predecessors of Thomsen. It's always been implied in the development of the concept. To bring you up to date, they did not use wrought iron. Pure iron was not available to them in nature; it is only the product of careful refinement. They didn't want it anyway. The initial ore available to them for smelting lay around the surface of the Caucasus, especially in the vicinity of the Araxes River. They just gathered up the nodules. It was impure, containing levels of Carbon we term steel. There were also other impurities, especially Manganese. Believe it or not they started with stainless steel. It was not long before they learned to vary the carbon content by a method called "puddling", stirring with wood. The natural outcome of the fires in the blast furnaces is Carbon anyway. Wrought iron would have been of no value to them. Too soft. Those swords the Romans ported around were good steel swords. As far as the superiority of weapons goes, give me a break! Iron is tougher than bronze. If that were not so we would be using structural bronze not structural steel. I've heard of bamboo buildings but never bronze. Flint takes a razor-sharp edge but it is brittle. It breaks when you hit something. They only used flint points, and the smaller the better. So, it really is a progression of superior materials. Why do you want to question that? Do you think all those archaeologists have no judgement but go around stupidly using terms and systems you know with great certainty are no good, just because, in contrast to you, they don't know any better?Dave (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of deletion of some information

message: The Information Age has arrived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_age - 138.180.194.3
:The Three-Age System is for classifying human pre-history.  It doesn't apply to the historical period, and the Information Age is part of the historical period. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Shaheenjim that the three-age system does not apply to the historical period in any way shape or form. Any attempts to add 'information age' material into the article will be seen as a gross misunderstanding of the concept -- and will be vigorously reverted. At least one of the Wiki guidelines that can be applied in this case is WP:OR. 70.53.131.183 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What the article originally purported to cover was the use of our current stone age, bronze age and iron age. The modern form was innovated by CJ Thomsen, who actually called it that. It became traditional under that name. We know that subsequently the three ages multiplied to many ages, but they were treated as subdivisions of the three-age system. Since it is a traditional concept atill in use under that name, we can't remake the playing field and call it something else. This is the three-age game. It is not an individual game. We do not make up the rules. We can either play or not. If we play we have to follow the tradition, like it or not. Now, the game is archaeological. There is no rule that says it has to be prehistoric, even though the better part of it is prehistoric. Most of classical civilization, which is documented extensively by the first historians, is the Iron Age. Them's the rules. I know people often want to improve things as did I when I was young. We want to jump right in and make it right. That is entirely the wrong approach on WP. We are reporters, not innovators. Innovation is not our domain, unless perchance it be the innovation of presentation. The thing presented has to be traditional and is not subject to our opinions or our criticism or our dissatisfaction about it. Thanks.Dave (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Three-Age System Has become a Four Age system 

message: I have edited out the statement "belief in the afterlife starts forming in the Upper Palaeolithic" that appeared in the table.  We really don't know when belief in the afterlife began -- only that evidence for this belief first appears in this period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Fraser (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Belief Systems and Archeological Evidence  

message: There are some references included in the bottom of the page. Should we remove the tag or is the addition of more sources required? Warrior4321talkContribs 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sources Tag 

message: Would someone who knows about these things please edit the section on "Stone Age subdivisions" so it makes sense? As it stands now, it's not clear what subdivisions there are and who defined them or how they were defined. (I just edited it to make it clear that Lubbock is not responsible for all the subdivisions.) Does "all the ages" mean "all the stone ages." Is the Stone Age divided into three parts or the Paleolithic Age divided into three parts? Should the sentence on the Copper Age be included in this section or a new section? (or should the section title be changed to a broader one?) Thanks. Frappyjohn (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stone Age subdivisions" section needs work 

message: It appears that, in order to restore "Stone Age" to a good article. I will have to do this one. Looking back in the discussion I see was was not too impressed by it many moons ago. I'm still not. But, I seem to have to do the historical research myself. The two questions in my mind at the moment are whether the classical ages of metals are in the evolutionary descent - the ages of gold, silver, bronze, iron, whatever - and whether this 3-age system is historical only or is supposed to be in effect now. Because, I will tell you right now, terms such as bronze age and iron age certainly do overlap on the historical periods. All of classical history, for example, was Iron-age. The Iliad most likely takes lore from the Bronze Age. Much of Middle Eastern history is bronze age. But, one small step at a time. I will be starting around the edges of this article.Dave (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisit imminent

