The Darker Ages?

[anthony022071]

’
It is one thing to** read** a history book, another thing entriely to write one.

Researchers and writers in history rely on primary sources – that is, contemporary account. These re few and far between in the Dark Ages.

They rely on a lot more than primary resources. They also use archaeological and anthropological evidence. I doubt that the contemporary accounts for Sumerian,Egyptian,early Greek and early Roman civilization are better than the contemporary accounts for the early middle ages.

The professional historians, like Toynbee, disagree with you.

< When modern scholarly study of the Middle Ages arose in the 19th century, the term Dark Ages was at first kept, with all its critical overtones. When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem “dark” to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times >

Alright,I get it. Modern historians don’t want to sound prejudicial about the Dark Ages.

 

[vern_humphrey]

They rely on a lot more than primary resources. They also use archaeological and anthropological evidence. I doubt that the contemporary accounts for Sumerian,Egyptian,early Greek and early Roman civilization are better than the contemporary accounts for the early middle ages.

In fact, they are. We have plenty of written material from the Roman empire, and plenty of temple inscriptions and other material from Egypt and other civilizations. When one is studying the Roman empire, there are plenty of source documents. But as one goes forward in time, the sources are suddenly very few. The Dark Ages.

Alright,I get it. Modern historians don’t want to sound prejudicial about the Dark Ages.

No, you don’t get it.

Modern historians use the term Dark Ages because the events of the period often seem “dark” to us only **because of the paucity of historical records **compared with later times

Which is what I said in the beginning.

 

[Contarini]

Compared to the Roman Empire and it’s vast output of laws, census reports, letters, books and so on, the Dark Ages are indeed dark.

There is somewhat less material, sure. But I wouldn’t say we have a “vast output” from the Roman Empire–most of it has been lost and much of what remains is fragmentary. Certainly there was far more originally produced than in the “Dark Ages,” and of course the “Dark Ages” are in large part responsible for the loss of so much material from the Roman era.

I presume we are still defining “Dark Ages” as Boethius to Abelard? In that case, the poster who mentioned indulgences as something that existed in the Dark Ages was wrong.

Let me point out that the Venerable Bede lived more than 300 years after Gildas wrote “Groans of the Britons”

No, actually less than 200 years. Gildas lived in the 6th century; Bede in the late 7th and early 8th.

and was of a different invading ethnic group. The period between Gildas and Bede was truly a Dark Age in England.

True. But things were changing rapidly by the time Bede wrote.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is somewhat less material, sure. But I wouldn’t say we have a “vast output” from the Roman Empire–most of it has been lost and much of what remains is fragmentary. Certainly there was far more originally produced than in the “Dark Ages,” and of course the “Dark Ages” are in large part responsible for the loss of so much material from the Roman era.

Actually, if you look at what we have from Rome – from census data, to large numbers of letters, to books, we have a veritable treasure trove, compared to say, the 6th Century in much of Europe.

I presume we are still defining “Dark Ages” as Boethius to Abelard? In that case, the poster who mentioned indulgences as something that existed in the Dark Ages was wrong.

That’s how Toynbee described it.

No, actually less than 200 years. Gildas lived in the 6th century; Bede in the late 7th and early 8th.

And even then, we get nothing like the Roman Empire produced.

True. But things were changing rapidly by the time Bede wrote.

Edwin

Once the Irish taught the English to read and write, things got better.

 

[anthony022071]

In fact, they are. We have plenty of written material from the Roman empire, and plenty of temple inscriptions and other material from Egypt and other civilizations. When one is studying the Roman empire, there are plenty of source documents. But as one goes forward in time, the sources are suddenly very few. The Dark Ages.

I was referring to early Rome – the monarchy and the early republic. There’s not much in the way of contemporary accounts from those times. As for Egypt,the only history that mattered was that of the royalty.

No, you don’t get it.

Modern historians use the term Dark Ages because the events of the period often seem “dark” to us only **because of the paucity of historical records **compared with later times

Which is what I said in the beginning.

Historians who say that are changing the original meaning of what was meant by the Dark Ages. Will Durant’s The Age of Faith and W. P. Ker’s The Dark Ages don’t give that explanation,and their books are quite detailed on that period. And I’m sure that knowledge about that period has continued to accumulate with continued research.

 

[DL82]

The events that lead to the Dark Ages in Europe took 65 years to unfold after more than 150 years of decline. That decline was not just caused by outside invaders, but bad leaders, poor decisions and rampant public immorality.

It is such a catastrophe that I believe we are on the edge of. The modern decline began with the catastrophe that was World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Turks. The heraldic event was the emergence of al Queada as a household name beginning with the African embassy bombings in 1998.

