The idea that there was a Copper Age between the Neolithic and Bronze Age was inspired by the discovery of the use of native copper in prehistoric North America. Its currency in European prehistory owes much to the 1861 observations by William Wilde that copper tools preceded the use of bronze in Ireland, though Wilde did not postulate a Copper Age per se. Acceptance of the existence of a Copper Age was a long process, not least as it seemed to contradict the premises of the Three Age System and was conflated with arguments for the local development of copper metallurgy, but the 1876 and 1880 international prehistoric archaeology congresses were key moments in its recognition. By the mid 1880s its validity was widely accepted in Europe. In contemporary dating schemes, the definition of the Copper Age varies according to regional and national traditions. This paper touches on the debate concerning the use of technological stages as chronological periods and examines the history of alternative conceptualisations of the early periods of metallurgy in Europe, including those that posit socio-economic phases of development.

在新石器时代和青铜时代之间存在铜时代的想法是受史前北美发现天然铜的使用启发的。它在欧洲史前的货币很大程度上归功于威廉·王尔德（William Wilde）1861年的观察，即在爱尔兰使用铜工具之前，曾使用过铜制工具，尽管王尔德本身并未假定铜制时代本身。接受铜器时代的过程是一个漫长的过程，不仅因为它似乎与三龄制的前提相矛盾，而且与关于铜冶炼本地化发展的论点混为一谈，但是1876年和1880年的国际史前考古学大会是认可的关键时刻。到1880年代中期，其有效性已在欧洲被广泛接受。在当代约会计划中，“铜器时代”的定义根据地区和国家的传统而有所不同。本文探讨了有关将技术阶段用作时间顺序的争论，并考察了欧洲早期冶金的替代概念化的历史，包括那些处于发展的社会经济阶段的概念。