message: "The system is most apt in describing the progression of European and Mediterranean societies, although it has been used to describe other histories as well. The system has been criticised for being too technologically determinist."
There ar a few wrong major concepts in this passage. The aptitude of the system is completely a matter of opinion. There is no reference on it. In any case it does not describe only Europe and the Med. What about Africa, Central Asia, and the Far East? It is accepted by social scientists in those areas as apt for them as well; in fact, new discoveries are beginning to come at a relatively rapid rate from China. The author's main concern seems to focus on Korea. Dingies, I defer that for the moment. For the determinism, I never heard of that. There is nothing to suggest it in the writings of the founders of the concept. The Puritans were certainly determinists but that was long before the 19th century. There was a cogent criticism by Lewis Henry Morgan but he lost for various reasons, such as the ethnic slur of his names used to characterize the ways of life of different living people. No one wants to be a savage or a barbarian. In his day of manifest destiny, slavery and post-slavery, such names were acceptable, but not today. His criticism is worth mentioning and is covered in WP so I think I will replace the above with it.Dave (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed passage

message: This article should be based on recent Rowly-Conwy's book about the Three-age system.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I am currently bringing the level up I will look for that book. As to whether the article should be based on it, that depends on what you mean. If you mean mainly or exclusively, no way. Would you be plugging this book? If so I will oppose you. If you mean, as a good source among others, well, that depends on how good it is found to be. WP is or ought to be interested in information, not in books, except as there are articles on them. This is not an article on a book, as some are. If you want one of those, write an article. You will of course take your chances among those interested in the article. I'm moving slowly on this but I plan to stick with it until it is up to speed.Dave (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. Until I looked it up I did not realize the book is in my list of books to be seriously considered. You are quite right. This is a history of our three-age system. As a matter of fact I plan to use him in expanding the section on CJ Thomsen. He will appear at some point. But, you know, there are certain gaps in his study. He does not go much into detail on the ancient concepts that influenced Thomsen and others. He does have some extraordinary detail on topics he does cover. I will try to use it if I can access it. You have to remember, this is a one- to two-page article so we aren't going to get much of his entire book into it. He is an authority no doubt so what he says when he says it will go. It is good however to remember he is not THE authority and to use other good sources also. Later.Dave (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't really any other books that i know of that are specifically about the three age system. Bo Graslund's study is also good to include if you have access to it. Robert Heizer's article is unfortunately mostly incorrect in its description of the Scandinavian connection as Rowly-Conwy shows.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rowly-Conwy

message: With regard to the tag at the top, this article as originally written does NOT cover all three-age systems, only the one used in prehistory. There is a lot of material on various three-age systems. It appears as though a disambig page is in order, which I will undertake if no one else does. Moreover, the historical precedents of this 3-age system are not necessarily three-age. So, I've taken the liberty of narrowing the topic in the topic sentence to the anthropological one, which, it is probably safe to say, is a scientific hypothesis. If any others turn up in this area certainly I for one will mention them. At some point the tag is coming off, but the article has a way to go as of this moment.Dave (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of article

message: This is the place for the Morgan discussion. Go ahead, discuss. I need to confirm some ideas before I get much into the discussion. The confirmation is the exact origin of the food production revolution, whether it was Morgan or he took it from someone else. We need some words of the famous archaeologists. I can't contribute much else without checking into this. Leave it or cut it out, just as you like. We do have an article on Ancient Society and I know Morgan was quite influential. I don't mind proving it if it can be proved, all in good time. The question is I believe whether Morgan was a significant contributor to the 3-age system. If you prefer, cut Morgan out for now. When and if I have the words ready I can put him back. I might decide, in terms of this article he is eclipsed by more important figures. As I said, we only have a few pages. How do we want to use them? It's a fluid situation.Dave (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Morgan discussion

message: WP loves templates. It prescribes a series of standard templates for books, articles and web sites. I always try to use those. They are not that hard. I'm doing a few so you can see how it works. Really, they are just as easy as typing it all out yourself. See Template:Cite book and Template:harvnb for a starter.Dave (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how the templates work, I just didn't have time or will to enter the refs into templates yesterday.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The refs, the refs

