SoA Forums

And a contentious issue it is in some quarters. Reading around the subject there are apparently quite a few historians getting hot under the collar about its continued use.

And yes, I use it quite a bit. However, I do thi k that context is everything and mynuse ifnthe term is firmly planted in my head as to what bit represents which is a time stamp of the period rather than a descriptor of the period.

I have also used 'The Heroic Age', early medieval age, post Roman period, Romano British period and Sub Roman period interchangeably and probably confusingly although in my defence I am clear what I mean by all of these terms.

So what shouldwe use these days and does it really matter...?

Better to start with why it's called Dark.

Which I saw a quote I cannot find again, was not because of a lack of sources- as commonly understood and now no longer true - but because the light of holy Rome had gone out and was returned with Charlemagne crowned as HRE.

If that is true (have to say, not only rather cool but also a damn sight better dating start and end than other options), I'd be kind of keen to keep the term for those years.


If it's not, and it is just about a lack of sources, then that is no longer true and it's a bit defunct as a term, so perhaps feudal or pre feudal, or Viking apocalypse, or post Roman or some other much less fun thing may be better

There is nothing wrong with arbitrary terminology as historical short-hand - where would history books be without it?  When it begins to confuse rather than help (e.g. it is full of misleading baggage), you need to take care though.  I personally prefer Early Medieval.

We should also note that, as usual, it is a Eurocentric term and has limited meaning in other places. Was the Islamic world or China in a "dark age" at the time, for example?

I probably on balance prefer early medieval but happily will use Dark Ages personally

Dark Ages works well in Britain, whereas medieval covers a thousand years and so having early, middle and late medieval begs the question 'When will be have Early medieval II which was later on the western side of the English channel to the eastern side  ;)

Feudal doesn't work at all for me, as there are issues with how 'feudal' feudal systems actually were and for much of the time the start or end of feudalism was very different in different countries or even parts of countries.
For example whilst Scots Kings raised some troops by something that might be equated to feudal service, most of the army was raised by other means.
Same with England, at what time did the feudal period end in England?

If we're going to have a vague term with uncertain time limits we might as well have one that important people disapprove of  8)

 :D

I like your thinking Jim

I can only suggest reading Seb Falk's 'The Light Ages'. A very good read although it does deal more perhaps towards the end rather than the beginning of this period.

I've not read it...

It's a lot about time. Importance of having services at the right time of day links to astronomy and timekeeping to clocks.

Quote from: Ian61 on December 25, 2024, 12:32:44 PMIt's a lot about time. Importance of having services at the right time of day links to astronomy and timekeeping to clocks.

Rereading that realised my description may not sell it to others but all that facinates me and it is a good read. 8)

Quote from: Mark G on December 25, 2024, 09:00:41 AMBetter to start with why it's called Dark.

Which I saw a quote I cannot find again, was not because of a lack of sources- as commonly understood and now no longer true - but because the light of holy Rome had gone out and was returned with Charlemagne crowned as HRE.

Along with Mark's highlighting of 'Dark' I think it is also appropriate to equally highlight 'The' as in 'The Dark Ages' when considering this Eurocentric trope for a perceived extinguishing and reigniting of learning and holy light. As far as wargaming 'periods' is concerned, that is a definition and context that I am quite content with but only as a convenient Western historic cultural idea. Outside of that I think it has little value.

As a student of archaeology in the 1980s I have always known those times as 'Early Medieval' and that's never going to change. I don't think it's such a bad useage. The 'problem' is that Dark Ages don't actually exist in reality. A number have been identified in different times and places but they are of course only dark by comparison with other times and places. They have tended to diminish over time as perceptions change and more information becomes available but the idea of Dark Ages persists. Perhaps we (humans) like the concept?

Adrian.

Quote from: Ian61 on December 25, 2024, 12:32:44 PMIt's a lot about time. Importance of having services at the right time of day links to astronomy and timekeeping to clocks.

Actually the whole calendar/time keeping thing is fascinating especially when there were scores of calendars out there. Even into the Roman Empire a lot of cities would have their own which might link in with one of the major ones
A beautiful example of how you had to let people know when something happened is in Luke 3 in the New Testament

 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

It probably explains why so many religious festivals cluster round the solstice. It means you can celebrate it at the same time whatever city you're in
Also religious events could be tied to astronomy. Passover always begins on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan. Because the Hebrew months are pegged directly to the lunar cycle, the 15th day of Nisan is always a full moon.

