From Genesis to Prehistory: The Archaeological Three Age System and its Contested Reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland (Oxford Studies in the History of Archaeology)

We are now familiar with the Three Age System, the archaeological partitioning of the past into Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. This division, which amounted at the time to a major scientific revolution, was conceived in Denmark in the 1830s. Peter Rowley-Conwy investigates the reasons why the Three Age system was adopted without demur in Scandinavian archaeological circles, yet was the subject of a bitter and long-drawn-out contest in Britain and Ireland, up to the 1870s. Contents......Page 10 List of Illustrations......Page 12 List of Abbreviations......Page 20 1. Chronologies in Conflict......Page 22 2. The Construction of Prehistory: Copenhagen to 1836......Page 42 3. The Three Age System as Predator: Copenhagen and Lund 1836–1850......Page 69 4. The Disinterested Gentlemen: England to 1860......Page 103 5. Scotland: The Creation of a Nation's Prehistory......Page 158 6. Ireland: Realm of the Four Masters......Page 198 7. Fighting it Through: England 1860–1880......Page 256 8. Aftermath......Page 307 APPENDICES......Page 314 1. Translation of Münter's Proposal of 1807......Page 316 2. Translation of Thomsen's Letters of 1825 to J. G. G. Büsching......Page 319 3. Translation of Eschricht's (1837) Paper on Crania......Page 323 4. Prichard's Discussion of the Three Age System in 1841......Page 332 5. Translation of Worsaae's Letter of 1847 on Irish Politics......Page 337 References......Page 340 B......Page 372 D......Page 374 G......Page 375 K......Page 376 M......Page 377 P......Page 378 R......Page 379 S......Page 380 T......Page 381 W......Page 382 Y......Page 383 And yet, for a discipline concerned with the past, archaeology has been curiously remiss in investigating the early history of the Three Age System. It seems we regard it as so fundamentally true that we do not feel the need to explore its ancestry in any detail. Peter Rowley-Conwy's new study is the first full treatment of its origins and reception, from its invention in Denmark in the 1830s. Rowley-Conwy traces the different ways in which the Three Age system was received in four academic communities. After a short dispute it was adopted in Denmark; in Scotland it was quickly embraced; however, in England it came into conflict with the discipline of ethnology and in Ireland with that of ancient history The now familiar Three Age System, the archaeological partitioning of the past into Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, was conceived in Denmark in the 1830s. Peter Rowley-Conwy investigates the reasons why the system was adopted without demur in Scandinavia, yet was the subject of a bitter and protracted contest in Britain and Ireland up to the 1870s. - ;We are now familiar with the Three Age System, the archaeological partitioning of the past into Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. This division, which amounted at the time to a major scientific revolution, was conceived in Denmark in the 1830s "We are now familiar with the Three Age System, the archaeological partitioning of the past into Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. It is probably the most fundamental single 'fact' that archaeology has ever produced; it is to archaeology what Darwinian evolution is to the biological sciences: the organizing principle that enables the discipline to operate In both England and Ireland there was a bitter and long-drawn-out battle before the Three Age System was finally adopted in the 1870s."--Jacket