message: I see this article is a favorite of persons from Denmark of impressive qualifications and fine personal sites. I'm impressed. You appear to be polyglot and to be very good at whatever it is you do (whatever that might be). But, one wee imperfection, just a mite, one small peccatillo, easily fixed. The English is ungrammatical and awkward in places, which gives the appearance of being slipshod. I think I will fix that in the course of editing if you do not mind. Harvard University advises German speakers not to lose their charming accent, which brings instant forgiveness for any errors they might make. The same might be said of Danish, but this is not spoken English, it is written, which is a totally different story. Ciao.Dave (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Go a head and fix anything you feel need fixing. And for the record next time you want to correct my writing you don't need to make a speech anbout it first. Be bold.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find I'm pretty bold. Sometimes I'm outnumbered so I find it best to withdraw. I see you have been looking back in my discussions. Why would you do that? Nothing mysterious about me. You, on the other hand, are a pretty mysterious person. You study all these native languages. What are you going to do with that stuff and where and working for whom? Well, you're the one who opened the door. If you don't want to let any guests in you don't open the door, you pretend naivity. Now, as for whether you mean what you say and say what you mean, I don't believe you will accept my revising your English, based on experience with WP editors. When I look at it I see lots of places where I would have said it differently. That condition is endemic to the writing game. If I rewrite it my way you will say, you just want to rewrite it your way. But you've already written it your way. Unless something is grammatically wrong I am not going to change it and that means a light edit. You predecessor wrote ungrammatically but he did not write much. I will fix that. Otherwise you are probably stuck with what you wrote. I want to get on to the bad sections. I spent enough time on this for now. Later.Dave (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by suggesting that I have been investigating you - I haven't. I am not interested in you as a person but as a collaborator in editing this article - I would prefer if we could do that without commenting on eachother's persons. As for revision of my English I am very accustomed to having my English revised - that is what happens when you work with professional editors. I do not take offense by someone showing me that what I wrote could be written better - I even appreciate that. If I do disagree with any particular change I am fully capable of discussing it in a civilized manner - I am not going to argue about issues of taste though and if there are things you wish to change to suit your writing tastes - I invite you to do so freely. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: the English

message: "Thomsen's independent means and his experience as a collector of coins were his primary qualifications.-ref-harvnb|Trigger|2006|p=127-/ref"
This is editor opinion. The editor wants to say what he thinks were Thomsen's qualifications. The source given does not mention it or imply it at all. However that page in Trigger leads us to more information, which I found more fully in another source. This is on the appointment and the foundation of the museum. So, I am going to put that in instead of Trigger. We keep Trigger in the biblio of course.Dave (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my opinion Trigger mentions this specifically. It is not important to the article and I won't argue for it to be included. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't understand. It needs a reference as it is someone's opinion. If you got one and still think it is important, work it back in. If Trigger actually did say that and you want to put it in I'm sure it could be worked in. I never heard, however, of being financially independent being a qualification for a museum post or most other things. We do have a contemporary evaluation, which I put in. I got some bad news on most of the rest of the section. I can't understand it at all. But, I don't want to rush into anything. I'll take my time, make sure I got it right. By the way, you have to put a full reference in, you can't just say someone's book and leave it to the reader to figure out what book and what page. Gee, WP can be tough sometimes! You couldn't publish a book with references without page numbers, however. Your editor would not let you. I hope this explanation is a little more palatable than my just throwing a "page needed" template on.Dave (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I found it, Rowley-Conwy, page 32. But, here is what I mean about accuracy. RC does not talk about qualifications for the job or the only qualifications for the job; that was your idea. He only conjectures that Thomsen could accept it because he was independent and besides had an interest in antiquities. That is quite a different matter from applying for a job because you have the qualifications. You implied the wrong thing. In English one can get into a whole lot of trouble real fast doing that, especially in more violent quarters. More subtly still, you can get someone else in trouble by putting an implication on what they say. It is one of the fine points of the language and one of the vices of the people. You have to be worried all the time about what you may imply and how that may affect your standing. I could tell you stories but what is the point. That is why I suggest you keep your accent if you have one because no one takes a European with an accent seriously. If we did you might not like being taken seriously. Anyway I left those two facts in: he was of independent means and the job was unpaid. I think in general that is why I do not like what you wrote: the implications. Is there a stone age or what? Not only that but you don't mention that he coached other archaeologists as to method and that their excavations confirmed his system. Apparently he was the first to tie the system into stratigraphy, may even have been the pioneer of stratigraphy. I continue to look into this. When I'm ready I will move and not before.Dave (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed statement