But "For a time, early Christians used the Jewish calendar as a reference, celebrating Easter on the first Sunday after Nisan 15. But at the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, the Church decided to set its own date for Easter, independent of the Jewish reckoning. Today most Christian communities celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21. But sometimes this full moon isn't the same as the Jewish one."

One problem is that some used a lunar calendar, whilst others used a solar calendar. This runs into problems because the lunar year isn't the same length as a solar year.
But nothing is the same length as a solar year, including other solar years 8)

Which means that sticking to astronomy can be as good a way to go as any

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 25, 2024, 10:08:39 AMSame with England, at what time did the feudal period end in England?

I wasn't aware that it had  ;D

"Dark" refers to the lack of historical documentary evidence of the period of the 9th and 10th centuries. Of course the term transmuted into the popular image of perpetually overcast skies, sullen peasants who didn't know what soap was, and endless warfare.

Feudal comes from the late Roman coloni system, where the senatorial class possessed huge tracts of land and the peasants lived on them as tenants, obligated to produce a certain amount of food for their landlord (today it's a city thing and money has taken the place of food). Generalising things, peasants became substantially freer after the Black Death, when the lack of manual labour meant they could start dictating terms. But this is a gross simplification.

I like these distinctions:

Romanitas - end of the Western Empire until conquest of Italy by the Lombards. There was still a kind of respect for the Roman system (the Visigoths for example had the Emperor's head on their coinage into the 6th century). Social life went on as before, with the new barbarian overlords acting rather like mafia families - taking their cut but otherwise leaving the locals alone. The Senate continued to meet in Rome.

Carolingian period - The Franks become the premier power in Europe with the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire's dominance after the Arab conquests. Society is more basic but still functions - the chapel at Aix shows everything hasn't been lost yet.

The real Dark Ages - after the disintegration of the Carolingian Empire. No Emperor, no kings even, just local lords who are helpless against the ravages by the Vikings, Saracens and Maygars. However it must be noted that even in this period the sun still shone and peasants knew what soap was.

The Ottonian restoration - after the battle of Lechfeld the Ottonian Empire begins the restoration of order in Europe. I would say the true Middle Ages begin here. France becomes a kingdom and Athelstan defeats the Vikings and asserts control over Danelaw.

After that how do you want to subdivide the period from 1000 to 1500AD? It's pretty much the same society in development with no major crises threatening its existence.

Nicely summarised and parcelled....

I tend to think of "Dark Ages" as a subset of "Early Medieval", ending around AD 800, while Early Medieval lasts into the eleventh century.

Which I guess is one reason to avoid it - it means different things to different people. But it also means I don't have an obvious alternative designation.

I'll quibble with the claim that the term is "eurocentric". Yes, it's primarily applicable to (western) Europe, and makes little sense applied to other regions. But no-one would say that a label like "Late Postclassic" is mexicocentric because it makes little sense applied to China or India. If there's eurocentrism, it's in applying European periods where they don't make sense, not in the period labels themselves.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMI tend to think of "Dark Ages" as a subset of "Early Medieval", ending around AD 800,

(The late end of) Late Antiquity, then  :)

Or late early medieval?  ;D

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMI'll quibble with the claim that the term is "eurocentric". Yes, it's primarily applicable to (western) Europe, and makes little sense applied to other regions.

To me, that makes it Eurocentric by definition. 

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMIf there's eurocentrism, it's in applying European periods where they don't make sense, not in the period labels themselves.

Entirely agree.

Probably the bigger issues with (European) Dark Ages is the baggage, which Justin alludes to. Ignorant, violent, colourless, when the sun never shone and when life was nasty, brutish and short. 

In some respects, it has been mooted that in the aftermath of the Roman withdrawal, the lot of the humble actually improved for a while. Less taxes, more surplus for the individual/family unit and possibly less obligation to others until the early kingdoms took shape.  At least in Britannia Prima anyways

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 26, 2024, 03:58:42 PMIn some respects, it has been mooted that in the aftermath of the Roman withdrawal, the lot of the humble actually improved for a while. Less taxes, more surplus for the I vidualnor family unit and possibly less obligation to others until the early kingdoms took shape.  At least in Britannia Prima anyways

There wasn't a huge army to support so the coloni cultivated less land, just for themselves and their lords, the latter not needing much and unable to sell it anyway.

