Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The Dark Ages were "Dark"

The claim made by this article that the "Dark Ages" was historical propaganda, is completely false. The article needs a major re-write, and we should take this into account. What was the "Dark Age" - effectively Gibbon was right - the "classical world" peaked at the time of the Antonine Emperors, and this is shown in population figures. The Roman Empire then occupied an area of 5.6 million km² (under Emperor Trajan), and the population with a density of between 31,700 persons per sq km to 72,150 persons per sq km, had a population between half a million to 1 million (an average of about 750,000). By comparison the Eastern Roman Byzantine Empire occupied only 2.7 million km², and never achieved, even at its height, a population anywhere near this figure. With the third century troubles the Roman state stagnated, but even during the reign of Constantine, there were 300,000 free grain allowances in the city, giving the city an estimated population of about 450,000.

The "fall" of Rome, represents a continuing population decline in the areas of Western Europe, which continued unabated until about 1028, after which the population started to rise again. The article makes a case that we need to include the "Golden Age" of the Arabs, a theory which disproves the thesis of a "Dark Age" but as Henri Pirenne showed, the period of the Arab hegemony in the Mediterranean was a period of collapse in trade for Western Europe. Candles spread in churches because of a shortage of oil, and trade in Europe stagnated.

In every case studies (eg the "dark Age" of Akkad and the first Intermediary period of Ancient Egypt, the Dark Age accompanying the fall of the Indus civilisation, the Dark Age of the Late Bronze Age collapse in 1200 BCE, and the Dark Age from the fall of Rome (476 CE) until the Carolignian renaissance (800 CE), the Mayan Dark Age, the Toltec collapse), we see the same characteristics of "darkness".

1. Collapse of centralised forms of government 2. Abandonment of rule by codified law 3. Disappearance of monumental architecture 4. Reduced literacy, and loss of knowledge 5. Smaller settlement size 6. Simplification of representational art 7. Abandonment of earlier religious forms 8. Increase in intra-group violence 9. Reduced inter-regional trade

As a result, since this article does not consider Dark Ages at all, but has a Eurocentric focus only on the European Dark Ages I am moving it in its entirity to and re-writing "Dark Ages" to reflect this larger historical context.

John D. Croft 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that. -- Stbalbach 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

After many attempts to shift the content of this article to reflect a comparative study of Dark Ages in history, instead of a narrow Euro-centric view of the historiography of the concept of "Dark Ages" as it applies to the whole period of the Middle Ages, I have given up. The narrow historians win! As a result, to all who wish to compare the concept of Dark Ages from a historical comparative point of view - looking at Dark Ages throughout history (such as the Priora oscillation of 3,200 BCE, the possible cometry impact of 2,300 BCE, the collapses of the Middle Bronze Age, and the major Dark Age of Anatolia and Greece of the Late Bronze Age, as well as the Roman Collapse and following Dark Age (also including Dark Age concepts as applied to Indus, Mayan, Toltec, Caral and dynasic cycles in Chinese history) I invite you to come to create such a broad transdisciplinary Wiki page at "Dark Ages in History".

I hope to see you there. John D. Croft 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

STUB!!!

This article should have historical information, not just some random stuff, make it documented in a way that shows a timeline of information, don't scramble the history into different timelines, start from the beginning and to the end at 1000 AD. (Please include Eadric Streona)--24.22.111.99 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Kyle McKenzie Street

Why not put suggestions on Eadric Streona discussion page?--Streona (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dark Ages Denial Still In Full Effect on Wikipedia

The content of this article is far from random-- It is deliberate propaganda. The Bible-Bangers who control this article have decided that the purpose of this page is to argue that the Dark Ages weren't really all that dark, because Christian beliefs were widespread.

The claim that modern scholars don't use the term "Dark Age" is false: Their continued use of that term is precisely what has led me and others to this article.

Never mind that the period opened with the death of a huge chunk of the population. Never mind that such basic technologies such as paved roads, concrete, plumbing, the mechanical reaper, and even the steam engine, were first invented during the Roman Empire, and had to be re-invented from scratch in modern times because of the Dark Ages. About that aspect of the Dark Ages, the only thing that this article has to say is:

And also never mind that the period is characterized by brutal religious repression. Witches were burned, courts practiced "trial by ordeal", and let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition!

"They (the evil, godless humanists) saw history unfolding, not along the religious outline of St. Augustine's Six Ages of the World, but in cultural (or secular) terms through the progressive developments of classical ideals, literature, and art..."

The Christians cop-out by saying that the Early Middle Ages page is the article about the period (reserving this article for their propaganda), but all I see in that article is Visigoths and Saxons

duking it out.

Any attempt to put real information into the article, or even mark it as POV, results in a revert by a Christian, within minutes. This has been the case for years. It would take a large, organized effort to boot the Christers out and fix the article.

Further down this page, you can see where one of the Christians who is guarding this article says that the Dark Ages weren't dark because this was the period when "God ruled." It would seem that these Christians would have liked to have lived in the Dark Ages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.23.105.26 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Interesting. I wrote a large part of the article and I am not Christian nor do I believe in God. Got any other conspiracy theories? -- Stbalbach 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Liar. The "God ruled" quote comes from you, Saint Balbach! 216.215.128.105 23:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My own refutation goes as follows: First, I admit that I have not come to this page until recently, since the term "Dark Ages" generally is not used in the field, as it is considered pejorative. As a Medieval Studies graduate student, I think I can offer a bit of experience on the matter. The term that is now typically used is the Early Middle Ages, as distinguished from the Late Antique and High and Later Middle Ages. "Dark Ages" was, even in its original coinage, a pejorative, POV, judgment-laden term, and thus does not belong as a valid encyclopedic term for a period of history. Second, many farming inventions were actually invented in the Middle Ages, such as windmills in the late 11th Century. Certain other farming implements, such as the carruca plow, were actually improved and expanded. The padded horse collar was also invented. Why didn't the Romans do these things? Well, one good reason is that they were expert slave masters, and could just replenish their "stock." The abolishment of slavery in the Middle Ages (something that had to be "re-invented from scratch" in modern times, to use your terminology) made such techniques more necessary. Terry Jones actually has a good article here that shows how the Romans did not invent many of the things that people give them credit for, nor were the only ones to use many inventions. These are just some of my criticisms of your "Great March to the Present" view of history. As one who has taken history and literature courses covering prehistory through the modern period, I can tell you that the "Dark Ages" weren't really dark at all. If you look at history with value-laden judgments, then you miss the objective of the discipline in the first place. Can you really take a period of hundreds of years and say simply, "Nothing happened"? That is irresponsible as a historian. All evidence has value, and the Middle Ages actually has a great deal to tell us. The Medieval period is the genesis of modern Europe, and, in fact, the adjective "modern" (from the Latin "modernus") is a 12th Century coinage. Lastly, I am not a Christian, so do not attempt to disregard my statements as mere Christian propaganda. Vincent Valentine 12:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reinserted my post

Some unnamed author deleted my edit to read that most modern historians claim that Dark Age is a prejudicial term, and therefore reject it. I have just finished reading Bryan Ward Perkins book on the fall of the Roman Empire and am in no doubt that he, and many of the writers he analyses do think that "dark" is appropriate fro at least the fifth and sixth centuries, if not longer. We must remember these ages are "dark" because we know so little about them. And we know so little about them because

1. They are associated with an almost complete loss of literacy 2. There is very little building activity - and what building does occur is usually makeshift squatters settlements 3. There is always evidence of a loss of long distance trade 4. There is always evidence of a major depopulation - from an increase in famine, plague, pestilence and war

In most "dark ages" the previous civilisation collapses, and in many cases the collapse is seen as brutal, especially by the people involved. For example Rome, during the fifth and sixth centuries went from a population of 800,000 to a population of only 30,000. To say "this isn't dark", is revisionist post-modernism at the best, and is mistaken at the worst

• Reference? No, you don't need it on this page, but does the 800,000 figure come from the early 5th C.? I had understood that that was Rome's population 100 years or more earlier, when it was still the imperial capital. Also, some of the population loss (my guess: 40%-60%) was caused by the bubonic plague pandemic ("plague of Justinian") that affected every Mediterranean city. Neither moving the capital nor the outbreak of plague resulted from a collapse of Western European civilization. (Having said that, I firmly agree about the collapse constituting a Dark Age in Western Europe, REGARDLESS of the quantity of records we have.) Jmacwiki (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To claim that it is "most modern historians" would need a source citation anyway. How was the survey conducted and by whom? I have amended it to "many". And I have inserted the sources from some dissenting historians, so check it out for yourself.

John D. Croft 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This page will always read like a Christian apology so long as Saint "I don't believe in God" Balbach is around to obsessively enforce his consensus of one. 216.215.128.105 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, personally, but sadly -- it is a viewpoint that is popular in the now immensely popular in history departments (which seem overly-concerned with 'meta-history' rather than reality) and tech-savvy grad students who are eager to spam their "look what I just learned from some guy with letters after his name!!!" all over wikipedia to feel special. It doesn't really matter, though. The dark ages are still recognized for what they are in popular culture and the effects of the time of plague, ignorance, constant warfare, and hostile migrations still resonate 'til today.24.105.236.66 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

MikeS's comments

In Authurian in legend the Pagans were the Celts. Remember Merlyn? I think in reality (In Britain) 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.--MikeS

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 Taliban-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.---Eloquence 02:16 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Heck, bein' from Scandinavia, I hafta say, we kicked arse in the dark ages. Enough braggin' about our warriorin'...and explorin'...I bet a flat earth would be better for the churches so it's easier for them to get people into believin' the old stuff need's to be preserved, and they were "right all along".--OleMurder 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Folks

I feel you are discussing Europe after the Carolignian renaissance of the 8th century, which ended theDark Age. The Dark Age is generally accepted as being in the Early Post Roman period. It is shown in such little things as the disappearance in high quality pottery in Western Europe, the disappearance the construction of public buildings, the loss of literacy. The darkness is dark precisely because we have little history of these years, and there is little history because no-one was writing history. It is try- the dark ages were ended first of all by Irish monks, then by Saxon monks from England, and then in the next phase of the 12th century "Renaissance" by the rediscovery of learning from the Arab world. The Dark Age does not refer to the whole world - just to Western European civilisation after the fall of Rome. To show the effect of this look at the massive depopulation of Rome which went in the course of a century from a city of 800,000 to just over 30,000. What happened to the 95% of the people - they died and starved! How dark do yu want it? John D. Croft 16:08, 10 February 2007 (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 monasteries. 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 Romans 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 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), 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 heretics were punished harshly was because the string pullers wanted unified conformity to keep power in their image AND repel invasions from the Asians 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.---Eloquence 17:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

If you want to have a conversation, the first thing you should do is start using paragraphs.---Eloquence 22:10, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

And the first thing some other people on this page should do is read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2008 (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, became 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

Yeah, let's be more ceremonical, and uh, perhaps even get an actual USERNAME?--OleMurder 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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 1300's 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.--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 Völkerwanderung, 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.--Wetman 18:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you have Human migration#The Great Migrations, and Great Migration points there, too.--Shallot 20:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point, Shallot. I'm making sure Late Antiquity links to these. 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.--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.-- AllyUnion (talk) 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.-- AllyUnion (talk) 22:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Should be more clear.--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.--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.--Stbalbach 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyways, I just wanna shoto in, that writing "not worth" about anything requires serious backing up and writing to be objectical...at very least. It's pretty subjective to deem worth. Let's rather say "making it non-worthy of it's times way of society", or something to such extent.--OleMurder 00:22, 17 December 2005 (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).--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.--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.

• Whether or not the scarcity of written records is a pejorative Enlightenment myth, the period of a few centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire was characterized by a collapse of civil, literary, and economic institutions. (Eastern Europe, under the influence and sometime control of the Eastern empire, by contrast, did not have a dark age.) That's a statement about the times, not merely about the currently available records of those times. Jmacwiki (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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|Stbalbach]] 06:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although there may be a whole plethora of written documents, most of them a religiously orientated, it is therefore my opinion that one must concentrate all efforts on Gildas and Bede to fully unravel the mysteries that the Dark Ages still contain.

The scarcity of records claim is no myth. For instance, between the writings of Gildas and Bede, there is not a single historical record from Britain! We have no idea about what really went on during these years. For example to claim that we know more about Roman period Britain than we do about Arthurian or the Early Saxon period is a measure of just how dark this period really was. Materially the culture of those times was lower than it was in pre-Roman Britain! John D. Croft 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that only "enlightened" pagans had their writings perserved by Christian monks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.236.66 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Loss and Preservation of Classical Knowledge and Development of New Knowledge during the Dark Ages

From what I read above maybe this article is not supposed to be a discription of history, but I would like to see some material regarding the loss and preservation of knowledge and the aquisition of new knowledge during the Dark Ages. For example, what percentage of classical texts were lost on continental Europe and how important were they? What documents were preserved in Ireland, Byzantium and the Arab empires, respectively? Was much of important gained by the West when Byzantine scholars fled to Rome in 1453? How much of a role did the aquisition of knowledge in base-10 arithmetic, algebra and other Arab & Persian innovations play in triggering the Rennaisance and heaving Europe out of the Dark Ages? Does this kind of material belong here, and if not, where?--DavidW 07:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

See Medieval literature.--Stbalbach 15:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Much knowledge was not only housed but developed further in the Eastern empire. They didn't just store old books from Western Europe! In fact, Western Europe was the hinterlands of the empire from much earlier times -- that's why Constantine moved his capital out of there. FWIW, the Renaissance in art is sometimes attributed (I think generally attributed, but I don't know) to the Byzantine artists fleeing to Italy and setting up art schools. However, I imagine that was not a single event but a gradual or punctuated process starting in 1204 with the sack of Constantinople. Jmacwiki (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Jmacwiki (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong here, because this article is about a MODERN CONSTRUCTION of the Middle Ages - historical information about the Middle Ages themselves belongs elsewhere. But you are right that the reception of ancient culture in the Middle Ages is a very large field which deserves an article.--Doric Loon 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does belong here. The loss of classical knowledge is one of the things that gives it the name "Dark Ages". It was more than a time of few written records, as the article implies. It was literally a time of mental darkness. 216.23.105.16 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources? --Stbalbach 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, you can read http://rubens.anu.edu.au/new/books_and_papers/survival.publish/chap2.html to see how the "locals" regarded the ruins that they were living among, but did not know how/did not have capability to duplicate or even rebuild. Jmacwiki (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2008 (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 highly 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."--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.. --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. --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. --Stbalbach 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll just add somethin' here, to help y'all focus. The reason it's called the "Dark" ages (Seems to be the topic, if you don't want to be 'insulted' as historically inept, then don't read it, okay?) could be summarized as this:

• The roman imperium, which where the "super empire" of that time, corrumpts from the inside and outside, with barbarians inside their ranks and outside their borders, treathening them and finally sacking the entire city, mostly thanks to a willsure Attila.
• This causes there to be no stable unity or strong nation to keep other's in check, so lesser nations and varied tribes are left to bloom in this "power vacuum", opening for a time of weapons race and free for all, with no rules of engagement or threathening to, coinceding, and ganging up.
• You do the math.

Need I say more?--OleMurder 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The following quote comes from the Early Middle Ages wikipedia page:

Others like Bryan Ward Perkins [7] however have pointed to the massive depopulation of city and countryside, the rise of brigands and Bagaudae, the collapse of central authority and the spread of plagues and pandemics as fully justifying the term "dark age".

