Dark Ages

The Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is a metaphor with multiple meanings and connotations. It is most commonly known in relation to the European Middle Ages, but it is also used to denote other periods from which events are relatively obscure because of our lack of knowledge of them, usually through lack of written record. "Dark Age" is often used generally to emphasize the violence or difficulty of a particular period, while it is employed more formally to denote an era that is archaeologically obscure. In addition to its historiographic function, "Dark Age" has also been applied usefully to describe the time in the early cosmos, after the brilliance had faded but before the first stars began to shine. Most commonly, as applied to History of Europe, the term "Dark Ages" was originally used to denote the 900-year period we now call the Middle Ages. This concept of a "Dark Age" was first created by Italian humanism and was originally intended as a pejorative sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but a lack of material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope. The rise of archaeology and other specialities in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments. Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized. Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors had simply assumed that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and used this assumption to prove itself. In Britain and the United States, "Dark Ages" has been occasionally used by professionals, with severe qualification, as a term of periodization. Unlike Petrarch's negative connotations, this usage is intended as non-judgmental and simply means the relative lack of written record, "silent" as much as "dark." ==Origin of Dark Ages concept== [[Image:Tommaso.Laureti.Triumph.of.Christianity.jpg|right|thumb|250px|''"Triumph of Christianity" by Tommaso Laureti (1530-1602), ceiling painting in the Sala di Constantino, Vatican City. Images like this one celebrate the destruction of ancient Paganism culture and the victory of Christianity. See also iconoclasm'']] To understand how the concept of the Dark Ages originated it is helpful to understand how the people of the time saw their own place in history. Most scholars in Late Antiquity followed St. Augustine (5th century), who believed history had Six Ages of the World, and that they were living in the sixth and final stage of history. In this phase the end of earthly man was expected after Christ returned to earth, and the events of Revelation and the Christian eschatology could happen at any time. Though the momentarily expected imminent Second Coming faded for Christians during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the idea of the world in a late age was prevalent for nearly 900 years. ===Petrarch and the "Dark Ages"=== It is generally accepted that the term was invented by Petrarch in the 1330s. Writing of those who had come before him, he said that "amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius, no less keen were their eyes, although they were ''surrounded by darkness'' and dense gloom" (Petrarch, ''De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia''). Christian writers had used traditional metaphors of "light versus darkness" to describe "good versus evil." Petrarch was the first to co-opt the metaphor and give it secular meaning as a humanist by reversing its application. Classical Antiquity, so long considered the "dark age" for its lack of Christianity, was now seen as the age of "light" because of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch's time, lacking such cultural achievements, was now seen as the age of darkness. Why did Petrarch call it an age of darkness? Petrarch spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and republishing the classic Latin and Greek texts. He wanted to restore the classical Latin language to its former purity. Humanists saw the preceding 900-year period as a time of stagnation. They saw history not in the religious terms of St. Augustine, but in ''cultural'' (or secular) terms, through the progressive developments of Classical ideals, literature and art. Petrarch wrote that history had had two periods: the Classic period of the Romans and Greeks, followed by a time of darkness, in which he saw himself as still living. Humanists believed one day the Roman Empire would rise again and restore Classic cultural purity. The concept of the European Dark Ages thus began as an ideological campaign by humanists to promote Classical culture, and was therefore not a neutral historical analysis. It was invented to express disapproval of one period in time, and the promotion of another. By the late 14th and early 15th Century, humanists such as Leonardo Bruni believed they had attained this new age, and a third, Modern Age had begun. The age before their own, which Petrarch had labeled "Dark," had thus become a "Middle" Age between the Classic and the Modern. The first use of the term "Middle Age" appears with Flavio Biondo around 1439. ==The Dark Ages Concept after the Renaissance== ''Main article: Middle Ages in history'' Historians prior to the 20th century wrote about the Middle Ages with a mixture of positive and negative, but mostly negative sentiment. ====Reformation==== During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th Century, Protestants wrote about it as a period of Catholic corruption. Just as Petrarch's writing was not an attack on Christianity ''per se''—in addition to his humanism he was deeply occupied with the search for God—neither of course was this an attack on Christianity, but the opposite: a drive to restore what Protestants saw as a "purer" Christianity. In response to these attacks Catholic reformers developed a counter image, depicting the age as a period of social and religious harmony, and not "dark" at all. ====Enlightenment==== During the 17th and 18th century, in the age of Enlightenment, religion was seen as antithetical to reason. Because the Middle Ages was an "Age of Faith" when religion reigned, it was seen as a period contrary to reason, and thus contrary to the Enlightenment. Immanuel Kant and Voltaire were two Enlightenment writers who were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Ages as a period of social decline. Many modern negative conceptions of the age come from Enlightenment authors. Yet just as Petrarch, seeing himself on the threshold of a "new age," was criticizing the centuries up until his own time, so too were the Enlightenment writers criticizing the centuries up until their own. These extended well after Petrarch's time, since religious domination and conflict were still common into the 17th century and even beyond, albeit diminished in scope. Consequently an evolution had occurred, in at least three ways. Petrarch's original metaphor of "light versus dark" had been expanded in time, implicitly at least. Even if the early humanists after him no longer saw themselves living in a "dark" age, their times were still not "light" enough for 18th century writers who saw themselves as living in the real "age of Enlightenment," while the period covered by their own condemnation had extended and was focused also on what we now call Early Modern times. Additionally Petrarch's metaphor of "darkness," which he used mainly to deplore what he saw as a lack of secular achievements, was now sharpened to take on a more explicitly anti-religious meaning. In spite of this, the term "Middle" Ages, used by Biondo and other early humanists after Petrarch, was the name in general use before the 18th century to denote the period up until the Renaissance. The earliest recorded use of the English word "medieval" was in 1827. The term "Dark Ages" was also in use, but by the 18th century tended to be confined to the earlier part of this "medieval" period. Starting and ending dates varied: the "Dark Ages" were considered by some to start in 410, by others in 476 when there was no longer an emperor in Rome itself, and to end about 800 at the time of the Carolingian Renaissance under Charlemagne, or to extend through the rest of the first millennium up until about the year 1000. ====Romantics==== In the early 19th century, the Romanticism reversed the negative assessment of