Academic literature on the topic 'Iran – History – Chronology'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Iran – History – Chronology.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Iran – History – Chronology"
1
Sattarnejad, Saeid, Samad Parvin, and Maryam Mastalizadeh. "Stylistic Study of Gowijeh Qaleh’s Rock-Cut Tomb from Maragheh." Anastasis. Research in Medieval Culture and Art 7, no. 1 (May 29, 2020): 113–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.35218/armca.2020.1.06.
Full textAbstract:
Rock architecture has a long history in Iran and all over the world, and many climatic, defensive, cultural factors have led to the emergence of architectural examples of this type. The chronology and usage of these works have always been discussed after the discovery of the rock works from Western Iran from the 19th century onwards. On the one hand, it can be said that the creators of these works have left a rather vague footprint of their time, making difficult the possibility of offering accurate and precise chronology and explaining usage for researchers and interested readers. On the other hand, due to the lack of knowledge and awareness of the beliefs of ancient people, some scholars have been mistaken in explaining the use and even the chronology of these works and sometimes, they presented different uses and chronologies for these works. Accordingly, such a mistake was made by a number of researchers in the city of Maragheh while explaining the use of Gowijeh Qaleh’s rock tomb by the use of water storage. For this purpose, this article examined Gowijeh Qaleh’s rock-cut tomb from an analytical perspective. Therefore, this work can be more confidently considered as a part of the first millennium BC, and it is referred to the culture of Urartu.
2
CROSSLEY, PAMELA KYLE, and GENE R. GARTHWAITE. "Post-Mongol States and Early Modern Chronology in Iran and China." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 26, no. 1-2 (January 2016): 293–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1356186315000802.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn the aftermath of the Mongol occupations of the largest and most populous societies of Eurasia, greater visibility of popular religion, more widespread vernacular language use, rising literacy, and fundamental shifts in the structure of rulership and the relationship of state and society could all be observed. Many historians have related these changes to a broader chronology of early modernity. This has been problematic in the case of Iran, whose eighteenth-century passage has not been adequately explored in recent scholarship. Our comparative review of ‘post-Mongol’ Iran and China suggests that this period marks as meaningful a break between a schematic medieval and schematic early modern history in Iran as it does in China. Here, we first consider both societies in the post-Mongol period as empires with secular rulerships and increasingly popular cultural trends, and look at the role of what Crossley has called “simultaneous rulership”—rulership in which the codes of legitimacy of civilisations recognised by the conquest authority are given distinct representation in the rulership — in marking the transition away from religious-endorsed rule to self-legitimating rule as a mark of comparative early modernity.
3
HENRICKSON, R. C. "The Godin III Chronology for Central Western Iran 2600-1400 B.C." Iranica Antiqua 22 (January 1, 1987): 33–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/ia.22.0.2014065.
Full text
4
MIRGHADERI, Mohammad Amin, and Kamal Aldin NIKNAMI. "The Chronology of the Archaeological surface remains of Tepe Pa-Chogha, Central Zagros (Kermanshah, Iran)." Historia i Świat 11 (August 22, 2022): 81–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.34739/his.2022.11.05.
Full textAbstract:
The highland plains of western Iran have been investigated with varying intensity. The Sarfirouzabad plain, located in the south of Kermanshah province, although visited perfunctorily, has not previously been studied systematically, despite desirable ecological and environmental conditions. In 2009, a team from the University of Tehran conducted a systematic and intensive field survey in the region to identify archaeological settlements and to assess their location concerning ecological, environmental and cultural factors impacted the distribution of sites on the plain. The surveyed area was walked in transects at 20-metre intervals and resulted in the identification of 332 archaeological sites from different cultural periods, which added much to the limited knowledge about the history of this region. During this survey, Pa-Chogha as the biggest tell site in the area, was identified. Fifty-nine samples of pottery and five stone tools were collected from the surface of Pa-Chogha dated from Late Chalcolithic to Islamic periods. Unfortunately, due to the expansion of Pa-Chogha village, the site is in danger of being destroyed. Our aim to publish this article is to introduce the Pa-Chogha as an important site for the chronology of Central Zagros at first, and preventing the further destruction of this site at the second.
5
NAZARI, Samer, and Marzieh SHA'RBAF. "Preliminary Report on the Cairn Tombs of Kuik & Qaleh Bahadori in the Zahāb Plain, Kermānshāh." Historia i Świat 5 (September 12, 2016): 13–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.34739/his.2016.05.01.
