Talk:Bronze Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First sentence of article is missing a verb[edit]

The first sentence essentially says "The bronze age is when the most advanced metalworking." This is not a sentence. Maybe it just needs an "occurred" tagged on the end. Anyway, I'm not editing the most important sentence of the article. I don't know shit about bronze.

Charcoal export to Cyprus?[edit]

Charcoal export to Cyprus? What evidence is there? --Yak 16:36, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


There is no dates in Aegean Bronze Age section. --Kefeer 20:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The earliest known bronze vessels...have been discovered at Erlitou. This contradicts Bronze and Maykop. Who was first with bronze? --i. 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Erlitou is first in China, but more than 1000 years after Maykop. 11:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Polynesian sailors?[edit]

"Knowledge of navigation was well developed at this time, and reached a peak of skill not exceeded until a method was discovered (or perhaps rediscovered) to determine longitude around 1750 AD, with the notable exception of the Polynesian sailors." What are polynesian sailors doing in this article?

Qualifying the statement "...peak of skill not exceeded until..." Academic and encyclopedic writing usually works that way. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does Late Bronze Age redirect here[edit]

Why does Late Bronze Age redirect here, whereas Middle Bronze Age has its own entry? This needs to have a separate entry. John D. Croft 06:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there young man. You're about as young as I am. No, you can't have my picture. Well, here it is over a year later and Late Bronze Age still redirects to here. But - you expect too much of us. I suppose not that many people are interested. Someone has to do the work! Until someone does it, this is the way it will stay! Actually it exists in many of the other BA articles. Someone has to get it all together, what are the trends of the period, why is it late, why distinguish a late period, what characterizes it, and so on. More specific articles are easier. This is not the easiest article to write. I would estimate at least 2 or 3 months of research. So, that is why it isn't here. Most of us pick the easiest material to work on. Your complaint however is a demand for it, so I hope someone picks up the gauntlet. And that's what it is, a gauntlet. Trial by combat. It's the sort of thing I'd be interested in, but too many other support articles are needed so it will be a while for me anyway. What about you? Got a predilection for the BA, a yearning after truth and a bulletproof vest, so to speak? Once you start it seems as though you will have plenty of assistance in the corrections and complaints department. Bonne chance.Dave (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bronze age and Goliath legend[edit]

I don't know about you, but I've always had a vague imprint in my mind, that the Mediteranean Bronze age was between 3000 and 1000 bc. and The Iron age really started around 1000 bc with the Hittites of Asia Minor.

I always like to think of the legend of Goliath, the champion Philistine,who was a perfect Bronze/Iron age example of a warrior c. 1050 bc

In the 1Sam 17. narrative, Goliath possesses a curaiss or coat of bronze (over 100lbs)), a helmet of bronze, a sword of bronze, a shield, and a huge spear with an Iron tip weighing several lbs. A great example of the early Iron age.

As the story goes, the men of Israel hardly had a sword and armor among the whole army, except for Saul and his son. This would make Goliath even more of a threat on the battle-field with his state of the art cuttlery.

The Old Testament is clearly Iron Age; the Iron age begins around 1400 in Anatolia, but only gets into full swing around 1000 BC. The Tanakh may contain memories of the Bronze Age, much like Homer, but was clearly composed in the early Iron Age (early to mid 1st millennium). 11:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ban Chiang, Thailand, NOT East Asia[edit]

Thailand is not considered East Asia. Thailand is considered SOUTHEast Asia. East Asia is China, Japan, Korea, and all that.

yikes...archaeology NOT history[edit]

the above info on the CD indicates this is in the history category. wha? so what do the CD organisers think the archaeologists are doing, I wonder? digging dinosaurs. wha? i don't get it. Only in Wikipedia I guess (?!?!). Whoops! Mumun 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that the CD has a limited number of categories and so the organisers put archaeological-prehistoric topics into the history category (doh!). Mumun 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The map[edit]

The map is inaccurate and should be revised. By 2000 BC Ireland, for example, had a well developed bronze industry based on the mining of copper from sites such as Mount Gabriel, Co. Kerry and the production of Ballybeg type flat axes. Axes were also being exported to Britian and the Continent and there is, for example, an Irish axe known from the Dieskau hoard. (Cmount 11:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