Enlightenment critics. The word "Gothic" had been a term of opprobrium akin to "Vandal," until a few self-confident mid-18th century English "goths" like Horace Walpole initiated the Gothic Revival in the arts, which for the following Romanticism generation began to take on an idyllic image of the "Age of Faith." This image, in reaction to a world dominated by Enlightenment rationalism in which reason trumped emotion, expressed a romantic view of a Golden Age of chivalry. The Middle Ages were seen with romantic nostalgia as a period of social and environmental harmony and spiritual inspiration, in contrast to the excesses of the French Revolution and most of all to the environmental and social upheavals and sterile utilitarianism of the emerging industrial revolution. The Romantics' view of these earlier centuries can still be seen in modern-day fairs and festivals celebrating the period with costumes and events (see "Renaissance fair"). Just as Petrarch had turned the meaning of "light versus darkness" on its head, so had the Romanticism turned the judgment of Enlightenment critics on its head. However, the period idealized by the Romanticism focused largely on what we now call in English the High Middle Ages, extending into Early Modern times. In one respect this was a reversal of the religious aspect of Petrarch's judgment, since these later centuries were those when the universal power and prestige of the Church was at its height. To many users of the term, the scope of the "Dark Ages" was becoming divorced from this period, now denoting mainly the earlier centuries after the fall of Rome. ==Modern academic use== The term "Dark Ages" is expressive in a different sense today having narrowed somewhat as knowledge has increased. Namely, the events of centuries before roughly 1000 C.E. often seem "dark" to us, due to their paucity of historical records compared with later times—not the entire period Petrarch conceived nor the more familiar High Middle Ages. Late 5th and 6th century Britain for instance, at the height of the Saxon invasions, might well be numbered among "the darkest of the Dark Ages," with the equivalent of a near-total news blackout compared with the Roman era before or even with the centuries following. Further east, the same was true in the formerly Roman province of Dacia, where history after the Roman withdrawal went unrecorded for centuries as Slavs, Avars, Bulgars and others struggled for supremacy in the Danube basin, and events there are still disputed. Historians today also use terms such as "Late Antiquity" and "Early Middle Ages" or "V�lkerwanderung" to describe this earlier period. Meanwhile, the Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate experienced Ages that were Golden rather than Dark. Consequently, while usage of these terms varies, including from one place to another (see below), one trend has been for the two terms, Dark Ages and Middle Ages, that were once synonymous in the minds of early humanists to be differentiated and applied to two distinct (if consecutive) periods. Ironically, while Petrarch's concept of a "Dark Age" corresponded to a mostly "Christian" period following pagan Rome, what most users of the term label the "Dark Ages" today are those least Christianized, when events in parts (though not all) of Europe were dominated by the activities of pagan tribes. Depending on country of origin, historians will call Petrarch's "Dark Age" different names. For example in English, Russian and Icelandic speaking countries it is called the Middle Ages (plural), meaning there are sub-groups such as the Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. By contrast, in most major European languages—French, German, Spanish, Italian—where a large majority of research of the period originates, it is spoken of in the singular, Middle Age, and not broken into subgroups. This creates confusion on what the time line of the period is, so it is often safe to assume, without other context, it means the entire period from the fall of Rome in 410 through to the start of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th Century. In a three-period view of history (Antiquity, Middle, Modern) the period would end in 1500. ==Modern popular use== In modern times, the term "Dark Ages" is still used in popular culture. Petrarch's ideological campaign to paint the Middle Ages in a negative light worked so well that "Dark Ages" is still in popular use nearly 700 years later. The humanists' goal of reviving and revering the classics of antiquity was institutionalized in the newly forming Medieval university at the time, and the schools over the centuries have remained true to their humanist roots. Students of education systems today are familiar with the canon of Greek authors, but few are ever exposed to the great thinkers of the Middle Ages such as Peter Abelard or Sigerus of Brabant. While the classics programs remain strong, students of the Middle Ages are not nearly as common: for example the first medieval historian in the United States, Charles Haskins, was not recognized until the early 20th century, and the number of students of the Middle Ages remains to this day very small compared to the classics. Film and novels often use the term Dark Age with its implied meaning of a time less civilized than our own. One could also say the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" humorously portrays the Dark Ages of the Middle-Age. Historians today consider the negative connotations of the word "dark" in "Dark Ages" negates its usefulness as a description of history. Yet Petrarch's concept of it, like that of other early humanists after him, as a discrete period distinct from our "Modern" age, has endured, and the term still finds use, through various definitions, both in popular culture and academic discourse. ==Other Dark Ages== In the Ancient Near East there are consistent gaps in structures, writing or works of art at many urban sites between 1200s BCE and 850s BCE, known as the \"Dark Ages\" of the Ancient Near East. More specifically, the term 'Greek Dark Ages' is also used for the period in the history of Ancient Greece between the 12th century BC and 9th century BC from which no records, and only scant archaeological evidence, survive. In cosmology's Big Bang theory, the term dark ages refers to periods of comparatively little starlight emission, during the early formation of the universe. This would have occurred after decoupling and before the first burst of star formation. In Cambodia, the more than four centuries that passed from around the mid-15th century to the establishment of a protectorate under the French in 1863 are considered by historians to be the Dark ages of Cambodia, a period of economic, social, and cultural stagnation. ==Quotes== *"What else, then, is all history, but the praise of Rome?"—Petrarch *"Each famous author of antiquity whom I recover places a new offence and another cause of dishonour to the charge of earlier generations, who, not satisfied with their own disgraceful barrenness, permitted the fruit of other minds, and the writings that their ancestors had produced by toil and application, to perish through insufferable neglect. Although they had nothing of their own to hand down to those who were to come after, they robbed posterity of its ancestral heritage."—Petrarch *"My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance."—Petrarch *"The Middle Ages is an unfortunate term. It was not invented until the age was long past. The dwellers in the Middle Ages would not have recognized it. They did not know that they were living in the middle; they thought, quite rightly, that they were time's latest achievement."—Morris Bishop, ''The Middle Ages'' (1968) ==Bibliography== *Mommsen, Theodore E., "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'", ''Speculum'', Vol.17, No 2. (Apr.,1942), pp.226-242. ==Notes== *Mommsen. ==See also== * Middle Ages in history * Heribert Illig * Middle ages Historical eras

Dark Ages