The “sack of Rome” event will a nuclear conflagration and general war that will erupt between the Islamic world and Europe/USA. It will not be terrorists who will bring this about, but Islamic nations “protecting” Muslims in Europe from the oppression of non-Muslims.

The Sack of Rome was a major over-running of a city whose political elite had long been reduced to warring among themselves by a massive and popular power of Goths from the North.

Al-Qaeda are a tiny number of disillusioned extremists taking on the world’s only superpower at the height of its’ political, economic and cultural dominance. There is no way Al-Qaeda can bring about the destruction of the current world order. No way, that is, unless the doom-sayers on the extreme Right manage to panic us into destroying our own rights and freedoms to the extent that we end up destroying the very civilisation we are trying to protect.

The end of the Ottoman Empire is itself an event that had been happening for 100 years since the independence of Greece and Egypt, and I fail to see how a power that was known at its’ height as the “sick man of Europe”, once divided against itself and weakened by Western imperialist intervention, can constitute more of a threat to the world now than it did in 1918.

How can there be a nuclear war between the West and the Islamic World? Iran with its’ one bomb that probably doesn’t work and Pakistan with its’ primitive nuclear technology that won’t even carry a bomb from the Pakistani border to Delhi, let alone Washington, are hardly going to start a war with the US, Europe and Russia at once. Most countries in the so-called ‘Islamic world’ are not under Muslim religious rule, and those that are are not in league with terrorists (with the possible exception of Iran). As the first Gulf War shows, the countries of the Middle East are far more likely to go to war on eachother than to band together to attack the West, who they are largely dependent on for money and arms to maintain their governments.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was referring to early Rome – the monarchy and the early republic. There’s not much in the way of contemporary accounts from those times. As for Egypt,the only history that mattered was that of the royalty.

History does not jump from early Rome to the fall of Rome. Historians studying the late 5th Century and beyond see a sudden decline in the number of source documents. They call that period the Dark Ages.

No, you don’t get it.

Modern historians use the term Dark Ages because the events of the period often seem “dark” to us only **because of the paucity of historical records **compared with later times

Which is what I said in the beginning.

Historians who say that are changing the original meaning of what was meant by the Dark Ages.
I’ll be sure and tell them that – they will no doubt be devastated.
JimG;2696259:

IWill Durant’s The Age of Faith and W. P. Ker’s The Dark Ages don’t give that explanation,and their books are quite detailed on that period. And I’m sure that knowledge about that period has continued to accumulate with continued research.

Durant’s comments related to the culture, not the quantity of source material.

As I pointed out in a much earlier post,

When modern scholarly study of the Middle Ages arose in the 19th century, the term Dark Ages was at first kept, with all its critical overtones. When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem “dark” to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times

The Dark Ages are dark because we have so little source material compared with the period just before and after.

 

[SoCalRC]

What has that got to do with this thread?

Because you made the absurd assertion that without civic records there is no meaningful historical study. As long as you continue to assert it is true, the absense of civic records for the bulk of human history remains relevant.

You should learn to qualify your statements – a person who thinks the Gospels were written by aliens can hardly qualify as a “scholar!!”

No – I made no argument either way. My position was that of Abelard.

Actually, that is a pretty interesting combination of comments. You state something as fact, even indicating that it is shifting the entire area of study, then hide behind a single source - immediately after you seemed to at least almost grasp my point about the dangers of single sources.

No, I figured this was just an excursion into la-la land.

Again, you know better. This is another case where you make an undefendable assertion, then intractably defend it. Your citations are, as usual, weak, so we’ve kicked into the personal insult part of the program. No “crystal ball” required, which I find very sad.

 

[anthony022071]

History does not jump from early Rome to the fall of Rome. Historians studying the late 5th Century and beyond see a sudden decline in the number of source documents.

No kidding.

They call that period the Dark Ages.

That may be what a few modern historians refer to,but they know full well that that is not the traditional,normal meaning of Dark Ages.

I didn’t say it did. But if paucity of source documents is the criteria for a dark age,then Rome during the early republic,and Cretan and Etruscan civilizations at their height should also be considered dark ages.

No, you don’t get it.

Modern historians use the term Dark Ages because the events of the period often seem “dark” to us only **because of the paucity of historical records **compared with later times

If that is what some modern historians are saying,are they right to revise the understanding of what the Dark Ages meant for centuries? That’s historians ignoring historical facts!

Which is what I said in the beginning.

I’ll be sure and tell them that – they will no doubt be devastated.