The map makes no sense without the color definitions, wht does yellow mean?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

collapse of the bronze age?[edit]

what about the unknown cause of devastating collapse of the bronze age and the invasion of the existing civilizations by the "sea people" or "sea tribes" --voodoom 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the Benefit of Bronze[edit]

Someone needs to explain why the coming of Bronze was such a big deal. What did bronze allow that stone, tin or copper would not? AFter all, they do name an entire age for the stuff. It must have been ground-breaking. It's a real shame that all we have on this page is a bunch of historical story-telling and no overall explanation of the value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

you cannot make tools or weaponry out of Copper or Tin. Sophisticated flint tools can in fact compete with Bronze, but at some point they'll just shatter and then cannot be fixed. Bronze blades can be re-sharpened, or if completely broken, melted down and recast. dab (𒁳) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
One most certainly can - which is what was done in the Copper Age. However, bronze was superior over copper, just as iron is superior over bronze. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Why doesn't the Bronze Age have a nifty Latin name, like the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic and the Paleolithic? 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

good question. La-wiki has Aevum Aeris or Aenea aetas. I find it surprising that no "learned" term has caught on, since the "Brazen Age" is based on Hesiod's Ages of Man. dab (𒁳) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to both questions: 1) the earliest copper tools date back to about 11,000 BC (made from cold-working of native copper) but stone tools still greatly outnumbered metal tools until the invention of bronze about 7,500 years later, at which point stone tools largely disappeared. On the second question, whether a term is considered "learned" is essentially an epiphenomenon (accidental side-effect of something else) or emergent property (accidental side-effect that takes on a life of its own). That, plus the rule "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

French sword blade[edit]

I am not sure if Image:Sword bronze age (2nd version).jpg is an appropriate image for the lead. First of all, the blade is broken. There are much better preserved bronze blades we could display. Then, I doubt it is really a "sword" blade. The date given is 800 BC, which would be the very end of the European Bronze Age. In this period, I suppose the blade shown would be considered a dagger. And, in any case, an image representing the "Bronze Age" (not just the European Bronze Age probably shouldn't reflect 1st millennium BC Europe, but the 3rd to 2nd millennium BC Near East. dab (𒁳) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Andean Bronze Age[edit]

The section on an "Andean Bronze Age" stood completely unreferenced, and I am cutting it to here pending attribution:

An Andean bronze bottle made by Chimú artisans from c. 1300 AD.
The Bronze Age in the Andes region of South America is thought to have begun at about 1300 BC[dubious ] when Chavin artisans discovered how to alloy copper with tin. The first objects produced were mostly utilitarian in nature, such as axes, knives, and agricultural implements. Decorative work in gold, silver and copper was already a highly developed tradition, and as the Chavin became more experienced in bronze-working technology they produced many ornate and highly decorative objects for administrative, religious, and other ceremonial purposes.

--dab (𒁳) 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely removing the whole section of the Andean Bronze age gives the misleading impression that no American cultures worked bronze.

A simple "The Andean cultures had not left the bronze age at the time of Spanish Conquest" is better than no mention at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the bronze of different types was used in precolombian civilizations, in Moche culture in Peru and Tiwanaku in Bolivia. See Lechtman's paper (in Spanish): El bronce y el horizonte medio It is 1000 years older than the "Inca civilization" mentioned in the present form of the article. Mokhin (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Central Asia[edit]