==MikeS's comments== In Authurian in legend the Pagans were the Celts. Remember Merlin? I think in reality (in Brittain) it was much more of somewhat Romanized, somewhat urban, somewhat pagan Celts being invaded and replaced by mainly pagan Saxons. ---[MikeS] Those familiar with the developments during the "Dark Ages" find the old view obsolete and, to some, even embarrassing. To ignore the developments in science, art and medicine during this period may be a result of focusing only on "Western" Europe and ignoring the developments in Spain (southwest of France), Sicily and elsewhere. Even John of Salisbury knew better. When he wanted to study philosophy he went to Sicily. The books of Aristotle were saved and preserved in the Arab Empire, gratitude may be too much to expect but some acknowledgment seems proper. Two of the great philosophers of the times were Rabbi Moses Maimonides (The greatest Jewish Philosopher. "From Moses to Moses, there is none like Moses") and Judge Ibn Rusd (Averroes). Scholars from Greece, England, Germany and elsewhere had free passage to study in learning and translation centers in Toledo, Sicily and elsewhere. Perhaps it is time to begin to bring light to the dark ages. There is fascinating history in the "Dark Ages", for example, Maimonides was exiled and became the personal physician of the Great Saladin. The details, implications and consequences makes fascinating reading. To call the times of Alber the Great and Thomas Aquinas the "Dark Ages" seems disrepectful of a philosophy that is the foundation of the largest Christian religion. Interesting history was made by King Roger I of Normandy, the land of Normans or "Northsmen", Scandinavian Vikings. The contributions of Abbot Suger and the Gothic Church of St. Denis, the first medical doctor licences by King Roger II, of Sicily, the foundation of the University of Paris, the translation of the books of Aristotle at the Toledo Center of Translation, founded by Bishop Raymond, etc. To ignore the Battle of Hastings, the stirrup and its history from the land of the Mongols, etc. All this information is available in books of history. Then there is the story of the first traveler to China, well before Marco Polo, he was Jewish, knowledge is best to fight prejudices. But, maybe it's too soon to acknowledge the Irish contributions to the salvation of Civilization in Europe. Consider the possibility that Civilization may have progressed more outside "Western" Europe in the "Dark Ages." We are all exposed to bias. I will accept your decision without further comment. -- [Mike] : The above paragraph is highly biased and therefore not acceptable within the article as per our NPOV guidelines. I am familiar with the developments during the Dark Ages, and I do not find the "old view", held by many modern atheists and humanists, obsolete at all. I am more concerned about recent developments of apologetics regarding the dismal state of culture and science during this period of human history. Yes, cultural development continued at a much slower pace outside Western European civilization, but within Europe, classical discoveries were forgotten or deliberately suppressed, medicine returned to magical thinking, roads and bridges deteriorated (ancient road standards would not be reached until the 19th century), buildings of classical scale could no longer be built, water came out of wells which were frequently contaminated instead of being transported through Rome's elaborate network of aqueducts. Art returned to primitive paintings that can barely compete with those found in Altamira and are no match to even the cheapest standard wall painting found in Pompeii -- even so, artistic creation was suppressed and often destroyed such as during the great periods of iconoclasm, which are a direct neuropsychological mirror of what would happen more than 1000 years later in Taliabn-controlled Afghanistan. : Even beliefs in a Flat Earth were revived (and despite of what Russell thinks, there is ample evidence that even Augustine may have held such beliefs). The church used and abused its position of power for profit through tricks and forgeries. It was the fuel in the fire that burned ancient libraries, temples and even thinkers, the persecution of pagans in the 4th century being a chapter which is missing from virtually all Christian-influenced history books. No, I don't think the term "Dark Ages" is inappropriate or obsolete. In some areas, such as sexual morality which remains heavily Christian-influenced, the Dark Ages continue until today. User:Eloquence 02:16 28 Jul 2003 (UTC) == Kenneth Alan's additions == Kenneth Alan added the following two mega paragraphs: : Descriptions meaning 'plunderer' about vikings are the machinations of medieval Catholic clergy after they suffered from raids on their churches and monastery. These largely originated Greek-turned-Roman Christian institutions held money originally siphoned from the local Celtss by these Latin Christians, and the Christians tried to twist it around so that the Northmen would look worse than they-just for setting up at the ports for trade as unconverted heathens, claiming to the Britons that God would forgive them for their sins if they supported the church more, in effect, worming their way out and manipulating the fighting which did occur-a repeat of the former Anglo-Saxon invasion which bribed the Britons into submission, which was a further repeat of the first missionaries who accompanied the Ancient Rome during Caesar's annexation of Britannia when the Picts were the first demonised of the Celts on the islands, which obviously was another repeat of how the pagan Roman priests were sanctioned by the Roman leaders to bribe the Roman legions into conscription against the Gauls, to justify the expansion of the Romans into an empire. The Irish had seen this and willingly converted to Christianity to avoid direct submission to the Romans who took Britain. They believed that they would hold more direct control over their affairs, despite the later consumption of the Celtic church by the Roman church. The Christians, no matter how they may have said they hated Romans, actually preferred to be allied with the Romans over the latter Germanic tribes for their own Mediterranean-based sake. : The bribed-into-Christian Anglo-Saxons, Frisians and Jutes were not the target of the Viking raids, but met in conflict with at the goading of the Church's bribes and possible loss thereof from Rome(taken from the Celts all over the Roman Empire) to subdue their heathen relatives 'so that the Celts wouldn't try to make war upon them' with the distraction of heathenry's rebirth in the British Isles by the vikings, a faith held by the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes and Frisians themselves, before their bribery by Romans to take Britain and subsequent 'nail-in-the-coffin' bribery with prestigious titles and influence under Christianity(King James would eventually write the Bible in English favor after the Reformation gave power back to the local governments) . After the vikings were subdued by their own reception of Christian bribery in their homelands, as fascist kings consolidated their power, they too would make crusades throughout the Finns, Balts and Slavs for the Baltic Sea's control. This is a topic found in most of the Middle ages, and in fact the reason for the term "Dark Ages", is because the Christian power was controlled by Greece and Roman forces in the shadows (using the 'innocence of the baby Jesus' and his mother Mary's "purity" as their front or cover up for their real intents-besides the usual Greek 'superiority complex' when it comes to philosophy and the Roman zealous enforcement of all things Greek, as Christianity was a Greek religion based on Greek philosopher interpretation of Jesus and his associates' ideas), who manipulated whole slews of events in their favor, rather than open dominance in the military field, which they had already tried and failed with, hence the 'fall of the Roman Empire'. But puppeteering the Germanic tribes into violence certainly worked for them and the various lands of Europe and around the Mediterranean became a veritable chessboard battleground for them to try and consolidate it all under their wing, which was checked by the expansion of Islam to the south and east. A very deciding factor into why heresy were punished harshly was because the string pullers wanted unified conformity to keep power in their image ''AND'' repel invasions from the Asia and North Africans, of which the latter goal was something the rest of the Europeans