Full textAbstract:
In the summer of 2015, a preliminary visit was carried out by the authors with the goal of identifying and documenting archaeological cemeteries as well as giv ing a relative chronology of them at two villages of Kuik and Qaleh Bahadori in the Zahāb Plain, located in Sarpol-e Zahāb County in Kermānshāh province of Iran. Numerous tombs were identified in four cemeteries. Mostly they were located in the hillside of mountains. The pile of stones on the ground can be an indicator to assess them. Structurally all tombs are the same. All around the tomb's wall was elevated with different size of stones in several rows; after putting the dead body, the tomb has been covered with three or four cap stones. Then the pile of stones was put on top of it. Nevertheless these cemeteries were been looted by smugglers, still some intact tombs can be seen among them. Unfortunately, no cultural materials were found in these areas except for few potsherds; so this caused some difficulties to date the tombs. The morphology of their structure and comparative study with peripheral regions suggest probable chronology of Iron Age III for the tombs. It is evident that certain results will be achieved on the basis of archaeological excavations.
6
Абдолахи, С., С. Саттарнеджад, С. Парвин, and М. Самари. "DISCOVERING NEW ROCK ARTS AT MESHGIN SHAHR’S GHAFELEGHATAR, NORTHWEST OF IRAN." Краткие сообщения Института археологии (КСИА), no. 264 (December 3, 2021): 222–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.25681/iaras.0130-2620.264.222-228.
Full textAbstract:
Исторический памятник Гафелегхатар открыт в 2018 г. во время археологических изысканий в провинции Ардабиль, расположенной на северо-западе Ирана. В общей сложности в указанном регионе зафиксировано 50 наскальных рисунков с изображением фигур козла, оленя и человека. Единичные и многофигурные изображения процарапаны или выбиты на блоках магнетита. На большинстве изученных камней изображены фигуры козла, сопоставимые с наскальными рисунками из Ирана и Азербайджана. Петроглифы отражают кочевой образ жизни охотников и собирателей, оставивших на камнях свои рисунки. Возраст этих изображений не установлен, поэтому для них не может быть пока предложена надежная датировка и четкая хронология. The historical site of the Ghafeleghatar was discovered in 2018 during archaeological survey in the Ardabil province in the northwest of Iran. Totally 50 images including goat, deer, and human figures have been identified and documented in this area. These motifs are represented individually and in compositions placed on black magnetite stones by scratching and striking technique. Most of the images show goat, which is comparable to many specimen from Iran and Azerbaijan. The images illustrate the nomadic and hunting-gathering nature of the designers of these works. The periods of formation of the images are unclear, so that no reliable dating and clear chronology can be suggested based on comparative studies.
7
Pahlavan, Mehdi Dahmardeh, Setareh Ebrahimiabareghi, Mohammad Keikha, and Yasaman Nasiripour. "The Survey of Qaleh (Ghalee) Tepe in Sīstān: Chronology and Analysis of Findings." Altorientalische Forschungen 49, no. 1 (June 1, 2022): 32–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/aofo-2022-0003.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The Sīstān Plain in south-eastern Iran with its suitable living conditions and fertility was an important contact zone and home of human societies in many periods of history. Despite numerous archaeological activities in this region, the chronology and the history of occupation are still ambiguous. Hence it is necessary to conduct more systematic studies on the pre-Islamic sites. The present project uses field and analytical research methods to gain new insights; data has been collected from both new fieldwork and the evaluation of documented sites. The new field work included some soundings dug for determining the extent of Bībī Dōst, and a survey in the southern part of the Bībī Dōst area, in Qaleh (Ghalee) Tepe. All the information and data related to Qaleh Tepe, including previous studies, geographical literature, and pottery references have been collected. The ceramic indicates that Qaleh Tepe was occupied during the Parthian and Sasanid periods and that, after a long hiatus, the southern part of this site was used as a cemetery in the later Islamic era.
8
Zabolotnyi, Evgenii. "Simeon of Beth Arsham: Difficulties of Confessional Identification in the Christian Orient." ISTORIYA 13, no. 11 (121) (2022): 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.18254/s207987840023159-3.