I think this sentence and reference belongs somewhere in the Dark Ages page. It might defuse all the accusations of "apologetics" - and it certainly is much closer to what the general public's perceptions of the period are. What is the currentl academic opinion or counterpoint to claims that the "dark ages" were a time of "depopulation, collapse of authority, plagues, and rise of brigands"? CraigWyllie 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I went to Amazon and did a look inside and that is not really what he says about the term in fact he also says that the term is very problematic. -- Stbalbach 15:03, 22 January 2007 (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. --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. Stbalbach 23:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So what if religious scholars recognize (however accurately) that there was plenty of religious activity during, say, 450-800 in Western Europe? My guess: Art scholars, literature scholars, natural-science scholars, economic scholars, civil-engineering scholars, and legal scholars (among others) recognize that there was much LESS activity in art, literature, natural sciences, the economies, civil engineering, and law than there had been under the Roman Empire. Far be it from me to denigrate religious activity, but there is much more to the story of our species than just religion, WP attempts to cover a LOT more of it than just religion, and this article should do the same. Jmacwiki (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2008 (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). 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. 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 it's such a huge topic, it's 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.--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. 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. 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. 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. 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! --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. Stbalbach 16:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Does either of you REALLY believe that no academic economist would say the first few centuries after the fall of Rome weren't "dark" in Western Europe? No academic in law, or natural science, or engineering? I am skeptical, to say the least. I think you only mean "no academic in a Medieval Studies department". Jmacwiki (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2008 (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. --Doric Loon 09:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The Latin verse sucked. That's why it's called the 'Dark Ages.' 68.187.225.13

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?--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. 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.

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.--Doric Loon 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• How about asking scholars other than historians, then? On its face, this strikes me a intellectual vandalism. Jmacwiki (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2008 (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). 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. --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. 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. Bruno

• How did Hagia Sophia get into this discussion? The Byzantine Empire DID NOT fall for another 1000 years. That's why there was no Dark Age in the Eastern Mediterranean! But that's not the experience that Western Europe had. Jmacwiki (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

---

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. Stbalbach 14:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archeological Dark Ages

According to our article:

"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.

I'm not that familiar with the archaeological profession, but for example, archaeologically speaking, we know more about the early middle ages than we do about many other periods, that are not labeled a Dark Age. Is this statement accurate, would a professional archaeologist "formally" label a period a Dark Age? Stbalbach 1 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

my professors have quite often referred to 1200-800 BC as a dark age for greece/crete/cyclades etc. Also, see Greek Dark Ages Novium 23:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Egypt didn't do too well 1200-1000 either. I'd personally say that Anatolia wins the "furthest to fall" award. There should probably be something about the history of the term's expansion to cover the "Greek" Dark Age, and others.-- Zimriel 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out Check out "The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries BC" AM Snodgrass (1971) Edinburgh University Press John D. Croft 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Modern academic use

""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. ""

Not really. Written records dating from after 1000 are quite plentiful and I don't think any modern historian would label the High Middle Ages as "Dark Ages". If a sweeping statement like this one is needed, it's probably more sensible to limit the "dark ages without context" to the fall of Rome in 410 through somewhere between the 9th and 11th centuries.

This article has improved greatly due to recent edits resulting from the above discussion. I wonder if we can go a little further. The section on Modern Academic Use lacks any references. Since several of us have cast doubt on whether there IS a modern academic use (say, post 1970), the onus is on those who want to keep this section to give some examples of serious scholars who are using the phrase. If they can't I suggest this section be altered to indicate that ANY use of the phrase today is out of touch with modern academic thinking. I'll be happy to be proved wrong - but I don't think anyone can do it. --Doric Loon 21:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for a change. I wrote some of that material, to provide a "balanced" account, but on retrospect, who uses the term and can also defend its use? Its impossible to defend the use of the term with what we now know. The problem is, you will often find academics from the ancient or modern side of things using the term to gloss over the middle ages in order to emphesis the continuity between ancient and modern. We do need to discuss modern academic usage, because it does exist. Perhaps cited examples of such usage would be appropriate? Stbalbach 22:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think cited examples are the way to go, though it will involve someone trawling through sources to find them. If you are right, that the phrase is used by academics who are not medievalists, then this would explain why there seem to be different perceptions. Academics can be very unscholarly when making passing references to fields which they do not specialise in! "Correct" academic useage is obviously that of the specialists in the field, whereas sloppy use by other academics is no different from popular useage.

BTW, it would be interesting to know if the development in the academic use of this phrase in the 19th and 20th centuries is in any way parallel to the development of the term "Oriental" as described by Edward Said. Now THAT would be worth a discussion. --Doric Loon 09:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

CE AD edit war

There seems to be a minor edit war over BCE v BC Sortan seems to me quite justified in making this page consistently BCE and those who have reverted him are being a tadge cheeky. But what do others think.--Dejvid 14:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think people who are not contributors to this article should take their crusades elsewhere. Stbalbach 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

To clarify my statement, in case there is any concern of "ownership", there was recently a large vote/debate on this issue and it was resolved that each article would be determined on its own merits by the editors of the article, and that it was generally frowned upon to edit articles en-masse just for the sake of changing dates, with no other contributions to the article. In fact one case reached the arbitration committee and this was the resolution there as well. Stbalbach 17:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD are terms that apply to a Christian point of view (POV). In an excyclopedia that aims to eliminate personal POV articles and arguments BC/AD is to be avoided if possible.

John D. Croft 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Job

Having failed to watch this page after a brief bit of debate it's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. "The Middle Ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness". I haven't encountered many lines in wiki talk as over-simplified and debating-ending as that. And this is nice: "I think people who are not contributors to this article should take their crusades elsewhere." Maybe take it easy on the sense of ownership? What's interesting is that if you go through the talk you see Stbalbach becoming a crusader himself--eliminating any reference that even slightly pejorates the period.

A few suggestions: re-name this article Dark Ages (historiography) so people don't make the mistake of thinking they're actually going to be reading about an historical era ("The Dark Ages is a metaphor;" "Ghengis Khan was complicated;" "The Holocaust is a noun.") Alternatively, leave it just above a stub with redirects. Another option is to have a go re-defining the Renaissance for consistency's sake--can't really be born again if the good times never stopped rolling. For what it's worth, it is still possible to walk into a respectable university class and hear the Dark Ages discussed (with appropriate caveats) in all it's old-fashioned, pejorative glory. Unfortunately, readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out that such sentiment still exists.--Marskell 15:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The middle-age is of course because of whatever caused it...the dark age's consequences, no matter what, that time is a result and because of what happened earlier...of course...the Dark Age. Just a comment.--OleMurder 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh, right! What's that got to do with the so-called dark ages?--Doric Loon 18:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Stone Age lingers in isolated valleys of New Guinea...--Wetman 18:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well.. a bunch of christians debate whether we should call "The Dark Ages" "Dark"... Hmm... Nice to see good ol' revisionism at work... From what I've read here, during the Dark Ages the church even organized mass education... You know, when you are baptized at less than one year old - when you can't even talk, yet comprehend the notion of christianity or it's history - and then brainwashed all your life in an essentially christian education system... If wikipedia is an UNIVERSAL encyclopedia could we please see some facts from people who were not brainwashed from childhood with religious propaganda?

Some people say it's been called "Dark" by those who came after that period thus implying that it was dark because it was just more primitive that what those in Enlightenment experienced. Yet long before the "official" beginnings of the "Dark Ages" Romans were light years away more civilized from any point of view. So were many other non white non christian religions. Is this encyclopedia only for Westerners and Christians? Al I see is a huge bullshit propaganda trying to paint in pink a period of brutal authoritarian rule, massive destruction of human rights, education and works of art from the previous generations. If we can't call it "Dark" because it wasn't dark in the eyes of the christian rulers, then, by the same logic let's please present alternatives in other articles. Let's not call slavery in USA bad, because, obviously, in the eyes of fascist white southerners it wasn't bad at all. It was extremly profitable and good. All slave owners gained absurd amounts of money from deporting and enslaving people. Also, gassing 6 million jews wasn't really a holocaust in the eyes of the nazis... By doing what they've done they attained great political and military powers. Is there any kind of moral standard or historical perspective on these so called analysis? Or do we take what christians did at that time from their point of view? Does anyone correlate what christians did before and after the "Dark Ages" maybe to establish a pattern of behaviour? Or maybe whould we compare living standards, education and general welfare of various peoples from around the globe in a +/-delta t interval of time around the "Dark Ages"... There's nothing objective in this article and in many other articles. But I guess, when the hosts and contributers of this so called encyclopedia build a Museum of Creation, ban abortion and charge senators with heresy in the 21th century, everything is possible... Guess after seeing prime time christian revisionism in cinema - Mel "Far-Right" Gibson's Apocalyptico - you can't help it. Yes, this is a rant, but I hope you'll also see the point... being that this is a vast excuse for the deeds of christianity, not as a religion but as a ruling power. When your leaders tell scientifically proven fairy tales on live tv broadcasted around the world to justify invading other countries and painting stupid "clash of civilizations" and British Challenger tanks entered Baghdad with the flag of St. Peter (the same one used by the crusaders) on the turret I guess christianity gets all the glory and all the excuses.

Cause of the Dark Ages

The Oral Irish tradition preserves stories about the coming of Patrick to Ireland and his magical battle with the chief Druids at Tara. He won, spectacularly, and was granted the right to preach in the land by Concobhar, the high king at the time. Undoubtedly this is not the first introduction of Christianity to the Druidic religion. Indeed, the use of the trinity by the Christians to replace the older Elemental trinity idea shows some thought was employed in converting these 'pagans' to the new way. But this is not the only effect the Druids had upon the Christians and their ideas. The introduction of Christianity to the Druidic mode of rule is the source of 'the dark ages'. It is no coincidence that there is no written accounts or literature or secular art from this period and the fact that these were all forbidden by the Druids.

From the Acts of the Apostles and other accounts of the early Christians it is obvious that they primarily promoted peaceful living. The mercy and love of their God was foremost in their teaching. They lived in communities and were possessed of and could pass on skills of healing and language, evidence of their anointing by the Holy Spirit.

Throughout the rule of the Roman empire the Secular leaders were always advised by those possessed of the knowledge of the gods and their wishes. These priests were vested with great power. As the Empire started to decline and fragment so too did the power of these priests. The Christian leaders had seen this advisory role and with their popularity increasing (or through amazing leaders with a miracle or two) moved into this position.

At this point there are still public libraries and political debate and sciences and medicines and plumbing and the hope of a slave's children becoming freemen and citizens. Society supported artists and athletes and others who could not work for themselves. The priests too may have hoped to bring enlightenment to everyone and advise the rulers to mercy and honesty. But as the bible itself says power is inherently corrupting, Luke 4:6RSV

'And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will." (7)

With the introduction of the Druids to the Christians a new mode of governance was demonstrated. The Druids ruled with absolute authority. They kept all the knowledge to themselves and kept everyone else in ignorance, taking the brightest and best to be trained. They were the intermediaries between the gods and men. They alone knew the will of their gods. And their gods were vengeful. Their gods demanded sacrifice and they ruled through fear. They were the judges and historians and doctors and while the secular kings and chieftains held the loyalty of their men, they held their office with the Druids blessing.

Looking, now, at the Christian conversion from the loving, forgiving, communism that the Apostles and the first priests preached it is easy to see why the damnation of fire and brimstone, Hell, Purgatory and original sin became the focus of the institution as it grew. As its power increased, so did it fervor for the punishments of its God and the engendering of fear into the populace, a fear that is only recently being abandoned and still preached by many, a fear deeply rooted in the pagan worship of the Druids. 217.33.75.158 00:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Declan

Origins, Augustine, sex aetates

Possibly I am being too radical here for the liking of some, but I have provisionally delted the section "Origin of Dark Ages concept" - that is, the paragraph on the history before Petrarch. The paragraph in question is this:

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 Saint Augustine (5th century), who believed history had six ages (see "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 end of the world 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.

It seems to me that this has no place here. No link has been established between the sex aetates and Petrarch's "Dark Ages" concept. The sex aetates mundi are monumentally important for mediaeval historiography and I have no argument with anything in this paragraph, but it is a distraction here. If the sixth age began with Christ and ended with the eschaton, as Mediaeval thinking would have it, then it was not possible for there to be both a post classical Dark Age AND an enlightened renaissance age to contrast with it. In other words, Petrarch did not build on the mediaeval aetas doctrine, he discarded it. --Doric Loon 21:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You have presented an excellent adjustment to this essential text. --Wetman 21:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say Petrarch built on this model? All the paragraph does is provide the reader some context of the model that preceeded Petrarch (well, continued for long after as well). I think thats pretty helpful to have in the article, context. Your probably reading far too much into it. Most sources that talk about the historiography of the dark ages also discuss the model of the world that came before Petrarch (and during Petrarchs own time), its simply a matter of course and would be a lesser article without it. Stbalbach 21:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Boy, you guys are fast! Two answers in 20 minutes! I take your point, Stbalbach - the paragraph doesn't say that, but I suspect most readers are going to be thinking that somehow this was where Petrarch's "age" came from - after all, that paragraph had the heading "origins of dark age concept"! We have a very full article on the Six Ages of the World, and if you like we could have a brief sentence pointing there for information on aetates theories before Petrarch. But I do feel that this paragraph is too wordy for the purpose, and yet too short to do justice to mediaeval historiography, which was very sophisticated. --Doric Loon 21:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not meant to do justice to medieval historiography. It's meant to provide historical context and background. I'll consider how to incorporate it, so its not wordy. I recommend reading Mommsen, Theodore E., "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'", Speculum, Vol.17, No 2. (Apr.,1942), pp.226-242 (via JSTOR). It is the essential treaties on this topic.Stbalbach 00:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The article should encapsulate Mommsen's conclusions in Speculum, for those readers without such rich library resources, because this whole article turns on Petrarch's view and his predecessors if any, and how such a view changed with time. --Wetman 04:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Volcanoes

The recently added text about Volcanoes doesnt belong here (the article is about historiography). But not sure where to move it. Thoughts? Stbalbach 15:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The volcanic phenomenon is discussed at Climate changes of 535-536. There's certainly no connection whatsoever to the "darkness" perceived/misperceived in the "Dark Ages". --Wetman 03:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it should be included. The catastrophic eruption of Krakatoa in the 500-600AD period explains much. 10 years of cooler temperatures, so much dust in the atmosphere it is literally darker than expected, years of crop failures, etc. It dramatically affected human existence and how people acted and thought of the world. It wouldn't be the first time men took to superstition to explain such natural phenomenon. Given the period of political transition Europe was facing, it is easy to see a period of fear and superstition dominating European society, especially since the eruption was well outside of eyesight and earshot. It would have taken years to recover under the best of circumstances. We see similar lines of thought about the Dark Ages as we do with the Plague outbreaks: claims of Godlessness, superstitious behavior, God is punishing us, etc.

Disappointing Article: Christian Apologetics

This needs a complete rewrite by somebody who knows how to write in a scholarly manner. This is just christian apologetics. It's rather daft to have an article called "Dark Ages" that so clearly has been written with the singular intention of denying that there were any "Dark Ages". This is polemic rather than description, apologetics rather than analysis. Check out those snidey references to "humanists". Such a hateful bunch they are!

It's beyond dispute that the term "Dark Ages" applies to christianised european civilisation alone and cannot be refuted by appeals to scholarship in for instance the muslim world- and that in Europe the church extinguished the light of all scholarship other than theology; there was, for instance, no mathematical research beyond the pointless debates about the calendar, purely so that the date of Easter might be accurately calculated. Classical works were lost to Darkened europe and only survived beyond the christian sphere, in the East. This article is a feeble christian revisionist exercise regarding that basic fact, which defines the darkness of the age.