I've removed the section because I can't find the article it is sourced from. The reference cites this issue: [1] but the web page lists no article by Keys. I'm pretty dubious about Keys in any case as a good source, his book Catastrophe was slated by the British archaeologist Ken Dark who wrote "it fails to demonstrate its central thesis and does not offer a convincing explanation for the many changes discussed" and "much of the apparent evidence presented in the book is highly debatable, based on poor sources or simply incorrect." There are other sources, eg [2] which is a review. dougweller (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The citation I supplied is to a journal article and not to a web page, which is why you cannot find it. This should have been obvious by its journal format. I am happy to provide a scanned copy if you give me your email address. The research does not claim to be Keys own. He is reporting on the findings ofhers. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's actually a news article in the magazine, which is why it doesn't appear in the contents list on the BBC's webpage. Sadly it gives no sources. It would be much better to actually use what the original writers have said, especially as at least one practicing British archaeologist has suggested that Keys is inaccurate at times. What do you think? dougweller (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it is a news article and it certainly does not read like it is Keys' own work - here he is reporting on the work of others. Many Wikipedia articles quote news items as sources although I agree that in the context of a prehistory / archaelogical piece, this is less common. I tried to balance the tone of the material by using the word "conjecture" twice - and given that it relates to events that took place 4,000 years ago, it is no more or less verifiable than other events of that time period. I have done a web search of the expression "Seima-Turbino Phenomenon" and it is does seem to be a topic recognised in archaelogical literature connected with the period. I am just a lay person with no special background in archaelogy but it did strike me that there was a gap in the Bronze Age Wikipedia article by failing to mention the phenomenon at all. I have tried to make my insertion as brief as possible and to include qualitative caveats, but please feel free to modify the text based on your own reading of the material. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation in Chinese[edit]

While Wikipedia remains committed to internationalism it has not yet resolved to write articles in a mixture of languages. We have an English Wikipedia, a French Wikipedia, a Hungarian Wikipedia, etc. Each Wikipedia is dedicated to the language of the population for which it was written. Although it is true I have used French or Italian or German references when I had to, it was never in a context so as to be incomprehensible. There are a good many scripts across the world. Americans as a whole cannot be competant in all of them. As I see it, we must do our best to make the English Wikipedia comprehensible to English speakers. Now, most people cannot read Chinese. I am therefore commenting this ref out. Find another in English. I said the same thing to the Hungarians and they didn't like it too much so I do not imagine the author of this ref will like it too much either. This is not an exercise in figuring out the obscure (you get a banana if you get the answer). I would suggest putting in the English translation of the site. I'm really quite impressed by your knowledge of Chinese. Bravo. I don't see that it does us any good here, except to verify the facts stated in English. No offense intended.Dave (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. I said Chinese - I see now it is Korean. Of course I don't know either, or Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai, Burmese, etc etc etc, for hundreds of languages, as do not most people reading this Wikipedia. That only underscores the problem.Dave (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Iron smelting in ancient China[edit]

The article on Chinese bronze age says iron smelting was mentioned in a 6th century BC source, "making it a possible Chinese invention", which is an oxymoron given that the bronze age stars in about 1200 BC in the Near East followed closely by Western Africa.

That statement looks confused to me. But I agree: even if iron was smelted in China in the 6th century BC, then this is not a very early date for iron. There are Anatolian iron production sites about a millennium earlier if I recall correctly. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the Metsamor Foundry in Armenia from 5000-4000 BC?[edit]

This seems to be one of the oldest foundry in the World but not mentioned here... Metsamor Foundry --Codrinb (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That site is not what would be considered an objective Reliable Source. For this to be substantiated, some peer-reviewed source would need to be referenced. I have not heard that this has been established in any definite way. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Near East[edit]

What are the sources for the Ancient Near Eastern chronology here?? Because it is completely wrong ... the Early Bronze Age comprises the entire third millennium (now possibly even going into the first century of the second millennium). Srenette (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)srenette

Aegean is in Europe[edit]

stop putting the Aegean in the section the near east, the Aegean is in europe the Aegean is mostly Greek and some smaller islands in turkey. Agean is Greek.......Greece is in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Date consistency[edit]

Started making individual sections consistent w/ regard to BC/BCE stuff ... then realized it was a whole page problem following the large rewrite earlier this month -- so stopped as I don't really want to get into that whole can-o-worms. Therefor, anyone can undo my stuff, but let's be consistent over the article (and relevant templates). Vsmith (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Bronze Age no transition[edit]

As the concept of the 3 ages was developed, there are the ages and then there are the transitions to the ages. A transition is a period that starts at one period and is gradually modified into the characteristics of another. The use of bronze is not in any way a transition between the use of stone and the use of iron. What transitions there were is often a matter of hot dispute. Now, the Copper Age, you can argue that it is a transition to the Bronze Age because the manufacture of bronze came about as an adjunct to the manufacture of copper. As traditionally in archaeology the three ages themselves are NOT the transitions I am taking out transition. For more verification read Three-age system.Dave (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Historically, not archeologically, it's a transitional period. --J. D. Redding 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The refs[edit]