Full textAbstract:
Simeon of Beth Arsham, a priest and later bishop of the Church of the East, the main Christian community in Sasanian Iran, was one of the most prominent figures in the Syriac tradition. Simeon’s activity began at the turn of the 5th — 6th centuries, when this community was under the strong influence of the extreme dyophysite Christology of the Antiochene school, which prepared the East Syrian tradition for the subsequent reception of Nestorianism. Being a supporter of Christological views diametrically opposed to Antiochene theology, Simeon actively fought against the “Nestorianization” of his native tradition. On the basis of sources dedicated to the “Persian debater”, as well as Simeon’s own writings, the author clarifies the relative and absolute chronology of his life, the confessional status of Simeon’s doctrine within Nicene Christianity, and also considers his struggle with the “Nestorians” not as a set of disparate measures, but as a system of strategies aimed to narrow down the influence of extreme Antiochene theology in Iran.
9
Basafa and Rezaei. "Relative Chronology of Prehistoric Potteries Collected from the Settlements of Kazeroun Plain, Southern Iran." Central Asiatic Journal 62, no. 2 (2019): 233. http://dx.doi.org/10.13173/centasiaj.62.2.0233.
Full text
10
Dmitriev, Vladimir A. "The Arabian Campaigns of Ardashir Pabagan." Vostok. Afro-aziatskie obshchestva: istoriia i sovremennost, no. 6 (2021): 131. http://dx.doi.org/10.31857/s086919080015278-2.
Full textAbstract:
The Sasanids were interested in Arabia from the very beginning of their reign in Iran, and it was already the founder of the new dynasty Ardashir I Pabagan who attempted to establish Persian military and political influence in the Arabian Peninsula. In this regard, the purpose of the article is a historical reconstruction of the events connected with the conquest of the eastern and southern parts of the Arabian Peninsula by Ardashir I. The main sources are the “Book of Long Narratives” by Dinawari, “The History of the Prophets and Kings” by Tabarī, the anonymous “Desire to Know the History of Persians and Arabs” and “The Dictionary of Countries” by Yakut. Additional but important information is contained in the inscription of the shahanshah Shapur I on the Ka’bah-i Zardusht, the Sabean inscription Sh 31, and the rock relief of the Shahanshah Warahran II. It is difficult to say anything definite about the chronology of the Arabian campaigns of Ardashir I, however, judging by the context in which these events are described in the relevant sources, they did not cover a very long period and presumably can be dated back to the first half of the reign of Ardashir Pabagan. At first glance, the campaigns of Ardashir I to Arabia were situational and tactical, and their main reason was the desire of the shahanshah to secure the southwestern regions of Iran from the invasions of the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula. At the same time, a more thorough analysis of the sources and taking into account the events that occurred later, during the reign of Shapur II and Khosrow I, allow us to consider the Arabian campaigns of Ardashir Pabagan as the first stage of the long struggle of the Sasanids for hegemony over the entire eastern and southern part of the Arabian Peninsula from southern Iraq to Yemen inclusive.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Iran – History – Chronology"
1
Furlong, Pierce James. "Aspects of ancient Near Eastern chronology (c. 1600-700 BC)." Melbourne, 2007. http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/2096.
Full textAbstract:
The chronology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Near East is currently a topic of intense scholarly debate. The conventional/orthodox chronology for this period has been assembled over the past one-two centuries using information from King-lists, royal annals and administrative documents, primarily those from the Great Kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. This major enterprise has resulted in what can best be described as an extremely complex but little understood jigsaw puzzle composed of a multiplicity of loosely connected data. I argue in my thesis that this conventional chronology is fundamentally wrong, and that Egyptian New Kingdom (Memphite) dates should be lowered by 200 years to match historical actuality. This chronological adjustment is achieved in two stages: first, the removal of precisely 85 years of absolute Assyrian chronology from between the reigns of Shalmaneser II and Ashur-dan II; and second, the downward displacement of Egyptian Memphite dates relative to LBA Assyrian chronology by a further 115 years. Moreover, I rely upon Kuhnian epistemology to structure this alternate chronology so as to make it methodologically superior to the conventional chronology in terms of historical accuracy, precision, consistency and testability.
2
Rundkvist, Martin. "Barshalder." Doctoral thesis, Stockholm : Dept. of Archaeology [Institutionen för arkeologi], Univ, 2003. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-271.
Full text
3
Thompson, Lynn. "David and Solomon : investigating the archaeological evidence." Diss., 2001. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/16203.
