Editing Three-age system (section)

=== Over-simplification ===
Some view the three-age system as overly simple; that is, it neglects vital detail and forces complex circumstances into a mold they do not fit. Rowlands argues that the division of human societies into epochs based on the presumption of a single set of related changes is not realistic:<ref>{{harvnb|Kristiansen|Rowlands|1998|p=47}}</ref><blockquote>But as a more rigorous sociological approach has begun to show that changes at the economic, political and ideological levels are not 'all of apiece' we have come to realise that time may be segmented in as many ways as convenient to the researcher concerned.</blockquote>
The three-age system is a [[relative chronology]]. The explosion of archaeological data acquired in the 20th century was intended to elucidate the relative chronology in detail. One consequence was the collection of [[absolute dates]]. Connah argues:<ref name="Graham 2010 p.63" /><blockquote>As [[radiocarbon]] and other forms of absolute dating contributed more detailed and more reliable chronologies, the epochal model ceased to be necessary.</blockquote>

Peter Bogucki of Princeton University summarizes the perspective taken by many modern archaeologists:<ref>{{harvnb|Bogucki|2008}}</ref>
<blockquote>Although modern archaeologists realize that this tripartite division of prehistoric society is far too simple to reflect the complexity of change and continuity, terms like 'Bronze Age' are still used as a very general way of focusing attention on particular times and places and thus facilitating archaeological discussion.</blockquote>