Indeed.

The taxation system went from a monetary based one with huge networks stretching across Europe to just the local area.

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 26, 2024, 04:50:17 PMIndeed.

The taxation system went from a monetary based one with huge networks stretching across Europe to just the local area.

one factor that facilitated the fall of the Western Empire was the fact that the tax burden on the hoi polloi lightened considerably under the new barbarian rulers who didn't require nearly as much as the imperial system had. The people had no trouble accepting barbarian rule provided it was "legitimate" - under theoretical imperial overlordship. They had a thing about legitimacy, possibly because they saw no alternative to the imperial system.

Which is why the eastern empire were happy to confer legitimacy onto barbarian rulers in the west. Kept a nominal roman cloak over the area acknowledged but locals and barbarians alike

Obviously don't work forever

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 26, 2024, 05:24:28 PMWhich is why the eastern empire were happy to confer legitimacy onto barbarian rulers in the west. Kept a nominal roman cloak over the area acknowledged but locals and barbarians alike

Obviously don't work forever

I get the impression it lasted as long as the military dominance of the Eastern Empire, which collapsed after the Arab invasions. We probably underestimate the importance of Constantinople vis-a-vis the barbarian states in the West.

100%

Quote from: Erpingham on December 26, 2024, 02:43:13 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMI'll quibble with the claim that the term is "eurocentric". Yes, it's primarily applicable to (western) Europe, and makes little sense applied to other regions.

To me, that makes it Eurocentric by definition. 

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 25, 2024, 08:51:45 PMIf there's eurocentrism, it's in applying European periods where they don't make sense, not in the period labels themselves.

Entirely agree.

Now you have me a little confused, Anthony. A term primarily applicable to Europe being eurocentric by definition and only its application where it doesn't make sense being so seems to me mutually exclusive positions.

QuoteProbably the bigger issues with (European) Dark Ages is the baggage, which Justin alludes to. Ignorant, violent, colourless, when the sun never shone and when life was nasty, brutish and short.

No disagreement here. To use it is to risk reinforcing the traditional value judgment in the minds of one's audience.

So does 'dark' mean

- unenlightened?
- not much known or poorly understood
- a reduction in moral and/or religious values?
- a poorer material society?
- a lack of written sources?

For me personally it has always been the lack of written material and yes I realise that there are chunks of Roman Britain that have very little actual written records too. The other elements phase in and out of the picture as you can't take one bit in isolation. Over the years I have come to view the period in question as a transition. Maybe inferior in terms of technology and socio-political structure but still vibrant and interesting to delve into. Change is inevitable and it's just the lens that we use to view that change that makes it speak to us

I have and will always be fascinated by this period

Of course, the complaint that 'Dark Ages' as a term is Eurocentric rather fades away to irrelevance when you're dealing with Europe.
Indeed I do wonder whether the term isn't really best suited to British history due to the lack of literary records, which is less of an issue on some of the European mainland.

(And if it's British history we can call it what we damned well like  8)   )

This is my 'truth', Jim, as I am more concerned with Britain in this period for better or worse

 :o

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 26, 2024, 10:36:28 PMNow you have me a little confused, Anthony. A term primarily applicable to Europe being eurocentric by definition and only its application where it doesn't make sense being so seems to me mutually exclusive positions.

Apologies Andreas.  The "Dark Ages" in the discussion is the European Dark Ages, not any other. It is going to be Eurocentric as in seeing things from a European perspective and, as I've said, chopping history into convenient arbitrary chunks is a common practice. It makes sense if referring to European history but decreasingly so the further you go from (Western) Europe. Not to me exclusive positions, but does suggest I misundertood you, for which I apologise again.

I tend to view the world in three bitesized chunks personally

BK
DK
AK

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 27, 2024, 08:05:14 AMThis is my 'truth', Jim, as I am more concerned with Britain in this period for better or worse

 :o

That's what I mean. For Britain stuff is pretty damned gloomy even when it's not actually dark. Other places, less so.
Some people use late Antiquity to describe the period (and frankly I think for much of the Med it's a good term, better perhaps that early medieval, but I don't think either are particularly appropriate for Britain.

