Editing Three-age system (section)

== Criticism ==
The Three-age System has been criticized since at least the 19th century. Every phase of its development has been contested. Some of the arguments that have been presented against it follow.

=== Unsound epochalism ===
In some cases criticism resulted in other, parallel three-age systems, such as the concepts expressed by [[Lewis Henry Morgan]] in ''[[Ancient Society]]'', based on [[ethnology]]. These disagreed with the metallic basis of epochization. The critic generally substituted his own definitions of epochs. [[Vere Gordon Childe]] said of the early cultural anthropologists:<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Childe |first1=V. Gordon |title=Foundations of social archaeology: selected writings of V. Gordon Childe |last2=Patterson |first2=Thomas Carl |last3=Orser |first3=Charles E. |publisher=AltaMira Press |year=2004 |location=Walnut Creek, California |page=173}}</ref><blockquote>Last century [[Herbert Spencer]], [[Lewis H. Morgan]] and [[Edward Tylor|Tylor]] propounded divergent schemes ... they arranged these in a logical order .... They assumed that the logical order was a temporal one.... The competing systems of Morgan and Tylor remained equally unverified – and incompatible – theories.</blockquote>
More recently, many archaeologists have questioned the validity of dividing time into epochs at all. For example, one recent critic, Graham Connah, describes the three-age system as "epochalism" and asserts:<ref name="Graham 2010 p.63">{{harvnb|Connah|2010|pp=62–63}}</ref><blockquote>So many archaeological writers have used this model for so long that for many readers it has taken on a reality of its own. In spite of the theoretical agonizing of the last half-century, epochalism is still alive and well ... Even in parts of the world where the model is still in common use, it needs to be accepted that, for example, there never was actually such a thing as 'the Bronze Age.'</blockquote>

=== Over-simplification ===
Some view the three-age system as overly simple; that is, it neglects vital detail and forces complex circumstances into a mold they do not fit. Rowlands argues that the division of human societies into epochs based on the presumption of a single set of related changes is not realistic:<ref>{{harvnb|Kristiansen|Rowlands|1998|p=47}}</ref><blockquote>But as a more rigorous sociological approach has begun to show that changes at the economic, political and ideological levels are not 'all of apiece' we have come to realise that time may be segmented in as many ways as convenient to the researcher concerned.</blockquote>
The three-age system is a [[relative chronology]]. The explosion of archaeological data acquired in the 20th century was intended to elucidate the relative chronology in detail. One consequence was the collection of [[absolute dates]]. Connah argues:<ref name="Graham 2010 p.63" /><blockquote>As [[radiocarbon]] and other forms of absolute dating contributed more detailed and more reliable chronologies, the epochal model ceased to be necessary.</blockquote>

Peter Bogucki of Princeton University summarizes the perspective taken by many modern archaeologists:<ref>{{harvnb|Bogucki|2008}}</ref>
<blockquote>Although modern archaeologists realize that this tripartite division of prehistoric society is far too simple to reflect the complexity of change and continuity, terms like 'Bronze Age' are still used as a very general way of focusing attention on particular times and places and thus facilitating archaeological discussion.</blockquote>

=== Eurocentrism ===
Another common criticism attacks the broader application of the three-age system as a cross-cultural model for social change. The model was originally designed to explain data from Europe and West Asia, but archaeologists have also attempted to use it to explain social and technological developments in other parts of the world such as the Americas, Australasia, and Africa.<ref name="anything">{{harvnb|Browman|Williams|2002|p=146}}</ref> Many archaeologists working in these regions have criticized this application as [[eurocentric]]. Graham Connah writes that:<ref name="Graham 2010 p.63" />
<blockquote>... attempts by Eurocentric archaeologists to apply the model to African archaeology have produced little more than confusion, whereas in the Americas or Australasia it has been irrelevant, ...</blockquote>
Alice B. Kehoe further explains this position as it relates to American archaeology:<ref name=anything />
<blockquote>... Professor Wilson's presentation of prehistoric archaeology<ref>A predecessor of Lubbock working from the original Danish conception of the three ages.</ref> was a European product carried across the Atlantic to promote an American science compatible with its European model.</blockquote>
Kehoe goes on to complain of Wilson that "he accepted and reprised the idea that the European course of development was paradigmatic for humankind."<ref>{{harvnb|Browman|Williams|2002|p=147}}</ref> This criticism argues that the different societies of the world underwent social and technological developments in different ways. A sequence of events that describes the developments of one civilization may not necessarily apply to another, in this view. Instead social and technological developments must be described within the context of the society being studied.