Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)

This article bears little relevance and is low quality

It reads as a Dark Ages apologist brochure that attempts to convey the dark ages weren’t so dark after all. It makes a point that people didn’t think the Earth was flat for instance.

But what readers really come to this article for is an explanation as to why no progress was made during the thousand prior to the Dark Ages when Eratosthenes in 300BC not only knew the world was round but calculated its circumference to within 2% of the actual figure using just two shadows.

To gloat with the fact that one thousand years later western society should be proud because they realized the Earth was round seems ridiculous.

Progress stopped. The age WAS dark and readers want to know why. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

85.148.213.144 Sorry, but the Dark ages weren't any darker than any other ancient era, and people didn't believe the world was flat. That's a myth that was invented in 1828, when Washington Irving published The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Wiki even has a page: Myth of the flat Earth

Progress did not stop. To quote Professor Rodney Stark: “…the so-called Dark Ages were a period of profound enlightenment in both the material and intellectual spheres, which when combined with Christian doctrines of moral equality, created a whole new world based on political, economic, and personal freedom.” [The Victory of Reason (New York: Random House, 2006) 68.]

Important technological achievements of the Medieval Period include the development of polyphonic music and the musical score which make all modern music possible. The organ and the violin were developed. Universities were founded, and the concept of academic freedom was formed. Scientific inquiry began in the middle ages laying the foundation for the later scientific revolution. Multiple advances in architecture, the chimney, the compass, brakes for wagons, swivel axis, the horse collar, the three crop rotation system, fully mechanical clocks, eye glasses, vertical windmills, flat glass mirrors, and one shouldn't forget the printing press. Monasteries made advances in medicine and astronomy, animal husbandry, cheese and wine making, and several practical advances in engineering such as that required to transport water long distances. This is a list you can also find on WP in articles such as Medieval technology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is absurdly biased, to the point of contradicting itself in view of the facts it itself adduces, showing that it describes a dogma, not a fact. What would convince fans of the Middle Ages that it (especially the early medieval period) was really a "dark age"? Nothing. They'll simply define it away, and will – deliberately or naively – spread untruths, like in the comment above. Richard Carrier, a bona fide expert on ancient science and technology, has debunked the ridiculous idea of an amazingly progressive medieval period again and again and again and again and again, and wrote two peer-reviewed books to demonstrate it in even more detail, yet boosters of the Middle Ages and Christianity keep ignoring the facts and claim a consensus that doesn't actually exist among actual historians. The real fact is that ancient science and technology was remarkably developed (more than even many medievalists seem to realise) and its level was never again reached, let alone transcended, until the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and especially the 17th century (whose luminaries constantly referred to ancient science, especially Roman science). Even the actual innovations of the medieval period (from glasses to the printing press) appeared only in the late medieval period (which transitions into the Early Renaissance in a way that makes demarcating them difficult), and several of them were imported from China. People keep quoting Rodney Stark (a Christian, by the way, no longer an agnostic) as an authority – but he's actually a sociologist (specifically of religion) who also works in the field of comparative religion, not a historian of science and technology.

It's true that research into the Middle Ages has significantly advanced in last 50 years or so – but so has research into antiquity. For example (source: "Up to the late 20th century, the Roman economy was envisaged as slave-based [...], and the use of watermills was grossly underestimated. [...] It is now well established not only that Greco-Roman society excelled in hydraulic engineering [...] but also that a veritable revolution of waterpower affected the Roman Empire between the first and the third century CE [...]." Speaking of slave-based, slavery in ancient Rome was hardly more brutal (and in fact even became less so over time) than contemporary American capitalism, let alone serfdom in the Christian Late Antiquity and Middle Ages, which was just slavery by another name. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't say or imply the middle ages were "amazingly progressive", a term loaded with modern baggage BTW. Nor does it try to cherry pick some piece of technology (plumbing) and ignore others (Medieval technology). It certainly does not use the opinionated self-published blog posts of Richard Carrier whose specialty is in Ancient history and is clearly out there in terms of his views (considered fringe) and actions (banned from conventions as sexual predator) -- GreenC 13:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It's telling that ad hominem is the only "substantive" argument brought forward here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Richard Carrier's article says "fringe". Carrier and others promote a discredited 19th century teleological viewpoint of progress, that history works on a progressive line based entirely on technological advancement. This leads to machine-like counter-factuals like what-if the Church did not exist then technology like the Alexandrian steam engine toy would have developed faster and we'd all be better off (like the Huns with nuclear weapons and global warming crisis by the 1500s?). As for modern slavery, it suggests technology advancement alone isn't all to consider if making value judgements. -- GreenC 22:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling a living person a "sexual predator" without evidence is a BLP violation. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Asking Bard/GPT/Google

I came here after reading about the bronze age, iron age, the bronze age dark age, and wondering about that time I remember from my childhood when knowledge was lost. I appreciate that's probably a too simplistic view but most articles like this would have some summary on the right giving a range of dates. I think it this case (even if it's odd for wikipedia, this should include similar concepts since that's what I presume most people are coming here for). I note that this comment is almost the opposite of one of the ones above that claims that this article is specialised for a very specific historic meaning, and maybe that's because I had a look at the disambiguation page and it mentioned this page as the lay person's understanding of the concept. Porco-esphino (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Bard's response by the way:

> The term "Dark Ages" is used to refer to the period of European history from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD to the beginning of the Renaissance in the 14th century. The term was first used in the 16th century by Italian scholars who believed that this period was a time of cultural and intellectual decline. However, modern historians now view the Dark Ages as a time of great change and innovation, as Europe transitioned from the Roman Empire to a new medieval society.

> There is no single definition of the Dark Ages, and the exact dates of the period are debated by historians. However, most scholars agree that the Dark Ages began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD and ended with the beginning of the Renaissance in the 14th century.

