Talk:Bronze Age/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What?

I don't understand symbollanguages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.233.134 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Bronze discovery

Would like to see the part about the discovery of bronze in China to be rewritten including this source by Donald Wagner : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mxZsguBzwZMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=donald+wagner+bronze+china&source=bl&ots=qb23tZaRpv&sig=uzXZzaneGAXHHQpF06Bi4laOW4I&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhlt-ZzvfLAhXEXCwKHRe3CMwQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=donald%20wagner%20bronze%20china&f=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbgtvrjsci85d (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Added Archives

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

• Added access date for https://books.google.com/books?id=gBCl2IQfNioC&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for https://books.google.nl/books?id=8qvY8pxVxcwC&pg=PA57, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://www.nga.gov/education/chinatp_pt2.shtm, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/1000bce_ko.htm, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/43-2/Science.pdf, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://myanmartravelinformation.com/mti-archealogical-sites/nyaunggan.htm, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://www.lablaa.org/blaavirtual/publicacionesbanrep/bolmuseo/1996/jldi41/jldi01a.htm, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://incas.homestead.com/inca_metallurgy_copper.html, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://cdm16028.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15324coll10/id/107906, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://www.sidestone.com/library/bronze-age-metalworking-in-the-netherlands-c2000-800bc, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15324coll10/id/33948, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too
• Added access date for http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf, (see diff when it was first added to article); Added archive url too

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

No logic

There is no logical connection between the introduction of writing and the alloy bronze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.189.42 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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 84.93.189.42 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

grave deficiency in matters of definition! "early bronze age" rather = "chalcolithic"??!

may be I overlooked something, but I could not find how actually "early bronze age" is defined as distinguished from "middle b. a."; and then late bronze age... such definitions should stand right at the beginning! I stumbled across one definition-attempt somewhere in the midst of the text: '... the term "Bronze Age", as it has been applied to signify a period in history when bronze tools replaced stone tools..." o.k., then I would like to see how in the "early bronze age" in egypt, i.e. the predynastic period and the old kingdom bronze tools - not to speak of bronze weapons - replaced stone tools to any substantial degree...?! it is typical for the article - and may be the scientific use of the term - that no concrete examples of bronze objects and their dating and their proportion of usage is given, especially for the so-called early bronze age...

I would ask if it makes sense to talk about an (early) bronze age where may be some isolated rare bronze objects are found (where it is often difficult to say if the alloy is not of natural origin), without any substantial significance for the overall culture?! My impression is that rather the early "high cultures", in mesopotamia and egypt at least, are substantially CHALCOLITHIC, i.e. soft metals (copper, gold) are used essentially for representative purposes; but the general technology (tools, weapons) remains neolithic, or, if anything, a copper technology (copper chisels e.g. in egypt)!

indicative of the problem are the following time-frames given in the article about the indus valley civilisation: "Chalcolithic (3500–1500 BCE) - Bronze Age (3300–1300 BCE)" - right next to each other - without any sign of wonder, astonishment or beginning of a thought-process...

I would suggest to talk of early bronze age, when at least 25 % of tools and/or weapons and/or cult-objects (erlitou, shang!) are of bronze, of middle bronze age, when at least 75 %, and of late bronze age, when substantial signs of a dwindling of bronze tools/weapons/objects set in because of a raw material supply problem and/or a replacement by iron... so, roughly speaking, a reasonable periodisation could be something like: e.b.a.: 2200 - 1800, middle or high b.a.: 1800 - 1200, l.b.a.: 1200 - 1000, iron age: 1000 and following (taking those isolated iron objects found before as precursors).

so please introduce clear definitions and clear prototypical examples and proportions of usage of bronze objects in comparison to stone, copper, gold, jade and iron (at least)! thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Map error

Cornwall is marked with the copper marker. But this area is first of all known for it's tin deposits. The map does not show proper information in the context of Bronze Age. --Mueslifix (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This article reaks of bias against South Asia

only three lines have been written on SA's bronze age which is also shoved to the very end of the article which was evidently the first to develop the lost wax casting technology which helped in transformation from stone age to copper and bronze age. the SA's bronze sculptures are also one of the earliest recorded bronze sculptures in the world.