Full textAbstract:
The historicity of the United Monarchy has recently come under attack. The
biblical 'minimalists' say that a reconstruction of ancient Israel is impossible with the sources
that we have access to, and the glory and wealth of Solomon's empire is mere fiction. They
disregard the Bible as a reliable source, and archaeology because it is mute and open to
interpretation. Some scholars have suggested lowering the traditional dates on certain
archaeological strata, resulting in an entirely different picture of the tenth century BCE.
Other scholars say that the United Monarchy definitely did exist and consider the Bible a valuable
historical source. The evidence for the tenth century and the United Monarchy as shown by the
Hebrew Bible and archaeology is investigated as well as various key sites in Israel. The conclusion
is that the traditional chronology and viewpoint of the United Monarchy still needs to be
respected.Biblical and Ancient Studies
M.A. (Biblical Studies)
Books on the topic "Iran – History – Chronology"
1
Sreedhar. Tanker war: Aspect of Iraq-Iran war, 1980-88. New Delhi: ABC Pub. House, 1989.
Find full text
2
From Xerxes' murder (465) to Arridaios' execution (317): Updates to Achaemenid chronology (including errata in past reports). Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008.
Find full text
3
Time in early modern Islam: Calendar, ceremony, and chronology in the Safavid, Mughal, and Ottoman empires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Find full text
4
The U.S.-Soviet confrontation in Iran, 1945-1962: A case in the annals of the Cold War. Lanham: University Press of America, 2009.
Find full text
5
Bowden, Mark. Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006.
Find full text
6
Bowden, Mark. Guests of the Ayatollah: The first battle in the west's war with militant Islam. London: Atlantic, 2007.
Find full text
8
Iraq-primus inter pariahs: A crisis chronology, 1997-98. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999.
Find full text
9
Allara, Cesare. Accadde in Iraq: Dall'invasione del Kuwait alla resistenza anticoloniale, 1990-2005. Paderno Dugnano (Milano): Colibrı̀, 2005.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Iran – History – Chronology"
1
Blake, Stephen P. "History and chronology in early modern Iran: The Safavid Empire in comparative perspective." In Preceptions of Iran. I.B.Tauris, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9780755611621.ch-004.
Full text
2
Mofidi-Nasrabadi, Behzad. "Elam in the Late Bronze Age." In The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Volume III, 869–942. Oxford University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190687601.003.0034.
Full textAbstract:
From the emergence of the first urban forms of society in the fourth millennium BC to the Achaemenid era, the kingdom of Elam in southwestern Iran played a significant role in the political and cultural landscape of the Middle East. After a period of political dominance of Mesopotamia over Elam in the Ur III period, the country developed into one of the wider region’s most important political and economic powers in the course of the second millennium BC. This development reached its climax in the Late Bronze Age during the so-called Middle Elamite period, when Elam’s political and economic expansion transformed the regional power structures. Such change is characterized by the concentration of power in the person of the king, whose office combined the highest secular position with religious authority. The king’s access and control over resources is reflected by the significant increase in construction activities and the foundation of new settlements, while the demand for further resources resulted in increasing military activities and wars of expansion, which led to the conquest of Mesopotamia in the last phase of the Middle Elamite period. This chapter discusses the current state of understanding of Elam’s chronology and history based on archaeological data and written sources and discusses key aspects of society, state administration, and religious practices.
3
USSISHKIN, DAVID. "Archaeology of the Biblical Period: On Some Questions of Methodology and Chronology of the Iron Age." In Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. British Academy, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197264010.003.0009.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the role of archaeology in the study of the biblical period and biblical history, with special reference to the ninth century – that is, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, in the land of Israel. This discipline is known as biblical archaeology. When biblical archaeological research began more than 150 years ago, it was dependent on the Bible and biblical research. The dependence of archaeology on the biblical text is symbolized by the phrase ‘bible and spade’. The chapter argues that the disciplines of archaeology on the one hand and history and biblical studies on the other are based on different methods and different ways of thinking, and also claims that the archaeologist should refrain from analysing the Bible and history. Furthermore, it contends that the proper methodology should involve some cooperation between archaeologists, biblical scholars, and historians. The chapter also takes a look at the archaeological framework of the Iron Age, which is made of stratigraphy and chronology.