If a historian told me that the Dark Ages refer to paucity of primary source material,I would just consider that silly revisionism. Professionals don’t have a right to re-interpret the obvious historical facts like that. Imagine if historians started to say that the Enlightenment referred to the abundance of primary source material from that period.

Durant’s comments related to the culture, not the quantity of source material.

Of course. There is enough source material to go on.

As I pointed out in a much earlier post,

The Dark Ages are dark because we have so little source material compared with the period just before and after.

Again,that’s just a modern spin on what the Dark Ages refer to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because you made the absurd assertion that without civic records there is no meaningful historical study. As long as you continue to assert it is true, the absense of civic records for the bulk of human history remains relevant.{/quote]
Quote my post where I said “without civic records there is no meaningful historical study.”
SoCalRC;2696928:

Actually, that is a pretty interesting combination of comments. You state something as fact, even indicating that it is shifting the entire area of study, then hide behind a single source - immediately after you seemed to at least almost grasp my point about the dangers of single sources.

Actually, that is a pretty intersting combination of comments – you enter a discussion, try to pull it off track, and accuse others of saying something they didn’t say.

Again, you know better. This is another case where you make an undefendable assertion, then intractably defend it. Your citations are, as usual, weak, so we’ve kicked into the personal insult part of the program. No “crystal ball” required, which I find very sad.

Again, you know better. This is** another** case where you make unsupported accusations.

 

[SoCalRC]

Again, you know better. This is** another** case where you make unsupported accusations.

I know you are but what am I… Heavens what a tedius cycle.

Vern, I’m sorry, but you have another house of cards. You started by asserting that Dark Ages refers solely to a scarcity of records and information. On its face, this is absurd, the term itself was coined by Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 14th Century, specficially as a derogatory term for the latin literature of the period. For a brief period in the early/mid 20th century some historians tried to repurpose the phrase as you describe, but modern historians do not use the term at all, since both applications are now viewed as inaccurate.

But, for your ‘evidence’, you turned to Toynbee, a British historian who was somewhat in vogue in the US in the late 40’s, but whose influence on modern historians is pretty much non existant. Remember, Toynbee thought Judism, Christianity, Islam, and communism should all be lumped together and held in contrast with Buddhism, which he thought would transform the west before the end of the 20th century (see his CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD)

Apparently, Toynbee doesn’t even have much influence with you, since you next asserted that civic records were the backbone of history. This is precisely the opposite of what Toynbee asserted in BETWEEN OXUS AND JUMNA.

If I were you, I would have written a sneering post pointing out some of Toynbee’s more provocative thoughts and asked if you deferred your thinking to him on them as well. But I am not you, so I tried to just stick with addressing an absurd assertion. And, sincerely, I find your inability to retract even something absurd, fired off in emotion in a message board no less, pretty sad.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know you are but what am I… Heavens what a tedius cycle.

Vern, I’m sorry, but you have another house of cards. You started by asserting that Dark Ages refers solely to a scarcity of records and information. On its face, this is absurd, the term itself was coined by Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 14th Century, specficially as a derogatory term for the latin literature of the period. For a brief period in the early/mid 20th century some historians tried to repurpose the phrase as you describe, but modern historians do not use the term at all, since both applications are now viewed as inaccurate.

Nonsense.

I began with Toynbee’s definition, “From Boethus to Abelard” and we discussed how this implied a standard of quality. And I also posted the definition that modern historians use.

End of story.

 

[Contarini]

Historians who say that are changing the original meaning of what was meant by the Dark Ages.

Certainly, because the original meaning arose from ignorance and prejudice.

Will Durant’s The Age of Faith

Durant’s work is full of secularist prejudice and relies on secondary scholarship that was by and large already outdated when Durant wrote. Read his discussion of Indian culture in the first volume–the condescension is almost enough to make one throw up. And when writing about the Reformation–the period I know best–he makes lots of inaccurate claims. He is to be admired for attempting to write the whole history of the human race, but by necessity that kind of thing is going to be highly imperfect and is going to go out of date very quickly (unless it’s a work of real genius like Toynbee’s or Spengler’s, in which case it remains valuable for its insights even though the specific interpretations may be overturned on many points–Durant is simply not in that class).

and W. P. Ker’s The Dark Ages don’t give that explanation,

Ker wrote in 1904. He’s one of the pioneers of the study of early medieval literature–19th-century scholars regarded the era with almost complete contempt by and large–but naturally he would still have a good deal of that attitude even as he helped to overcome it.

and their books are quite detailed on that period. And I’m sure that knowledge about that period has continued to accumulate with continued research.