At 6,000 years, the amulet is the oldest known example of this technique. Eventually, lost-wax casting would be used to produce countless functional objects — knives, water vessels, utensils, tools — as well as jewelry, religious figurines, impressive metal statues of gods, kings and heroes. The technique helped societies transition from the Stone Age to the ages of copper and bronze and gave rise to new and powerful types of culture. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's only this way because no one has been interested in or knowledgeable about South Asia. Go for it. But use academic sources please. 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

References

World map

World maps showing the approximate beginning and ending of the period would be very helpful. -- Beland (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Legend of the first picture

As the picture is that of a sculpture of a head, it is not a "bust", and the legend is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouzzler (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Bust (sculpture): "a sculpted or cast representation of the upper part of the human figure, depicting a person's head and neck, and a variable portion of the chest and shoulders." Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Bronze metallurgy in China

Currently, the article includes the following two statements.

"In China, the earliest bronze artifacts have been found in the Majiayao culture site (between 3100 and 2700 BC).[35][36]"

"Bronze metallurgy in China originated in what is referred to as the Erlitou (Wade–Giles: Erh-li-t'ou) period, which some historians argue places it within the range of dates controlled by the Shang dynasty.[41] "

Clearly these two statements are in conflict, and it seems likely that the second is incorrect, but an expert should consider how to reword it so that it is correct.Ordinary Person (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Americas

There's a very brief mention of the Americas at the end of the article, and no entry for the Americas in the side bars. Do Norte Chico civilizations not count as Bronze Age simply because they we don't have evidence for metallurgy until later? Is this article about the time period of the Bronze Age or specifically about the role of bronze metalworking in the development after the neolithic era?

Perhaps it would be useful to fork this article into one focusing on the developments in metalworking and one about general civilization history during the time period of the Bronze Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratermoon (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is about cultures using bronze as the hardest metal. I don't think it is at all a usual term for describing the Americas, who have their own period schemes, with "horizons" etc. See Iron Age for a fuller account of where thyese terms are & are not used. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

English Variant

Since the earliest revision of this article is in British English, per WP:RETAIN, we should retain this variant, unless there is a compelling reason (WP:TIES) to change it. Elizium23 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Pontic–Caspian steppe

The paragraph has no single reference and does not meet wikipedia standards. This might be due to the confused and substandard Russian literature, where e.g., NL Morgunova (2016) noted eleven times the word "Bronze" without a single definition, let alone any find or dating. All their datings just refer to their four alleged states of the Pit-Grave culture.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:4CE5:6B7:902B:86B (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Three Age System

"The [Three Age] schema, however, has little or no utility for establishing chronological frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa, much of Asia, the Americas and some other areas; and has little importance in contemporary archaeological or anthropological discussion for these regions." I think this article is seriously flawed by not saying this upfront and by not explaining that the term(s) have a meaning to the general public which isn't very useful for expert consideration. The Stone/Bronze/Iron Age system was useful in early archeology because the stone, bronze, and iron artifacts were fairly easy to find at a given site. What it is not is a definite period in history, despite what this article's lead claims! 207.155.85.22 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Introduction

Within the first sentence of the article, the sentence reads “ The Bronze Age is a historic period, approximately how about it is for Christmas Day Easter 🐣 birthday 🎂 and 3300 BC to 1200 BC…” This appears like a deliberate error and should be revised to no longer deviate from the topic. 100.11.240.111 (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a vandal 20 mins before. Now reverted. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 青銅器, 戰國, 爵杯, 夏商周, ritual bronzes age, the Warring States, Wine Vessel, Jue Cup, 016.jpg
• 駱越文化, 青銅鼓, Dong Son, Bronze Drum, the Warring States period, 0180 07.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

LeBron James

Anyone hear of the absolutely hilarious set of memes circling the Internet that feature incorrect phonetic spellings of Lebron James' name, such as Gerard Way or The Bronze Jade? Figure I bring that up here since this is one of the articles being used in the meme. MightyArms (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Bronze age

The bronze age was the period when must tools and weapons used were made of bronze . It succeeds a culture of the copper age . The technology in use during this period was also very primitive . Moulding of bronze became popular about this time. 105.112.44.152 (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• In other news, water is wet. MightyArms (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Bronze age in Scandinavia

In Scandinavia bronze was the dominant material for tools, weapons and jewellery until the end of the 5th or 6th century AD. 51.175.195.49 (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That's rather different (and similar to other areas). The Iron Age begins when iron becomes available, even if bronze continues to be very widely used. And iron jewellery has never caught on. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"5th or 6th century AD" I think you meant BC. Ario1234 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

But that's pretty much what the article says, so why raise the point here? Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

How was bronze created

After thousands of years using stone,people discovered copper.Copper is a soft metal which banda easily.Wgen copper and tin are melted togheter,it becomes bronze,a strong and hard metal.The melted copper and tin were poured into stone molds and when the bronze cooled it,it would take the form în the stone. 77.243.67.36 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for such questions. It is an encyclopedia, this is where you bring collected and finished knowledge. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional Use of the Holocene calendar in conjunction with traditional AD/BC - CE/BCE

I'm curious to know why there has been push back on this and some other articles from the use of the Holocene Calendar in addition to traditional dating systems.

