Should we still use the term 'The Dark Ages'

[Imperial Dave]

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...?

[Mark G]

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

[Erpingham]

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?

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Jim Webster]

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 

[Imperial Dave]

 

I like your thinking Jim

[Ian61]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

I've not read it...

[Ian61]

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

[Ian61]

It'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.

[Adrian Nayler]

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.

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.

[Jim Webster]

It'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

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

[skb777]

Same with England, at what time did the feudal period end in England?

I wasn't aware that it had 

[Justin Swanton]

"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.

[Imperial Dave]

Nicely summarised and parcelled....