message: I had to remove this section. Bottom line: it has no refs. In overall assessment, this section is outstandingly unprofessional. It represents mainly conjectures of an evident non-savant (whoever that might be). I will just go through here and reply to this. While I applaud the boldness and initiative of the editor in jumping into the subject I really have to say it was beyond him - but that is no disgrace and it certainly can be corrected by additional study, which I encourage. What good is WP if not for educational practice? I judge no one, but it needs to be right.
The three-age system has been difficult to apply fully outside Europe and the Mediterranean for which it was devised.
:This is an assertion for which you need references and examples. I don;t agree with it.
Some societies skipped some of the stages or never developed them when their societies did not need them.
:This is nothing unusual at all, the intent of the system was never to portray a deterministic system in which one stage MUST follow the other. Not at all, and all the innovators caution the reader against that view. They are only saying, in the course of time among societies left to evolve ceteris paribus, this is the development they followed without exception.
Some Amazonian tribes in South America remain to date in the Neolithic for example, and there was no Bronze Age in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa which progressed directly from stone to iron working, with no intermediate Bronze Age.
:So what? For one thing these examples are over-simple, but let us allow that SOME tribes might have followed the course you say. That you can find tribes in the various stages is not great secret; in fact, the contributors depend to a large degree on that fact. No one says we all have to be in the Iron Age. I don't know what you mean by "progress." You would need an example for that, but the peoples of Africa have never been left alone in isolation to my knowledge. Before the white Europeans went meddling around there were Berbers, Arabs, Egyptians, etc.
It also soon became apparent that the switches from one age to another did not happen quickly or decisively. Flint tools remained in use in a limited fashion into the Iron Age in Europe and early metal items often appear in what should technically be the Neolithic.
:No one has claimed that stone stopped being used in the Bronze Age or Bronze stopped being used in the Iron Age. For example, Etruscan civilization was mainly in the Iron Age, but they were bronze-mongers and got rich on it so what you mainly find is bronze-making and bronze. The fact that they used also some iron artefacts marks them as being in the Iron Age. In the Bronze Age, no iron would have been available to them at all. That is the point. Some of the finest stone points are not from the Stone Age. What is this quick and decisive business? The system is evolutionary - if these societies are left alone, here is what the stages are.
Using the three-age system to measure the advancement of societies is often quite inaccurate, as some developments have appeared in different societies at vastly differing stages of their development. 
:The system was designed flexible enough to handle that. The development of hard tools and weapons is not intrinsically associated with any other cultural feature not required for production. Overall each age has some characterizing features but this is not a deterministic scheme - some may be earlier, some later, some not at all - this does faze the archaeologists any; the chronology is at root only a chronology. The blueprint of social evolution typically follows the pattern but sometimes not.
For example, Classic Period Maya society had advanced mathematics and astronomy, but was still technically a stone age culture. 
:So what? Is there some difficulty here? You just say, the Mayans in the Stone Age were mathematically inclined. I don't know what you may mean by "advanced mathematics" which in our society starts after you have had calculus. Maybe you need to read other literature on the Mayans than book advertisements.
Some pre-Inca cultures had metalworking starting in 1500 BC.
:And?
Pottery existed in the Japanese archipelago as early as 10,000 BC but bronze working or rice farming did not appear there until c. 500 BC.
:Well I question those dates, but this is held to be a good example of the use of pottery before the Neolithic, in the Mesolithic. This is a modification of the original association of pottery with food production and therefore the Neolithic. It seems some cultures gathered their berries and other wild plants as well as ported water in pottery and not just in baskets and skin bags. You handle it just like that, an exception to the general rule that Mesolithics did not yet have pottery.
In short I do not see the difficulty and I doubt many others do either. References, please.Dave (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficulties in application

message: What are you doing over here, Parkwells? Clearly, you're sniffing out my plan. Well. You want to correct my English. I think we have been around on this topic before. I don't mind being corrected and improved. I do mind being made worse. Now I will have to check what you are doing. Obviously I plan to get back to this as part of a set on archaeology. I wanted to clarify Morgan's part in this. I see Morgan visited Lubbock AFTER the publication of Lubbock's book. That means Morgan undoubtedly took his savagery and barbarism terminology from Lubbock, and not vice versa. We can probably find some cross-influences. That is why it is so important for you not denude these articles of essential detail. We need to know that Morgan went to see the famous Sir John in person. I know you worked on some of these articles, but you did not really get very far into the topics. They have to be handled as a set. We need to see the whole movement. So, instead of trying to vindictively prove my whole approach to archaeology is just my interpretation, why don't you get further into these topics and try to improve them? If it is any help to your emotions about these things, I was trained in archaeology, you know. I'm not interested in interpretation, I'm interested in what the public wants and whether historicity allows them to have it. Thank, Parkwells (tenatatively). Ciao,Dave (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Parkwells!