If it can't be rewritten by somebody with a bit of historical integrity, it needs deleting. God knows how many people are reading this farrago every day and assuming it is in some way authoritative.--82.71.30.178 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is not "Christian Apologetics". See any scholarly academic source on the historiography of the term "Dark Ages" and you will find this article is reflective of mainstream academic views. Academics began rejecting the term "Dark Ages" in the early 20th century as a flood of new scholarly research about the Middle Ages appeared. The interpretation along the secular/christian fault-line is incorrect.

here is a good place to start (Bottom of page), or even better, see Mommsen, Theodore E., "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'", Speculum, Vol.17, No 2. (Apr.,1942), pp.226-242.Stbalbach 16:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually thought this article was finally looking quite good. Our anonymous friend is mistaken to suggest that it is Christian apologetics which has led to the re-evaluation of the Middle Ages and the concomitant dropping of a loaded term for them. On the contrary, it is Enlightenment thinking which leads to a belief in cultural relativism which makes us wish to understand other cultures, including past cultures, in their own terms and not according to OUR criteria. Modern scholarship refuses to be snide about either the medieval or the humanist period - and that, I think, is what this article is trying to say.--Doric Loon 00:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The dark ages had little to do with religion, although, they too, tried to get a grip on things. There were no "humanists" in the thick of things by that time, around!--OleMurder 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Disappointing Article Smacks of Christian Apologetics

I agree with the last sentiment. I came here to see the extent of the age and an overview of the age. Of course, I expect this to include some insight onto why it is labeled "Dark", but not a obviously biased attempt by an evangelical to debunk the label. From what I have gathered ELSEWHERE, the label has mostly to do with a collapse of infrustructure and literacy --and yes the Catholic Church is directly involved. (anon)

The history of the age is covered in Middle Ages. --Stbalbach 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that if the Dark Ages title is to really get put to an end (which many of you understandably would like to see happen), you're going to have to show some sort of report or website that confirms that the "Dark Ages" never happened. capeandcowl

An Evangelical who wants to defend the Catholic Church????? Which editor are you talking about? If I spotted an Evangelical agenda in scholarly writing I would be down on it like a ton of bricks! --Doric Loon 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*This* is quality?

I don't want to comment on whether this qualifies as "Christian Apologetics" as mentioend by the previos posters, but I'm more bothered that this far from NPOV, agenda driven, article is being highlighted as some kind of "Best of Wikipedia" thing right now.

It isn't. I wanted a basic answer to the question "What is the Dark Ages" and instead got over 2,500 words on why the author hates the label "Dark Ages" and how it's somehow some giant conspiracy by early second millenia "humanists" to make the past look bad. I guess kind of like people in the 20th Century think the 19th is backward, or something.

This article is all very interesting, but it needs to be on some academic website, not as the answer to the question "What were the Dark Ages?" As it is, as an example of Wikipedia at its best, it's terrible. It's more of an example of how, with little editorial oversight except peer pressure, pretty much anything can be posted as long as its phrased correctly.

while I don't necessarily endorse the "Good Article" label, I fail to see how there is any "Christian agenda" here. An article on "Dark Ages" is necessarily on the term, not a particular era. If you want to read about the history of the era itself, and not about the application of the term "Dark Ages", go to Middle Ages, Migration period and Viking Age. I think the scope of this article should be made more clear, and it is probably mistaken that this article is featured as the "main article" for the Early Middle Ages at History of Europe. fix it please! dab (ᛏ) 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ive personally read a lot on this subject, from some of the leading medieval scholars, and this article through the input and work of at least 5 qualty editors over the course of two years is probably the most complete treatment of the subject, in one short article, I have seen, published or not. Not saying it cant be improved, or there isnt somthing better out there, honest and learned edits welcome. I have not seen a serious complaint, from someone with an academic perspective, that hasnt been addressed. The complaints have come from those who are not academically-oriented (see the section on "popular usage"), or who have not kept pace with the latest research in the field of medieval history, or who have a political agenda to cast negative judgement on those "priest ridden" (Voltaire) times. --Stbalbach 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Priest-ridden?

Stbalbach, you just linked the phrase "priest-ridden" with Voltaire. The article (quite possibly in one of my edits) links it to Gibbon. Can we pin this down? --Doric Loon 11:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your right. Voltaire's quote I was thinking of is the "uncouth times that one calls the Middle Ages". Thomas Jefferson's famous priest-ridden quote is "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," --Stbalbach 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Petrarchs quote

There seems to be a conflict on what Latin to use for Petrarch's quote:

"amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius, no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom"

The options are:

"De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia"

-or-

"Apologia contra cuiusdam anonymi Galli calumnias"

Thoughts? --Stbalbach 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good quality article.

The author of this article and many of modern historicians are correct that usage of the term "dark ages" by renassanse European writers was obviousely biased. It was made especially to portray an earlier Greek-Roman civilization as a better world, which is very debatable. It seems very obvious that not just it was a very cruel and anti-humane world (with slavery, examples of utter materialism, orgies, gladiators and so on) but also an economically and socially a troubled world. Technical and scientific achievements? Sure, though Romans hasn't done so much and Greeks had borrowed some from Egypt. Also, does these achievements matter when being used for evil purposes. Colosseum is a technical achievement, also a modern nuclear world is an achievement, yet, it hardly can be considered positive. So, the "humanists" who are defending ancient world are pretty controversial. Corrupted world, such as modern civilization which in some ways copies a bad examples from Ancient times ("thanks" to Renaissanse and Enlightment age writers). If you were living during these times and not were belonging to minority of ruling elites, you'll fully realize this. Even if you were belonging to elites you aren't safe, read about cruelity among Roman elite for example. Eg, some early historicans say that actually barbarians who had conquered Rome were better treatening each other than Roman elites. Speaking of Christianity, it obviousely was improperly used as political tool during the middle ages, and this caused real problems. But "reverting" to an ancient era traditions is a bad way to address this problem. Please forgive my poor English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.233.48.78 (talk • contribs) . I may forgive your english, but my god, do you really think a highly inaccurate rant against the ancient world is appropriate here? Novium 23:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"It was made especially to portray an earlier Greek-Roman civilization as a better world, which is very debatable"

By whom is debatable? It was christians that took over the roman empire, eradicated free religion and instituted a fascist (yes, FASCIST as in Belligerent + Racist - I can prove both terms are more than adequate to describe the "church") authoritarian rule.

You say "slavery" ? You mean when thousands upon thousands lived in shit holes, were denied basic medical and education rights and payed huge tributes in products and work to "god" wasn't slavery? They brainwashed millions and made them build humongous gold plated temples! IF christianity was so benevolent and good why the fuck didn't they instruct people to build better homes for them selfs instead of stupid huge temples? All the aqueducts and plumbing, the public bath and advanced medical institutions of the Romans and of later Muslim empires were eradicated or forbidden. Research was banned. While muslims built hospitals with wards for different kinds of diseases, thus creating the basic principle of patients separation and performed things like cataract operations, christians burned to a stick "heretics" that defiled the "work of god" by trying to find out FACTS about the human body vs bullshit authoritarian propaganda, enforced by public mass executions of women and "heretics".

You say "orgies"? Versus what? It's just christians propaganda made to discourage any kind of sex. They rewrote history to better justify and put in context THEIR agenda, THEIR bible and THEIR interests. This is the same bullshit as Mel "Far Right" Gibson's Apocalyptico. A bullshit propaganda full of outward lies and half truths. Happy brainwashed "Museum of Creationism" visitors come out from the cinema with the very clear message of the white christians: Natives were a bunch of stupid primitives that hadd to be saved from themselfs (by continent-scale genocide) by white christians from Europe. This is the sme bullshit that the Popes of the Dark Ages did with the history of Rome and other far more civilized peoples around the world.

You say "economically and socially a troubled world"> Compared to what? To a fascist (agian fascism == belligerent+racist, so I'm not throwing words for theatrical effect) authoritarian suppression of basic human rights, women's rights, religious and intellectual freedom? People living in cattle like conditions while the clergy enjoyed a luxurious life in gold plated temples? Supression of commerce? It's clearly you are one of those ~30% "Bible Belt" fanatics.

"Sure, though Romans hasn't done so much and Greeks had borrowed some from Egypt. Also, does these achievements matter when being used for evil purposes. Colosseum is a technical achievement, also a modern nuclear world is an achievement, yet, it hardly can be considered positive."

ORLY? What a bunch of bullshit. Technical achievement included fucking PLUMBING and aqueducts. They made affordable for many people (not just kings and elite clergy) basic human rights. A society that can wash and bather daily is far less likely to catch diseases. After the christian church swept Europe everything Romans built, aqueducts, public baths, libraries and roads fell to ruin. The great plagues killed so many people because of abysmal standards of living brought BY the christians. A modern nuclear world in "hardly positive"? Man, you are a really brainwashed idiot. Wasn't it the christians who build the first atomic bomb. Weren't christians the ONLY ones to use it? Against civilians, against non white civilians, against non-white, non-christian civilians. Isn't depleted uranium ammunition used against non-white, non-christians BY raving christains in the middle east? Who is the fascist religion that spurs and spreads uranium all over the planet in wars for "freedom" and "democracy", in "clashes of civilizations" in live tv "nuke Mecca" and "Jesus Camp" bullshit?

"read about cruelity among Roman elite for example" ORLY? Well the romans allowed FREEDOM OF RELIGION, the romans brought basic standards of living, aqueducts, public libraries and so on. What did christians bring? Destruction of literature and science, violent destruction of other religions, violent suppression of dissent, violent suppression of women (hundreds of thousands, burned, melted and impaled) which continues even in today's societies. Or maybe you're one of those fascist fanatics that voted for abortion ban and sent bibles to Iraq during the embargo. Do we really need to talk about christians' view of sex and it's repercussions in the modern world? Wasn't it that retard Paul II that forbid use of condoms thus helping spread AIDS in the brainwashed people of Africa? Oh wait, they are suppose to practice abstinence because the fascist church sez so and it sends it colonial armies to make sure the natives convert or are blown to bits.

"Speaking of Christianity, it obviousely was improperly used as political tool during the middle ages, and this caused real problems. But "reverting" to an ancient era traditions is a bad way to address this problem."

Please, define "christianity". Define it's beliefs and it's deeds. By what standards do ye define it? Vatican's and the clergy's view? In that view it's an authoriarian repressive system that enforces it's view by brute force. By the teachings? To what extent are the teachings applied? Does the bible teach "build humongous gold plated temples at the expense of the lives and resources of brainwashed belivers"? Does it say "Sail around the world and erradicate all the natives who don't want to join us?" Christianity IS used very PROPERLY as a political tool. British Challenger brigades entered Baghdad in 2003 with the flag of St. Peter on the turret, just like the crusaders. During a genocidal embargo in Iraq that claimed about 1 million lives, US vetoed every single resolution to allow iraqis to purchase fucking TOILET PAPER and ASPIRIN but the various US "humanitarian" organizations were allowed to send tenths of thousands of fucking BIBLES in a muslim country... You are biased because you live in a society that constantly rewrites history to make itself the "blessed people of god". People living at the reciving end of the barrel, for whom Pat Robertson, O'Liely, Bush's and Ratzlinger's "freedoms" mean wiped out cities, genocidal embargoes, white phosphorous and medieval torture chamers view your fiath as a tool to brainwash, erradicate and quiet dissent.

My children will never use wikipedia.org as a source of knowledge. This shit belongs right next to Stalin's bullshit revisionism.

endRant();

Anon additions

Regarding this addition moved here:

At a stretch, one could say that the period often described as the 'Dark Ages', is becoming clearer than in any other century, primarily due to Beta-ray scanning and a host of archaological finds. As the uncertainties clear about Saxons and Vikings, permission is being increasingly given to researchers and historians who wish to examine finds of this era in places such as building sites, private owned land, and National Trust sites.

This is POV "At a stretch, one could say". It's also POV to say that knowledge of the period is primarily due to "beta-ray scanning", dont forget the research of 10's of thousands of professional Medieval history scholars during the 20th century. Even if the POV statement was removed, there's nothing be said here that has not already been said: archaeological finds are improving knowledge of the time period, as one example. Nothing here is specific to the "dark ages", it's true for any period, it's really a statement about archeology, not the term dark ages. Also the dates 476-1000 are general round numbers that is a compromise and fairly non-controversial, the article says there are different variations and POV's about what dates constitute the period. --Stbalbach 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Paragraph

I have removed the following from the end of the section on modern scholarly use:

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.

Apart from an uncertainty about whether it is helpful to go into this at that point (the section feels complete at the end of the previous paragraph, and a discussion of the term "Middle Ages" should be in a different article) I have doubts about a main point: does the plurality imply subdivision? German has a singular "Das Mittelalter", but has all the same subdivisions (so in that point the paragraph is definitely misleading). I suspect the plural is just an element of English stylistics, and predates the subdivisions. --Doric Loon 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's old and needed to be updated; the most current from Middle Ages:

The plural form of the term, Middle "Ages", is used in English, Dutch, Russian and Icelandic while other European languages use the singular form. This difference originates in different Neo-Latin terms used for the Middle Ages before media aetas became the standard term. Some were singular (media aetas, media antiquitas, medium saeculum and media tempestas), others plural (media saecula and media tempora). There seem to be no simple reason why a particular language ended up with the singular or the plural form. Further information can be found in Fred C. Robinson: "Medieval, the Middle Ages" in Speculum, Vol. 59:4 (Oct. 1984), p. 745-56.

--Stbalbach 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Well, that reads well, and renders the paragraph I removed redundant. It does strike me, though that that section of Middle Ages needs a better heading so that this can be found more easily. Or possibly the material on the term should be at the top, before the survey of the history of the period. But that is a page I haven't worked on and I should probably leave it alone. --Doric Loon 10:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Theological discussion

I moved the below material out of the article. This is not the right article for it, this is a historiography article not a history article. It is also highly POV. --Stbalbach 03:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Suppression of Scientific Thought

At the center of the Dark Ages stood the Christian Bible. All scientific thought which contradicted the Bible was suppressed, with the most famous example being the ancient knowledge that the earth revolved around the sun.

The Christian Bible states very clearly that the sun revolves around the earth. The result was that for centuries the important astronomical discovery that the sun was the center of the universe was deliberately suppressed by the church, with proponents of the non-Christian theory being persecuted for their endeavors.

Another famous suppression of scientific advance created by the church was the belief that the earth was round. The Bible talks very clearly of the four corners of the earth, therefore, the church argued, it must be square. This dogmatic belief was quietly dropped only when the voyages of discovery finally proved beyond debate that the earth was round: despite this fact having been known by the non-Christian Classical Greeks since the time of Alexander.

Genocidal Evangelism

The early Christians propagated their new religion amongst the White tribes of Europe with a fanaticism unseen in those lands until then: the murderous activities of Charlemagne in Germany and the Teutonic Knights in the Baltic states stand out as good examples and have already been discussed in detail in earlier chapters.

The practice of genocidal evangelism was widespread throughout Europe and it is no exaggeration to say that without this initial spurt of violence and savagery - which was justified by quoting selected Old Testament scripts which in turn quoted the Biblical God exhorting the Hebrews to kill his enemies - it is unlikely that Christianity would ever have displaced the original White Indo-European religions.

Certainly none of these original White religions ever contemplated converting non- believers upon pain of death, and were culturally and physically unprepared for the fanaticism engendered by a Middle Eastern religion such as Christianity. It is always worth bearing in mind that none of the original White religions - be they Odinism, or any of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek or Roman Gods - ever had a war fought in their names, or ever tried to convert adherents upon threat of death.

The Power of the Pope

The Age of Theocracy saw the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, becoming the single most important political figure in Europe: elected by a small band of bishops who in their turn were appointed by the Pope - a neat trick of self perpetuation - the Pope's permission was required for the appointment of kings, territorial annexations and a host of other political matters.

Very often, as was the case with the Teutonic Knights and the Baltic states, whole nations and peoples, who had probably never even heard of the Pope, had their futures decided by the latter (in the Baltic, the Pope "gave" the lands of these pagans to the Teutonic Knights to Christianize).