Exactly. And as knowledge has accumulated, it’s become clearer that our previous contempt for this period was based to a great extent on prejudice–both Protestant/secularist prejudice against the Church, and classicist prejudice against anything following the glories of Greece and Rome.

Therefore, people would now generally say that the word “dark” simply shouldn’t be applied to a whole period like this. But since it’s well established in the literature, and since our knowledge is still (and probably always will be unless we invent a time machine) pretty spotty given that we’re talking about some 500 years of history, the term has been re-defined, as you note.

What’s wrong with that?

Edwin

 

[SoCalRC]

Nonsense.

I began with Toynbee’s definition, “From Boethus to Abelard” and we discussed how this implied a standard of quality. And I also posted the definition that modern historians use.

End of story.

No, you have followed your usual pattern. First, you try to defend with ‘logic’. When those arguments don’t stand a test of reason, you assert that you are deferring to serious authority. Finally, when your citations start getting some close scrutiny you start speaking in absolutes and begin to subtly revise your position.

Along the way you also inevitably get fairly personal and nasty - a predictable pattern in its own right. That is why I feel so bad for you. It reminds me of the hyperbole in today’s reading.

 

[SoCalRC]

[W]ork of real genius like Toynbee’s or Spengler’s, in which case it remains valuable for its insights even though the specific interpretations may be overturned on many points–Durant is simply not in that class…

I would have to agree with that. Spengler’s THE DECLINE OF THE WEST is still a pretty insightful read. I’ve never been much of a Toynbee fan, though the work is certainly not without merit. Both have taken a beating as pure historians the last 30 years or so.

Exactly. And as knowledge has accumulated, it’s become clearer that our previous contempt for this period was based to a great extent on prejudice–both Protestant/secularist prejudice against the Church, and classicist prejudice against anything following the glories of Greece and Rome.

That is an excellent point. It also is worth noting that Islam was the dominant ‘world’ player through much of that period in history. Without that context it is very difficult to have any understanding of the first few centuries of the 2nd millenium.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, you have followed your usual pattern. First, you try to defend with ‘logic’. When those arguments don’t stand a test of reason, you assert that you are deferring to serious authority. Finally, when your citations start getting some close scrutiny you start speaking in absolutes and begin to subtly revise your position.

Along the way you also inevitably get fairly personal and nasty - a predictable pattern in its own right. That is why I feel so bad for you. It reminds me of the hyperbole in today’s reading.

No, you have followed your usual pattern. First you come out with off-the-wall criticisms, then you try to state my argument for me, then you post mis-statements about what I said.

Next you’ll start attacking me for being conservative and from the South.

I hope you don’t find out I’m part Mohawk and attack me for that, too.

 

[anthony022071]

Certainly, because the original meaning arose from ignorance and prejudice.

But it’s misleading for a modern historian to say that the Dark Ages are so called because of paucity of written records.
The older meaning of Dark Ages has to to be respected even if it was prejudiced. It is a historical fact unto itself,and to put a different spin on it is misleading revisionism. It would be better to just drop the title altogether then to re-define it.

Durant’s work is full of secularist prejudice and relies on secondary scholarship that was by and large already outdated when Durant wrote.

Read his discussion of Indian culture in the first volume–the condescension is almost enough to make one throw up.

What do you mean by secondary scholarship? He used a great deal of primary sources.

I don’t have his first volume,just The Age of Faith and The Renaissance. I am very sensitive to secularist prejudice in historians,but I haven’t encountered anything condescending or offensive in his writing. He is very fair and tolerant.

And when writing about the Reformation–the period I know best–he makes lots of inaccurate claims. He is to be admired for attempting to write the whole history of the human race, but by necessity that kind of thing is going to be highly imperfect and is going to go out of date very quickly (unless it’s a work of real genius like Toynbee’s or Spengler’s, in which case it remains valuable for its insights even though the specific interpretations may be overturned on many points–Durant is simply not in that class).

Toynbee and Spengler were philosophical historians.

Ker wrote in 1904. He’s one of the pioneers of the study of early medieval literature–19th-century scholars regarded the era with almost complete contempt by and large–but naturally he would still have a good deal of that attitude even as he helped to overcome it.

Ker obviously didn’t have any prejudice toward the literature of the Dark Ages.

Exactly. And as knowledge has accumulated, it’s become clearer that our previous contempt for this period was based to a great extent on prejudice–both Protestant/secularist prejudice against the Church, and classicist prejudice against anything following the glories of Greece and Rome.

Therefore, people would now generally say that the word “dark” simply shouldn’t be applied to a whole period like this. But since it’s well established in the literature, and since our knowledge is still (and probably always will be unless we invent a time machine) pretty spotty given that we’re talking about some 500 years of history, the term has been re-defined, as you note.