4
Reculeau, Hervé. "Assyria in the Late Bronze Age." In The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Volume III, 707–800. Oxford University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190687601.003.0032.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the history of Assyria between the sixteenth and eleventh centuries BC, which saw a small merchant city-state with little political clout rise to prominence in Upper Mesopotamia and beyond to become one of the leading powers on the Late Bronze Age. Through the study of royal inscriptions, archival documents, and archaeological records, the chapter examines the political, ideological, and cultural evolutions that accompanied the drastic change in the conception of power in Assyria, as well as the accompanying socioeconomic evolutions, both during the kingdom’s apex in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BC and in the crisis years in the twelfth and early eleventh centuries BC, at the transition of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The chapter offers a critical examination of scholarship pertaining to Late Bronze Age chronology, (proto-)imperialism, and socioeconomic decline and its relationship to climatic and environmental change.
5
Price, T. Douglas. "Centers of Power, Weapons of Iron." In Europe before Rome. Oxford University Press, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199914708.003.0009.
Full textAbstract:
The introduction of iron after 1000 BC brought new tools and weapons to Europe. Smelting technology and higher furnace temperatures were likely the key to iron production, which is generally thought to have originated in Anatolia around 1400 BC among the Hittites, but there are a few earlier examples of iron artifacts as old as 2300 BC in Turkey. Iron produced sharper, more readily available implements and was in great demand. In contrast to copper and tin, whose sources were limited, iron was found in a variety of forms in many places across the continent. Veins of iron ore were exploited in Iberia, Britain, the Alps, the Carpathian Mountains, and elsewhere. Bog iron was exploited in northern Europe. Carbonate sources of iron in other areas enabled local groups to obtain the raw materials necessary for producing this important material. At the same time, the collapse of the dominant Bronze Age civilizations of the Aegean changed the flow of raw materials and finished products across Europe. Greece fell into a Dark Age following the demise of the Mycenaean city-states. The Etruscans were on the rise in Italy. Rome was a small town at the border of the Etruscan region. Soon, however, new centers of power in classic Greece and Rome emerged, bringing writing and, with it, history to Europe. Again, we can observe important and dramatic differences between the “classic” areas of the Mediterranean and the northern parts of “barbarian” Europe. The chronology for the Iron Age in much of Europe is portrayed in Figure 6.2. The Iron Age begins earlier in the Mediterranean area, ca. 900 BC, where the Classical civilizations of Greece, the Etruscans, and eventually Rome emerge in the first millennium BC. Rome and its empire expanded rapidly, conquering much of western Europe in a few decades before the beginning of the Common Era and Britain around ad 43, effectively ending the prehistoric Iron Age in these parts of the continent. The Iron Age begins somewhat later in Scandinavia, around 500 BC.
6
Harding, Dennis. "Documentary Sources." In Iron Age Hillforts in Britain and Beyond. Oxford University Press, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199695249.003.0013.
Full textAbstract:
Prehistorians like to think of prehistoric archaeology as the ‘purest’ branch of the discipline, in that interpretation and reconstruction of prehistoric societies is solely dependent upon the principles and techniques of archaeology, untainted by the predisposition of history. The unfortunate polarization of attitudes was only too evident at a recent International Congress of Celtic Studies, at which some younger archaeologists were utterly dismissive of any argument that was based upon classical sources, an intolerance that was only comprehensible in the face of the equally irrational faith placed in these sources, irrespective of context or chronology, by some of their senior colleagues. This kind of uncritical use of texts doubtless underlies Hill's (1989) exhortation that Iron Age archaeological studies should become more like the Neolithic. For others, the present writer included, the challenge of the Iron Age derives largely from the fact that it does span the threshold of history, and that Britain and Europe are therefore populated by named individuals and known communities, not just by inanimate pots and stone artefacts. The age of hillforts is substantially protohistoric, though Christopher Hawkes’ (1954) term parahistoric is probably more accurate for much of the British Iron Age, for which the relevant texts derive from literate neighbours rather than from even a minority literate group among the native community. Archaeologists since Hawkes have sometimes talked about such periods as text-aided, as opposed to prehistoric periods that were text-free. It may be arguable whether the presence of textual sources is an aid or a complication, but the phrase text-free implies a measure of relief that for these periods at least the archaeologist is free to interpret the evidence uninhibited by possible contradiction from historical records. The problem with text-aided archaeology, of course, was that it tended to be text-led; that is, that archaeology was seen as a means of ‘proving’ or at least illuminating history. The subordination of archaeology to history that was implicit in this approach is well illustrated by the way that Sir Leonard Woolley's excavations at Ur were popularly heralded as proving the flood of Genesis, or Kathleen Kenyon's excavations at Jericho were presented as discovering the walls destroyed by Joshua, notwithstanding the fact that the Neolithic town with which she was primarily concerned pre-dated Iron Age Joshua by several millennia.