cared about greatly(allowing the empire to exist), but the former ideal has been a hot contest amongst the ethnicities of Europe over who's image is most superior, and not wanting subjection to forced ideals by occupying neighbors, which did resemble the many attempted and some succeeded invasions of Europe by the outer fringe of Europe(Huns, Avars, Magyars, Mongols, Turks). Until the formation of nationalism at the end of the Middle Ages, most tribes grudgingly consented to the "protection" of the Mediterranean church's saintly martyrdom as long as they had some representation and say in their own affairs to defend themselves, of which the appointment of Pope-crowned kings seemed to have been a two-way affair for control by local peoples and Greece/Rome. This was responsible for creating 'heroes', but who sometimes were thrown into affairs that seem to plunge Europe into further risk of chaos by creating distrust amongst neighbors or inciting unrelated tribes into invasion of Europe's lands, such as the Muslims' peoples-leading into modern day violence between Middle east Islamics in regards to Christian support of Crusader-based Zionism, much like the formation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the modern creation of Israel as a state has had similar effects and issues in the region as the past. As is, these are of course irredeemably POV. Claims like ''the Christian power was controlled by Greek and Roman forces in the shadows(using the 'innocence of the baby Jesus' and his mother Mary's "purity" as their front or cover up for their real intents-besides the usual Greek 'superiority complex' when it comes to philosophy and the Roman zealous enforcement of all things Greek, as Christianity was a Greek religion based on Greek philosopher interpretation of Jesus and his associates' ideas)'' need to be attributed ''and'' backed up with citations as ''one'' possible interpretation. Currently they are neither attributed, nor are citations provided. I would ask Kenneth to read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, and rewrite these paragraphs accordingly, with citations provided for all controversial elements. Furthermore, this obviously needs serious copyediting and paragraph-splitup before it can be accepted.User:Eloquence 17:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC) : If you want to have a conversation, the first thing you should do is start using paragraphs.User:Eloquence 22:10, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC) [MikeS]: I too agree the erudite and enlightened sentences do indeed illuminate the Dark Ages but, seem different to my style of writing. I susppose the difference between Wikipedia and the Dark Ages is that we do not "decapitate" those that disagree with us, or express a different style or form of reasoning. I particularly like the attempt at placing the Vikings in a proper historical perspective. I suspect Celt culture was not welcomed in Europe and some are not ready to forgive and forget. They may forgive acts they may not have perpetrated but should not forget. The Vikings, Nordsmen, baceme the Normans which could be said formed the basis of English culture and the Normans ruled Sicily and invaded Jerusalem; their contributions are "grossly" ignored. The mosaic that is history is far more colorful and rich than has been painted, up to the advent of Wikipedia. I am grateful for the progress in Civility. --MikeS == Help to stay on Topic == Please remember this is not the place to write about the history of the period. The Dark Ages is a defined concept that came about in the 1300s and has specific meaning and signifigance. The origin and history of the Dark Age concept, how it has been percieved throughout history, is what this page is for. Any history that takes place prior to Petrarchs definition of the concept in 1300s probably does not belong on this page. The history of the Middle Ages period should probably be placed elsewhere, probably under the heading of the Middle Ages or appropriate sub page. User:Stbalbach 08:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Stbalbach's good idea is made more complicated at Wikipedia by the fact that "Migrations period," the most usual modern term, has been highjacked by the German-centered ''V�lkerwanderung,'' umlaut and all. As Wikipedia stands, Middle Ages has a subsection "Early Middle Ages" where all material providing a general overview would fit nicely. Just cut 'n paste. User:Wetman 18:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) :: Actually, you have Human migration#The Great Migrations, and Great Migration points there, too. --User:Shallot 20:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Good point, Shallot. I'm making sure Late Antiquity links to these. User:Wetman 18:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) == (re)moving history of the dark ages == In regards to this paragraph: ''The continuities between early Dark Age society and late imperial Rome have been stressed by some writers, who wish to emphasise that medieval culture was already developing in the empire, and indeed continued to do so in the unconquered eastern (Byzantine) portion of the empire. However, many of the tribes who took over imperial land were initially pagan. The development of a solidly Christian Europe, in opposition to an Islamic empire based in North Africa and the Middle East, marks a major cultural and political shift, as does the development of the feudal system. With this, and the cultural developments after the Carolingian renaissance, the concept of the Dark Ages ceases to be meaningful. The "darkest" period is probably the Seventh Century (600-700CE), co-inciding with the near collapse of the Byzantine empire from invasion first from the Persian Empire and later the Islamic takeover of the southern and eastern Mediterranean.'' It is essentially a history and POV analysis of the historical period. In order to stay on topic and keep things from digressing, The Dark Ages page is not about the history of the period, but about the history of the term and concept "dark ages", which was not invented untill the 1330s. We should not analysis the period, but rather the origin and history of the term. Any history previous to 1330 is probably not relevant. If someone can find a new home for this paragraph, probably under the history of the middle ages somewhere please go ahead. If you do so, I recomend providing supporting material for the claim "after the Carolingian renaissance, the concept of the Dark Ages ceases to be meaningful." because as it stands it looks like original analysis and not generally accepted historical doctrine, or reword as such, or provide other generally accepted alternative analysis of such. Thanks. User:Stbalbach == Grammar / Sentence Structure oddity == ''Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts, desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways and any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.'' This sentence needs some clarification. If we drop ''who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts'' we get this sentence: Petrarch desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways and any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying. So, is the sentence attempting to describe: ''any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying''? That's understandable. But within the context, it's very oddly constructed. I think, but I'm not completely sure, that the sentence should have been constructed as: Petrarch desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways because any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying. So, the sentence should really say: ''Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe rediscovering and re-publishing the classic Latin and Greek texts, desired to restore the classic Latin language, art and culture to the original Roman ways because any changes that had happened since the fall of Rome in 410 was not worth studying.'' --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 22:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oh, from what I gather, this was the original intent, even though a bit extreme: ''For Petrarch, who spent much of his time traveling through Europe re-discovering and re-publishing the classic Roman and Greek texts, any work not of Classical origin was unworthy of study and beneath contempt. As a humanist he desired to restore the classic Roman language, art and culture to original Roman purity and any changes since the fall of Rome in 410 were cultural and social rot.'' Reference: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dark_Ages&oldid=4951954] --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 22:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Fixed. Should be more clear. User:Stbalbach 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ;;What would truly improve this lead-in, and the whole entry, is a direct quote of Petrarch (naming source), using a phrase equivalent to "Dark Ages." Clunky construction is a side issue here. --User:Wetman 23:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I would also like to find the "Age of Darkness" quote, but have only heard of it from secondary sources. It's very possible the quote is more conceptual in nature than a 3 word coin-phrase. Another quote attributed to Petrarch is ''..restored to light the ancient elegance of style which was lost and dead''.