There are two meanings of Dark Age - one (I think the original) is a period with few written records and little monumental architecture in stone, about which we consequently know less, in theory, than about periods with more of those things (though in practice often not much less). The other, which I believe is more the popular meaning, is a period of particular savagery and unpleasantness, in which everyone spoke in monosyllables and was more than usually likely to hit their neighbours on the head with clubs.

The two meanings are not mutually exclusive and do not always equally apply. This leads to a lot of foolishness along the lines of "the Vikings made nice silvery jewellery so weren't really vicious savages after all (and shouldn't be called Vikings)", and "thanks to archaeology we actually know quite a lot about the Dark Ages so they aren't really dark at all".

My take is that divisions of historical time into distinct named periods is largely arbitrary and done for ease of communication and because it helps draw out similarities or differences between different periods and places. Changing these arbitrary divisions might be helpful if it promotes new understanding, but might also just obfuscate and confuse, and can serve to drive a wedge between those in the know (to whom it is obvious what the Late Early Medieval period is) and the general public (who heard about Dark Ages in school).

As such I don't really care what label is applied or what it is applied to so long as the meaning is clear. Same as I don't care that 2024 (or 2025) is a dating system based on a set of religious beliefs that I don't share - it just doesn't matter. Some labels might carry baggage, but changing the label to remove the baggage may (or may not) just end up causing more confusion.

So far as Slingshot is concerned contributors should use whatever system they are comfortable with - I won't be standardising it (unless someone tries to use AUC or make up their own periods or some such)

Well that's cleared that one up... ;D

Good to know that the new editor isnt fussy with nomenclature and the like

Off to paint my wanderlust driven Scandinavian jewellers

 :)

Quote from: RichT on December 27, 2024, 05:04:05 PMSo far as Slingshot is concerned contributors should use whatever system they are comfortable with - I won't be standardising it (unless someone tries to use AUC or make up their own periods or some such)

Now there's a challenge.....

 :P

 ::)

Quote from: RichT on December 27, 2024, 05:04:05 PMthe general public (who heard about Dark Ages in school).

How entrenched is the label in anglophone schools these days?

Back when I was in primary and secondary school, the label wasn't used at all that I can recall, but that may be something to do with it being a very poor fit for Swedish history (sure, the period is even darker, in terms of written sources, than down on the Continent, but the preceding period is darker still).


The basic scheme we were taught was:

Scandinavia: prehistory to AD 1066, middle ages to 1521, then modern times.

Rest of Europe: antiquity to AD 476, middle ages to 1492, then modern times.

(And no, the Rest of Europe scheme doesn't make much sense in, say, Poland.)

Now of course it's a long time since I was in school but from what I hear they still seem to teach approximately the same.

In the secondary school I attended, nothing much was taught about the period pre the industrial revolution. The closest I got to taught 'ancient' history was studying Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in English Literature

At Junior school we started from the stone age and  got almost to the War of the Roses.
At Senior school we started at the stone age again, and got almost to the War of the Roses.
Then for O Level we did English history and European history. Both started from about 1790 and English history was largely social, mines acts, electoral reform, European history was the Napoleonic wars and I think we got to 1848

So everything I know about the Wars of the Roses to the English Civil War and the Jacobite rebellions I taught myself.

My daughter on the other had did the Tudors which apparently was all the English history she needed, and for European history, she did the Rise of Fascism so many times she wondered if she was being groomed to start her own fascist party.

 ;D

I missed the stone age and the war of the roses so I just listened to the Stone Roses instead....

We studied basic English history in Primary school to about the Middle Ages (I think).  At secondary school, we did English history to 1642, then US history to 1950, then European history 1815-1950. The other stream did British Social and Economic history, 18th century to early 20th. I think US history was a quirk of our school (this was pre-National Curriculum) as I've never come across anyone else who studied it.

My children studied history more thematically.  I remember them doing Egyptians, Romans and Vikings at 1st school.  Tudors were big at Upper school. Middle daughter had a choice of an alternative curriculum which ditched chronology and just did themes and she did the history of medicine and Native Americans, amongst others.

I think the issue is, so much history, so few teaching hours.

In Ireland we studied Irish history in Primary school- Stone Age until the Norman Invasion from what I recall. In Secondary the junior cycle had two strands: Irish history from 1600-1966 and European history covering the Renaissance and Reformation. History was optional for the senior cycle; I naturally opted to do it and studied Renaissance and Reformation (Irish and European) - the alternative syllabus was 20th century history but didn't interest me.

