Talk:Iron Age

Egypt is not in the Middle East

The claim in the article is that Egypt is in the Ancient Near East. That is wrong, Egypt is in Africa, but often articles are written to remove any historic evidence that points to Africa. Thanks for your post also, we must continue to ensure academic integrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.13.182 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is usually cultural rather than geographic - Egypt is, indeed, in Africa, but despite relations with Meroe and Kush etc. upriver, most of their interactions seem to be with other fertile crescent cultures ... which is why they get hooked into the Near East region. Much like Carthage - the city itself was in North Africa, but they were very much a Mediterranean culture and related more to Europe and the Near East than any sub-Saharan cultures. Unless there have been some radical new discoveries... 82.1.7.156 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole use of terms like "Near East" and "Far East" are hopelessly colonial and Eurocentric. We should be using Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) sigh...

Ends in 500 BCE in Middle East?

The article says that it is widely accepted that the Iron Age ended in ~500 BCE in the Middle East, because of Herodotus reports on the Achemenid Empire are considered the beginning of History. At the same time it says that the IA is supposed to end when historical records begin. Since the 19th century that date has been pushed back by one or two millennia at least, as extensive historical documents have been found in Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.
So, which is which? Is that 500 BCE date still usedby historians?
If different authors use different criteria, that should be mentioned in the article.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You have uncovered the central problem of this article. Please see my comment below. The "Iron Age" concept is antiquated, and it really shouldn't be "ending" with the use of written history. We should be in the fourth Metal Age, the age of multiple metal usage, from lithium in pharmaceuticals, to platinum in semiconductors. I don't know if there is a fix for this, but I will try and change some lines to "Historian X defined the end of the Iron Age in Y location according to..." etc. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Impact of Iron age?

The page gives a lot of details about the chronology of Iron age and the evidence for that. An additional section on the impact of Iron age for humanity's development, what kind of new things it enabled that weren't possible in the Bronze age, etc. would be very useful.

SundaraRaman (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I like your thinking. Wikipedia is for interesting ideas, more than mundane documentation. Unfortunately, much of the Iron Age seems to relate to more efficient slaughter of people who disagree over religion or government. The machine gun being a prime example. Still, great thinking. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

typography

It's not a proper noun, so it's the iron age, or, possibly, iron-age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:FD1A:CF1:BDE4:B55D (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Article Cleanup - please help

Hi all, I'm finding this article to resemble a string of related statements, cut and pasted into a random sequence. Discussions of metallurgy, are repeatedly confused with timelines. I'm going to cut out and collect the two themes where appropriate.

I'm also going to try and clarify, (from the text), how the concept of "The Iron Age" evolved, and is still somewhat relevant. It is a bit weird that the Age is defined by its use of a particular metal, but the definition overlaps with the rise of written history, which is not consistent across the world.

We need to make this clearer for people. Peace and Love. Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Proto-history

Bit baffled here by this segment:

It has also been considered as the final age of the three-age division starting with prehistory (before recorded history) and progressing to protohistory (before written history)

History is usually taken as beginning in the 4th millennium BC, with the commencement of According-to-Hoyle writing. This is during the Bronze Age. It doesn't make sense to say that the Three Ages system takes us from prehistory to protohistory.

Ordinary Person (talk)

Iron Age began in south India 2300 years earlier than in this article

Iron Age here the oldest in the world - https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/new-history-of-the-world-mk-stalin-says-iron-age-began-5300-years-ago-in-tamil-nadu/cid/2079228

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/new-findings-in-state-push-iron-age-back-by-1000-years/articleshow/117496995.cms 120.60.125.73 (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Tamil Nadu CM Claims Iron Age Began 5300 Years Ago, New Findings Challenge Global History https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fssasSurRCA

So? He is not a historian. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a scientific review of this "discovery"? People from outside of south India to verify it?

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 10:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The tweet mentioned in the article contains lab result documents from a US based lab (Beta Analytic) Garjamin (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• The "Iron Age" in a particular culture does NOT begin with the first appearance of iron objects often, as in Ancient Egypt, from meteoric iron, but when iron becomes the dominant material used for tools and weapons. Yes, this is usually far later. The article is correct. The Telegraph article itself says "According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the date of the full Iron Age, in which this metal for the most part replaced bronze in implements and weapons, “varied geographically, beginning in the Middle East and South-eastern Europe about 1200 BCE but in China not until about 600 BCE. Although in the Middle East iron had limited use as a scarce and precious metal as early as 3000 BCE, there is no indication that people at that time recognized its superior qualities over those of bronze." Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

When proper WP:RS are published, we may need to add something on this, but not based on politician's statements or newspaper reports. Johnbod (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2025

117.97.139.113 (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The theories on earliest use of iron have to be rewritten based on the very recent findings in SIVAGALAI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. Here's the reference https://www.newindianexpress.com/explainers/2025/Jan/26/sivagalai-rewrites-the-past-time-travel-on-an-iron-spear#:~:text=The%20report%2C%20Antiquity%20of%20Iron,to%20the%204th%20millennium%20BCE.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

