SoA Forums

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

 

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...

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.....

 

 

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.

 

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....