So far as I remember we did a bit of everything in primary school - I definitely remember Romans, Tudors and (I think) Anglo-Saxons.

Secondary school was all about the 19th C and 20th C. Poor Laws, Corn Laws, Great Reform Acts and (for a breath of fresh air) World Wars. Plus the French Revolution and the 19th C in Europe (more revolutions).

A glance at the current UK National Curriculum shows no mention of Dark Ages, it has:
- changes in Britain from the Stone Age to the Iron Age
- the Roman Empire and its impact on Britain
- Britain's settlement by Anglo-Saxons and Scots [ah settlement, an emotive term in itself]
- the Viking and Anglo-Saxon struggle for the Kingdom of England to the time of Edward the Confessor
- the development of Church, state and society in Medieval Britain 1066-1509

This does suggest that 'Medieval' starts in 1066 (as it should!)

This is of course specifically 'the history of these islands' - I would expect other places to have other priorities.

So I don't know for sure what is taught in school today but I suspect that the lay understanding of post-Roman and pre-Norman (in Britain) is that it is still the Dark Ages. It's not so long ago that Michael Wood's 'In Search of the Dark Ages' was on TV (well it's over 40 years, but it doesn't feel long to me). If he had pitched it as 'In Search of the Early to Late Early Medieval in Britain' I suspect it might not have been commissioned. But I may be wrong - Early Medieval may have penetrated deeper than I realise.

I like the term 'Dark Ages'. It's clear and evocative, it calls to (my) mind an image of Saxons and shield walls that is different (in art, material culture and what have you) to the churchy, knighty, post-Norman Medieval (taking an Anglocentric view, but then I'm an Angle). It's not clear to me what the harm is in the label (it wasn't really dark at the time! I know. They weren't all savages! Nobody says they were). Labels, periods, interpretations are bound to change and rightly so, but they need to change for the better, and they need to pull everyone along with them, or it ends up a muddle. So my personal preference remains Dark Ages but I really don't think it matters.

Maybe it would be better not to use labels and just to specify centuries? But then it has to be centuries since the birth of Christ, so more cultural baggage to agonise over.

Easy....the number of years since Gildas's birth.... 8)

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 29, 2024, 01:52:42 PMEasy....the number of years since Gildas's birth.... 8)

If you could tell us when that was you'd answer an awful lot of academic questions :-)

Quote from: RichT on December 29, 2024, 12:35:57 PMMaybe it would be better not to use labels and just to specify centuries? But then it has to be centuries since the birth of Christ, so more cultural baggage to agonise over.

But surely the whole reason behind choosing a set start date for any calendar is to stamp your culture's mark over it and claim it for your own.
So we have BC/AD. We have AH (Anno Hegirae), Ab urbe condita (since the founding of Rome), the Seleucid Era etc.
The French did try starting a new calendar but it was abolished after about 12 years of operation. The Americans could legitimately have started one, perhaps starting in 1776.
Actually calling something BCE rather than BC has often struck me as a cop out. Starting a calendar on somebody else's date merely proves you've done nothing noteworthy  ;)
And given the other calendars in use, calling it 'the common era' is probably a sign of an imperialist colonialist mindset which will get them purged or at least depersonned on twitter/X/whatever in the next ten years.

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 29, 2024, 02:04:05 PMActually calling something BCE rather than BC has often struck me as a cop out. Starting a calendar on somebody else's date merely proves you've done nothing noteworthy  ;)

Or maybe learned your lesson from the French Revolution experiment?  Rather than invent your own system, rebadge an existing one  :)

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 29, 2024, 02:04:05 PMAnd given the other calendars in use, calling it 'the common era' is probably a sign of an imperialist colonialist mindset which will get them purged or at least depersonned on twitter/X/whatever in the next ten years.

Hang in there Jim. I very much suspect that sort of thing has already passed its peak. 🤞

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 29, 2024, 02:04:05 PMAnd given the other calendars in use, calling it 'the common era' is probably a sign of an imperialist colonialist mindset which will get them purged or at least depersonned on twitter/X/whatever in the next ten years.

I once ran into a guy who preferred BCE/CE on the grounds that it rubbed the fact that the West has won into other cultures' faces.

