Criticism Three-age system

1 criticism

1.1 unsound epochalism
1.2 simplisticism
1.3 eurocentrism

criticism

the three-age system has been criticized since @ least 19th century. every phase of development has been contested. of arguments have been presented against follow.

unsound epochalism

in cases criticism resulted in other, parallel three-age systems, such concepts expressed lewis henry morgan in ancient society, based on ethnology. these disagreed metallic basis of epochization. critic substituted own definitions of epochs. vere gordon childe said of cultural anthropologists:

last century herbert spencer, lewis h. morgan , tylor propounded divergent schemes ... arranged these in logical order .... assumed logical order temporal one.... competing systems of morgan , tylor remained equally unverified—and incompatible—theories.

more recently, many archaeologists have questioned validity of dividing time epochs @ all. example, 1 recent critic, graham connah, describes three-age system epochalism , asserts:

so many archaeological writers have used model long many readers has taken on reality of own. in spite of theoretical agonizing of last half-century, epochalism still alive , ... in parts of world model still in common use, needs accepted that, example, there never such thing bronze age.

simplisticism

some view three-age system over-simple; is, neglects vital detail , forces complex circumstances mold not fit. rowlands argues division of human societies epochs based on presumption of single set of related changes not realistic:

but more rigorous sociological approach has begun show changes @ economic, political , ideological levels not of apiece have come realise time may segmented in many ways convenient researcher concerned.

the three-age system relative chronology. explosion of archaeological data acquired in 20th century intended elucidate relative chronology in detail. 1 consequence collection of absolute dates. connah argues:

as radiocarbon , other forms of absolute dating contributed more detailed , more reliable chronologies, epochal model ceased necessary.

peter bogucki of princeton university summarizes perspective taken many modern archaeologists:

although modern archaeologists realize tripartite division of prehistoric society far simple reflect complexity of change , continuity, terms ‘bronze age’ still used general way of focusing attention on particular times , places , facilitating archaeological discussion.

eurocentrism

another common criticism attacks broader application of three-age system cross-cultural model social change. model designed explain data europe , west asia, archaeologists have attempted use explain social , technological developments in other parts of world such americas, australasia, , africa. many archaeologists working in these regions have criticized application eurocentric. graham connah writes that:

... attempts eurocentric archaeologists apply model african archaeology have produced little more confusion, whereas in americas or australasia has been irrelevant, ...

alice b. kehoe further explains position relates american archaeology:

... professor wilson s presentation of prehistoric archaeology european product carried across atlantic promote american science compatible european model.

she goes on complain of wilson accepted , reprised idea european course of development paradigmatic humankind. criticism argues different societies of world underwent social , technological developments in different ways. sequence of events describes developments of 1 civilization may not apply another, in view. instead social , technological developments must described within context of society being studied.