What’s wrong with that?

Like I said,it’s misleading to re-define the meaning of Dark Ages. And to me,it isn’t even convincing. Since we have so much detailed information about that period,they are no longer so dark to us. We don’t have much in the way of written accounts from the Heroic Age of Greece,the Heroic Age of Celtic Ireland,the early republic of Rome,and Cretan and Etruscan civilization at their height – but no one calls them dark ages. And why? Because aesthetically,they have the marks of civilization. So why should anyone say that the Dark Ages seem dark for the paucity of written accounts? That doesn’t make sense. As I said
in post 89,imagine if historians started to say that the Enlightenment was so called because of the abundance of written accounts for that period.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Like I said,it’s misleading to re-define the meaning of Dark Ages. And to me,it isn’t even convincing. Since we have so much detailed information about that period,they are no longer so dark to us. We don’t have much in the way of written accounts from the Heroic Age of Greece,the Heroic Age of Celtic Ireland,the early republic of Rome,and Cretan and Etruscan civilization at their height – but no one calls them dark ages.

Actually, they do.

The Greek Dark Ages

The downfall of the Mycenaean age came swiftly and was due to multiple causes. Upon the advent of its destruction, the Iron Age Dorians invaded the Greek peninsula from the north (estimated time 1200BC to 1100BC). Atop the invasion, civil war also entered mainland Greece, directly following the Dorian invasion. What followed was a period known aptly as the Greek Dark Ages.

The Dark Ages lasted from 1100 BC until 800 BC, or relatively to the time of Hellenic or Classical Greece. During this time the culture of Greece dwindled. Little is known of how many cultural elements were lost during the Dark Ages, but characteristic of the Dark Age, is the gradual decimation of any urbanized culture on the Greek mainland.

 

[Contarini]

But it’s misleading for a modern historian to say that the Dark Ages are so called because of paucity of written records.
The older meaning of Dark Ages has to to be respected even if it was prejudiced. It is a historical fact unto itself,and to put a different spin on it is misleading revisionism. It would be better to just drop the title altogether then to re-define it.

Perhaps, but I don’t see why, as long as you don’t misrepresent what the older scholars said.

What do you mean by secondary scholarship? He used a great deal of primary sources.

Not for the stuff I know most about. I looked once at his references to Martin Bucer, on whom I wrote my dissertation. Of course he used some primary sources, but for a work like that you can’t rely primarily on primary sources–there’s no way you could read them all, alas.

I don’t have his first volume,just The Age of Faith and The Renaissance. I am very sensitive to secularist prejudice in historians,but I haven’t encountered anything condescending or offensive in his writing. He is very fair and tolerant.

Not my impression at all.

Toynbee and Spengler were philosophical historians.

Exactly. That kind of thing is still valuable years later, as is literary history written with style and imagination. Durant is still read, as far as I can see, simply because no one has had the chutzpah to try the same thing, and in our age of increasing specialization few people are likely to.

Like I said,it’s misleading to re-define the meaning of Dark Ages. And to me,it isn’t even convincing. Since we have so much detailed information about that period,they are no longer so dark to us. We don’t have much in the way of written accounts from the Heroic Age of Greece,the Heroic Age of Celtic Ireland,the early republic of Rome,and Cretan and Etruscan civilization at their height – but no one calls them dark ages.

The term “dark age” is usually applied to a period when a more sophisticated civilization has collapsed and we have relatively fewer records. So we apply the term to the period after the Mycenaean era in Greek history–roughly between the Dorian invasions (c. 1100) and the first written records in the 8th century.

Obviously we aren’t just talking about accidents of preservation, but about a period when less was written because civilization was more “primitive.” Historians are simply unwilling nowadays to make these kinds of value judgments. I mean, in many ways I’d rather live in Anglo-Saxon England than in the fourteenth century. The point is that we don’t want any longer to say that this period was somehow “bad” or unworthy of study or a time of moral and intellectual decadence or anything like that. Of course it was less civilized in the sense that there were fewer cities, less literacy, etc.–that’s why we don’t have as many records.

As I said
in post 89,imagine if historians started to say that the Enlightenment was so called because of the abundance of written accounts for that period.

I certainly do not think that the Enlightenment was superior (on the whole) to the periods that preceded it. Do you?

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

The term “dark age” is usually applied to a period when a more sophisticated civilization has collapsed and we have relatively fewer records. So we apply the term to the period after the Mycenaean era in Greek history–roughly between the Dorian invasions (c. 1100) and the first written records in the 8th century.

Exactly right.