It sounds like my pre-tertiary history curriculum was rather more comprehensive - but presumably more superficial? - than many of yours'. In primary school we did Antiquity (ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome), Swedish history from the Viking Age to the Cold War, and (western) European history from the fall of Rome to WWII. The book also had a set of chapters on various extra-European regions (incl Russia), but time constraints meant we only did the one on China, the profoundity of which may be judged from the fact that the only individuals named were Qin Shi Huangdi, Genghiz Khan, and Marco Polo.

In secondary we basically redid European history from the fall of Rome. The only history course I took at university was on German history from Napoleon to Hitler.

I have just recalled that we did "Bible" history in Scripture (what would later be called Religious Education (RE) ).  I distinctly remember drawing a map of the Fertile Crescent and learning the meaning of Mesopotamia.

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 29, 2024, 01:57:03 PM

Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 29, 2024, 01:52:42 PMEasy....the number of years since Gildas's birth.... 8)

If you could tell us when that was you'd answer an awful lot of academic questions :-)

Suitably nebulous i thought.... ;D

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 29, 2024, 03:05:21 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 29, 2024, 02:04:05 PMAnd given the other calendars in use, calling it 'the common era' is probably a sign of an imperialist colonialist mindset which will get them purged or at least depersonned on twitter/X/whatever in the next ten years.

I once ran into a guy who preferred BCE/CE on the grounds that it rubbed the fact that the West has won into other cultures' faces.

Interesting perspective! I always thought that its adoption was intended to do the opposite by not 'forcing' other cultures and religions to use the Christian nomenclature.

That aside, I think Andreas definitely received a much better historical foundation than I did at school in England in the 1970s. This discussion has highlighted just how variable different schools' syllabus and approach can be even within the same nation.

Adrian.

Having read all these reminiscences of posters' education, are we sure that 'Dark Ages' refers to a historical period over 1,000 years ago and not the time spent studying history in the more modern classroom?

???

There's a war on you know...!

Quote from: Adrian Nayler on December 29, 2024, 04:03:14 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 29, 2024, 03:05:21 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 29, 2024, 02:04:05 PMAnd given the other calendars in use, calling it 'the common era' is probably a sign of an imperialist colonialist mindset which will get them purged or at least depersonned on twitter/X/whatever in the next ten years.

I once ran into a guy who preferred BCE/CE on the grounds that it rubbed the fact that the West has won into other cultures' faces.

Interesting perspective! I always thought that its adoption was intended to do the opposite by not 'forcing' other cultures and religions to use the Christian nomenclature.


Adrian.

If all else fails, assume the worst  8)
The issue is that it assumes that
a) the era is common which is nonsense because some use the Christian era and some AH.
b) Other, lesser breeds without the law who may have perfectly good eras are shunned entirely as befits a true Colonialist lackey of the Imperialist running dogs  :)

Quote from: Adrian Nayler on December 29, 2024, 04:03:14 PMInteresting perspective! I always thought that its adoption was intended to do the opposite by not 'forcing' other cultures and religions to use the Christian nomenclature.

Globalisation needs to have a common calendar to manage trade, travel etc. The AD/BC system was in widespread use but an albeit historical reference to religion was deemed unacceptable, so we have the robustly secular CE/BCE.

Indeed a common calendar is a blessing. What we label it seems a matter of very little importance. I think we should go back to the 17th C term - 'Vulgar Era'. No baggage on that.

On the subject of BCE/CE and BC/AD and to drag Slingshot into it again, I notice from the article pool a mix of both (which is fine - author's preference) but also on occasion, a mix of both within the same article. In these mixed cases (only) I will standardise (to BC/AD). If anyone feels strongly enough about it that they would rather I didn't, email me.

Sensible Rich. I hadn't spotted that but there again I managed to get Kim's surname wrong twice in 2 articles.... :-[

Quote from: RichT on December 29, 2024, 05:43:51 PMOn the subject of BCE/CE and BC/AD and to drag Slingshot into it again

At some point, when you have time, I suppose you will review the Slingshot guidelines on the website to ensure they fit ?

Is this why we still can't date the pharaohs accurately?

Quote from: Adrian Nayler on December 29, 2024, 04:03:14 PMInteresting perspective! I always thought that its adoption was intended to do the opposite by not 'forcing' other cultures and religions to use the Christian nomenclature.

That always amused me. I'm waiting for people of that persuasion to start violently objecting to the obligatory honouring of the goddess Diana and the gods Tiwes, Woden, Thor, Frea (another goddess), Saturn and Sol Invictus, on a weekly basis to boot. Very offensive. No? Anyone?