message: You changed the game by making insertions into the previously negotiated intro. These insertions pronounce that the system is outdated and eurocentric. That's not acceptable, as it is not. What you have here are the minority opinions of a few critics. The vast majority of thousands of scholars still think the system is viable and do their archaeological work according to it. Sorry, but it seems to me you are trying to push a minority view. So, I'm going to have to get involved now. The intro should summarize material included later. I presume we are going to develop the criticism section. So, we don't want to say much here. In fact, we don't want these chains of references. They duplicate what you have in the criticism section. The intro is the preview. Perhaps something should be said. An opinion should be identified as the opinion of the author not the general state of the field. So, let me take a look at it and see if we cannot objectify it a little. I will try to go on with the presentation of the system at the same time. It appears to me you do not realize the far-reaching implications of pushing these minority criticisms. Everything done on the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, you are saying, is no good and has to be redone and rethought. As far as WP is concerned, all those articles done on the cultures of this system are now no good and have to be rewritten. All right. This is where the line is drawn, right here, right in this article, right now. This is not collaboration, it is propaganda.Dave (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous. I included that line in the intro in the original edit. You only now noticed it. I specifically worded the section to present these critiques as the viewpoints of their authors, not me. I've provided specific sources that describe the theory as eurocentric and outdated and cited them directly. If you want to present this as a mainstream theory, provide sources describing it as such, not simply outlining its historical developments. Right now, I refuse to turn this a personal battle with you. We need outside mediation. I've requested outside assistance from the members of WikiProject Archaeology and I'm going to do the same for WikiProject Anthropology. Snickeringshadow (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to accept any mediation. I'm sorry it turned into this. In my view you began by being confrontational and uncollaborative. I'm going on. I will make sure your material gets incorporated as best I can. I will respond to discussion of the material. Otherwise communication seems de facto to have have ceased.Dave (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Insertions into the intro

message: I note some of the refs have no page numbers. Those are required. Fortunately the work cited is available to some degree for preview. I will tidy those up if I can; otherwise, place tags. Also the policy describes overkill of references. If one solid ref makes the point, there is no need for chains of them unless you are going to mention the critics by name and possibly some of their arguments. I did look at Graham. This stuff is off the wall; Graham is way out of mainstream. Whether he is cutting edge or oddball only time can tell. Since he has been put in there by the editor I am leaving him but in proper context.Dave (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers and overkill

message: I picked the first ref, Graham, as the one to cite here. As I have not yet dealt with the others I moved that sentence below. What we say in the intro should only be limited. No refs are necessary as those would be given below. However we are giving a few refs there. I could not deal adequately with all the refs there because that would have put the material in the intro rather than the section. We don't want to repeat everything. Now, the editor is under the impression that Graham's views are valid just because he published them. They aren't. We are not justified in promulgating this minority view as true. The article presents the three-age system. If the editor wishes then some unslanted mention should be made of the criticism. To present this criticism as valid and generally accepted is wrong. The three-age is in fact mainstream. It will take a lot more than Graham and a WP article to change anything at all, but we don't get involved in that. We present what there is, and that is a mainstream 3-age system with criticisms past and present. One more thing. Stop calling me ridiculous. I have not seen any collaboration yet. I should reassert, nobody owns any WP articles. I'm not reverting any of your assertions, only placing them in context and fixing some of the format. I got this far in it through collaboration. That is what I suggest you do. If you think you are going to just push past me, well, go ahead, try.  If there is anything to resolve here I am sure the committee or whatever will resolve it. So far all I have seen is your insisting to put it in exactly the way you have it without regard to anything I have said. What's the issue here? Are you trying get WP archaeologists to say the three-age system is no good anymore? What is your point? I welcome your collaboration.Dave (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The intro sentence

message: Thanks, my friend. It seems like a reasonable mediation. I accept that I'm too defensive. By the way my name is Dave. It does not matter, though, does it? Call me Doug if you like. I don't think we are all that different either. The difference is that the editor wants to present the criticisms as mainstream; in other words, the whole article is a historical survey of an idea now out of its time. I believe you settled that. The criticisms are the opinions of authors. The mainstream remains the 3-ages. Once we get past that, well, the opinions should be in there. Now I'm getting to the second point. If you look at the refs you will see that it really is basically unreferenced. No page numbers or contexts are given. This is a distinct hinderance to setting up an expansion. However, this is a question mainly of technique and formatting, which I am sure the other editor can learn if he decides to do it. We have to see what the authors said and meant before any of the criticism can make any sense. I got a start on this. What can I say. Thanks for your participation. If you got any other recommendations be sure and let us know. Once the other editor starts talking to me again perhaps we can work things out.Dave (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave's reply to mediation

