Editing Three-age system (section)

== Origin ==
{{excessive detail|section|date=January 2025}}
The concept of dividing pre-historical ages into systems based on metals extends far back in [[European history]], probably originated by [[Lucretius]] in the first century BC. But the present archaeological system of the three main ages – stone, bronze and iron – originates with the 19th century Danish archaeologist [[Christian Jürgensen Thomsen]], who placed the system on a more scientific basis by typological and chronological studies, at first, of tools and other [[Artifact (archaeology)|artifacts]] present in the Museum of Northern Antiquities in Copenhagen (later the [[National Museum of Denmark]]).<ref>Barnes, p. 27–28.</ref> He later used artifacts and the excavation reports published or sent to him by Danish archaeologists who were doing controlled excavations. His position as curator of the museum gave him enough visibility to become highly influential on Danish archaeology. A well-known and well-liked figure, he explained his system in person to visitors at the museum, many of them professional archaeologists.

=== The Metallic Ages of Hesiod ===
[[File:Hesiod and the Muse.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|left|Hesiod inspired by the Muse, [[Gustave Moreau]], 1891]]
In his poem ''[[Works and Days]]'', the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] poet [[Hesiod]], possibly between 750 and 650 BC, defined five successive [[Ages of Man]]: Golden, Silver, Bronze, Heroic and Iron.<ref>Lines 109–201.</ref> Only the Bronze Age and the Iron Age are based on the use of metal:<ref>Lines 140–155, translator [[Richmond Lattimore]].</ref>

<blockquote>... then Zeus the father created the third generation of mortals, the age of bronze ... They were terrible and strong, and the ghastly action of Ares was theirs, and violence. ... The weapons of these men were bronze, of bronze their houses, and they worked as bronzesmiths. There was not yet any black iron.</blockquote>

Hesiod knew from the traditional poetry, such as the ''[[Iliad]]'', and the heirloom bronze artifacts that abounded in [[Ancient Greece|Greek society]], that before the use of iron to make tools and weapons, bronze had been the preferred material and iron was not smelted at all. He did not continue the manufacturing metaphor, but mixed his metaphors, switching over to the market value of each metal. Iron was cheaper than bronze, so there must have been a golden and a silver age. He portrays a sequence of metallic ages, but it is a degradation rather than a progression. Each age has less of a moral value than the preceding.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ages of Man According to Hesiod |first=Thomas |last=Armstrong |url=https://www.institute4learning.com/2019/07/23/the-stages-of-life-according-to-hesiod/ |access-date=2020-05-29 |website=www.institute4learning.com |archive-date=6 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806075512/https://www.institute4learning.com/2019/07/23/the-stages-of-life-according-to-hesiod/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Of his own age he says:<ref>Lines 161–169.</ref> "And I wish that I were not any part of the fifth generation of men, but had died before it came, or had been born afterward."

=== The Progress of Lucretius ===
The moral metaphor of the ages of metals continued. [[Lucretius]], however, replaced moral degradation with the concept of progress,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Beye |first=Charles Rowan |date=January 1963 |title=Lucretius and Progress |journal=The Classical Journal |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=160–169}}</ref> which he conceived to be like the growth of an individual human being. The concept is evolutionary:<ref>[[De Rerum Natura]], Book V, about Line 800 ff. The translator is [[Ronald Latham]].</ref>

<blockquote>For the nature of the world as a whole is altered by age. Everything must pass through successive phases. Nothing remains forever what it was. Everything is on the move. Everything is transformed by nature and forced into new paths ... The Earth passes through successive phases, so that it can no longer bear what it could, and it can now what it could not before.</blockquote>

[[File:Lucretius De Rerum Natura 1675 page 1.jpg|thumb|First page of {{lang|la|De Rerum Natura}} (1675), with a dedication to {{lang|la|Alma Venus}}]]
The Romans believed that animal species and humans were spontaneously generated from the materials of the Earth, because of which the Latin word {{lang|la|mater}} 'mother', descends to English-speakers as ''matter'' and ''material''. In Lucretius the Earth is a mother, Venus, to whom the poem is dedicated in the first few lines. She brought forth humankind by spontaneous generation. Having been given birth as a species, humans must grow to maturity by analogy with the individual. The different phases of their collective life are marked by the accumulation of customs to form material civilization:<ref>''[[De Rerum Natura]]'', Book V, around Line 1200 ff.</ref>