Quote from: Erpingham on December 29, 2024, 06:08:32 PMAt some point, when you have time, I suppose you will review the Slingshot guidelines on the website to ensure they fit ?

I suppose I will! Guidelines are here: https://soa.org.uk/joomla/advice-to-contributors

There is no mention of dates and there doesn't really need to be - do what you like! But - be consistent! To be fair it almost all is - I just happened to spot this case.

If anyone goes crazy with their dating, 'the editor reserves the right' to put it right. So there.

Well said lol.... :)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 29, 2024, 07:26:03 PM

Quote from: Adrian Nayler on December 29, 2024, 04:03:14 PMInteresting perspective! I always thought that its adoption was intended to do the opposite by not 'forcing' other cultures and religions to use the Christian nomenclature.

That always amused me. I'm waiting for people of that persuasion to start violently objecting to the obligatory honouring of the goddess Diana and the gods Tiwes, Woden, Thor, Frea (another goddess), Saturn and Sol Invictus, on a weekly basis to boot. Very offensive. No? Anyone?

I think it is only fair to say that different cultures are allowed their own names of days of the week.  We are, however, perhaps losing the original point about historical periods and their nomenclature?

Quote from: Erpingham on December 29, 2024, 09:53:32 PMI think it is only fair to say that different cultures are allowed their own names of days of the week.  We are, however, perhaps losing the original point about historical periods and their nomenclature?

I think one thing we're seeing is the argument made that calendars, eras and days of the week are cultural or even political artefacts. The start date for an era is a cultural/political decision. The number of days in the week is also not fixed, so the French revolutionary calendar had  twelve 30-day months, each divided into three 10-day cycles similar to weeks, plus five or six intercalary days at the end. South American calendars were also different.
We currently use an entirely different era simultaneously. BP, "BP is a unit of measurement that indicates how many years ago an event occurred relative to the start of practical radiocarbon dating in 1950."
At some point they will either have to change the date of 1950 or we will start seeing dates given AP for finds found that are dated after 1950.

Nothing wrong with an arbitrary start to a dating system but BP is a one that needs renaming. The further we get from 1950, the more risk of confusion occurs.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 30, 2024, 10:42:59 AMNothing wrong with an arbitrary start to a dating system but BP is a one that needs renaming. The further we get from 1950, the more risk of confusion occurs.

Don't worry, in a century or two's time when we're using AP as well, virtually nobody will remember what the letters stand for  ;)

I guess that BP is based on the premise that the dates are long enough ago that they aren't going to need to change for the foreseeable future as the passage of time falls within the existing margin of error. Dating the modern human presence in Europe to 60,000 BP is fine. Dating the Battle of Waterloo to 210 BP would be madness.

Though reading about prehistory you do encounter the slightly awkward transition from the paleontologists' 5000 BP to the archaeologists 3000 BC(E) which can be confusing. Ah what's to be done?

Quote from: Jim Webster on December 30, 2024, 11:11:19 AMDon't worry, in a century or two's time when we're using AP as well, virtually nobody will remember what the letters stand for  ;)

I have always felt that changing what the letters stand for is so much better a solution than changing the letters. For example:

BC = 'Before' Chronology
AD = 'After' Dating

Then everyone is happy.

The idea was mooted some time ago that everyone should choose something that each culture has in common and base dating on that. We all agreed (I think) that there's one thing every society likes doing and that's clobbering other societies on the head. Warfare is the great common denominator of humanity.

The SoA is the only organisation in the world that specifically deals with warfare throughout human history so why not start a dating system from the Society's foundation, i.e. 1965? Which by happy coincidence is the year of my birth  ::)  (heck, I'll be a senior citizen in a few months  :( ).

Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 30, 2024, 11:43:38 AMThe SoA is the only organisation in the world that specifically deals with warfare throughout human history so why not start a dating system from the Society's foundation, i.e. 1965? Which by happy coincidence is the year of my birth  ::)  (heck, I'll be a senior citizen in a few months  :( ).

In all candour, the kid has suggested something no more unreasonable than any other system in use  8)

To refine things, we could speak of pre-1965 as Ante Juditium Societatis (before the jurisdiction/authority of the Society), and post-1965 as Post Juditium Societatis (after the jurisdiction/authority of the Society). AJS and PJS. One tries to be helpful.