message: Glyn was a pretty good critic. He appeared frequently in the journals. His critiques run the gamut from good general assessments to calling the archaeologists a pack of idiots. The problem is, he said everthing EXCEPT a rejection if the three-age system. The one thing I could find online in toto, the Idea of Prehistory, which is on Internet Archive, introduces a hopeful note when he talks about Graham Clarke. Maybe now, he thinks, we will get some real economic history. His main objection throughout the book is non-historicity of archaeology and its getting bogged down in the details of implements. However, he admits there are no other sources of data. He does not propose any alternatives except to handle the data better. We got a ref here to Daniel. There are no page numbers; moreover, Google only gives us the first several pages of the book referenced. Everything else is non-previewable. Now, I would like to give the editor a chance to develop this theme. If he does not my next move will be to present the gist of Daniel's non-historicity argument with a change of ref to the one book I can read complete without an inter-library loan. A second subsection would appear, something like "The non-historicity argument". I got other things to do now then I will go on with Morgan. What would be a pleasant surprise would be another section with the gist of Daniel's criticisms, so I don't have to do it. Ciao.Dave (talk)
:Note that the verifiability policy  doesn't require sources to be easily accessible. Part of assuming good faith is assuming that sources are fairly cited unless you have a specific reason to believe otherwise. Although I agree page references are generally a good idea, their absence isn't really adequate reason to remove a sourced statement.  jroe tkcb  18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. The opponent made such a good statement below I am backing out of the section to let him work on it. I did have a specific reason to think otherwise. In the things that I could check the material was not turning up. If we have some identifiable arguments written without slant and referenced avoiding the chains of numbers then I will be happy about it. We are using the harvard ref system here so I may look at the formats of the refs. There is a template for requesting page numbers. I presume it is there so we can use it if necessary. But, let's see how it turns out.Dave (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Glyn Daniel as critic

message: I have not even touched this yet. When I first saw it I was immediately against it. What on earth was being resumed in resumptive? Then I looked it up in the big dictionary. This is a legitimate English word used mainly in scholarly and scientific writing. I was embarassed not to have known it. I did not wish to make an a. of myself by deleting it. Obviously the editor who put it in knew more than I. So, I'm in favor of keeping it. What is means is "summary table". I said to myself, am I to impose ignorance as a standard by trying to simplify English out of this perfectly good word? That was on my mind. I think the table is an enhancement to the article. It probably needs to be updated.Dave (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The resumptive table

message: I think the mediator got it spot on. Thank you for intervening. Either tomorrow or the day after (the notes I took are on my work computer and its night-time where I am), I'll update the criticism section to reflect those changes and include specific page numbers where I can. I'll expand the criticism section to include context and more direct quotations. I'll proofread for weasel words and clarify where applicable. I'll also clarify that the Eurocentric criticisms were specifically lobbied at its application outside of Europe and West Asia and that the system is still used in Europe as a generalized, shorthand means of classification. I'll include additional citations when possible (thanks to the mediator for providing a few) and break up the existing citations to fulfill Dave's request at eliminating strings of citations. I'll expand that one-line segment in the intro into a more appropriate lead in for the article. If anyone still has issues with the new edit we can discuss them then. Snickeringshadow (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're talking, fellow collaborator. I'm going to cease work on that section to give you a chance to do it right. There is plenty of other work to do and ultimately we will have to make size decisions. Maybe WP is capable of quality presentations.Dave (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Mediation 