<blockquote>The earliest weapons were hands, nails and teeth. Next came stones and branches wrenched from trees, and fire and flame as soon as these were discovered. Then men learnt to use tough iron and copper. With copper they tilled the soil. With copper they whipped up the clashing waves of war, ... Then by slow degrees the iron sword came to the fore; the bronze sickle fell into disrepute; the ploughman began to cleave the earth with iron, ...</blockquote>

Lucretius envisioned a pre-technological human that was "far tougher than the men of today ... They lived out their lives in the fashion of wild beasts roaming at large."<ref>''De Rerum Natura'', Book V around Line 940 ff.</ref> The next stage was the use of huts, fire, clothing, language and the family. City-states, kings and citadels followed them. Lucretius supposes that the initial smelting of metal occurred accidentally in forest fires. The use of copper followed the use of stones and branches and preceded the use of iron.

=== Early lithic analysis by Michele Mercati ===
[[File:Specola, medaglione di michele mercati.JPG|thumb|left|Michele Mercati, Commemorative Medal]]
By the 16th century, a tradition had developed based on observational incidents, true or false, that the black objects found widely scattered in large quantities over Europe had fallen from the sky during thunderstorms and were therefore to be considered generated by lightning. They were so published by [[Konrad Gessner]] in ''De rerum fossilium, lapidum et gemmarum maxime figuris & similitudinibus'' at Zurich in 1565 and by many others less famous.<ref>{{harvnb|Goodrum|2008|p=483}}</ref> The name ceraunia, "thunderstones", had been assigned.

Ceraunia were collected by many persons over the centuries including [[Michele Mercati]], Superintendent of the Vatican Botanical Garden in the late 16th century. He brought his collection of fossils and stones to the Vatican, where he studied them at leisure, compiling the results in a manuscript, which was published posthumously by the Vatican at Rome in 1717 as ''Metallotheca''. Mercati was interested in Ceraunia cuneata, "wedge-shaped thunderstones", which seemed to him to be most like axes and arrowheads, which he now called ceraunia vulgaris, "folk thunderstones", distinguishing his view from the popular one.<ref>{{harvnb|Goodrum|2008|p=494}}</ref> His view was based on what may be the first in-depth [[lithic analysis]] of the objects in his collection, which led him to believe that they are artifacts and to suggest that the historical evolution of these artefacts followed a scheme.

Mercati, examining the surfaces of the ceraunia, noted that the stones were of flint and that they had been chipped all over by another stone to achieve by percussion their current forms. The protrusion at the bottom he identified as the attachment point of a haft. Concluding that these objects were not ceraunia, he compared collections to determine exactly what they were. Vatican collections included artifacts from the New World of exactly the shapes of the supposed ceraunia. The reports of the explorers had identified them to be implements and weapons or parts of them.<ref>{{harvnb|Goodrum|2008|p=495}}</ref>

Mercati posed the question to himself, why would anyone prefer to manufacture artefacts of stone rather than of metal, a superior material?<ref>{{harvnb|Goodrum|2008|p=496}}.</ref> His answer was that metallurgy was unknown at that time. He cited Biblical passages to prove that in Biblical times stone was the first material used. He also revived the three-age system of Lucretius, which described a succession of periods based on the use of stone (and wood), bronze and iron respectively. Due to lateness of publication, Mercati's ideas were already being developed independently; however, his writing served as a further stimulus.

=== The usages of Mahudel and de Jussieu ===
On 12 November 1734, [[Nicholas Mahudel]], physician, [[antiquarian]] and numismatist, read a paper at a public sitting of the [[Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres|Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres]] in which he defined three "usages" of stone, bronze and iron in a chronological sequence. He had presented the paper several times that year but it was rejected until the November revision was finally accepted and published by the academy in 1740. It was entitled {{lang|fr|Les Monumens les plus anciens de l'industrie des hommes, et des Arts reconnus dans les Pierres de Foudres}}''.''<ref>{{harvnb|Hamy|1906|pp=249–251}}</ref> It expanded the concepts of [[Antoine de Jussieu]], who had gotten a paper accepted in 1723 entitled {{lang|fr|De l'Origine et des usages de la Pierre de Foudre}}.<ref>{{harvnb|Hamy|1906|p=246}}</ref> In Mahudel, there is not just one usage for stone, but two more, one each for bronze and iron.