> The fall of the Western Roman Empire was a major turning point in European history. The Roman Empire had provided a stable and unified political and economic system for much of Europe, and its collapse led to a period of chaos and instability. This chaos was exacerbated by the invasions of Germanic tribes, who migrated into Europe during this period.

> Despite the chaos and instability of the Dark Ages, there were also many positive developments during this time. For example, the Catholic Church became a major force in European society, and monasteries played an important role in preserving and transmitting knowledge. Additionally, there was a revival of learning in the 11th and 12th centuries, which led to the development of new universities and the flowering of medieval culture.

> The Dark Ages are often seen as a time of darkness and ignorance, but this view is now largely outdated. Modern historians now recognize that the Dark Ages were a time of great change and innovation, as Europe transitioned from the Roman Empire to a new medieval society.

It's really quite clear and although I can't tell how accurate a lot of it is, the dates at least line up and the context of these paragraphs means the article introduction makes a lot more sense to me, but still really needs a re-write — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porco-esphino (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

AI is not a reliable source. It can't be cited and shouldn't be seen as an authority. It hallucinates, cites non-existent sources (when it cites at all), does not have the ability to weigh reliable sources, unable to differentiate changing attitudes over time, draws much of its content from Wikipedia itself, has no editorial oversight. For example, AI is calling the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages part of the Dark Ages! This went out of fashion in the 19th century, nobody these days says that - it's a relic of the AI trained on old outdated books and papers. -- GreenC 23:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Numbers of volumes

In the numbers of volumes table, why is the number of volumes per century consistently one less than that indicated by the volume numbers? Ehrenkater (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why a "popular culture" section can be "scholarly".

Wikipedia has many articles about two science fiction subgenres: future history and alternate history. A lot of these are inspired by the author's understanding of the Dark Ages. Historians reject the very concept of "the Dark Ages" now, but during the Golden Age of Science Fiction it was a standard thing, commonly taught in schools. It was still a thing when I was in high school in the 60s.

Despite the scholarly deprecation of the concept, the Golden Age SF that draws on "The Dark Ages" is still widely read. In particular, Isaac Asimov's Foundation series has a popular TV adaptation.

I felt that this relationship between "obsolete" historiography and science fiction was culturally significant and worth documenting. So I added a section to the Dark Ages article that talks about this. Alas, @Dudley Miles considers my addition to be "not scholarly content" and reverted it.

I'm here to ask Dudley to reconsider. I think a quick look at WP:IPC might be helpful. Of course, that page is not Policy, but it does make a good case for this kind of content, provided they're property done. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Dudley. It's WP:OR. See the section "Modern non-scholarly use". What you are describing is called a "banal medievalism", discussed in that section. A banal medievalism is usage in a way that is trivial, unrelated to the actual Middle Ages. It's the sort of thing often found in popular culture in an unlimited number of ways. We discuss banal medievalism, but don't expose on the many varieties it takes it's beyond the scope of the article. If you can find some decent reliable sourcing about this we could consider including a sentence or two about science fiction in that section. But it should be scholarly sourcing. -- GreenC 22:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're raising two separate objections. First there's "Original Research". I don't see how a brief summary of a book counts as "research," original or otherwise. If it were, much of this article would count as OR.

Then there's "banal medievalism." As described in the article, that's something completely different.

..."characterized mainly by being unconscious, unwitting and by having little or no intention to refer to the Middle Ages"; for example, referring to an insurance industry still reliant on paper instead of computers as being in the 'Dark Ages'.

My examples are all writers consciously applying their understanding of the "Dark Ages." -- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the most important objection to the section you added is that it needs to have sources independent of the books -- e.g. if Joe Patrouch, in his study of Asimov's sf, talks about the relationship between the Foundation series and the Dark Ages, that's a relevant citation. Without sources like that it's impossible to distinguish between works that might warrant mention -- and I agree Foundation is a plausible candidate -- and works that are too minor to be mentioned. If you can find sources that discuss this, and which mention these (or other books), I suggest you list those sources here so we can discuss whether they justify any additions to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not say in my edit summary that the section is not scholarly content. I said that it is unreferenced and not relevant to this article, which is about historians' changing views on the validity of describing early medieval Europe as going through Dark Ages. The use of the concept in fiction may be worth its own article, but it is not relevant to this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'll create an article "Dark Ages in Popular Culture." Perhaps you'll consider contributing to it.

(I have no idea where I got the "not scholarly content." I distinctly remember reading it, but you didn't write it. Sorry about that.) Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You may find "popular" too narrow. "Cultural depictions of Dark Ages"? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Popular culture" is an extremely popular subject on Wikipedia. I'll leave the High Culture stuff to you guys. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's like in 25 years of Wikipedia nobody has thought of making an article about the Middle Ages in popular culture. The term "Dark Ages" is just another term for "Middle Ages", but one with special historiographical interest, which is why we have this article. Scholars who study the Middle Ages in popular culture call it Medievalism. So we already have this topic area covered, a long time ago. See also WP:POVSPLIT. -- GreenC 15:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo

According to https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-archaeology-discoveries-changed-understanding-human-history-2024-8#li-dar-has-revealed-lost-monuments-and-civilizations-9, the Sutton Hoo discovery was important in changing historians'views on the EMA. Should this be included in the article (using an appropriate source)?Kdammers (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It was important in changing views on the early Anglo-Saxon period in England. Perhaps rather narrow to mention here, or not? Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the historiography of the term dark ages, beginning with Petrarch. The history of the period is in Early Middle Ages, which has Sutton Hoo. -- GreenC 16:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It may have been a factor in making the period appear less dark, but we would need a reliable source to say this specifically. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)