archaeological categories

[oldarchystudent]

Oas, your karma is running over your dogma.

And I'm glad of it.

DFTT

[Guest]

Yes, I'm glad you see that Darwinian/uniformitarian dogma is foolish, things are looking up for you.

[oldarchystudent]

DFTT

[Guest]

DFFT

Hey, this is kind o' fun, your turn.

[oldarchystudent]

And once again - attempting to move on to something intelligent. although this thread was a bit of a dud from the get-go.....

[Minimalist]

And once again - attempting to move on to something intelligent. although this thread was a bit of a dud from the get-go.....

Well....look who started it!

[Guest]

And once again - attempting to move on to something intelligent. although this thread was a bit of a dud from the get-go.....

it is only a dud because you decided to respond with a flippant remark instead of providing some sort of constructive analysis of whay the field is becoming too definitive. (you claim to have all this experience yet you could not even offer an opinion on the topic. i now consider you discredited {based upon the flimsy way you try to discredit me})

the past and dating are too subjective for such exactness because the ancient records are not kept in the manner that would similar to our own. becauseof the flexibility of record keeping in the past we have more confusion as to when something took place and by all these sub-divisions we are only adding to the confusion not clearing it up.

maybe a linear calendar would have been a better one to adopt, similar to the one that the chinese use, where the dates start at year 0 or 1 and then progress in the manner of simple addition. though the linear style would have the weakness of not knowing when year 0 or 1 was, it would be sufficient in determing many past events and corrlate them with each other.

the divisive calendar that we use today does not help when it comes to studying the past. placing the fulcrum of the calendar on Christ's birth was a huge error as we do not know the exact year He was born. this idea has led to many disagreements and confusion since we know He wasn't born in year 0. thus the weakness of the divided calenar does not help our pursuit of the truth.

of course i would not use the BP system as it was designed without regard to reality or the truth. i do prefer something similar to the chinese system (and i did have oneof their calendars last year) as it is based more on raity than what scientists could conceive.

so with the failure of the present accepted calendar to provide accurrate time keeping i can see the same failure taking place in the archaeological divisions of history. the more divisions the higher degree of inaccuracy and the higher flexibility to play games with dating historical events.

if one archaeologist doesn't like the placement of an event by another archaeologist then he is at liberty to use his interpretive skills to move the event to another division thus causing an argument and fight over what really happened. lending more to confusion than to clarity.

this game playing is only to the benefit of those who wish to deny any particular event and not deal with the reality of the evidence. interpretations are subject to opinions, beliefs, politcalleanings and motivations, to only name a few, thus the more options one has the more opportunities to invent history according to their perspective.

which brings me tothe weakness of the general ages, stone, bronze, iron and so on. we know these are weak because all societies do not progress at the same rate, if they progress at all. we know this by our modern world as we have advanced societies, such as america, europe, australia etc., then we have the lesser developed civilizations as exampled by the stone age tribes of iran Jaya and brazil not to mention many oriental and polynesian countires.

thus to be rigid in saying this is the bronze age, this is the iron age is just unrealistic. though these developements need to be acknowledged,we are not at liberty to nor our we justified in placing these strict limits on the past. we have not discovered everything and s we will constantly be surprised or place a society in the wrong age due to confusion created by their developement.

now i know we have a pretty good idea, don't misunderstand or accuse me of not knowing anything. i do but we in the modern age have a tendancy to be unsophisticated in our defining of other people, we have the tendancy to be lazy and there will always be those people who do not fit the divisions because their developemnet was slower or faster than another's. thus we will come to false conclusions and unfairly discredit someone when clearer data is discovered.

so while minimalist's prediction was close it was not accurate, though such a division warrants further study, i would advocate a linear dating which doesn't pretend to know everything or use arrogance or a superiority complex as its methods of deciding the past.

[marduk]

thus to be rigid in saying this is the bronze age, this is the iron age is just unrealistic

errr ok Arch
i think you'll find that when people say things like Iron age India or Bronze age Britain they are being pretty specific
the only age that was ever worldwide is the technological one
thats the one that you live in
allegedly

[Starflower]

While I'm thinking about it, does anyone know where I can get a copy of all the different categories initials and actual names with the appropriate dates?They are being used in a lot of articles lately and I'm just getting confused Especially when all they use are the initials. If I had something I could post by my computer I would be tickled pink

[oldarchystudent]

And once again - attempting to move on to something intelligent. although this thread was a bit of a dud from the get-go.....

it is only a dud because you decided to respond with a flippant remark instead of providing some sort of constructive analysis of whay the field is becoming too definitive

An insight into your method. You expect me to support your position. Unfortunately I can't provide you with that analysis because it is an entirely incorrect statement to say that the history is muddled by assigning labels to the timeline. I can't provide evidence to back up a mistaken idea.

What I did do in response to your statement, was to provide reasons why I felt you were mistaken.

[Guest]

It is interesting that almost all the world uses the A.D./B.C. demarcation of history since the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, even the Hindus and Moslems, so I wonder what's so special about that time in history, some 2000 years ago, min, do you have any ideas?

[Beagle]

While I'm thinking about it, does anyone know where I can get a copy of all the different categories initials and actual names with the appropriate dates?They are being used in a lot of articles lately and I'm just getting confused Especially when all they use are the initials. If I had something I could post by my computer I would be tickled pink

I'd like that as well.

[Guest]

Hey Beagle, why do you think most of the world has gone with the A.D./B.C. demarcation of history, and you too Starflower?

[oldarchystudent]

While I'm thinking about it, does anyone know where I can get a copy of all the different categories initials and actual names with the appropriate dates?They are being used in a lot of articles lately and I'm just getting confused Especially when all they use are the initials. If I had something I could post by my computer I would be tickled pink

Huge question, lets see if I can give an outline:

Christian Thomsen came up with the stone, bronze and iron classifications in 1816 to help arrange similar artifacts in the Copenhagen Museum. It didn't take long to realize that it was too simplistic, and that in the stone age, for example, there were further subdivisions based on assemblages, Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic, or old, middle and new stone ages. These in turn get carved up further, so for example you get an Upper Paleolithic in which spear throwers (the atlatl) appear. It goes on. These terms kick in at different times for different parts of the world as technology advances at different rates.

Some divisions are civilization specific. Minoan is especially confusing because there are actually two timeline designations in use. One is simpler and chronicles major building and destruction phases of the most famous features, the great palaces like Knossos and Mallia:

Pre-palace period - c 3100-1925 BCE
Old palace period - c 1925-1725
New palace period - c 1725 - 1380
Post palace period - c 1380 - 1000

But there is also an older 3-part division of time devised by Arthur Evans that is still in use: Early, Middle and Late Minoan. To pinpoint things further these are subdivided into units based on pottery styles designated by numbers, and this in turn is further divided into units designated by letters of the alphabet, for example Late Minoan 3B. When you think about how clothing styles have changed in our lifetime you can see how this would help narrow things down if you could describe a style of dress, or in this case, ceramics.

So the pre-palace period for example, is also referred to as encompasing EM 1 through EM 1A.

Yep - if you're not familiar with it it sounds confusing, but consider it this way. Look at the 20th century. Because we're familiar with it, we easily refer to the roaring 20's, the cold war, the post war era, the dirty thirties, the information age, and know right away what we are talking about. We don't think twice about it and it doesn't obscure the events of the period. In fact it helps.

If you understand Minoan history as well as you do the 20th century and were familiar with the changes in pottery styles over time, then saying "Middle Minoan 3A" would be as natural as saying "the Edwardian age".

Sorry this was so long, hope it helps. There is way more to it than this.

Jim

[Beagle]

Good info, Oas!