I notice the refs are not done properly. I disagree also with the judgements on what to ref. And finally, WP policy is against long chains of footnote numbers. One example is, the fact that the the Bronze Age is the 2nd principle period had 3 chained refs on it. That is a no-brainer, it does not even need a ref, much less three; moreover the first was only a comment repeating what the sentence was saying. But, I suppose the editor really meant that if we want to know about that subject we should read the works he cited. On WP that sort of thing is generally placed in additional reading. That is what I mean about the refs. It is going to need a going-through to fix all that. This article is not far down in my list. Meanwhile you might want to read three-age system which is closer to being done now. It has enough I think to clarify the 3-age system, so we don't have to reinvent it here. I'll be back.Dave (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy is against long chains of footnote numbers? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Style? --J. D. Redding 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hallstatt Age[edit]

Hallstatt Age A and B belong to the late Bronze Age (identic with Urnfield Age). Hallstatt Age C and D belong to the Iron Age (see Wiki entry 'Hallstatt Age'.

Early Bronze Age[edit]

You cannot say that all Early Bronze Age in central Europe is Unetice / Aunjetitz. This is one culture (or style) of several ones in geography as well as time period. (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous timeline dates[edit]

I've noticed that the timelines (starting here) don't explain what the dates refer to. It's ambiguous as to whether they mean X BC, or X years ago. Also the horizontal ones use negative numbers, while the vertical one uses descending positive numbers. Could someone edit the timelines to either clarify the labels or add a legend, and standardize them with (preferably) positive numbers? --Yoda of Borg (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Outside the Bronze Age[edit]

This article currently has a section called "Outside the Bronze Age", but it's not at all clear what that means. It seems like maybe it's trying to make the point that not all civilizations had a Bronze Age, but it's not clear why that would be "outside" the Bronze Age. I think this section needs to be clarified a bit, maybe a brief paragraph explaining why it's there and what it's supposed to mean, possibly renaming it or possibly even just eliminating the section entirely. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

article lacks largely concrete references to bronze technology! and a critical definition of the bronze age and its phases...[edit]

most of the article, especially in the essential sections on the near east, the article delivers all sorts of rough history data, without even mentioning bronze and its defining, essential role, typical bronze objects, their significance for various usages, or bronze production technology (alloys and their qualities and/or deficiencies), not to talk about important questions of definition: when does the bronze age actually start - by definition?! if you look at the german article about the bronze age you will read that a) bronze is an alloy of copper and tin and then b) that in the so-called early bronze age there was practically only an alloy of copper and arsenic around, like already before in the chalcolithic, and this only in small and insignificant quantities and that bronze, especially the 'real one' (copper-tin) took over to a significant degree only in the so-called middle bronze age (roughly after 2000 bc)... so why does one not talk about the early bronze age as late chalcolithic? especially since the typical traits of the bronze age - international trade and war lords with significant bronze weapons (e.g. the greek "wanax") controlling it (without any interest in those archaic gigantic 'magical' buildings like pyramids...) - appear only in the 'middle' and late bronze age...? could someone please be a bit more concrete on these questions? I would really like to know when bronze (not the brittle arsenic alloy) really became practically significant in the various societies and how (which tools, weapons, cult objects, decorative objects?; important, substantial, defining usage...? )?! and sometimes I have the impression that archaeologists, defining epochs, should think of a german proverb: one swallow allone doesn't yet make for the arrival of spring... (so one wise, famous egyptologist said that the whole egyptian culture essentially remained a stone age culture - despite evidently the odd copper or bronze implement...) thank you! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What is Neolithic?[edit]

What is Neolithic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Age sub-divisions[edit]

Why the HELL add age sub-divisions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Bronze Age[edit]

Was there a Spanish Bronze age and, if there was, when was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


How can the Copper Age replace the Stone Age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


I don't understand symbollanguages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Bronze discovery[edit]

Would like to see the part about the discovery of bronze in China to be rewritten including this source by Donald Wagner :

Added Archives[edit]

I will add %d access-dates and %d archive urls to the citations in this page. Details:

--Tim1357 talk|poke 01:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No logic[edit]

There is no logical connection between the introduction of writing and the alloy bronze.

Where does the article make the connection? Doug Weller talk 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In the first line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)