Bronze Age

is a broad prehistoric time period during which humans widely used stone for toolmaking. Stone tools were made from a variety of different kinds of stone. For example, flint and chert were shaped (or chipped) for use as cutting tools andweapons, while basalt and sandstone were used for ground stone tools, such as quern-stones. Wood, bone, shell, antler(deer) and other materials were widely used, as well. During the most recent part of the period, sediments (like clay) were used to make pottery. A series of metal technologyinnovations characterize the later Chalcolithic (Copper Age), Bronze Age and Iron Age. The period from 2.6‐2.58 Ma[1] encompasses the first use of stone tools in Gona, Ethiopia and its spread and widespread use elsewhere soon thereafter[1]. It ends with the development of agriculture, the domestication of certain animals, and the smelting of copper ore to produce metal. It is termed prehistoric since humanity had not yet started writing---the traditional start of history (i.e., recorded history). The term "Stone Age" was used by archaeologists to designate this vast pre-metallurgic period whose stone tools survived far more widely than tools made from other (softer) materials. It is the first age in the three-age system. A division of the Stone Age into older and younger parts was first proposed by Jens Jacob Worsaae in 1859 through his work with Danish kitchen middens that began in 1851.[2] The subdivision into the Palaeolithic,Mesolithic and Neolithic periods that still is in use today, was made by John Lubbock in his now classic 1865 book Pre-historic Times. These three periods are further subdivided. In reality, the succession of phases varies enormously from one region (and culture) to another, indeed, humanity continued to expand into new areas even during the metal ages. Therefore, it is better to speak of a Stone Age, instead of the Stone Age. As a description of people living today, the term stone age is controversial. The Association of Social Anthropologists discourages this use.

== == is, with respect to a given society, the period in that society when the most advanced metalworking (at least in systematic and widespread use) utilised bronze. This could either be based on the local smelting of copper and tin from ores, or (as in Scandinavia) trading for bronze from production areas elsewhere. Many, though not all, bronze age societies flourished in prehistory. As regard to metal working, the naturally-occurring ores typically included arsenic as a common impurity. Copper/tin ores are rare, as reflected in the fact that there were no tin bronzes in western Asia before 3000 BCE. The Bronze Age is regarded as the second part of a three-age system for prehistoric societies, though there are some cultures that have extensive written records during their Bronze Age. In this system, in some areas of the world the Bronze Age followed the Neolithic age. On the other hand, in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the Neolithic age is directly followed by theIron Age. In some parts of the world, a Copper Age follows the Neolithic Age and precedes the Bronze Age.

is the prehistoric period in any area during which cutting tools and weapons were mainly made of iron or steel. The adoption of this material coincided with other changes in society, including differing agricultural practices, religious beliefs and artistic styles. The Iron Age is the last principal period in the three-age system for classifying prehistoric societies, preceded by the Bronze Age. Its dates and context vary depending on the geographical region. The Iron Age in each area ends with the beginning of the historical period, i.e. the local production of ample written sources. Thus, for instance, the British Iron Age ends with the Roman Conquest. The term "Iron Age" was originally derived from the "Ages of Man", i.e. the ages of human existence on the Earth according to Classical mythology. While modern historians assume earlier ages in this scheme to be completely mythical ("The Golden Age" and the "Silver Age"), the later Bronze Ageand Iron Age of classical mythology are assumed to have preserved the memory of actual periods when the metals mentioned dominated human life.[citation needed]

Perhaps yes as it is seemingly more likely today than before. Just like any science of man, there is always 'trial and error' and the site thought to be Joshua's city of Ai was destroyed circa 2400-2300 and laid abandoned in the Middle to Late Bronze age. So this site usually associated with Joshua could not be the biblical site mentioned if you put any stock in the biblical account.

Interestingly, a site under work since 1979 is revealing a strong candidate for Joshua's Ai. The name of the site is Khirbet el-Maqatir. Recently a fortress that dates to the time of Joshua has be dug up and there is evidence that it was burned by fire circa 1400 B.C., which is the time the Bible tells us in Joshua 8.

On the surface everything in the area matches exactly with what we read in the Bible. There are details given about an ambush force being hidden on the west, a hill to the north, and various details that are given in Joshua 7 and 8 that match perfectly with this site and the area around it. The discovery team of archaeologist feel quite strongly that they have found the site of Joshua's Ai.

As already mentioned, the name Ai means "the ruin" in Hebrew, and the Arabic name et-Tell site also means "the ruin" inferring this to be the origin of the name. It appears then that when this little fortress was built one kilometer to the west, that same name was applied.

Not a unique tradition because there are other ruins in the area of the et-Tell site that have retained that same name, Ai, in the modern Arabic name - about a half-dozen or so other sites in the vicinity have maintained that name and were occupied in various periods. This then seems to be another major breakthrough giving evidence to support Joshua 7 and 8, as Jericho and Ai were the two problems that secular scholars always pointed to saying, "Oh, look, we've got the archaeology here that disproves the Bible. Therefore there was no conquest." Now this team believes they have solved those problems now. They have the evidence to show that, yes, there was a conquest. It is just a matter of time and acceptance by the community at large.