--User:Stbalbach 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Someone owghts to get the dates and ideas correct... == According to Petrarch's Wikipedia bio, he lived and died in the 13th century. How could he had possibly had invented this concept in the 14th century? Concerning the fall of the Western Roman Empire, was it in 410 as stated on this article or 476? :Petrarch was born in 1307, the 14th century (as in 2005 is the 21st century). There really was no exact date for the "fall of rome", but there are two dates generally seen to signify the end of the Roman Empire, this article picked the earlier one (for reasons I can't remember at the moment). User:Stbalbach 14:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::410 was the year of the Goth's first sacking of Rome (one of many in the fifth century). It's generally considered the mortal blow to the Western Empire though 476 is the better known date.--User:Marskell 15:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Scarcity of written records == "Scarity of records" may exist in popular perception, but it is a myth. We have more extant documents from the so-called Dark Ages than we do the classical period (indeed, the classical documents come to us from "dark ages" manuscripts). There were fewer original works of a secular nature (and thus, of interest to our modern sensibilities), but there was a flood of religious documents during the period; it was not lacking in written records. Indeed, one could say the perception is just another Enlightenment/humanists perjorative assesment. The article should go out of its way to make it clear the "scarity of written records" is not accurate, or at least provide a more balanced NPOV perspective. The "History of the Dark Ages concept" section has become too detailed, trying to fit too much in one section, the article is about Dark Ages, not Middle Ages historiography. There's a lot more that could be and should be said. It deserves an entire article, probably "Middle Ages (historiography)", and even then it could easily spawn off seperate articles (such as the middle ages in media such as film, etc..). There are a number of articles that could link to a main "Middle Ages (historiography)" article, this one included. User:Stbalbach 06:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Written records and other criteria of "darkness" == The problem I saw with the original article was that it failed to center on what most people have called (and still call, popularly or otherwise) the "Dark Ages" (of Europe). That's to say, there may be a "Middle Age," but people have tended to segment that further into an earlier period I could call for the sake of discussion the "lower" Middle Age (regardless of its starting and ending dates), as distinct from some "upper" Middle Age. It's the "lower" Middle Age to which the term "Dark" Ages is almost exclusively applied. It wasn't my intention to negate what anyone else had written, as far as it's valid—about Petrarch for instance. But I see Petrarch and the early humanists only as precursors to the modern "Dark Age" concept. They did two things. One was to create the concept of a "Middle" Age. That was a necessary precursor to subdividing it further, but not the same as what most people call the "Dark Ages" today. The other was to conceive the idea that the age was in some sense "dark." But to my knowledge "Dark Age" was hardly used as a ''formal name'' for the period as a whole, after Petrarch's notion of it. That place was taken instead by Biondo's term "Middle" Age. As far as people use the term "Dark Ages," they're only referring to the "lower" part of the period Petrarch first identified, and using different criteria to define this portion as "dark." It's not a deficiency of Graeco-Roman culture that uniquely distinguishes the "Dark Ages" from the "upper" Middle Age, nor even the dominance of Christianity over secular life, since these were both true of the "upper" Middle Age as well—perhaps even more so with its Church domination. It's debatable whether or not the influence of Petrarch and other early humanists on attitudes to the Middle Age ''as a whole'' belongs in another article. It does seem more closely allied to a discussion of "the Middle Ages." Since it was already here, and it is relevant background, I simply left it here. If anyone wants to "blame" anyone for calling the Dark Ages "dark," I'd lay that more at the door of the Enlightenment period. It was around the 18th century that "Dark Ages" came into widespread use as a label for the "lower" Middle Age. It seems obvious why that happened. It was by that time that people were becoming fully aware of the reality of material progress through knowledge gained by rational inquiry and its application through technology. That's what was especially deficient in the Dark Ages—if not so much in the "upper" Middle Age, when organization grew, technology improved, trade expanded, prosperity increased, and there were more disposable resources to devote to literacy, art, and more refined culture of all kinds. Maybe the role played by the Enlightenment assessment of the Dark Ages needs bringing to the foreground, if not necessarily in these words. Assuming though that this article should focus mostly on the "lower" Middle Age, surely it's not a "myth" that records pertaining to that period were scarcer than in the "upper" Middle Age? (Even the thinkers mentioned, like Peter Abelard and Sigerus of Brabant, belonged to the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, not the "Dark Ages.") And that is the other reason why so many people call these ages "dark," even if it's a side effect arising from low material living standards and lack of communication, and whether it's a misconception or not. I don't see how that can be ignored, especially when there are large gaps and fuzzy areas in knowledge about the history of the Dark Ages. Maybe the real point is that even if there were fewer records still pertaining to Classical times, the evidence of "high culture" made up for that, compared with the "Dark Ages" that followed. Alternatively, I could propose that if Petrarch characterized the entire Middle Age as "dark" due to its lack of Graeco-Roman culture specifically—a narrow criterion that takes in a long period—that concept has been broadened since then to define an age as "dark" due to its lack of "high culture" generally, which limits the scope of the period in this case to its earlier portion. Arguably the Romantics, far from rehabilitating the image of the "Dark Ages," only thrust the period further into shadow in comparison, by championing especially the values of medieval chivalry which belong to the High Middle Ages. Anyway it is a question of defining the criteria by which people in more modern times have categorized the "lower" Middle Age specifically as "dark." User:Gordon L 15:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) :The point of this article, and Wikipedia, is to express the various POVs, even if they conflict. We should not enter in to original research and try to reconcile what the term "really" means (BTW