message: After reviewing my previous edit, I did see that I put page numbers in the citations. Apparently Dave missed it and I forgot about it. I previously used the American Antiquities citation format of "Author YEAR:PP", which may be confusing and contrary to the format used elsewhere on Wikipedia. For clarification, I changed it to the format of "Author YEAR p.##". I also expanded the "epochalism" critique section that Dave started and added one on Eurocentrism. I included the quote provided by Jroe, but I'm unable to access the specific article which makes it impossible to get page numbers. If anybody else has access to that database, could somebody please insert page numbers in that citation? I also removed the Glyn Danial citation, which was referencing the following quote: "This system has indeed been the foundation stone of modern archaeology; it is for us to say whether it is to become a mill-stone hanging around the necks of future archaeologists".
This quote does offer a cautious critique of the three age system, but it doesn't provide anything specific. It's just a sort of general remark on its limitations. It would be a strain to fit that in any of the sub-categories, so it's been cut.
Now, the criticism section has been reorganized and rewritten to draw from the direct quotes of the authors, but little has been added in the way of new information. I don't have access to my University databases at the moment, but I'll try to add more sources when I can.  I know I can find more american archaeologists criticizing its application in the New World, but I've got little info in the way of Africa, Asia, or Australia. I have elsewhere read criticisms written based on those areas, but I don't have access to them. Pending any sudden developments, we may have to wait until another editor with a background in those regions can contribute.
As far as the introduction goes, I think the mediator was correct in stating that it should spend more time talking about contemporary usage and criticisms than historical development. However, since there hasn't been much work done on the model's contemporary usage (other than the criticism section), I see no reason to update that yet. Once the article gets more fleshed out, I'd recommend revisiting it and including criticisms alongside other modern interpretations. Snickeringshadow (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the online edition, so there aren't any page numbers.  jroe tkcb  07:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision on Criticism

message: I'd like to add an aspect that is lacking from the article so far. While the three phases Stone / Bronze / Iron obviously don't fit the Americas, a different three-age system was devised and is still in use (with some modifications). The Archaic / Formative / Classic phases of Mesoamerica were influential for the Palaeoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and so on phases of northern America. So maybe the article needs an introduction with a broader approach showing that three step models are common and were derived from the original three-age system that applies as such only to Europe and the Near/Middle East. Does anyone knows about Africa? --h-stt !? 11:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this article specifically is about the three age system as the metallurgical division. I could see the application for explaining similar time period divisions based on regional assemblages, but such a section would probably function better by linking to other articles specifically about those classifications. Still, if you can find some sources explaining how the model has influenced other chronologies in different parts of the world, I say have at it. It's definitely been used as a template to derive other regional classification schemes. And yeah, we really need some African archaeologists here. Snickeringshadow (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Africans (white and later native) did propose a different system. I covered this albeit yet incompletely under Stone Age. They still use that system but when they devised it they had no dates. Subsequent radiocarbon dates merged most of their system with the traditional. They use either with equal facility but I must say it is a bit confusing. The terms somehow ended up being similar or the same so when they speak the hearer always has to ask, now which system is he using? As far as your other suggestions are concerned I think those are good suggestions. This keystone article is just getting started really. You can find more under the different subdivisions. Frankly I was feeling a bit crushed having to handle all this myself. I'm still around. When I do work I will finish what I started on the traditional. I do not see any American systems at all so as you perceive someone needs to do that. It is beyond the scope of my interest at the moment. As far as this article is concerned I was going to put the African in just before the revolutions but I had just worked on Stone Age and wanted to complete the Stone Age sections. You see there is a gap and a tag there. I do not know where the Bronze Age will lead me. Probably to the traditional first. As I have said all things will create a space problem here but at the time we can make the appropriate offload decisions. I must say I am rather pleased at all this. If you want to do the work you won't find me uncooperative. Go ahead, work.Dave (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another view 

message: This is a little trickier. Browman & Williamns are not actually the authors, only the editors. The book is one of those compendiums. WP often handles that by a "citation" template, which allows both author and editors. I'll fix it.Dave (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. You've set it up so I can just replace the name of the author in the text. Might be simpler that way.Dave (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Browman & Williams ref

message: Much of the discussion above on the criticisms of the system is based on an inaccurate concept of the goals and methods of archaeology. The dating section contributed somewhat to that misunderstanding. For example, I cite the editors' faith (and that is all it is, faith) in the carbon dating method. Carbon dates do not generally prove anything, they only support (or do not support) the relative chronology. The whole point of archaeology IS the relative chronology. No one is seeking or can seek to replace the relative chronology or the periodization with "absolute" dates. The editors misunderstand "absolute." They aren't so "absolute." They can only stand in conjunction with the relative.  And for the epoch, if there are no epochs, there is no archaelogy. The epochs are the hypotheses the archaeologist is trying to prove (or disprove). However there certainly should be a critisicm section and it should bring up these concerns. There also should be dating section. I reused as much of the single paragraph that was there as I could but basically it was wrong and nowhere near sufficient. I have got started expanding it, mainly with new introductions. A brief write-up of the various methods should follow, with links to the numerous appropriate articles.Dave (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating section

