I thought the Iron Age was a construct, referring to the material
predominantly used for making tools and does not conclude until the age of
steel (ie the blast furnace - 16th century in UK I think). Maybe this means
we are now in the silicon age. If we are to mix this kind of "relative
period term type" with others (eg Antiquity/Middle Ages/Modern), then we
need to be very clear about what we are doing and why.
I'm still drawn to the use of cal BP (an archaeological method of time
measurement) especially to avoid confusion over BC/AD or BCE/CE, although it
will confuse everyone, including me. As time goes on, we will increasingly
find ourselves counting minus numbers again, so maybe it isn't such a great
idea.
If we do stick to using dates as the principal means of determining
chronology, relative period terms can still be used in a variety of ways to
describe a range of (essentially) cultural groupings. These groupings may be
based on a present day conceptual framework that will probably be outdated
in another half century or so, but it is nonetheless valid to try to define
them.
If we try to draw up a standard reference chronology for the UK, we must
also be aware of the implications for European and worldwide archaeological
chronologies. Whatever we try to do, we need to get on the same
philosophical wavelength (whichever set of relative period terms we decide
to use) with our overseas colleagues, so we all understand what we are
trying to do. Has anyone else done this, or is anyone else heading down the
same path?
Duncan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|