I disagree that most people think of the Dark Ages as the early period only. At least in popular conception, anything that involves swords and knights in armour and manuscripts and chanting monks is a "dark age"). I believe the article should focus on the origin of the term and show where it came from and why and how its been used since its invention. If later historians have used the term to describe a specific period such as the 6th century, then the article should discuss that (and does thanks to your good work), but it should not be the central focus; by doing that, you are taking a POV. Instead we should focus on where the term came from, who created it, why, and when (Who, What, Where, When, Why). What is currently missing, is the Who/What information to describe the early period usage of the term. When did people first start using the term "Dark Ages" to describe the very early period only? Why? Who did it first? I don't know the answer, but can guarantee it all falls in line going back to Petrarch and will fit in nicely with the articles current structure, showing how the term has evolved over time. :Also I think trying to make the term "Dark Ages" non-pejorative, by saying it means simply "obscure" and nothing else, I don't think is accurate. Words have meanings and when someone uses the word "dark" to describe somthing, in the western tradition, it almost always has judgemental overtones, even if it is un-intended. That is why the term is not often used anymore and replaced by other descriptions. This is very much an English discussion, in other countries like France and Germany they have retained the singular Dark Age and Middle Age and call other periods things like Great Migrations etc.. --User:Stbalbach 16:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) There's no reason to find an obsolete term "embarassing." The "dark" of "Dark Ages" suggests to the historian a lack of surviving ''written record''. I think that archaeologists have no "dark" ages. It's used by historians of the Ancient Near East perfectly colorlessly, to describe the entire lack of written documentation in the early 1st millennium. Who is the historian who employed the image of a flickering flashlight beam moving at random through a packed storeroom, and the historian's job one of interpreting the whole thing? I agree with Stbalbach that changing connotations of "Dark Ages" is the real meat of this entry. Or should be. The modern alternatives (well linked) should also be discussed. Wikipedia can't deal with every ''My Big Knights-in-Armor Coloring Book'' theme, however, and shouldn't try. There's meat in the above Discussion that should be in the entry itself. --User:Wetman 19:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Yeah I agree with that. I think the problem im seeing is we are trying to cover the historiography of the middle ages within the constraints of an article entitled "dark ages" .. the historiography is actually a very rich and interesting subject and could easily cover multiple sub-articles. It doesnt make sense to write a historiography of the middle ages with the definition of "dark age" as the core theme. I know the article started out that way and Gordon just filled in the blanks, but thats due in part because there is currently no real historiography article as of yet. --User:Stbalbach 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) == POV == This article reads to me as an apology for the period as much as a neutral description of the term. Three times it's observed that Dark Ages is a "pejorative." So what. If I'm talking to a person and use pejoratives fault me, if I'm talking about an ''era'' try and prove me wrong. "It was invented to express disapproval of one period in time, and the promotion of another." Annoying PC-speak. Supposing I assert that the 14th century was a brutal and violent time for much of Eurasia (it was) would the correct response be "this unfairly disparages the 14th century and priviliges other centuries"? Hardly. The Dark Ages WERE dark for much of Europe, which isn't really acknowledged here. Note Eloquence's comments above about the state of infrastructure etc.--I'd suggest moving these comments right into the article to balance things out. --User:Marskell 16:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Many in the religious community do not consider it a dark age, just the opposite, it was when the Church and God ruled. Even pre-eminement secular historians consider the 12th century a renaissance. Sure times were hard, but hard compared to what? Was England any better off before the Dark Ages? There was a thin veneer of pagan civilization around the Mediteranian pond that represented perhaps %10 of the population, for everyone else I dont think it really made much difference, in fact they might have been better off under Christianity than paganism. The emphesis on culture is just that a humanist secular value system, for the eccelastial side these things are not as important. This article should not try and perpetuate the simplistic view of history embedded in the term but rather deconstruct the term and provide some historiography and let the reader decide for themselves how to judge based on their own value system. User:Stbalbach 23:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :On further reflection of using this article as a placeholder for the history of the period. we allready have an article, called Middle Ages. The reason we do not describe the history here is because the term is anachronistic, it is no longer used, except in a narrow sense by some professionals in some countries. As for you concern about it being a pejorative term, sorry thats what it is, this is nothing new its been well established for at least a 100 years, I can find a Victorian historian at the dawn of the modern profession who was saying this. Sorry I am unfamliar with what PC means, I know what it stands for but the meaning alludes me (except that it, also, is a pejorative phrase that expresses dislike for somthing). User:Stbalbach 01:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::Let's "deconstruct the term and provide some historiography and let the reader decide for themselves how to judge based on their own value system." OK, so the paragraphs I added on illiteracy and a lack of urbanity are fair. I assume by placeholder for the history you don't want "the goths attacked x over y period" and I agree to a point. The substantial difference seems to be over the role of the church. You added "the period is rich with non-theological texts and not dark at all in secular works." Hm. The medieval literature page says secular works are "rare but varied" and basically lists those produced from 1100 on. Listing St. Augustine is a little disingenuous given that he wrote before and during Rome's fall. According to the Wiki definition of Medieval Literature he actually doesn't qualify as a Medieval writer. “Almost every piece of Classic literature known to the west, at least until recent archeology discoveries, was preserved in a Christian manuscript.” (!) So the many dozens of times I’ve heard or read that Aristotle was lost to the west for five or six centuries is untrue? ::My point, I guess, is that "deconstructing" shouldn't be simply inverting the common viewpoint on the period. "Not a lot of culture was produced." "Actually, a lot was produced--end of story and no one start listing the period's deprivations to muddy the waters." You removed, for instance, the comment about the destruction of monastaries as, I suppose, Vikings burning books and hauling away gold is too much of a cliched image. But this goes right to the darkness of the period: much much more would have survived if so much hadn't been pillaged. ::A few small points. Constantinople was large but did not exceed a million people until modern times (correct me if you’ve got a source but I have read this). The point holds in any case: you’ve heard the stories about cows grazing in the Coliseum a millennium after the fall of Rome… “People were illiterate, subsistence farmers even before the dark ages” Yes obviously—90% + of Europeans (of human beings period in fact) were illiterate, subsistence farmers until the 19th century but this needs qualification. There is an enormous difference