7
Rowley-Conwy, Peter. "The Three Age System as Predator: Copenhagen and Lund 1836–1850." In From Genesis to Prehistory. Oxford University Press, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199227747.003.0007.
Full textAbstract:
We saw in the last chapter how Thomsen’s Three Age System was establishing itself as the ancient historical chronology started to fail in the 1830s. The years immediately following its publication in 1836 saw two major developments that Thomsen could never have foreseen. The first development was that three entirely separate chronologies came to maturity, and were grafted by their makers onto Thomsen’s stone–bronze–iron sequence. These chronologies were Sven Nilsson’s economic scheme of hunter-gatherers preceding farmers; Japetus Steenstrup’s environmental scheme of successive forest types; and the craniological scheme of racial replacement devised by Daniel Eschricht and Anders Retzius, and championed by Sven Nilsson. None could easily be linked to the ancient historical chronology; but since all three were based on material remains rather than literary sources, they were easier to link with Thomsen’s artefactual scheme, so they naturally gravitated towards it. Only Steenstrup’s environmental scheme provided any hint of absolute chronology—and the hint it gave was so revolutionary that Steenstrup initially lacked the confidence to make much of it. But as it became more secure, it gradually became evident that the human time depth revealed by the broadened Three Age System dwarfed the conception of ancient history. The First part of this chapter examines how these chronologies developed and then attached themselves to Thomsen’s. The second development was that, having attracted to itself these other chronologies, the Three Age System (in the hands of J. J. A. Worsaae) went over to the attack against ancient history. The second part of this chapter examines how Worsaae used archaeological excavation and data to wrest large parts of the material record from the ancient historians, by demonstrating that their use of it had been substantially inept. As a direct result, much of the ancient historical account lost its historical force and reverted to the status of literature and legend, leaving archaeology as the dominant voice speaking for the ancient past. In the later 1840s nationalist agendas were sharpening in various parts of Europe, and Worsaae used the archaeological voice to refute an aggressive historical claim by a German whose name is well-known in the Anglophone world— none other than Jacob Grimm, one of the brothers responsible for the fairy tales that are still so associated with their name.
8
Rowley-Conwy, Peter. "Chronologies in Conflict." In From Genesis to Prehistory. Oxford University Press, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199227747.003.0005.
Full textAbstract:
This book is about a radically new scientific concept, how it was developed and promulgated, and finally came to be generally accepted. The concept in question is the archaeological Three Age System, the fundamental division of the prehistoric past into successive Ages of Stone, Bronze, and Iron. This is the basic chronology that now underpins the archaeology of most of the Old World. To be sure, we may question (for example) whether the transition from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age really marks as great a social and cultural change as that from Middle to Late Bronze Age; or we may debate whether the Mesolithic should really be so named, or should be referred to as the Epi-Palaeolithic. But the fact that we can even argue in such terms demonstrates the all-pervasive strength of the fundamental Stone–Bronze–Iron classification. Terms like ‘Mesolithic’ or ‘Late Bronze Age’ may create their own problems, and the precise definitions of such periods and the nature of the transitions between them are often keenly contested; but the debates they engender operate within the parameters of the Three Age System as a whole, and thus act to reinforce it. No-one, after all, doubts that the Stone Age preceded the Bronze Age. But it was not always so. There is an archaeology even of the Three Age System itself. It was conceived in Denmark and southern Sweden; it was initially published there in the mid-1830s, and was fully accepted and operating in those countries in under a decade. Its acceptance in southern Scandinavia was remarkably rapid, and no serious assault was made there upon its fundamentals. The same cannot be said for its reception in the British Isles, however. Its acceptance and uptake here was variable and patchy, and some leading British and Irish scholars shunned it for forty years. This is something which is almost always overlooked in histories of archaeology, which instead place emphasis on the people who adopted the Three Age System. This is entirely understandable, but it has led to the people who rejected the Three Age System being almost entirely written out of the history of the archaeology of the British Isles.
9
"The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution." In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, 27–42. Routledge, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315711294-9.
Full text