Archaeologica.org

I found one nice online chart but it was for Greek cultures only.

Minimalist wrote:I found one nice online chart but it was for Greek cultures only.

Can you post a link for it please? I'm going to need it in a week or two.

oldarchystudent wrote:

Minimalist wrote:I found one nice online chart but it was for Greek cultures only.

Can you post a link for it please? I'm going to need it in a week or two.

Let me go back and see if I can find it for you.

That wasn't so hard.

http://www.ypai.gr/atlas/xronologio_uk.asp


There are navigation buttons on either side of the time line and you can click on the examples shown above.

Good info, Oas

it was a joke. she wanted an actual chart not some speech by some kindergarten play archaeologist.

it seems i am not the only one questioning the time periods:

This year's conference will deal with two main topics relating to the study of these proposed overlapping periods in Palestinian archaeology.

(a) Determining the approximate length of each transitional period. What does the material evidence tell us about the transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age (conventionally ca. 1550 B.C.), and to what extent does it help us to appreciate better the other transitional phases (e.g. at the end of the Early Bronze Age (conventionally ca. 2200 B.C.) and at the end of the Late Bronze Age (conventionally ca. 1200 B.C.)? And could this apply to the study of earlier archaeological periods such as the Neolithic Period as well?


(b) What inferences may be drawn from this study for the interpretation of Old Testament history and its chronological realignment with the archaeology of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures

http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.p ... onferences

there is a chart on this page , just scroll down a bit. it is not definitive with all the sub-categories but that is proving to be a difficult search for you:

http://www.olive-tree.net/eretzisrael/timelines.htm

archaeologist wrote:it was a joke. she wanted an actual chart not some speech by some kindergarten play archaeologist.

Just to set the record straight Arch, I have never pretended to be an archaeologist. I am a part-time archaeology student as my screen name indicates. I think that pretending to be an archaeologist would be a dishonest thing to do and only an unqualified fake would attempt such a thing. I'm sure you would agree.

Minimalist wrote:That wasn't so hard.

http://www.ypai.gr/atlas/xronologio_uk.asp


There are navigation buttons on either side of the time line and you can click on the examples shown above.

Intresting site, thanks Min! I was glad to find some info on Olynthos. I have to do a paper this term on domestic architecture in the 5th century BCE in Olynthos and Athens. It's 50% of my final mark so I have started researching already!

My pleasure, sir.

again i feel that the classifications are for those people who need security in history. they are not hard and fast definitions as attested by the modern world since we have stone age civilizations, cannibals, developing nations under-developed societies and developed nations.

to place all people in the same category in the same time period is unrealistic given that people develope slower/faster than others. when stone age tools were found, we could not {though it was} classify all nations as stone age because we had no way of verifying that fact for every nation.

a good example of this is the european invasion of the americas. here you had advanced weaponry entering a world where bows, arrows, and spears ruled. to categorize that time period would be mis-leading.

the same idea would apply to the ancient world as evidenced by the rise of chariots, and other weaponry at the same time other nations still used inferior armaments.

at best, the categories are a guideline as to when certain metals were discovered and used yet it is not safe to say that one nation was stone age when their capibilities were far from accepted stone age thinking.

all technology really shows is that the human mind is capable of great thought once the process is in place to convert raw materials discovered.

example: oil. there was minimal use of oil or desire for it because the technology only demanded its use via lamps and a few other minor applications. but once the demand progressed and changed then the importance of oil changed as well.

each society and civilization had/have the same resources throughout time. they were always in existence but the desire or need for it had to progress as sophistication demanded new and better products and weaponry.

then again, once a person, upon looking at the raw material, started to think about what other uses could be made for it, the decision to experiment arose. each age is the same, there was a status quo with an accepted standard and every pioneer faced abuse, financial problems ridicule and ultimately success.

said success was then expanded by the newly converted and thus you have a change in society but not all civilizations did it at the same time. thus the archaeological categories is for the benefit of modernman and their quest to label events where they want them and not as they actually are.

Nobody said that the same periods occupied the same timeframe on all continents. That is excruciatingly obvious. Bronze age Greece is Stone age Canada. We all know that. It is a way of describing the material culture. The smaller the time divisions, the more helpful it is to describe what we're talking about. If you don't believe that, try spending a week without referring to hours or minutes.

"When should I meet you?"

"Saturday"

"What time should I meet you?"

"Uhhhh - Saturday....."

Great analogy, OAS!

When?

Beagle wrote:When?

Saturday!

If you don't believe that, try spending a week without referring to hours or minutes.

come live in korea and you will experience what that is like.

anyways OAS your analogy was off and poor. there are better ways of describing the time periods than by nicknames but it doesn't matter as i am just analyzing the accepted standards and if you can't see that...well...