between having a literate urban class of even one or two percent and having effectively everyone illiterate from the king on down. When the Romans set up shop, even in places as far-flung as London, they brought urbanity and bureaucracy with them. They built the baths, the stadiums and they had scribes. "Was England any better off before the Dark Ages?" The pagan Celtic-Romano population of England was effectively destroyed when Rome fell apart. But I suppose you'd rather not mention that either or it will drudge up all of the unfair ideas people have had about the period. User:Marskell 11:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :"..The medieval literature page says secular works are "rare but varied" " :The Medieval literature page should be deleted and written from scratch by someone who knows what they are doing. It's on my list of things, but [http://www.the-orb.net/wemsk/subjectindex.html its such a huge topic, its overwhelming]. Our Universities and educational institutions are humanist based and thus show a natural bias against the Medieval period and lightly tread through the literature in favour of classical and modern works, but suffice it to say one could spend a lifetime studying medieval literature just as one could classical or modern, there is simply a flood of material, although more difficult to accesss for a lot of reasons. You dont really get to it in depth unless your a Medievalist at the graduate level. :"..Listing St. Augustine is a little disingenuous" :Sheesh, I have Augustine on the brain (Im currently studying him), I mean St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) :"..So the many dozens of times I’ve heard or read that Aristotle was lost to the west for five or six centuries is untrue? " :Of course not, although technically one of his works was well known and studied throughout the middle ages, but really what was "lost" was the notion that we can known and understand the world through observation and our own understanding, and not via divine providence or intervention or the study of old authoritative texts. In any case it was the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages that brought him back. :"..Constantinople was large but did not exceed a million people until modern times " :The estimates for the pop of Rome and Constantinople vary widely. One could compare the most wild estimates for Rome to the more mainstream estimates for Constantinople and come to certain conclusions, but I think we need to be careful about being assured in our sense of not only hard numbers, but that size is an important factor in determining levels of civilization (Mexico City is bigger than San Francisco).. for example how many of Romes populations were slaves? :"..everyone illiterate from the king on down" :In the classical world literacy was reserved for a small minority of citizens. With the advent of Christianity, the religion of "the book", literacy was opened up to every one, all you had to do was be Christian. It is one of the reasons it was so succefull, people wanted to be educated without having to be born into a privledged class. Monks, monastaries, etc.. trained and educated people throughout the period in a depth that did not exist in the classical period. Lay literacy was not as bad as you make it out to be, and Christianity was the reason. :"..The pagan Celtic-Romano population of England was effectively destroyed when Rome fell apart." :The populations were destroyed? My understanding is people held on their Roman lifestyles for generations and it decayed over a period of time as the ability to raise taxes and pay for public works and centralized governements dried up and things became increasingly localized leading to the rise of feudalism as a means of governance. :Ive moved the section to modern academic views. The first part of the article is historiographical and follows a chronological flow from Petrarch to Enlightenment to Romantics etc... it kind of broke the flow. The new text seems to repeat some of the material that was already there in the academic section in some respects, it seems somewhat like saying the same thing in two different approaches. :User:Stbalbach 14:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::There was a bit of redundancy. I've incorporated the editions into part three and divided things up so that it hangs together better. No need I think to go round in circles on particular points. The literacy argument is important but a bit hard to quantify. The graph accompanying part three does underscore the fact that secular writing took a nose-dive at least for a few centuries. Also added a pic to break up the page a bit. ::The extinguishing of Celtic England did take a a century and half but "effectively destroyed" is an adequate description (how many Celtic words in English?). The Germanic conquerers of England killed, expelled or enslaved the population--the cities were depopulated and the country turned into a patchwork of fiefs. User:Marskell 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :::Sorry just saw this. I would say, be specific which group was destroyed and put it into context. This is such a high-level generalized article its difficult to be accurate and general at the same time. :::I realized earlier there is no mention in the article about Christian repurposing of pagan and classical art and architecture and their integration into Christian culture, thus "saving" it from the total destruction at the hands of the germanic barbarians. This is pretty well known and accepted. Architecture (ROmanesque), traditions (globus cruciger), there are endless examples that show the classic culture survived on, in new forms. User:Stbalbach 19:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I think "In addition the Church attempted to ensure that Classic literature and culture did not entirely disappear (while vetting it in terms of orthodoxy). Much of the Classic literature known to the West, at least until recent archeology discoveries, was preserved..." covers both the saving and the re-purposing. I don't think the article implies at all that the Church didn't ''try'' to preserve things it just needs to be pointed out that a lot was lost. The Vikings sacked of every important town in the Carolingian empire repeatedly in the mid 9th century including the destruction of Paris. Out of hundreds of monastary raids on the British isles there is only one record of a raid being successfully repelled... Anyhow, point is barbarian raids actually underscore how important the Church was in keeping things together. ::::The only change I made was to note that actual declines in pop may have occured before Rome's fall. The fourth century was particularly rotten: mass inflation, depopulation, Patricians losing their wealth etc. Hopefully we can leave it--I think the article is better off now all round. User:Marskell 13:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Well the thing is a lot of these views of the period are holdovers of enlightenment thinkers in particular Gibbon, more recent research in archeology and anthropology has really cast a brite light and optimisitic view, the school of thought pioneered by Peter Brown and I think also earlier German historians. Certainly negative things can be said, but there are negative things about every period. Im still studying it, will keep looking at the old views through a new light and update as needed. User:Stbalbach 14:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC) What a lot of prejudiced and ignorant things are being said here about the Middle Ages! For what it is worth, I am a university lecturer with a specialism in German medieval literature, and I can say with complete authority that in my field, no serious academic today would use the phrase "the dark ages". I strongly suspect the same is true of medieval historians and other medieval disciplines. It is not our place to make value judgements about past times, and the phrase "dark ages" IS a value judgement, whichever way you try to twist it! --User:Doric Loon 12:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC) :Could you point out which parts you are refering to? It is refreshing to have a specialist here. I agree with you that no serious academic would consider the