It was therefore little surprise that the political power of the Pope was one of the first great Dark Age institutions to crumble: eventually this would develop into a fully fledged political revolt which would combine with a division within the church itself, and lead to the establishment of the Protestant states who rejected the power of the Pope in Rome.

Let's delist Dark Ages as a "good article"

I'd like to delist "Dark Ages" as a good article. IMO, a good article should impart substantive information about the topic at hand. This is 2,600 word POV rant about what a terrible phrase "Dark Ages" is. Frankly, I don't see the need for this type of article at all. We can just redirect to "Middle Ages" or "Early Middle Ages." I suspect that most people searching for "Dark Ages" want historical information about the period, not for article that tells them in detail why the term they used is a bad one. (Next there will be a banner: "YOU JUDGEMENTAL IDIOT! YOU WROTE A BAD PHRASE AS YOUR SEARCH TERM!")

The article is confusing two different usages of the phrase 'Dark Ages': Dark Ages to mean the Middle Ages (or some other period an author wants to disparage) and Dark Ages in the historian's technical usage of the word, which is the 500-1000 period in European history.

In 500-1000, there was a major cooling of the climate, a dramatic population decline, and an almost total deurbanization. 'Darkness' wasn't just a subjective issue in the eye of later historians. The "dark-age-ophobia" we see on display here reflects a paranoia about making value judgements, even when such judgements can be amply justified. "Migrations period" and "Late Antiquity" both strike me as inadequate alternatives. Neither even hint at the issue that dominates the history of period, namely the collapse of trade and urbanization. This, by the way, was well in progress before the barbarian invasions (sorry, Germanic migrations), and cannot be explained as a by-product of them.

Finally, Petrach did not coin the phrase "Dark Ages." As you can see from his quote, his idea was just that Medieval period was a "darker" time compared to the classical period. The OED's first citation for "Dark Ages" as a specific period of history is from 1836, so the sections about how the concept developed during Reformation and the Enlightenment strike me as misleading at best.Kauffner 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The historiography of the term dark ages, and the middle ages, is a fairly large topic among Medieval historians and is well documented. It sounds like your behind the times on medieval historiography, recommend starting with Mommsen, Theodore E., "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'", Speculum, Vol.17, No 2. (Apr.,1942), pp.226-242. The article does discuss the various meanings and doesnt confuse them (did you read the entire article?). The article doesn't say Petrarch "coined the term". Late Antiquity is currently what most Medieval History PhD's are in these days. Anyway, I think your out of the loop of what the professionals are saying. There will always be popular culture and popular historians who cater to those who want to believe in a dark age (the article discusses this), but the facts don't bear such a generalization as valid once you begin to examine it. For example, the heavy plow which enabled Europes population to expand and grow, was invented not by the Romans, but during the "dark ages". Many people hold up the Roman road as a sign of "light", but neglect the Celts and others who had roads as good or better than the Romans only coming to light recently with archeology. Lots of myths and incorrect assumptions surround the period. For every point one can make on why it was "dark", counter-points can be made to show why it is not so. No modern historian argues for a Dark Age. As the article says: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself. The idea of a Dark Age went out of style almost 60 years ago with professional historians it lives on only with amateurs and popular culture. -- Stbalbach 21:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite what you seem to think, you do not speak for professional historians. I subscribed to a magazine called History Today written mainly by professionals. They often use the phrase "Dark Ages" just as the name of the period without any special qualifications. The magazine recently featured an essay arguing against the Late Antiquity/transformation interpretation. (I can send it to you if you want.) "Late antiquity" generally means 300-500, so using it to mean another period (as by Peter Brown) strikes me as a confusing idea.Kauffner 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to see the context of its use -- as our article says in the academic section, it can still be used in a neutral manner. There is also the popular usage section (the magazine is for popular consumption it is not an acamdeic). Also PB coined the term Late Antiquity. In any case this article reflects current Medieval historian thinking, it's been my experience that the historians who use the term "Dark Ages" do so either for a specific reason (they are trying to emphasize some stylistic point of contrast), or simply because the period is dark to them, or often just for dramatic effect. At the end of the day its a value judgement and the term is one of propaganda. No one gets a degree in Dark Age studies. The current best term for it is Early Middle Ages which is what Wikipedia uses. Also thanks for the link to the magazine looks interesting. Although I notice even the magazine doesnt call it "dark ages" [1] -- Stbalbach 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We have articles for all three: Early Middle Ages, Late Antiquity, and Dark Ages. They all mean the same thing. There should be a single article under one of the headings the other two headings should redirect. I'm happy with "Early Middle Ages." The phrases "Late Medieval" and "Late Middle Ages" are common and they imply the existance of an Early Middle Ages. If Dark Ages is a value judgement, what about Enlightenment or Reformation? Any periodization makes judgements. History reduced to a collection of objectively stated facts in chronological order strikes me as tedious affair.

Here's some History Today articles that used the phrase Dark Ages: End of The Roman Empire: Did it Collapse or Was it Transformed?, New Light on the Dark Ages, and Fall of the Roman Empire.Kauffner 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am a professional medievalist, currently general editor of a major reference work on historiography. I can't speak for everyone in the subject, but when I hear the phrase "dark ages" used today, I instinctively feel the speaker is an amateur. But when I find it written in older texts (say, pre-1960), I am very interested in it, because it reflects a historiographical construct which has been hughly influential, though it has now been entirely discredited. You have to distinguish clearly between history and historiography. Wikipedia righly has a large number of articles on the former and only a small group of articles on the latter. But historiography is also important and worthy of coverage in any encyclopedia. Now since an article entitled "Dark Ages" has no real value as a history article (all User:Kauffner wants to do with it is make a redirect to "medieval history") what possible objection can there be to us making a historiography article out of it? The Monty-Python-and-the-holy-grail view of the Middle Ages as a bleak and dismal time is a concept highly worthy of discussion, and where better to put it? So no, this article belongs where it is, and since it is interestingly written, balanced and neutral, it deserves the "good article" accolade. --Doric Loon 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, and that seems to me to be the right time to say a big "thank you" to User:Stbalbach for assiduously maintaining and defending this article over the years. Well done. --Doric Loon 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! the subject is fascinating. I agree Wikipedia needs more historiography. --Stbalbach 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How come I can find plenty of examples of professional historians using the phrase "Dark Ages," but you can't? Gee whiz, I must be a superhistorian compared to you. Bashing the word "Dark Ages" has become fashonable only in the last 15 years or so. 1960??? Who are you kidding? Brown's book was the first to argue against the use of the word -- it came out in 1971.Kauffner 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kauffner, he didn't say he couldn't find instances of it. Also, Brown was not the first, medieval historians have been complaining about the use of the term "dark ages" since at least the 19th century (since the start of the profession). People use the term for a lot of reasons, least of which as a neutral historical descriptor. -- Stbalbach 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second that vote of thanks. I think this an interesting and informative article which meets WP:GA standards. Prolonged sustained applause. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

the article is good, as an article on the term. We might tune the wording a little bit to make it less in your face "it's outdated, you amateur. no really, we mean it, don't use it", but there can be no talk of merging it anywhere. Please pop over and help building a decent Early Middle Ages (which is in a horrible state) instead of bitching about this article. dab (ᛏ) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If this article is as useless as the firt post in this section says, it should not me made into a redirect but into a disambig page, or rather explain the term + problems + disambig page. The disambig links would be to other medieval articles and to one (if it exists) on the Dark Ages in Early greek history. Ages are dark because we lack the sources - they were not fundamentally darker than our oh-so enlightened present. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have one of those: Dark Ages (disambiguation). --Doric Loon 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the notability of Lynn White

I think Lynn White was notable guy, and so does the author of the article on him, Lynn Townsend White, Jr. Quote restored. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Bias

A Dark Ages occur when a civilisation comes to an end, either through nomadic invasions or internal decay, pandemics occur, population levels start to fall, intra-elite struggles become increasingly vicious and destroy political unity, options are reduced for the elite if not the vast majority of the population, central authorities break down, monetary economies are limited, literacy is restricted or ended, cities are abandoned, long-distance commerce is reduced, and lifestyles revert to earlier, locally based barter economies based upon subsistence production of food, clothing and shelter.

This article refers only to the European Dark Age, as though that was the only Dark Age in history. The first Intermediate Period of Egyptian History, the Collapse of Akkad with the Gutian invasions, and the period between Ur III and the rise of the Amorite Kingdoms of Shamshi Adad and Hammurabi, the earlier Second Egyptian Intermediary Period, the Bronze Age collapse in the Mediterranean and Middle East, and the Aramaean invasion period of Mesopotamia, the end of the Chou period and the Warring Sates in China, the collapse of Aghkor Wat, in Cambodia, the Toltec collapse and the end of the Classic Maya, in the Americas, are all Dark Ages by this definition.

To treat this article only as a period of European history is to show one’s European history ethnocentricism.

John D. Croft 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the European middle ages. For other dark ages see Dark Ages (disambiguation). -- Stbalbach 14:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article is predominantly about the European Dark Ages it should be labelled as such. The disambiguation does not make any reference to many of the "Dark Ages" that show up in history (for example the Bronze Age collapse)

Regards John D. Croft 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is labeled, first line:

This article is about the term "Dark age(s)" as a characterization of the (Early) Middle Ages in Europe.

Please do create new articles that cover other dark ages. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What about an article that covers Dark Age as a general concept effecting many civilisations rather than a specific concept just of European history? John D. Croft 10:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that Societal collapse and Fall of a civilisation already cover that?--Boffob 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Only one reference is provided. The citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What?

Why does this article speak of the dark ages in such high esteem? The Dark Ages was a brutal time filled with intense misery. The average life span was no better than the ones of the average african nation and there was frequent strife from fragmented city-states and barbarian tribes. This is the first time I've ever heard of people praising the Dark Ages. Ok, so there was more artistic advancement and such than we previously thought. It still doesn't change how vicious and primitive this time period was.

See Middle Ages in history for some background on why the period has been so negatively portrayed. No one at the time thought of themselves as in a Dark Age, anymore than we do today (we may even be labeled as such in the future). It's a value judgment that says more about the person using the term than the period its self. -- Stbalbach 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Middle Ages may well seem brutal when compared to the stability which most of us in Europe and America enjoy at the moment, but they were certainly less brutal than the ancient world, and they were certainly less brutal than some of the atrocities which the modern world is capable of. --Doric Loon 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the Renaissance article:

Many historians now point out that most of the negative social factors popularly associated with the "medieval" period - poverty, ignorance, warfare, religious and political persecution, and so forth - seem to have actually worsened in this era which saw the rise of Machiavelli, the Wars of Religion, the corrupt Borgia Popes, and the intensified witch-hunts of the 16th century. Many people who lived during the Renaissance did not view it as the "golden age" imagined by certain 19th century authors, but were concerned by these social maladies.

Misleading Title

The title of this article is misleading. This article appears to about why there really was or wasnt a "dark age" (?) ...or something like that. Recently, during a debate, someone referenced this article. You can imagine everyone's puzzlement. I can only assume this article was written by a religious person. It seems like I've had this specific problem with Wikipedia before. J. Chapman

The article is mainstream academic historiography of the term "dark age" since we already have other articles on middle ages history (this is explained in the top-hat note, it is not misleading and is very clear). BTW I am not a "religious person" nor have I seen evidence other contributors are religious (although they may be, it's irrelevant and a somewhat insulting remark). The article makes no claim that it was a Bright Age -- it just says that calling it, or any period, a dark age is a value judgment - "dark age" is not a neutral historical description of this period or any period. It was originally called a "dark age" for a reason, by particular parties, at a particular place and time, which this article explains and its many vicissitudes. Your interpretation of the terms historiography to be a religious defense or apology is simply incorrect. It's like calling someone who is against the Iraq War "anti-American" - it's a straw man fallacy. -- Stbalbach 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. When you type - wiki "dark ages" - from google, this article is the first stop, but it is far from a typical history/explanation of the Dark Ages. I'm not claiming its correctness or error... i'm suggesting it is the wrong title

First line, top of the page:

This article is about the term "Dark age(s)" as a characterization of the (Early) Middle Ages in Europe. For the period itself, see Middle Ages and Early Middle Ages. For other uses of the phrase, see Dark Ages (disambiguation).

I guess you could say "some people don't read", but in this case, that wouldn't make sense. -- Stbalbach 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem. It happens all the time that we search for something and find something different. If there is a pointer showing us where to go instead, we are usually very happy with that. --Doric Loon 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance

If you pitch the Dark Ages, will you pitch the Renaissance too? After all, you can't have a "rebirth of learning" if learning hasn't died. Athana 72.224.247.162

Nobody is "pitching" anything - if I understand correctly what you mean by the word. But yes, the term "Renaissance" is also a historiographical construct which is loaded with implications which may or may not be helpful, and yes, that term too is subject to fashion, and if it goes out of fashion as "dark ages" has, we will have a Wiki article saying so, and saying why. But Wikipedia will not decide that - we will just report it if it happens. BTW, it would be helpful to put new talk at the bottom of the page - I am moving this down! --Doric Loon 10:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with J. Chapman and Athana. This article is totally misleading (its not about the history of the Dark Ages) and sounds like a feeble attempt at pitching the Dark Ages as something other than it was. As was pointed out the Renaissance was called the Renaissance for a reason, and the Dark Ages before it is nothing to be ashamed of. I also came to this page looking for the history of the Dark Ages and instead found what seems like a biased attempt at pushing a particular view of what happened during that time. This controversy could all be solved by renaming the article “Origins of the name Dark Ages” although the obvious bias would still have to be removed. --oblivionboy16:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have an article for the history of the period, Early Middle Ages, why would we have two articles on the same subject? This is described clearly in the lead section and top hat, it is not at all misleading. The term "Dark Ages" has been largely deprecated by professional medieval historians, as explained in the article, so we might as well use the placeholder name here for a historiography discussion about the term. I do recommend reading this article carefully and in full, and please bring to our attention anything that you consider not to be accurate. -- Stbalbach 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Petrarch's view of Dark Ages versus his own time

The article says: <Classical Antiquity, so long considered the "dark age" for its lack of Christianity, was now seen by Petrarch 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.>

But this seems mistaken to me, because Petrarch was looking back to the time before the cultural flowering of the 13th century, the "little renaissance." Did he think his own age was dark, or the period of a three hundred years before his time? 24.12.8.116 13:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Jon Cohen

He thought his own age was dark. It was not for another generation or two before certain writers began speaking of a new age, and thus "middle age" between the classical era and the new age. Petrarch did not discuss a middle age, he saw only two periods, his own (dark) and classical. -- Stbalbach 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

I don't want to rush in here without us thinking about it, but is the quotations section really useful? I think two of the quotes enrich the article, but they could be used more strategically further up. Some of the others (whether "Middle Ages" is a good term, for example) are off topic. It is certainly not usual to have a random quotes section, and I wonder if we might not be better ditching it? --Doric Loon 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Shift of the article

I propose shifting the article to Western European Dark Ages, as it is what the article is really all about, and have reposed it to there. My attempts to make it more relevant to Dark Ages in other parts of the world have been consistently deleted. To claim this article is about Dark Ages for the whole world is Eurocentric arrogance. There are many historical examples of Dark Ages elsewhere around the world, as Jarred Diamond, and many others attest. Lets make this article a discussion of this historical phenomenon, not just a culturally biased European article.

