Thank you for reminding us of the origins of this methodology. My
first exposure was with Worsaae's English translation and his name also
stuck in my mind, but it's nice to have this information on the earlier
origins, particularly Suhm in 1776.
But Vedel-Simonsen's remarks below regarding the overlapping of
these periods is something we all need to remember as well as
chronological differences of these ages in different places. We have
vivid examples of this in our own age, two examples: the 1-2-3 holer
privvie's and gaslight which I can remember were still around 50 years
ago, and there of course hundreds of other examples. Neverthless,
archaeologically these 'Ages' have stood us in good stead when it comes
to understanding the impact of the spread of technology on past cultures
Thanks Rik for resurrecting the subject.
On 3/19/04 12:35 AM Trevor Watkins writes:
>Without any doubt the use of
>stone implements continued among the more impoverished groups after the
>introduction of copper, and similarly objects of copper were used after
>the introduction of iron . . . artifacts of wood have naturally
>decomposed, those of iron are rusted in the ground; it is those of stone
>and copper which are the best preserved."