message: I'm taking this out now. It's been on there since I started many words ago. I doubt it was appropriate to begin with. We are not interested here in a discussion of the general utility of periodization or of tripartite epochalization. This is an article on a specific tripartite system of that name. Moreover nothing at all has been said in the discussion about the tag. Presumably the editor who placed it actually meant something else. My guess is, he/she wanted to make sure criticisms of the system got in. Fine. They are in. More can be placed in if necessary, if there are any. Of course there are other tripartite classifications. Those have been noted so far as WP covers the topic on the disambig page. We don't need this glaring inappropriate tag at the top. Naturally there are still topics that are scanty or need work and there are still obvious errors. I think it would be more useful to request information on those with in-line or sectional tags. Please try to be specific. Thank you.Dave (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: the tag

message: I revisited this. I'm pleased with the current state. A article of such a broad scope is tough to do. Thank you all for chipping away at it. I see we got a class B rating. The last edit was in June of this year. I'm sure it could use more if anyone cares to shoot for class A. Just working on it now is a big undertaking. However, no pain, no gain. Thanks. By the way Branigan is Dave. I bought some respite from hostile attacks by this devious maneuver.Branigan 01:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: revisit

message: Here's a sentence in the article:
:The Romans believed that the species of animals, including man, were spontaneously generated from the materials of the Earth, because of which the Latin word mater, "mother," descends to English-speakers as matter and material.
The only cited source for this is Lucretius. Now, I don't know whether or not this is an accurate account of what the Romans believed, because I'm not a classicist. (I suspect it isn't, because there probably isn't a lot one could accurately say about what the Romans believed.) But I don't think that Lucretius is a good source for what they believed. He was a Roman, but an unusual one because he's an Epicurean. The issue in question is something that Epicureans had idiosyncratic beliefs about. There are lots of things that Lucretius says in De rerum natura that the Romans didn't believe: that all is atoms and void, that the Gods cannot intervene in human affairs, that justice is just what is useful, that the best life is one of pleasure, etc. Anyway, Lucretius is a primary source, so also probably inappropriate here.50.191.21.222 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucretius as a source for what the Romans believed 

message: I think all the text about the history of the establishment of the three-age system should be better left for another article, say "History of the three-age system". The details of the poeple involved, the things they published, what one said, what the other responded, etc. are overkill for this particular article and really bloat sections like "Stone Age subdivisions" or "Origin", for example.
It would be better to have a short summary, no more that a couple of paragraphs, in the "Origin" section about how the three-age system came to be, with a link to "History of the three-age system" for further information. Then the other sections: "Stone Age subdivisions", "Bronze age subdivisions" and "End of the Iron Age" would just list the currently accepted subdivisions and what they encompass. I'm not an expert on the subject, but if there is controversy among the relevant experts about including some other sub-divisions y should be stated and those sub-divisions listed too as reference.
Best regards, Alejandro E.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.187.72.150 (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of the article 

message: SuggestBot got me here. To summarize the article's scope and not giving the impression to simply repeat everything is the trick here. Talk to me. ATBWikirictor (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I suggest the fact that the three age system consists of the stone, bronze, and iron age be moved up into the first sentence, or at the very least to the first paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.240.218 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for First Paragraph

message: Can some part of the origin section be split into Periodization — the periodization article would benefit from the well-sourced content, and this article could focus on the three-age system. (For example Rowley-Conway has a detailed introduction of this background history).Seraphim System (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem a great idea to me - this account is very detailed, and does "focus on the three-age system" as a concept. The actual archaeological accounts are in the various period articles, which is surely right. You can always copy over (making clear in the es where stuff came fom) but too much of this would rather overwhelm Periodization. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Proposed 

message: In the section Three-age system resumptive table added in 2006, mention is made of "caves, huts, tooth or skin hovels". The editor who added the mention of tooth hovels stopped contributing seven years ago. I have flagged the "tooth hovel" as requiring explanation and citation, as I am puzzled by the idea of a dwelling made from teeth, or if it is to be taken seriously. — O'Dea (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Tusks, maybe? Tusks are technically teeth, but it is odd why they would not just say tusks if that were meant. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D42D:C988:6781:A80A (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a dwelling seriously be created from teeth? 

message: The Origin section mentions Hesiod's five ages from Works and Days and references Ages of Man. But "Ages of Man" also has an entire section on Ovid's four ages as described in Metamorphoses 1.89. I think either Metamorphoses also deserves a mention, or the Origin subsection on Hesiod should be generalized and expanded to include it. 77.124.207.235 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin - Ovid's Four Ages