John D. Croft 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The term Dark Ages is most often used in terms of Europe. See what links here, and any number of other sources such as google books. This is per the Wikipedia guidelines on article naming, the most common usage. For anyone who wants to know about other dark ages, it is disambiguated at the top of the page in a top hat, and in a disambiguation page. There is no problem with how it is currently set up. We already have other articles dealing with topics that Jarred Diamond and others discuss such as Societal collapse. -- Stbalbach 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link to societal collapse should be added to the Dark Ages disambiguation page. Right now it only mentions this article two other specific "dark ages" (in the History subsection of the page), it would be nice to see an article on the more general concept. But I agree that the focus of this article is fine as it is and conforms to the Wikipedia guidelines.--Boffob 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add the link there to the disambig page if you wish. To John D. Croft: you are correct that this article is really about the European "dark ages"; I think it should remain so. However, the article's title is a different matter. We currently have two articles, this one on the European Dark Ages, and the disambiguation page for the general, unspecific concept of "dark ages" in other civilizations. If you think the general term should be located here, you are free to gather consensus by following the instructions at WP:MOVE. But realize that the most common use of the term "dark ages" does seem to be the European one (as Stbalbach pointed out above). That is not to say that common use always dictates where an article goes; for instance America and American are disambiguation pages, though clearly the primary use of the terms in the English language is to refer to the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion: Early Middle Ages

I know I'm not stating much new but just to add another vote to the discussion ...

If this article is simply intended to be about European history it should be merged with and redirected to the Early Middle Ages since that is the less controversial (and more widely accepted, albeit less widely recognized) term. If this article really is about a "characterization" about the EMA this is certainly not the way it reads and, for this to be justified as a separate article, it *should* be made clear. One thing I'll say that might be a valid historical distinction if the community considers it valid would be to make the EMA article be about Mediterranean history and this article be more specifically about Western European history. This could be argued to be a valid distinction in that a variety of different things were going on around the Med during the Middle Ages so the "Dark Ages" could be said to be what was going on in the Western European part of that history.

As it stands, though, IMHO it is still unclear as to how the article is not redundant over the EMA article (i.e. regardless of the differences in content, the distinction in purpose is still not clear). --Mcorazao 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If this article is simply intended to be about European history - it is not. It is a historiography article. -- Stbalbach 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've missed the point, I'm afraid. It's about the concept of a "dark age" that happened after the fall of Rome, not the actual historical period of the Early Middle Ages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Python reference

Stbalbach: with regard to the re-added Python reference -- that sounds interesting, but I have to say that as it stands I didn't find the comment illuminating. I think it's because it doesn't mention the context you give in your edit summary. Can you cite the talk? Is it in a written form? I also think it needs to say something about why this is relevant, so there needs to be more of the material you mention in there. After all, it's now well known that knights and chivalry post date the dark ages (by almost any definition of that period) and certainly post-date Arthur. So I'm not clear on the point being made by the inclusion. Can you elaborate? Mike Christie (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's actually very useful because so many people are familiar with Monty Python and the film. The lecture was given by Professor Philip Daileader for The Teaching Company entitled "The High Middle Ages", lecture one. Note that we are talking about "Modern popular use", the "dark ages" in popular culture is anything with swords and knights, most people couldn't tell the difference between 400AD and 1400AD, its all for them "dark ages". The purpose of that section is simply to show how the dark ages are portrayed in popular culture and Holy Grail is a notable and well known example. -- Stbalbach 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I took another look at the paragraph and I agree it serves a purpose; I think it could probably be improved some, but you've convinced me that the Python reference has its place. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Ages WERE Dark!

Face it, the Dark Ages were dark, but not in a literal term. Just because the worship of God was widespread does not mean that propaganda wasn't being spread. Everybody hailed the Pope in that era, and they treated the man like he was God himself. In order to get into Heaven, you actually had to pay the church! Then, later on, a man named Martin Luther hammered a notice on the Church. This note stated that the Bible had the supreme authority over if you went to Heaven, not the Church officials. If you followed the Bible,and had a belief in God, you would go to Heaven. Later on, Martin Luther was called a heretic.

This is an exceedingly simplistic view. To argue that "everybody hailed the pope" is blatantly inaccurate. See the Investiture Controversy. One German ruler even called the pope a "false monk." You sound awfully like a Protestant apologist, but it doesn't appear as though you know any religious dissent before Luther. Dissent was actually rife, such as the Cathars. In the Early Middle Ages especially, the pope had little real power. This statement also completely disregards Eastern Orthodox and the African churches, both of which were still very much active, as they are today. In addition, your view of Luther does not seem to point out that he despised Jews and that there is debate over whether he actually nailed his theses or circulated them in manuscript form. Lastly, arguing whether a period was dark or not based on theological grounds is clearly non-encyclopedic. I am not a Catholic, or even a Christian for that matter, but seems like you are living in a fantasy world of legend and myth, rather than operating in a sound historical framework. Vincent Valentine 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What do Luther's views on Jews have to do with anything the above commentor wrote? Are Christian theologians required to believe that Jews - who reject Christianity - will be saved in order for their arguments to be relevant? 71.205.191.38 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflating different periods of Middle Ages

I removed this section from the article:

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 14th century copy of L'Image du monde (ca. 1246).

The assumption that the medieval period was one of backwardness was also reflected in the views of the relationship between the Middle Ages and the study of nature. The contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers comment the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition, the blame of which is to be laid on the Christian Church for allegedly placing the word of religious authorities over "personal experience and rational activity", and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature. As Lindberg reports, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church". For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that the people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. This claim was mistaken, as Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."

It seems to be talking about Middle Ages in general, not just the Dark Ages, and it uses examples from the High Middle Ages, like the picture. I believe the intention of this is to mislead readers. –Fatalis 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As is expressed in the article, the popular view of the term Dark Ages (contrary of it's usage in historiography) is not necessarily restricted to the Early middle ages. Considerations about the whole period are perfectly adequate when it is exactly this popular view that is being addressed. Also, as is well explained in the article about the Flat Earth, the dominant texts of the Early Middle Ages also did support the sphericity of the Earth. Since the above paragraph is sourced with references from respected historians of science, and since the misconceptions that the text mentions are obviously related with the popular view of a "Dark Age", I have the intention to restore what you just deleted. BTW, thank you very much for assuming good faith. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it should have been explicitly clarified in the text. As it stands, the article doesn't distinguish between the two usages (save for the introduction), and your addition was blatantly biased. If you're re-adding it, please make sure to spell out what it's talking about. –Fatalis 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it fits in that section quite well. –Fatalis 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Link by James Hannam

In the interest of avoiding conflicts and conflicts of interest, I just wanted to start discussing whether the link originally added by User:James Hannam should be added to the page. I think it seems worthy enough on its own, and the only issue really is that the author of the article is the one who posted it (and others in other wiki articles). Are there any other objections to such link?--Boffob 17:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the link is to the first chapter of a book I have written but have no publisher for. Even if the book were ever published, the first chapter will remain free on the web. James Hannam 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The topic's warning.

The subject warning/clarification is not clear to lay people (me). I wasted my time reading the article. Never before has a Wiki article angered me so. Please modify it something like this: "This article is about the term "dark age(s)" as a characterization of the (Early) Middle Ages in Europe. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE DARK AGES. For the period itself, see Middle Ages and ...." Thank you. 4.246.84.186 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I'm sorry if you were angered, but if the difference between history and historiography was lost on you, I would suggest the experience of confronting this was time well spent. But you're right, that's not the point. We do have to make the disambig sentences as helpful as possible, and if you don't understand them as they stand, that bears thinking about; but to say "it is not about the dark ages" would be wrong - it very much is about the dark/middle ages, even if its focus is entirely on what to call them! --Doric Loon 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you are a pompous ass.Fdsbgdsf 14:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{fact}} tags

WP:V doesn't make any exceptions for editors declaring that something is "basic knowledge". If it's really true, they should just prove it by sources. Reinis^talk 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources are provided. Please don't delete/remove sourced material. -- 71.191.36.194 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph McCabe quote

re: this quote

"After about the year 500 "human life was suspended for a thousand years," says a brilliant French writer. Something like that certainly will be the unanimous verdict of historians when our scholars have shed the last trace of subservience to the clergy. At present some of them have an affectation of showing that the Middle Ages were not quite so bad as the older historians had said. It is wrong, it appears, to call the early Middle Ages "the Dark Ages," because, by diligent search, we can find a lamp in it here and there!" — Joseph McCabe, The Story of Religious Controversy: Chapter XXI (1929)

This quote is old, out dated and out of fashion. Without an explanation of the context it's misleading and counter-productive (ie. POV). Nothing in the article supports this quote. The quote would be supported in the Middle Ages in history article, which discusses the many historical biases for and against the Middle Ages. -- 71.191.36.194 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing this and other quotes that are given with no context; we have Wikiquote for lists of quotes. Go ahead and remove it if you want.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the assessment of this as "dated biassed crap". And quoted without context it is not helpful, so quite right to delete. At the same time, it give a very interesting piece of evidence for what some of us have been saying all along, namely that the phrase "dark ages" has been questioned by cutting edge scholars since the beginning of the 20th century. Here we have a reactionary view from 1929 expressing irritation with the modern view. I wonder whether we couldn't usefully put McCabe in as a footnote further up in the modern scholarship section? --Doric Loon 08:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That could potentially work. I'd personally like to see the same thing done with the other quotes as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

References

The references are clearly christian biased. I have read and listened to articles on pages quoted in references 6 and 7. To meet the good article standards I think additional references are necessary. "Dark ages" is a metaphor but the centuries were not all "dark". However, we do have much arguments showing that the the name dark ages is "well earned". The meantioned articles above make some very unrealistic claims. For example there are numerous decrees and papal bulls (now available online) which clearly suppressed intellectual enterprises that would conflict the doctrine. The first and most notorious sign of the beginning of dark period was the closing of Academy of Athens by Justin I who also decreed to totally destroy all religions (particularly various paganisms) in favour of christianity. Many scholars believe that closing The Academy was the greatest intellectual disaster until the renaissance. I do not see any citations on that. I agree that the apologetic claims by those authors should be present in this article even though I disagree with them. But I think opposite opinions are mandatory.

And my opinion: what strikes me is that there are people who still refuse to accept even the documented accounts from different and independent, sources on what was going on in particular era. For example the statement:

"..the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though he says that they are not supported by current historical research.

Either this author doesn't know what natural philosophy is (which I doubt because I've listened to his lectures) or is a dogmatic proponent. One need not go to the middle ages, only a few centuries back to see that this was the case and that there are WRITTEN documents to prove such cases. Historical research does indeed support such knowledge, it's just not accepted by some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.8.230.4 (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow what an incredibly crappy article!!

It makes a big claim that the dark ages were not "dark" or backward, then to back it - a bunch of talking heads. Quotes form people claiming the dark ages were a happy fun time do not make a good article. They make a shitty article. How bout some hard facts? Evidence from these peoples books? Not just them saying "well no you are wrong they were not dark so there!"

I nominate this article for a complete scrapping and re-writing from scratch. Fdsbgdsf 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is good.

I agree with the crappy assessment. The article reads like polemics to prove the Dark Ages weren't dark. There is very little information. I tried putting in a section I called "Contrarian Views" just to balance with a different point of view, and someone deleted it - obviously there is no respect on this page for the range of legitimate viewpoints on this interesting subject. Hence, it becomes boring and trivial. It is a great pity that Wikipedia is full of so many intellectual bullies who want to monopolize certain topics. --Cimicifugia (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

Your first step would be to use genuine scholarly references rather than pop history books like A World Lit Only By Fire. That's really all you could do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, you have just broken the Wiki rule of civility. The talk pages of this article are full of bullying, and it should have no place here. I have just read through 50 pages of Talk on Dark Ages, and it reveals a Wiki article that is in deep trouble. 29 people contributed comments complaining about the one-sided polemics against the term "Dark Ages." 7 people argued that to talk of the Dark Ages is invalid and that the article need only represent this one point of view -- but mostly the rejecttion of diverse views is the work of two people, stbalbach and Doric Loon. Loon compliments stbalbach for "assiduously maintainging and defending this article over the years," meaning, beating back all other contributors and defending their personal POV. They don't seem to be ashamed that during this time the artcle lost its status as a Good Article, way back in Mary 2006. Some defense! In the talk pages, stbalbach and Loon state openly that they consider the Dark Ages not dark, and that their opinion is the only valid one, and the only one that may be included. For ex, stbalbach: "Its impossible to defend the use of the term (Dark Ages) with what we now know." Any alternate, referenced quotes or information are undone and dismissed as not good references. This is Orwell's 1984 - some pigs are more equal than others. Marskell said it very well back in 2005, and its still true now in 2008: "It's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. 'the middle ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness...you see stbalback beecoming a crusader...it is still possible to walk into a respectable university and hear the Dark Ages discussed...unfortunately readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out...." One poor user of Wiki wrote his frustration on teh talk page, that none of the information he was hoping for on The Dark AGes was here, just polemics. His complaint was trashed. This page is crying out for arbitration, to stop a small number of people from domineering and preventing balanced POV. It's time to rebel against the dictatorial rule of stbalbach and his henchwomen. I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Judging from stbalbach's page, he is very active - does that make him impregnable or is there something that can be done? There is really no point in trying as individuals to improve the article while he is in place as the self-appointed Dictator of Truth. Now is the time for concerned people to speak up. If you agree that stbalbach's reign of power should end, and the article should include references that support the term Dark Ages, and explain why, so as to have a balanced POV, please speak up now. More experienced Wikipedians - what can be done? --Cimicifugia (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

First what you need to do is be cool. I'm not sure how you think I've been uncivil, I was merely pointing out that books like A World Lit Only By Fire are not scholarly, they are written for a popular audience without using a scholarly methodology and contain a lot of generalization, exaggeration, and error. They are thus not good sources. The best thing you can do here is find actual scholarly sources that contradict the findings of scholars reported in this article. Now, if you want to open up further discussion we're ready to listen, but you need to drop the apocalyptic language attacks on other editors (including stbalbach, who doesn't edit here anymore and thus isn't around to defend himself). As to "what can be done", you can check out dispute resolution.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if asking for citable references is uncivil behaviour, Cuchullain must certainly be damned. I'll be damned with him, because I also want quotes from serious literature. Thanks, though, for giving me so much credit in shaping this article - I'm not convinced I deserve it, but I'll take the kudos. I don't want to repeat the same stuff again and again, so I won't answer you in detail. Wikipedia is strongly democratic, but it is not a simple democracy in the sense that if enough people think 2+2=5 we give it equal credence. This article is about historiography (people looking for history are carefully directed elsewhere) and historiography is a subject which many lay people think they know more about than they do. So yes, we quite often have to explain to people why their uninformed perceptions are wrong. I am a university teacher, so perhaps I sound a bit too much like a teacher here too. If so, I apologise. But that certainly does not invalidate my standpoint. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, Doric – Yes, let us all make a fresh attempt to be civil. So far all of us have fallen short. I found the comment "that's really all you could do" a put down - perhaps you didn't mean it that way. I apologize if my tone was overly aggressive and I will try to be less confrontational, but we do have serious disagreement here. With all respect, you have substituted your own personal standards on what may be allowed on this page and the process by which articles are formed, for the standards required by Wikipedia. You want only scholarly articles (and beyond that, only ones that agree with you). Wiki guidelines do not even mention the word scholarly. This is what WIKI says: “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.”

Note: Published, reliable sources – not scholarly sources – are required by WIKI. Scholars do not have a monopoly on these pages. Both the books I cited – and labeled as Contrarian Views – were by reputable authors, who did happen to be academics, published by major publishing houses. They meet the criteria.

Re your assertion that the minority of editors who dislike the term Dark Ages get to write the entire article on the historiography of the term, because they alone represent the TRUTH is also not supported by WIKI rules. Here’s what WIKI guidelines say: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. To discuss the reliability of particular sources, see the reliable sources noticeboard.”

Doric, you can understand the distinction between verifiability and truth? Do you understand why this is the guideline here? It is exactly so that individuals full of belief in their own viewpoint, such as we have seen in the Dark Ages article, don’t get to impose their version of TRUTH. Verifiable means other contributors are not limited to the sources whose scholarship you deem acceptable.