See section above. Johnbod (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2025

A study has found evidence that the use of iron in Tamil Nadu dates back to the first quarter of the 4th millennium BCE which is first in the world so far. The site name is Sivakalai. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/tamil-nadu-iron-age-new-study-importance-9797046/ https://www.indiatoday.in/programme/first-things-fast/video/5000-year-iron-age-legacy-tamil-nadus-historic-breakthrough-2671025-2025-01-27 104.189.118.32 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear what changes are wanted, but see section 2 above. Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Iron Age in India

[1]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/new-findings-in-state-push-iron-age-back-by-1000-years/amp_articleshow/117496995.cms arp_prabhu (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

see the last 4 sections. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Alacahöyük dagger

The Alacahöyük dagger was described as smelted in the 'Ancient Near East' section, however, it is meteoric.

I think there may be some confusion as it is described by some sources as one of the earliest iron artifacts in Anatolia, without stating the origin of the iron. Plus, there were earlier speculations that it was smelted, but, as referenced below, modern analysis techniques have disproven this.

Interestingly, the 2024 paper listed below pushes the date of iron working on Anatolia even further back with the recent discovery of some amulets (which are also meteoric).

The dagger is an incredible find and of immeasurable archaeological value, however, only when described properly: as an early example of a worked iron artifact.

The reference in the article as it was before my edit is from a non-peer reviewed blog by a paleontologist, and therefore should not take precedence above widely cited articles by experts in the relevant field. The unreliability of the source is evidenced by the fact the dagger is incorrectly described as having a bronze handle, when, in fact, it is gold.

Here is a list of references (note, the blog by Richard Cowen that served as the reference does *not* itself provide any references to the claim the dagger is smelted).

Scholarly references:

Nakaı, I., Abe, Y., Tantrakarn, K., Omura, S. and Erkut, S. 2012: Preliminary report on the analysis of an Early Bronze Age iron dagger excavated from Alacahöyük. Anatolian Archaeological Studies/Kaman–Kalehöyük 17, 321–3.

"From these observations it is reasonable to conclude that the iron dagger was produced using meteoritic iron."

Jambon, A. 2017: Bronze Age iron: meteoric or not? A chemical strategy. Journal of Archaeological Science 88, 47–53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.09.008

"In the present interpretation however, replicate analyses including Co analyzes, indicate that all artifacts tested are made of meteoritic iron."

Aykurt, A., Böyükulusoy, K., Benlİ–Bağci, E., and Denİz, S. 2024: THE EARLIEST ANATOLIAN ITEM MADE OF METEORIC IRON: AN AMULET FROM THE BODRUM KESIKSERVI EARLY BRONZE AGE I CEMETERY. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 43: 135–152. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12289

"Some have claimed that the iron was terrestrial based on its low nickel content (Pernicka 1990, 62; Yalçın 1998, 82; 1999, 177–80; 2006, 497), but others have argued for meteoric iron (Coghlan 1956, 33; Mason 1962, l4; Nakai et al. 2012; Jambon 2017, 49). New research on the dagger has shown that its nickel and cobalt indicate a positive correlation with iron, and that these two elements are among the main components of the dagger. The NiO content, on the other hand, varies between 3.08–7.59%, but is significantly higher; and these ratios reveal that the cutting part of the dagger's blade was made of meteoric iron (Nakai et al. 2012, 321–3)."

And just to make the consensus clear, one of the authors listed above (Yalçın, 1998) as arguing for a terrestrial origin of the iron has a more recent paper where they state it is meteoric:

Güder, Ü., Gates, M.-H., and Yalçın, Ü. 2017: Early Iron from Kinet Höyük, Turkey: Analysis of Objects and Evidence for Smithing. Metalla, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum 23.2: 51–65. Available at: https://doi.org/10.46586/metalla.v23.2017.i2.51-65

"The Alacahöyük objects, which include a gold-handled dagger and two ornamental pins with golden heads were found in a royal tomb dated to the Early Bronze 3 rd millennium BC. Their analysis shows that the origin of some of the Alaca iron is meteoric."

It should also be noted that the Wikipedia article for Alacahöyük clearly states the iron in the dagger is meteoric (citing the Nakai paper):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaca_H%c3%b6y%c3%bck

For visual reference, here is a Google Arts and Culture link for the dagger at Ankara's Museum of Anatolian Civilizations:

https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/dagger-with-scabbard-second-half-of-the-3rd-millennium-bce/bQHSfEh_yrty4g?avm=4

And here is a popular science article on Heritage Daily discussing the extraterrestrial origins of the iron:

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2024/04/the-alaca-hoyuk-meteoric-dagger/151557 Tripptek (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, are you going to make the changes? Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)