period "dark" and that a lot of this article contains many subjective value judgements. Your input could lend some authority to help improve the article to better reflect modern views. User:Stbalbach 16:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Well, I wasn't referring to the article so much as to the talk page. Academics don't ask the question "were the Middle Ages a good or a bad thing?" We treat them like any foreign culture - a thing far too complex for that. We study what they were like, but without value judgement. A simple example: in the late Middle Ages, belief in astrology was rife. It's easy to be patronising about this as superstition, but if we study it more deeply we find it was based intelligently on the best science available; and if they hadn't tried to develop sciences, we wouldn't have science today. The whole idea of darkness in the popular view of the Middle Ages comes from the fact that WE usually don't understand historical contexts well enough. Anyway, the thing I would most want to change in the article is to make it clear that in serious academic usage, the term "dark ages" is now obsolete. For that reason, I would also shorten this article; this is not the place for general discussion of the Middle Ages. (But I realise that shortening leads to edit wars, and it's not that important!) I would limit it to the history of the term "dark ages" from humanism (which was making propaganda for itself by painting the previous era "dark") to the beginnings of modern scholarship (which does its best to avoid that kind of propaganda). Possibly such parallel propagandas as the "flat earth" hoax could be played up more. To me, the only purpose of this article is to show how blackening the Middle Ages has been useful for subsequent cultures. A recent example. Here in Germany we recently had a discussion of the fact that more and more people are being employed on short-term contracts, without job security. The press complained "Das ist ja wie im Mittelalter!" But no, it's not like in the Middle Ages: they HAD permanent contracts (feudal tenure) in the Middle Ages. This political use of the word "medieval" to mean "backward" is what is encapsulated in the phrase "dark ages", and I would suggest you make a significant re-write along those lines. And now that you've said that, I just know you're going to suggest I do it. But I don't have time to get deeply involved in this one at the moment. A good first step, though, would be to make sure that the words "Dark Ages" are in inverted commas EVERY TIME they appear in the text. --User:Doric Loon 09:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC) ==Removed from Introduction== I removed this, which seemed prolix, apparently without any loss of information: :''Recent research has reversed this line of thinking, and most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors had simply assumed that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and used this assumption to prove itself. Studies conducted on the authentic evidence have shown the opposite to be true in most respects.'' Is there any ''hard'' information here that should go back into the article's introductory pasragraphs? --User:Wetman 19:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Confusion on pejorative versus non-judgemental usage == According to this paragraph: :In Britain and the United States, "Dark Ages" has been occasionally used by professionals as a term of periodization. Unlike Petrarch's negative connotations, this usage is intended as non-judgmental and simply means the relative lack of written record, "silent" as much as "dark." Modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors had simply assumed that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and used this assumption to prove itself. It seems contradictory when you put them next to each other. Not to mention, a good 1/3 of the article goes on to explain why historians call the period dark. I understand the issues, but if I were a lesser informed person, it would be a heap of confusion. User:Stbalbach 02:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) :On the one hand the article says: ::''Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age"'' :And on the other hand the article says: ::''Causes of "Darkness"'' :which outlines justifications (with qualifications) on why it is called a Dark age. :User:Stbalbach 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) You are quite right, Stbalbach. This is a contradiction. In order to deal with it, I propose that all material on "causes of darkness" be deleted. The Middle Ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness. I doubt very much whether a non-judgmental usage of the phrase "Dark Ages" is possible or has ever been attempted. The reason that even some serious historians in the early 20th century still used the phrase was because the old ideas of medieval barbarism still hadn't been purged from academic thinking. I think you would have great difficulty pointing me to any historian who has ever used the phrase and has not harboured such prejudices. --User:Doric Loon 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I would support the deletion of that material, but im not sure everyone would agree. Another idea is re-frame it in historiographical terms, as items that past historians have used to justify the particular "Dark Age" POV of the Middle Ages, and which has become a part of modern "popular history" (metanarrative). User:Stbalbach 20:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) OK, as long as that is clear. But I think deleting some of it would still be better. What I do find unacceptable is that map of the Germanic settlement / invasion with its comment "For citizens of post-Roman Britain the 5th and 6th centuries were "the darkest of the Dark Ages" as waves of invaders arrived." It may be that the people at that time weren't very happy but that is something you get in all periods of history and has nothing to do with this issue. Petrarch wasn't thinking of England and modern users of the phrase "Dark Ages" are not sympathising with ancient Celts. I think that map should be moved to an article on Anglo-Saxon history, with a different legend. --User:Doric Loon 20:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :All fine with me, I support that. I was never happy with that material being added it seemed like a justification of a subjective POV, cherry picking certain items and ignoring others to support a preconception of history. I just know what will happen, someone will come along and re-add similair material in the future, if we framed it in historiographical terms it would be a defensive gesture from future "attacks" on the Middle Ages, and not just seem to ignore certain items that are popularly known (literarcy, engineering). But whichever, either way is better than it currently is. User:Stbalbach 20:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) I've just arrived, but I do think this section (causes of "Darkness") is all too biased, for it assumes its existence and is based in dated scholarship and/or in anti-christian-medieval-catholic propaganda. Against every single argument it can be found an fact that falsifies it, eg.: it's very hard to state that Classical Architecture declined when in 6th centurey the Hagia Sophia was built, but I don't think answering all these prejudices is worthwhile because this is a very forgotten view in any serious study. There were, sure, causes of a fall in the literacy and public management, but they were linked with the lack the state foundings of libraries and schools, and not to a Christian barbarism or anything like that, this is very well-known in today's scholarship. User: Bruno Gripp ---- Ok great, we now have support from at least 3 or 4 people that the text is based on biased and/or dated scholarship. It is removed. User:Stbalbach 14:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dark ages

#REDIRECT Dark Ages

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

D

DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |

Words begining with Dark_Ages:

Dark_Ages
Dark_Ages
Dark_ages
Dark_Ages:_Fae
Dark_Ages:_Mage
Dark_Ages:_Vampire
Dark_Ages_(computer_game)
Dark_Ages_(computer_game)
Dark_ages_of_Cambodia