Last core principle. Since no one viewpoint gets monopoly on WIKI pages, your held belief that no valid voice could possibly use and value the term Dark Ages, is just one point of view. It can never constitute a proper neutrual POV on WIKI, which is not defined as TRUTH but as BALANCE. Thus the guidelines: “Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.”

I suggest you review the NPOV tutorial. Some of their guidelines that are relevant here: “A common basis for prolonged NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it.” Applied here, the contributors to a historiography article on Dark Ages, do not get to define Dark Ages as a useless term and censor all opposing views.

Next rule: “Make only careful use of generic attributions ("Critics say..."). These are called weasel words, because they can make claims look less obscure or less controversial than they are. When a statement requires supporting documentation, be specific in citing the basis for your claim.”

Application here: you cannot make the claim that all historians today reject Dark Ages as a concept. (And then censor all contrary references by defining them as not real historians.) Can you see how invalid your circular and self-serving – with all due respect – reasoning has been, and how it has led you into the pitfall of censorship?

Next rule (italics in original): “An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.

[edit] Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:

	Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. 
	Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). 
	Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. 
	Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: 
	Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. 
	Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). 
	Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value. 

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”

Over the years, 27 contributors have tried to offer a different POV, supporting the use of Dark Ages, some with good references and some without, and all have been excluded from this article. The article has been downgraded and lost its Good rating, because many of its generalizations – the ones you champion, Doric - are not verifiable or referenced. As WIKI guidelines state: “Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus — an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and almost always fails after a time.”

The group who has dominated this article have succeeding in imposing an “official’ point of view, which they claim is the only valid one, and that only their ‘scholarly’ references are valid references. This is not in line with the consensus process. IF WIKI WANTED ONLY SCHOLARLY EXPERTS ALLOWED TO WRITE ARTICLES, IT WOULD BE THE BRITANNICA.

So, I suggest that this is the end of the era, for the ‘dark ages is nonsense’ POV that has totally monopolized this article. It has made for a poor grade article, garnered reader complaints for being boring and useless (yes, Doric, I know, you dismissed the complaints out of hand as invalid, but WIKI does have interest for readers as a goal), and broken every single guideline for WIKI contributors. If it is the majority view in academia, fine, let us present it that way. Make it interesting by putting forth the arguments about why those academic believe we must make no value judgements in general, why that is valid for the Dark Ages and so on. You can even have most of the space, since that is the dominant view these days. But there should also be adequate space for differing viewpoints. You don’t like William Manchester? Fine. I do. He is not a ‘popular writer’, he is a professor emeritus of history at Wesleyan, who wrote a book for the general public. Wikipedia is also for the general public.

I included Manchester with appropriate description to say that he was a minority, dissenting viewpoint. Really, by what criteria are the dominant ediors here insisting that he not be allowed into this article at all? It is verifiable, it is interesting, it is written by a reputable author, and I was not making any untrue claims about it being a majority viewpoint.

Here is what I wrote on July 22 that was taken out by Dbachman: There are dissenting voices, such as William Manchester, Professor of History Emeritus at Wesleyan University, who rebels against the reigning postmodernist orthodoxy that academics must not make value based assessments. He asserts that the Dark Ages were "dark" in the sense of primitive and brutal. He throws down the gauntlet in the opening pages of his book, A World Lit Only by Fire, in these words:

- Modern historians have abandoned that phrase (Dark Ages), one of them writes, "because of the unacceptable value judgement it implies."...If value judgements are to be made, it is undeniable that most of what is known about the period is unlovely. After the extant fragments have been fitted together, the portrait which emerges is a melange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness.

-

I also added a new section, with two verifiable, reputable references, which I labeled Contrarian Views. This provides some needed balance to achieve NPOV for the article in general. They are both directly on topic of historiography, not history. If this section is not yet excellent, let’s add to it, include more verifiable references from POV that value the concept Dark Ages (there were past contributors had other sources than my two). Marshall your best references and proofs for the majority POV that says one mustn’t use this term. The article will be much much more interesting and informative.

My edit:

- "Contrarian Views

- There is a rejection among some historians of the neutral postmodernist value system that dominates academia, and they have reintroduced critical assessment of the Dark Ages based on the legitimacy of the idea of civilization and loss of civilization. Thus William Manchester in A World Lit Only by Fire rejects both the romantic and the neutral understanding of the Middle Ages: “I do not see how that (understanding) can be achieved without a careful study of the brutality, ignorance and delusions in the Middle Ages, not just among the laity, but also at the highest Christian alters. Christianity survived despite medieval Christians. …shackled in ignorance, disciplined by fear, sheathed in superstition.”

-

-

- In Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Bryan Ward-Perkins departs from what he describes as the politically correct consensus that began in the 1970’s, that there was no ‘decline’ and no ‘fall’, just a gradual transformation into a different, multicultural society. To debate this point, he details the material culture of the period immediately following the barbarian invasions – a period when Romans worked for their new Goth and other rulers – describing a dramatic loss of civilized living standards, complex economy, and literacy. Archeology in Britain reveals there was no more literacy, no coins, no tiled roofs or stone buildings. In Western Europe, literacy was confined to the church, lost even to kings, coinage disappeared, and the few stone buildings were reduced to a fraction of their former size and made from crudely redressed stone."

Lastly, why doesn’t my revision and its being undone show up under History on the Dark Ages page? I can only find it if I go to my personal page. How is something excised from History?

I know I am asking for a big change of attitude. Please sleep on this and consider it on its merits. Let’s not fight. Let’s have fun working together, adding the balanced POV that will make this a really good article on the historiography of the Dark Ages.--Cimicifugia (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

It's always good to be reminded of working principles, but I think you do some very experienced editors great injustice with your little lecture - these rules are precisely what we have been following, to the best of our ability. The edit which you made, which was reversed, is one I am seeing now for the first time. I would have reverted it too, because you stuck it in at the top where it made no sense. How can you have contrary views before the views you are contrasting them with? I wouldn't mind that opinion being mentioned, but it would have to be done more skillfully.

Also, it does matter whether a source is scholarly or not. Serious scholarly literature follows procedures which help guarantee quality and objectivity and therefore provide a far higher level of verifiability than pop books. I don't know the books you are citing, but if it is true they are unscholarly, they need to be used with great care. In particular, in a section on "modern scholarly usage" (which is what I think you meant this to refer to) only scholarly opinion should be given. I should think most readers, once they realise there is an issue here, will be keen to know where the scholarly consensus lies. That is why I think the article as it stands is very helpful.

You will notice the article already describes the scholarly consesus as what MOST scholars prefer - if you have identified an example of semi-scholarly dissent, you have not really demonstrated anything more than the article already says, so I doubt that you can claim imbalance in the article. But if you think more carefully about how your contribution relates to the thrust of the article, it may have something to add. For example, the view that the scholarly consensus is a post-modernist fashion could be mentioned briefly with some benifit to us all.

The important thing is, though, that the VAST majority of serious medievalists utterly reject the term "dark ages" - I have just returned from a medievalist conference at which it was never used in any of the 40 papers or discussions I sat in on - and it is NOT helping the reader if we don't make that clear. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi – Sorry if I went on too long with quotes of the rules. I am new to wiki, so it was useful to me, and as you said, review of the basics is good even when you are at an advanced level.

Forgive me if I repeat a few points, since we seem not to communicating very well. You are well content with the article, because it represents your point of view, having successfully defeated efforts by people with differing points of view to make contributions. But during this time, the article has lost its Good status and been demoted. It reads like polemics, not like a proper entry. It is an article in trouble. I’m sure there is much to be proud and pleased with here also, and lets keep all the good stuff.

It does not seem to me that the editors dominating this page have been respectful of wiki guidelines. Without quoting the rules at length, I will point out where it seems to me, as a newcomer with fresh eyes, that this article falls short.

1. criteria for acceptable sources: Both the books I cited were by reputable authors, both academics, published by major publishing houses. Yet instead of improving my section in some way, as for example, your idea of moving it lower on the page, it was excised because these authors liked the concept Dark Ages. 2. The editors who dislike the term Dark Ages have broken many WIKI rules, rationalizing that they get to write the entire article on the historiography of the term, because they alone represent the TRUTH. Here’s what WIKI guidelines say: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." The principle of balanced POV has not been respected. Both points of view need not be equal, but it is legitimate for them both to be present. Information suppression,by opposing points of view being omitted or deleted or even just unfairly described,is also not proper. This has happened over and over in this article. Of course you think the reigning pov is right. That doesn't given you monopoly privelges here, the way it does in academia. That's the beauty of the Wiki anarchic consensus system. 3. the article makes unreferenced generalizations – “Historians say…” these are outlawed in favor of specific references. I invite you to remove some of the gross generalization and give more specific examples - not as if telling the truth about the Dark Ages, but as illustrating the consensus viewpoint today. 5. articles are supposed to be interesting and correspond to the question people are going to WIKI to answer. Readers want to know what the term Dark Ages signifies, not just to be told they are wrong to be curious, that it signifies the wrong thing. I think we should desribe the common understanding of Dark Ages completely and fairly as part of a historiography article.

Your idea that the proper thing to do with a misplaced paragraph is to delete it entirely is inappropriate. Let’s have a spirit of respecting other people’s contributions – suggest it be moved, if placement is the problem. Why can’t this be enjoyable for everyone? Why can’t we work together to make an article better?

Doric – I would like you to make it even clearer, with specific examples and explaining the ideology as well, as to why contemporary academics eschew the term Dark Ages. I find historiography fascinating. You are editing a whole reference work on it. Can’t you see that today’s fashion is just that – the fashion of the age? We haven’t arrived at the one, superior truth about the Dark Ages. We are merely applying the values and prejudices of our own time. I wonder if you could analyze for us why Dark Ages is being rejected now, when it was popular in X period, and less popular in Y period. And it’s so much more interesting to see the multiple points of view still current today being argued vigrously, isn’t it? Perhaps the scholarly versus the non-scholarly. Please do make it absolutely clear that consensus holds sway at academic conferences. 100% consensus! You think that’s wonderful. Some readers, like myself, will have other reactions. We will be most interested to hear from the minority voices, the maverick professors, the one’s who are not specialists in medieval history, but are looking at it from other specialties, so that they aren’t bound by the lockstep of !00% agreement needed to get a paper accepted at a conference. This is what’s great about free thought.

I would really like to work with you. Would you be willing to label my section whatever suits you and place it in the article where you would like it. Or make a suggestion here on the talk page and we can discuss it. If you have any good information on post-modernism in this context, I would love to see it. I’m really glad you think it might have some benefit. Post-modernism, multi-culturalism, even civil rights - all have contributed to the ethos of not making value judgements that dominate in academia today. Let's discuss that, just as we discuss Petrarch's cultural context, or Walpole's or the Romantics.--Cimicifugia (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

First of all, let's get rid of this suggestion that the article lost GA status because of improvements we made. The reasons are clearly spelled out above. When Wikipedia was very young, the standards were not so high, and many articles got GA status which did not meet the standards we later came to expect. So, many articles later lost GA status, not because they changed for the worse, but because the benchmark was raised. In this case, GA status was lost because there were not enough citations. We have gone some way to rectifying this.

It is very difficult to discuss with you, as you write these vast polemical tirades which seem to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the editors already active here. My tip to you would be to make shorter contributions focussed on the material and not the persons, and assume good faith. No-one has said here that contrary views should not be represented. No-one has said that there is 100% scholarly consensus. No-one has said that we are entirely content with the article as it is. And certainly no-one has implied that the ordinary reader is wrong to be curious. You say you want to work with us, but that kind of rhetoric stands in the way.

I think you are miffed because your paragraph was deleted. Well, it wasn't me who deleted it, so I probably shouldn't comment. But if a paragraph is dropped incongruously into the head of an article by a new-comer to that article, it usually WILL be deleted pretty quickly. That doesn't mean that there is nothing good in it, but if it is your material, it is your job to do the work of thinking about where it belongs and how it relates, and making the seams join up. You can't just fling it in any old way and say other editors must either leave it like that or do a lot of work on it. YOU'VE got to do the work.

Now to the issues (and perhaps we can limit this discussion to these now). You are absolutely right - and if you were reading carefully you would see I already said that myself - that the current scholarly consensus is a product of our age. NO scholar would ever imagine that we have arrived at absolute truth about anything, especially not in the humanities. But I don't think the rejection of "dark age" terminology is a passing phase. Next year, scholarship will certainly move on, but it is unlikely to go back to where it has previously been.

Why do scholars reject the term? Well, firstly because, as one of your quotes said, it is a value judgement about a foreign culture, rather like calling Africa the Dark Continent, and carries too much baggage which we find unhelpful. Secondly because it is ambiguous: it traditionally refers to the whole of the middle ages, but as you can read above, those who still want to use it maintain it refers only to the early middle ages. Thirdly because the period is not as "dark" as it was, because the scholarship of the 20th century has been able to shine a great deal of light on it, and has found great cultural richness precisely in those areas where it had previously been assumed there was none. But mainly because, whatever scholars mean by the term, ordinary readers understand something different. Now of course, you can argue with all of that: you can say that the rejection of judgmentalism is a silly postmodern fad which we will grow out of some day, you can say that the light we have been able to shed is not enough, you can say that other perfectly servicable terminology has parallel dangers of misunderstanding. But none of that is really the point. The point is that this is where scholarship is at NOW, so that's what Wikiepdia has to report. Minority views should be mentioned too, but the main thrust of the article must be to show the scholarly consensus. THAT'S what most readers come looking for. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought

I'm helping out in a group in South West France that is doing a "hands-on" re-creating (building) a 10th century house. From what I gathered today, and my French is about at 70% comprehension... In France the term 'Medieval' applies from straight after the departure of the Romans... There was no 'Dark age' in France only early Medieval... Quite different from the British interpretation. I add this, as maybe not relevant to the discussion, but I'm struck by this whole business of a 'Dark Age'.(The term might better be applied to the present) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Licornenoire (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In most European languages other than English, the term "Medieval" is not at all negative or pejorative. It just seems as though some English speakers refuse to think of this period as anything other than a bunch of clueless murdering savages, when in reality they were just like we are today, only they lived several hundred years ago. Vincent Valentine 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The period only ever existed on paper

Based on WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources the claim that the "the period only ever existed on paper...the years between 614 and 911, never existed at all", particularly as it appears in the modern academic use section, shouldn't be included. It has been inserted by User:Bonzo345, both logged in and as an IP poster, five times (in contravention of WP:3RR) and reverted by a couple of editors. Any views, please? I am considering asking for semi protection, so that at least we can discuss the point with just the registered user. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much to discuss. Herbert Illig's ideas, or any other sort of phantom time hypothesis, have no place in a section on "Modern academic use". Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

no place at all, I would say. No notability. This is just obsessive crackpottery that collapses like a house of cards under scrutiny. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here here. Whacky ideas deserve their own articles if they attract public attention, but they should not be carried over into mainstream articles. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's back, but now labelled as a "Fringe theory". To what extent, if any, does the change now justify its inclusion? (I have repeated the invitation to the poster to contribute here, but he/she hasn't responded.) --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." No evidence has been given of serious acceptance or rejection; I'm deleting it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whois checks of the two anonymous IP addresses adding the phantom time hypothesis indicates both comes from Romania. Two different people in a non-English speaking country adding the same material to an article in the English Wikipedia seems extremely unlikely. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Fringe theories and as a compromise I placed Phantom time hypothesis in see also....delete it...or leave it..Modernist (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section again, but I know it'll come back. This page may need semiprotection.--Boffob (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi page protection requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But it was declined. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dark Ages Subjective and Objective

Surely the most objective indicator(or entirely subjective) is a period of which we, today, are ignorant due to a lack of written records, or other records in specific geographical areas. The Al-Aqsa mosque was built from which we can only discover post holes in England. There are no records at all of a whole English kingdom, such as Lindsey, which is truly dark to us. On this reckoning the Dark Ages in Britain can be limited to around the Fifth century to the Mrercian Supremacy of the Seventh century. Whilst the Christian Church did preserve some literacy, it also resisted innovations in science being made by the Muslims, so that Christian navigators eschewed the use of the magnetic compass as the Mohammedans had bewitched them and even the introduction of the abacus from the Muslims by the Pope in the year 1000 was seen as diabolic. The notion that the Normans brought a higher level of culture in 1066 is entirely mistaken- the really significant date in terms of cultural progress is 1099 and the capture of Jersalem and contact (in every sense) with the Islamic World.--Streona (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Charlemagne

If we are dating this period as "about 450" to "about 1000," as seems to be the case, then the empire of Charlemagne falls into the Dark Ages. That just seems wrong to me. Charlemagne's empire brought stability to most of Christian Europe and hastened the development of feudalism. It seems to me that the his reign should mark the end of this period. Funnyhat (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Societal Collapse article gives criteria for a collapse or "dark age", and, by implication, for the recovery from collapse. There is also plenty of discussion on this page about what constitutes any "dark age".