He begins his treatise with descriptions and classifications of the ''{{lang|fr|Pierres de Tonnerre et de Foudre}}'', the ceraunia of contemporaneous European interest. After cautioning the audience that natural and man-made objects are often easily confused, he asserts that the specific ''figures'' or "formes that can be distinguished" (''{{lang|fr|formes qui les font distingues}}'') of the stones were man-made, not natural:<ref>{{harvnb|Hamy|1906|p=252}}</ref>
<blockquote>It was Man's hand that made them serve as instruments (''{{lang|fr|C'est la main des hommes qui les leur a données pour servir d'instrumens...}}'')</blockquote>

Their cause, he asserts, is "the industry of our forefathers" (''{{lang|fr|l'industrie de nos premiers pères}}''). He adds later that bronze and iron implements imitate the uses of the stone ones, suggesting a replacement of stone with metals. Mahudel is careful not to take credit for the idea of a succession of usages in time but states: "it is Michel Mercatus, physician of Clement VIII who first had this idea".<ref>{{harvnb|Hamy|1906|p=259}}: "c'est a Michel Mercatus, Médecin de Clément VIII, que la première idée est duë..."</ref> He does not coin a term for ages, but speaks only of the times of usages. His use of ''{{lang|fr|l'industrie}}'' foreshadows the 20th century "industries", but where the moderns mean specific tool traditions, Mahudel meant only the art of working stone and metal in general.

=== The three-age system of C. J. Thomsen ===
[[File:Thomsen.jpg|upright=1.15|thumb|Thomsen explaining the Three-age System to visitors at the Museum of Northern Antiquities, then at the Christiansborg Palace, in Copenhagen, 1846. Drawing by Magnus Petersen, Thomsen's illustrator.<ref>{{harvnb|Rowley-Conwy|2007|p=40}}</ref>]]
An important step in the development of the Three-age System came in the period 1816–1825 when the Danish antiquarian [[Christian Jürgensen Thomsen]] was able to use the Danish national collection of antiquities and the records of their finds as well as reports from contemporaneous excavations to provide a solid empirical basis for the system. He showed that artefacts could be classified into types and that these types varied over time in ways that correlated with the predominance of stone, bronze or iron implements and weapons. In this way he turned the Three-age System from being an evolutionary scheme based on intuition and general knowledge into a system of relative [[chronology]] supported by archaeological evidence. Initially, the three-age system as it was developed by Thomsen and his contemporaries in Scandinavia, such as [[Sven Nilsson (zoologist)|Sven Nilsson]] and [[J. J. A. Worsaae]], was grafted onto the traditional biblical chronology. But, during the 1830s they achieved independence from textual chronologies and relied mainly on [[Typology (archaeology)|typology]] and [[stratigraphy]].<ref>{{harvnb|Rowley-Conwy|2007|p=22}}</ref>

In 1816 Thomsen at age 27 was appointed to succeed the retiring Rasmus Nyerup as Secretary of the ''Kongelige Commission for Oldsagers Opbevaring''<ref>{{harvnb|Rowley-Conwy|2007|p=36}}</ref> ("Royal Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities"), which had been founded in 1807.<ref>{{harvnb|Rowley-Conwy|2007|loc=Front Matter, Abbreviations}}</ref> The post was unsalaried; Thomsen had independent means. At his appointment Bishop Münter said that he was an "amateur with a great range of accomplishments." Between 1816 and 1819 he reorganized the commission's collection of antiquities. In 1819 he opened the first Museum of Northern Antiquities, in Copenhagen, in a former monastery, to house the collections.<ref>{{harvnb|Malina|Vašíček|1990|p=37}}</ref> It later became the National Museum.

