The article I read was in a scientific journal back in the '90's, but I don't remember anymore where I read it or who wrote it. The idea behind the article was that there was evidence of iron implements being produced around the globe as far back as 900 BC. I'm sure that the author wasn't trying to say that was the only definitive history, and all else was wrong. It's just that many in the sciences were rethinking history based on gathered evidence or reinterpretation of already gathered evidence.
The problem with putting too much faith in science is that there are very few laws. Gravity. Thermodynamics, and several others, but not many laws. There are numerous theories, and since theories are based on hypotheses, and there are potentially an infinite number of them, that debates can exist on multiple fronts. However had the author been mistaken or worse, lying about said evidence, I cannot imagine the rest of the scientific community not rushing to set the record straight, and I do not remember that having taken place.
But since we're now in the Information Age, I'm sure the information has to be out there somewhere. The chart you provided seems to deal more with Britain and Europe than the rest of the planet, although the chart claims the Iron Age hit in Britain in 800 BC, which isn't far off the mark of the 900 BC date that the author of the article to which I referred claimed.
As none of us were there, and no time machines exist, we have to rely on those who are immersed in the studies of history, archaeology, metallurgy, geology, and a host of other disciplines, and that gets us back to myriad theories and potentially infinite numbers of hypotheses, all with attendant arguments and those who would argue to the death that they're right.
I remember an old post on one of the old NT forums where we were discussing the merits of quenching with the blade pointing true north as a means of preventing bends. One night some science guys chimed in; physicists, if my memory serves me well. They argued the scientific impossibilities of what we were claiming to actually work. I'm no scientist, and only took the required scientific courses necessary to graduate college, so I couldn't then, nor can I now scientifically defend quenching true north. The physicists, I recall became quite irate with us, insulting even, because we were essentially witch doctors arguing with Neurosurgeons, or more like makers of paper airplanes arguing with real rocket scientists. And it really frosted their cookies that we would dare to defy their scientific abilities. Again, lots of theories, even more hypotheses. Our hypothesis wasn't as good as theirs' in their estimation. And the beat goes on....
|