I don't know the history of the HRE well enough, but it may well be that it brought an end to that era, at least in parts of Western Europe: the territories of modern Germany, much of France, and northern Italy. (In southern Italy and Carthage, the age may have been brief indeed, if it occurred at all.)

In that case, and for those regions, you would certainly be correct. You will even see support for that view on this page. But it did not hold in Great Britain & Brittany, nor (I infer) southwestern France and most of Iberia.

Perhaps you can suggest wording in the article itself to reflect better the nuances of the ending date(s)? Jmacwiki (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

A radical view is proposed on the website "jesusneverexisted.com" that Christianity was a cause of the Darkness of the whole of the Middle Ages. The near monopoly on literacy enjoyed by the Church gives us most of the written records and paganism is poorly documented, except in Iceland, which makes it appear progressive and is often considered to have transmitted the "wisdom of the Ancients". However much of this so called wisdom was complete rubbish - especially Aristotle, and the Church effectively discouraged and prevented any further reseearch or development (sometimes on pain of death)and anathematised contact with more advanced civilisations such as the Arabs.Only in the 16th century were scientists able to emerge from this straitjacket --Streona (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a radical view, the responsibility of Christianity for the Dark Ages has been argued by Karlheinz Deschner since at least the 1970s. However I would think the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation hardly provided a safe enviroment for European scientists of the 16th and early 17th century. What makes you think the "straitjacket" was completely removed? Dimadick (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Christianity was responsible for the Dark Ages is a highly radical view. Radicality has nothing to do with how long a position has been argued. Blaming societal collapse on a religion is not exactly a mainstream position. (And given that the pagan barbarians, whose raids fueled the collapse of the Romans in the West, were hardly literate themselves, the position doesn't make a lot of sense.) 71.205.191.38 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Edward Gibbon inclined to this view, but societal collapse would not have been due to Christianity, although Christianity's antipathy to Muslim sicence and discouraging "heretical" speculation could have been an obstacle rather than a vehicle for progress. The pagan cultural perspective was however less advanced- such as the belief in a flat earth and minimal literacy--Streona (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Paucity is an unnecessary difficult word

In reference to this edit: Referring to WP:MOS is not a form of policing. The Manual of Style exists for a good reason: to make Wikipedia easier to read. And replacing difficult words with easier ones is not talking down to the readers as you call it. Just like the Manual of Style, it is about making a more accessible and therefore better Wikipedia.

What you are doing is a form of intellectual elitism. Writing for readers of your own clique and not caring about others. It's against the philosophy of Wikipedia and should be avoided whenever possible. Waninge (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

so, preferring "paucity of artistic output" over "shortage of artistic output"[2] is "intellectual elitism"? Waninge, you self-identify as "en-3". Did it occur to you that there may be stylistic differences between the two phrases you did not quite grasp? Let me put it this way: "paucity" means that there was little output. "shortage" means that there was too little output.[3] People were desperate for more artistic output, the artists were working day and night, but just couldn't produce enough art to provide for the enormous artistic needs of the period. The text was perfectly fine as it was, thank you. If knowledge of a perfecty pedestrian English word like "paucity" makes me a member of a "clique", then so be it, en-wiki is only accessible to the "clique" of people with a passive knowledge of written English. dab (𒁳) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my knowledge of English is about "en-3". But I didn't know the word "paucity". I had to look it up in a dictionary. If I don't know it then probably many people don't. So, "paucity" makes the article less accessible, which is the reason I replaced it. You say there are stylistic differences between "paucity" and the words I used, but "paucity" can be replaced by easier terms with the same meaning. "Scarcity", "fewness", "small amount", "smallness of number", "smallness of quantity", "a small number of" and "an inadequate supply of" are a few examples. All of them are easier than "paucity". There is no good reason to keep that word. Waninge (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you looked it up, you learned something, that's good isn't it? There is a "simple English" Wikipedia for people who are truely struggling, but this isn't it. I think you would rather object to me going to the Dutch wikipedia (where I read regularly) and telling you not to use the whole range of your language just because I haven't learned it properly. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the point of this discussion. I am sure that many people who have English as their native language do not know the word "paucity". Most Wikipedia editors and administrators probably know it, as most of them have a higher education than average. But most passive users probably don't know that word, will not take the effort to look it up and as a result don't understand the meaning of that line. That's what I mean by elitism. And now I end this discussion, as I am getting tired of it. Waninge (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

In European historiography, the term Dark Age or Dark Ages refers to the Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 to 1000 AD. 476 is very specific and 1000 AD is rounded to the nearest 1000. Can these dates be clarified in parentisis. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This article (and discussion page) is truly outrageous

I've read though all of the above discussion, and it's simply aggravating to me that it appears that two or three users who have the time/will to constantly revert edits/push agendas dominate this article. In short for those who don't have time to read through all the fleshed out discussion above: this entire article is basically User:Stbalbach and User:Doric Loon patting each other on the back for their "objectiveness" and "expertise" as medievalists while the vast majority of commentators express concern in how much of this article is dedicated to denying the so-called dark ages rather than defining what the dark ages WERE and what happened in them! I understand that you two study/lecture on medieval history, study St. Augustine, yada, yada, but what you fal to understand (and you should really be ashamed of this considering that you are supposed to be students of the liberal arts to some degree) is that the dark ages to not "belong" to historians or "belong" to the area of 'meta-history'. The dark ages are a part of popular cultural and the popular imagination as much as they are a part of meta-history (which you and your peers would term 'historiography') and you really have no right to dominate the discussion of the subject on wikipedia. Forgive me for getting upset about this, but it is really upsetting to see people masquerading as intellectuals to hijack an article and try to keep it as their own little academic fiefdom while others who are trying to constructively contribute are told they are "amatures" or are told their views of history are obsolete. There is no such thing as an obsolete idea or an "amature" thinker. I can personally tell you having visited both Roman ruins in North Africa and a 'living history' village of feudal Ireland that elements of advanced civilization were clearly lost during what you term late antiquity/early middle ages, and that it isn't "perjoritve" to call the time "dark ages" -- it is simply a terming that attempts to reconcile the clearly visible FACTS of the times with human vocabulary. You're misrepresenting the meaning of the word "perjorative" by claiming the "dark ages" term as such. Perhaps the snide way in which the 13th century guy referred to the times was "perjorative" (I would argue that it was simply hyperbole), but people today don't have any kind of loaded value judgment on the era, they simply call it dark as an adjective to describe its obvious shortcomings in certain areas! It's great that over-shot water wheels or iron plows or gothic arches were invented in the "dark ages", but you cannot sit back and deny that the vast bulk of popular society recognizes the concept of "the dark ages" and that the phrase conjures a vast wealth of imagery and ideas about an era just because you're ideas contractict with popularly held ones. Your heads are so far up in the clouds because of your work in this area that you're really losing grip with reality, I think! The sad thing is, I agree with many of your stated facts. I agree that the early middle ages had redeeming qualities that were not at all primitive, and I personally believe invention in the late Imperial Rome was stagnant in a lot of ways, but its the fact that this article is attempting to bury a historical term that concerns me. The term "dark ages" has taken on a life of its own and is simply a lens with which to view a period of history. You point out its short-comings, but you shout out anyone who wishes to point out its strengths of which there are many. Using the dark ages as a lens enables a greater appreciation for the classics, for example. The lens emboldened the humanists, the neo-classics, the romantic poets, etc. It's a very important idea! So all I ask is that you stop taking it upon yourselves to dominate the discussion, and look for popular consensus and be more willing to compromise with views that differ from your own in the future. Thank you.24.105.236.66 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. - 24.22.28.171 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are so emotional about this. The article is about the use of a term. The first section is on the history of the term. I haven't worked on that section, but it seems to me to be fair enough as a rough overview, though you are welcome to expand it. No-one is stopping you. There is then a section on "Modern academic use". There I am standing firm, because there is a consensus in academic practice, and since I am an insider to that particular debate and can provide references, I am perfectly entitled to object to that section being changed by unqualified people without reliable sources whose gut instinct think the academic consensus is wrong. BUT we then have a section on popular use, which is what you seem to be talking about, and no-one is blocking you from developing THAT in any way you want.

It is true that a number of people have expressed concerns here:

• Some are surprised that the article is about the term rather than about the period in history; well, we could have structured that differently, but since the main article on the period is at Middle Ages, most people take the point that it is fair enough to do something different here. There is nothing wrong with pointing them elsewhere, surely?
• Some are surprised that the academic consensus is as it is, and need that explained. It is not hijacking the article to explain that. One thing that readers of this article want to know is how today's medievalists are using this term, and I insist the article should tell them that. That is not POV.
• And some (like you) think that more needs to be done here in the popular area. Well, good luck to them, nobody has discouraged them, but the fact that they mostly have not actually come up with the goods suggests the gripes are rather empty rhetoric.

So instead of attacking editors who have done good work here in the past, why don't you open your books, find citable evidence for the things you think are missing here, and improve the article. You misrepresent Stbalbach and me completely when you suggest we are trying to stop you. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two new criticisms of this article as being dominated by two users, stbalbach and doric, pushing their personal agenda and silencing other would be contributors, seemingly without the ability to understand why other users are repeatedly dismayed. I am glad that Doric is now sayiing others will not be reverted. Doric, sorry, but I may be making changes to the area you reserve to yourself, "Modern academic use", using Bryan Ward-PErkin's book, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, printed by Oxford University Press.He is a fellow at Trinity College, Oxford and a joint editor of The Cambridge Ancinet History, Vol XIV. These are the highest level academic credentials, and his statements about modern scholarship are not subject to your personal censorship. --Cimicifugia (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

What IS it with you people??? Nobody has said ANYWHERE on this talk page that you should not edit if you have reputable sources. Nor does anybody reserve anything to themselves or practice censorship. I have said, and am perfectly entitled to say, that I will argue strongly for one thing which I find important and which I can source. I have also said repeatedly that there are many other aspects which you are welcome to write about. When I read down this page I see an unbelievable amount of personal attacking coming from users without a track record, mostly without even usernames who might easily all be the same person for all anyone can tell, much of it outrageously confrontational. Cimicifugia, if you have something solid to offer, please do it. We've been encouraging you to do that ever since you first appeared here. But don't expect anyone here to take you seriously until you stop maligning editors and start producing material. THEN we'll have something to talk about. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Doric Loon, you clearly think that this article is a "historiographic" article, and what you are not getting through your head is that historiography is only one tool with which to approach an encyclopedic topic. What you are doing is akin to a professor of literature going to the article about Hamlet and removing all psychoanalytic, feminist, or marxist interpretation of the play and leaving only meta-critical deconstructive analysts' opinions. Historiography or meta-history is in and of itself a contemporary trend in the subject of history, it is not a representation of absolute truth -- it is simply just a lens with which to view history.

Like I said before -- I understand where you're coming from. I've dabbed in history at grad. school and have seen how strangely obsessed history departments are with meta-history and philosophical theory rather than the actual investigation and recording of history. But common sense really needs to be "cited" at some point here, because like the user below me said: "Wikipedia readers looking up Dark Ages are looking for information, not a historiography lecture on why it is bad." Anyone who takes issue with the structure of the article or tries to change it with our without reputable citations is pointed to the header which reads This article is about the phrase "Dark Age(s)" as a characterization of the Early Middle Ages in Western Europe. and told to GTFO with their audacity to deliver information about what actually *HAPPENED* in the dark ages! That header is the biggest load of nonsense -- people search DARK AGES to find out WHAT HAPPENED during them -- not to read a sophist analysis or deconstructive metahistory about its place in academia. Do you search -- I don't know -- 'Venus' looking for a heated debate about woman's duality or do you look it up to find out about the planet or the greek figure? probably the latter two! Look at your main complaint on the user below's suggestion on how to rewrite the article: what you do here is to lead with it, and you have many sentences which say "the dark ages were..." What is this, Ingsoc in 1984? In order to say I don't feel good today you have to phrase it as "I feel doubleplusungood today"? How pray tell would you have someone term an event that happened in the dark ages? "King Johnny Appleseed, during the dark ages ***should you feel appropriate to characterize the period by this pejorative term which King Johnny Appleseed would find HIGHLY!!! offensive!*** built a castle and went on a crusade."

And as an aside, I'm dismayed with how much ease you seem to dismiss anyone who believes in the traditional view of the dark ages. People have long-since "updated" Sigmund Freud's model of the human mind, but his diagram of it and his description of it is not simply wiped away and replaced with an article discussing how he was wrong and why and how his wrong idea came about. Another example would be the U.S. Constitution. The document is amended, but is the prohibition amendment deleted and replaced with an explanation of how prohibition was a bad amendment and was repealed for x, y, and z? No! Characterizing Edward Gibbon for example -- practically a household name in the humanities -- as an "obsolete" and pejorative thinker in his views of the era??? Is the entire point of an academic research paper not to argue a thesis? Are you seriously suggesting that just because the man happens to live during the enlightenment and uses harsher language than contemporary historians' sensibilities are repulsed by regarding the dark ages that he is flat wrong and that contemporary historians that you are in the academy with 300 years further away from the historical period that you are right? Not that its wrong that you're pushing your idea -- by all means it is appropriate for you to argue your case -- but it is not appropriate for you to do so on wikipedia, in my opinion. You promise that properly cited changes to the article won't be touched by you, but they're empty words. Look at this talk page! Topic after topic are complaints about you and the grad. student fellow reverting their attempts to contribute! It just seems impossible to work with you because you drag your feet to anything that contradicts your historiography complex.