Like the other antiquarians Thomsen undoubtedly knew of the three-age model of prehistory through the works of [[Lucretius]], the Dane Vedel Simonsen, [[Bernard de Montfaucon|Montfaucon]] and [[Mahudel]]. Sorting the material in the collection chronologically<ref name="Rowley-Conwy 2007 38" /> he mapped out which kinds of artefacts co-occurred in deposits and which did not, as this arrangement would allow him to discern any trends that were exclusive to certain periods. In this way he discovered that stone tools did not co-occur with bronze or iron in the earliest deposits while subsequently bronze did not co-occur with iron – so that three periods could be defined by their available materials, stone, bronze and iron.

To Thomsen the find circumstances were the key to dating. In 1821 he wrote in a letter to fellow prehistorian Schröder:<ref>{{harvnb|Gräslund|1987|p=23}}</ref>
<blockquote>nothing is more important than to point out that hitherto we have not paid enough attention to what was found together.</blockquote>

and in 1822:
<blockquote>we still do not know enough about most of the antiquities either; ... only future archaeologists may be able to decide, but they will never be able to do so if they do not observe what things are found together and our collections are not brought to a greater degree of perfection.</blockquote>

This analysis emphasizing co-occurrence and systematic attention to archaeological context allowed Thomsen to build a chronological framework of the materials in the collection and to classify new finds in relation to the established chronology, even without much knowledge of their provenience. In this way, Thomsen's system was a true chronological system rather than an evolutionary or technological system.<ref>{{harvnb|Gräslund|1987|pp=22, 28}}</ref> Exactly when his chronology was reasonably well established is not clear, but by 1825 visitors to the museum were being instructed in his methods.<ref>{{harvnb|Gräslund|1987|pp=18–19}}</ref> In that year also he wrote to J. G. G. Büsching:<ref>{{harvnb|Rowley-Conwy|2007|pp=298–301}}</ref>
<blockquote>To put artifacts in their proper context I consider it most important to pay attention to the chronological sequence, and I believe that the old idea of first stone, then copper, and finally iron, appears to be ever more firmly established as far as Scandinavia is concerned.</blockquote>

By 1831 Thomsen was so certain of the utility of his methods that he circulated a pamphlet, ''Scandinavian Artefacts and Their Preservation'', advising archaeologists to "observe the greatest care" to note the context of each artifact. The pamphlet had an immediate effect. Results reported to him confirmed the universality of the Three-age System. Thomsen also published in 1832 and 1833 articles in the ''Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed'', "Scandinavian Journal of Archaeology".<ref>{{harvnb|Gräslund|1987|p=24}}</ref> He already had an international reputation when in 1836 the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries published his illustrated contribution to "Guide to Scandinavian Archaeology" in which he put forth his chronology together with comments about typology and stratigraphy.

[[File:Casa reconstruida do castro de Santa Tegra.jpg|thumb|upright=1.15|Reconstructed Iron Age home in Spain]]

Thomsen was the first to perceive typologies of grave goods, grave types, methods of burial, pottery and decorative motifs, and to assign these types to layers found in excavation. His published and personal advice to Danish archaeologists concerning the best methods of excavation produced immediate results that not only verified his system empirically but placed Denmark in the forefront of European archaeology for at least a generation. He became a national authority when C.C Rafn,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Thomsen |first=Christian Jürgensen |title=Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed |publisher=Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab |year=1836 |editor-last=Rafn |editor-first=C. C. |location=Copenhagen |language=da |chapter=Kortfattet udsigt over midesmaeker og oldsager fra Nordens oldtid}}.</ref> secretary of the ''Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab'' ("Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries"), published his principal manuscript<ref name="Rowley-Conwy 2007 38">{{harvnb|Rowley-Conwy|2007|p=38}}</ref> in ''Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed'' ("Guide to Scandinavian Archaeology")<ref>This was not the museum guidebook, which was written by Julius Sorterup, an assistant of Thomsen, and published in 1846. Note that translations of Danish organizations and publications tend to vary somewhat.</ref> in 1836. The system has since been expanded by further subdivision of each era, and refined through further archaeological and anthropological finds.