From an academic standpoint the HE dating system makes more sense as it shows the proper flow of history from the beginning of the Holocene Era to date and can help show the proper gulf of time between events, peoples and cultures across the world, it can be viewed as a more unifying calendar across human society as it has a fixed date not reliant on any particular religions or cultures dating systems.

To be clear I'm not advocating for a complete change of all dating on Wikipedia to the HE system, just the addition of the HE dates alongside traditional dating systems by those who wish to take the time to make the edits.

Cheers,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

there's room on wikipedia for innovation in presentation but on the whole its content is meant to reflect consensus and convention in terminology and presentation, see WP:COMMONNAME, which is analogous here i feel. basically, you're doing something which is mostly outside both the sources the article is meant to be built around, as well as the consensus of editors, which together is almost always a no-no Remsense聊 20:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, to be clear I'm not advocating to an across the board revision just on major overview articles for historical time periods such as the Bronze Age, Iron Age etc or timeline articles.

Re: Common Names aspect a name only becomes common through use and seeing it in place this could be a step towards such an outcome to be fair.

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's something that should be discussed on the talk page and has consensus established *before* it's implemented, is the order things are usually best to go in. As per the latter point you're making, I empathize with it, but as Wikipedia is a tertiary source, it's usually best practice to follow the practices elsewhere rather than be the leader in such shifts, if that makes sense.

Specifically, there's MOS:ERA that you should take a look at, it's the section of the Manual of Style specifically about eras in date formatting. Remsense聊 20:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair point but then again if it's put up and no one objects then there's no issue, to be fair I'm surprised anyone objected to the addition of what is quickly becoming academic standard that's why I moved into the Talk page rather than continuing a tit for tat edit war.

I appreciate your empathy in the matter but just because it's a tertiary source doesn't mean we can't innovate whether it be with topics such as this or others, I do get what you mean though I don't necessarily agree with it though Wikipedia can be more than just a site for a quick reference and the occasional rabbit hole.

I had a look at the MOS:ERA it was an interesting read, I then looked at the revision history it seems it was only done by around 50 people if it's decentralized who elected them to make such decisions limiting the input of thousands of other editors?

Of course there has to be standardization in such things more for aesthetic reasons than anything else, for such far reaching decisions there should be an election feature with confirmed editors in a direct democracy style if it's something your interested in you vote if not you don't majority rules 1 week time limit for vote with 2 weeks notice before (just of the top of my head.)

The issue I have with a decentralized encyclopedia is that some form of hierarchy and in many cases "tyranny" will establish itself it's human nature, in fairness Wikipedia needs a centralized decision making core employed by Wikipedia for the purpose of regulation and review held to academic standards. (that's a bit of a side rant to be fair)

kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

i'm afraid that's not what i or the guidelines said! consensus is required to affect the intentions/encoded message of an article as such. i agree with regard to "decentralization" often just meaning obfuscated unilateral power, but if i can be honest, wikipedia has probably one of the most robust cultures and norms to ward off possessive attitudes and unilateral action against consensus that I can think of. to reiterate, though i hate using this language: you've explicitly stated that you've come to tweak the article to actively promoted a given date system, as opposed to reflecting a level of existing use already existing in the world, which is unfortunately likely not sufficient for adoption in such an a generalist article. this is generally not an attitude that is very conducive to collaboration on wiki, because we rely on external verification to squash what tyrannies would ordinarily arise from differences in opinion and personality, for better and for worse, wikipedia is in large part a reflection of consensus. if all that makes sense Remsense聊 04:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

cultural region versus cultural phase

User:37.35.188.144, could you please explain the distinctions in a bit more detail? as someone who is certainly not an archaeologist but knows a bit, the paragraphs are very unclear to me and I imagine they are even moreso for a general audience. Remsense留 21:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A cultural region is a large geographic space with the same culture. On the contrary, a cultural phase is a subperiod of a cultural period. In the Western Europe section we must have subsections by regions: Great Britain, Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.132.80.86 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)