And why get emotional? I told you already in the original disscussion post -- because the arrogance and pseudo-intellectual smugness of it all is just incredibly, insanely offensive to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.236.66 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your really mistaken. The period is called the Middle Ages, or more specifically, the Early Middle Ages. We can't have two articles covering the same topic, there can only be one article name, and we already have tons of articles that cover the periods history under Middle Ages. To make this article into a history article about the Early Middle Ages would obviously be a fork of Early Middle Ages - it is against the rules of Wikipedia, and makes no logical sense. What happened originally, there was a sub-section in Middle Ages that discussed the alternative names for the period (such as Dark Age). However that sub-section got too long, so it was split off into a separate article, this one, so it became naturally a historiography article. That's how it works, when sub-sections get too long, they become stand-alone articles. It's really that simple, your making it out into something it is not. Also I don't know why your attacking Doric Loon personally, he is just one of many people on Wikipedia who have read and concur with this article. If you disagree, than start a conversation at the Wikipedia Medieval history user group, where there is a considerable base of expert knowledge. Occasionally someone shows up here who is a "contrarian", who has "dabbled" in history (although usually not medieval history), but they have never been able to support it with actual citations, nor are they well versed in modern medieval historiography. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the way I see it, 24.105.236.66, is that if you had a leg to stand on, you would not be resorting to abuse. People who attack other editors on talk pages are trolls and I really can't take them seriously. Especially when they don't even have the courtesy to get a user name. I have already invited you to make concrete suggestions of anything which you would like to see added here which does not already appear on some other wikipedia page. We are very open to intelligent contributions. It is conspicuous that those who complain that this page is not what they at first expected rarely hang around once they are challenged to do the actual work of developing their own ideas. I suspect this is because, when they actually start reading more deeply, they find that the general thrust of this article is actually about right. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New Proposed approach to this page

Here is a first draft text for a new proposed approach to the page. The section on the Early Middle Ages on the Middle ages page is not an adequate treatemnt of the subject. Wikipedia readers looking up Dark Ages are looking for information, not a historiography lecture on why it is bad. I believe the interesting information on modern academia's rejection of the term is excellent, and belongs on the page as a later subsection, but should not be the dominant theme of the page. HEre is a draft of a new approach. It is based on Bryan Ward-PErkin's book, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, printed by Oxford University Press.He is a fellow at Trinity College, Oxford and a joint editor of The Cambridge Ancinet History, Vol XIV. These are the highest level academic credentials, and his statements are therefore fully supported by Wiki guidelines, and should not be reverted.

Obviously, it would be better to have more sources. The text could probably use sub-headings, a lot of links, and perhaps improved organization. please add only referenced information. Rather than engage in revert battles, I thought I would put in on the discussion page first. FYI, I am not an academic nor a specialist in the medieval period. I am however a retired professional writer, who wrote three books as well as columns and articles, all carefully researched and fact-checked.

Doric, three people made criticisms in this one section, including myself - it is easy to check their contributions. They are different people. At least 27 different users or more have complained about this article on the discussion page.

I thought it was best to discuss things with you before attempting another edit that I feared you would simply revert, as has happened so often in the past. I am heartened that you are say you will allow other users to contribute to the page. Let us all turn a new page, and try to work together amicably.

here's the draft. it is incomplete, but enough to get a discussion going:

The term Dark Ages is a popular term to describe the period of European history marked by the devastating loss of Greco-Roman civilization following the barbarian invasions of the fifth century. (perkins, p 1-3) Its beginning is dated variously from the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410, or from 476 when the last emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the barbarian king Odoacer.

The destructive forces that culminated in the Dark Ages were set off by the rise of the nomadic Huns on the Eurasian steppes, which forced the tribes of the Goths to turn east and attack the eastern half of the Roman Empire in 378. The Goths continued into northern Italy in 401. By 406 three other large Germanic tribes (the Vandals, Sueves and Alans) invaded Gaul and never again left the Western empire. (perkins, p1-2) (The eastern Roman empire defended itself from the Germanic invasions, evolved into the Byzantine Empire, and fell to the Turks in 1453. Its history is not part of the Dark Ages.)

Although once used to describe all of the Middle Ages, the term Dark Ages is now limited to what specialists call the Early Middle Ages. The end date is the transition from Early to High Middle Ages. It does not have a specific date, but in the early 11 century a new period is discerned, with order restored under the system of feudalism, towns and trade resumed, imposing stone castles and cathedrals built, and scholastic intellectual life resumed in the Roman Catholic Church.

The disintegration of the Roman Empire under the repeated trauma of barbarian attacks, which the declining Empire could no longer repel nor recover from, led to complete military and political disintegration, and the end of ancient civilization in Western Europe. The barbarian invasions, now called the ‘migration period’ by academics, led to centuries of small-scale war, raiding, pillaging, and whole-scale murder and enslavement of free populations. The result was a Dark Age marked by government, economic, technological and intellectual collapse.

Literacy and intellectual life died out in Europe. Much of classical literature, history, mathematics and science were lost forever. Fortunately, some manuscripts were preserved in the Eastern Roman Empire, (later the Byzantine Empire), and in Roman Egypt, (later part of the Islamic Empire), and returned to the West with the revival of classical learning at the beginning of the Renaissance. (perkins p2)

The end of functioning government, military and rule of law in Western Europe meant the end of peace and prosperity. It had drastic and wide ranging impacts, sudden in some places (Britain, the Aegean), more gradual in others (Italy, Africa). (perkins p128-9) Eventually, there was a loss of the entire complex economic system, based on specialization, manufacture and trade in both luxury goods and high-quality functional goods for the middle and lower classes (perkins p 88). This led to a dramatic decline in living standards from the fifth to the seventh century, which effected elites as well as the mass of ordinary people. (perkins, p87) The economic changes, whether slow or sudden, were catastrophic.

Professor Byran Ward-Perkins of Oxford University, bases his conclusions on the archeological record, which shows a disappearance of simple, everyday goods such as wheel-thrown pottery and roof tiles, the disappearance of all imported goods, the absence of coins as a medium of exchange. Professor Ward-Perkins believes “post-Roman Britain in fact sank to a level of economic complexity well below that of the pre-Roman Iron Age.” (p 117) In the Western Mediterranean, some trading towns, some trade, coins and local to regional industries survived, but the relative decay from the very high levels of economic complexity they enjoyed under the Roman Empire was extreme. (Perkins p 120)

Populations seem to have plummeted. Archeological surveys show a densely settled and farmed Roman landscape, then a post-Roman world where almost all the settlements have disappeared, indicating a population drop to a half or quarter of Roman levels. The evidence is inconclusive however, as Roman homes where made of tile and brick, and after the fall of their civilization, people lived in thatched huts that leave little trace. The hand-made, unglazed pottery of the Dark Ages is much scarcer than the widespread, high-quality pottery of Rome, but it is also harder to find visually. Dark Ages settlements are less likely to contain coins or any other durable material. (p139) There is one source of evidence that agricultural output, and therefore population, declined dramatically during the Dark Ages, and that is the size of livestock bones recovered by archeologists. Domestic animals size increased markedly in Roman times, indication of intensive feeding, good pasture, winter feeding, that is, a developed agrarian economy. In the post-Roman period, cattle size fell to below prehistoric levels. (perkins p 145. see chart)

--Cimicifugia (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)cimicifugia

Wow, Cimicifugia, your tone has changed so much it's hard to believe YOU'RE not two different people. I was about to write you off as a troll, but this we can work with. I am glad you put it here first, because I can engage with it in a less messy way. Well done.

I am very uncomfortable with some bits of it. One of the big issues here, as you have pointed out yourself, is that many people, including most professional medievalists, find the term inappropriate. I have nothing against giving space to the minority view. But what you do here is to lead with it, and you have many sentences which say "the dark ages were..." which is simply making assumptions on this question: in other words, you are asking us to the article to take sides. The article should be neutral. However, if we have a section which starts "Those who see the Early middle ages as a dark age point to...." then a lot of what you say here would be fine.

You are referring a lot to Ward-Perkins, which is great. (No need to say "professor...Oxford", which sounds like we are a fan-club, just citing his book title will do.) Ward-Perkins is a very reputable source. My problem here is that you haven't cited him using the term "dark ages". What is he saying about it? Quote him. Does he use the words "Dark ages" on every page, because if he doesn't, then you are misrepresenting him when you put it into every second sentence of what purports to be his opinion. This is particularly important because further up this talk page there was already a mention of Ward-Perkins. One user pointed out that Ward-Perkins says the term "dark ages" is justified. Then another user pointed out is that he goes on to say it is nevertheless highly problematic. You must be careful to show what he really thinks, because I am not convinced he supports your view unequivocally. For the moment I will trust you on this, but if need be I will trot down the corridor and get our copy and see for myself.

What I am not clear about is whether this is supposed to replace the whole article, or just the intro, or what. Is the whole history of the term (Petrarch) and academic reception bit supposed to follow from this? How do you propose to make the link?

One thing to guard against: we have good articles on the Middle Ages and all kinds of other aspects of history. It is important to keep this focussed on historiography. We all have our own constructions of the past. This article is about the ways we do that, not about the period itself. I realise that historiography is not everybody's cup of tea, and some of those who complained further up were apparently put off by that (eg user 24.105.236.66). But we have got to do historiography too, and this is the place to do it. So by all means give some historical facts to illustrate why people have partícular constructions of the period. But build it into the arguments - this is not the place for historical narrative.

My biggest desideratum, though, is just this: the term "dark ages" is highly controversial. It is not just Stbalbach and me: at least seven users have said that on this page, and the artcle already contains good citations for it. THAT must be reflected right in the first paragraph. Then we can spend as much time as you like talking about the different people who have liked and disliked the term, and why. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not acceptable. Historiography is not the alpha and the omega in encyclopedic writing. The article of the subject should be about general knowledge of the supposed time period, its supposed causes, its supposed implications and supposed consequences, a controversy of use of the term section, and further reference material for those who seek to find out more about the time period. This is not supposed to be a post-structural diatribe redefining and disputing past scholarship written by people who think every history text written before 1960 is biased and pejorative. If you wish to write an article about the meaning and origins of the specific term "dark ages", perhaps your abilities would be put to better use at the wiktionary.

You don't present a case at all for why "THAT must be reflected right in the first paragraph." The use of the term dark ages is controversial............ ok............ how in any way does that affect what the term nonetheless represents??? That is to say: the dark ages themselves ARE NOT controversial at all! The chronology of events that the term "dark ages" entails is clear besides a few things such as whether they "started" in 410 or 476. The article's subject is THE DARK AGES according to its title and that should be the subject!!! The subject should not be (the use in academia of:) The Dark Ages! How do you not see the insanity in this??? You cannot simply insert a disclaimer that says "This article is about the phrase "Dark Age(s)" as a characterization..." any more than you can title an article "God" and then insert a disclaimer that says "This article is about the phrase "God" as a characterization of a really cool rock star"

I mean really, now, let's go back to Plato. You got your chair, the painting of you in the chair, and then THE chair up in idea land. Let's say you decide no no this isn't a chair anymore I'm going to call it a nightstand because i need something for my clock to sit on. You don't all of the sudden look at the painting and go "this is a painting of a nightstand". You don't do this because what the chair represents -- THE chair -- is eternal.

conclusion: the dark ages will always represent a period, a series of events, and a human condition whether or not it is a popular term to use in historiorectumy. It should and ought to be defined and described in this article, and the appropriateness of the term's use and validity should merely be an aside/controversy.

And furthermore, the description of what the term entails ought to be separate from the middle ages/early middle ages because it entails a distinctly different block of history. Late antiquity and the early middle ages have muddled and overlapping intersections while the beginnings of the dark ages clearly coincide with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and end when supposedly "lost" order was supposedly "restored".MartinDuffy (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny, you start by doing down historiography, but you end up, whether you realise it or not, by giving a good argument for it: the term "dark ages" is one which we invest with meaning as we develop a construct of the period. But different people have seen that in different ways, and the changing construct, and debates arising from this, are really the most interesting thing here. That's what we mean by historiography. By the way, thanks for pointing so helpfully to the aricle on God: that article DOES start with the history of the word and go on to discuss who has meant what by it throughout history. That's EXACTLY what we're doing here.

Incidentally, it is important that we do not get into discussions about whether the term is appropriate, or whether the period really was dark. My view on that, or yours, are entirely irrelevant. Our job is only to report what is out there in the literature.

If you want to draw general knowledge of the period(s) in too, you're welcome to try, but I don't really see the point. The problem is that we had a lot of that and it was removed (not by me) because it simply duplicates stuff which is already on other pages, more appropriate ones like "Middle Ages". As a result the article was almost deleted, but we were able to save it by arguing that the historiographical aspect needs covered in Wiki too. That is why we ended up with this as a purely historiographical article. Now you are welcome to re-open that debate, but I think you will have little joy from it.

Please do not forget that the term is used variously to cover either the whole of the middle ages or just the early middle ages. It depends who is speaking. That is another reason why we have concentrated on how the term has been used, rather than things which happened in the periods covered by it.

This article has a long way to go before it is really good, so do work on it. But my advice would be to focus on who has used this term, what they meant by it, who has rejected it and why they didn't like it. And don't forget that the majority of readers coming to this page will want to know what modern historians say. If they say it is a highly controversial term (an we have good citations demonstrating that they do) then that SHOULD be in the intro. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Perkins is, if you did nothing but read Perkins, I would agree with him. But I have also read many other authors on the subject. Perkins is an anomaly in his use of the term Dark Ages. It doesn't represent the current mainstream thinking. In addition, Perkins has said forthright, that the term Dark Ages is problematic. Even he doesn't take it seriously. He uses it by convention, in large part (I think) to appeal to a popular non-specialists audience, because the metaphor is so powerful, it churns up interest in the period. So he sort of uses it, then apologizes for it at the same time. BTW see the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Dark Ages (in the External Links). It takes the exact approach this article does. This article is standard mainstream, nothing wrong with the framing or approach. The problem really is readers who are so dead-set that the Dark Ages are real, they can't see past it as being just a metaphor, and so get upset when this article debunks a cherished myth. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article should be split

Maybe the article should be split in : "Dark Ages(early middle ages)"-which is not used in a pejorative way, even if it was not completely true, as it was light during the day, "Dark Ages(middle ages)"-used in a pejorative way, with all the controversy included, "Dark Ages(first G.W.Bush presidency term)"-with its own controversy .... 198.62.239.133 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article should not be split. Even the usage in the early middle ages is pejorative, as discussed in the article and many sources. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is pejorative if people feel it that way. Some people feel that it is not pejorative when used about parts of the early Middle Ages in some parts of the world (not everywhere and not the whole early middle ages). Telling them that it is pejorative when they do not feel it that way is wrong. I think that everybody has the right to his opinion, including those who are not offended by the Dark Ages term. I find it awkward the way this article is written. It is almost like explaining why genocide is wrong in a 50 pages article without explaining what it is in the first place. It leaves everybody confused. And there is no wonder that authors are afraid to use words that might be seen as politically incorrect. That does not impress me. I am not offended by the use of the Dark Ages term (this means that it is not pejorative for me), but I understand the pejorative use as well. I would like to see both points of view, and not only one.67.83.207.248 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But both points of view ARE in there. The article as it stands actually dedicates considerably more text to an account of those who used and liked the term than to those who reject it. Please remember we are not doing original research, nor are we trying to be politically correct, so whether the term seems pejoritive to you or me, or whether it really is in some absolute sense, or on what level, is not the point. We have to report the state of play in the world. If some people find it pejoritive, our job with respect to that is simply to report what they say: no more, no less. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how the article cam be split along alternative viewpoints, but I suggest that much of the controversy is because of the vulgar and perhaps traditional view in, at least English history, that the Dark Ages run from 412 CE until the exact date of the Battle of Hastings in 1066, or 600 years, which is controversial because it is ridiculous. A much tighter dating to the earlier part of this period might achieve a better consensus, such as Cerdic to Offa/Charlemagne, with the "early middle ages" ending with the sack of Jerusalem in 1099. Equally much of the 5th century can be subsumed into "late antiquity".--Streona (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you not realize that you own use of the term "Vulgur" in describing -- dismissively -- a traditional view of history is even more POV and disingenuous than the supposed bias of the "dark ages"!? The fact of the matter is that this article should not exist -- it should forward one to Early Middle Ages and then the first sentence of that article should be "The Early Middle Ages (also sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages)" or whatever, and then a short, succienct section saying why the term is considered inappropriate nowadays should be included. There is no need for this long-winded historiography discussion which is NOT what users searching the term are looking for.MartinDuffy (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The "History of Anglo-Saxon England" wikipedia page says that "The 5th and 6th centuries are known archaeologically as Sub-Roman Britain, or in popular history as the Dark Ages". It looks to me that not much is known about that period of time from England. I think that the "dark ages" label would be OK for that period of time in England, but not until 1066.198.62.239.133 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5