Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)

Article is one-sided to a fault
I'm talking here specifically about the usage of the term to denote "cultural decline", not about the usage referring to lack of sources: Right now, the article lists only reasons why denoting the Early Middle Ages as Dark Ages in this respect is all wrong, while listing none of the reasons for why someone might be inclined to use that term in the first place. We only find out that arrogant Enlightenment thinkers liked the term because it elevated their own time period, but that's about it. I'm not into history at all, but after searching around a bit I found this article which lists some of those reasons: Now even that article explains why all of these don't necessarily indicate lower quality of life or cultural stagnation, but at least it lists them in the first place. Not mentioning any of these points here also plainly contradicts information in other related Wikipedia articles, e.g. Fall of the Western Roman Empire, where it is stated:
 * "relative lack of monumental architecture [, ... ] [t]owns and cities no longer built large new stone structures"
 * "the slow deterioration of Roman infrastructure such as aqueducts likely had an effect on quality of life in cities"
 * "Populations of major cities like Rome and Constantinople shrank in this period"
 * "By 450, the evidence of simple day-to-day items such as new coins, pottery or roof tiles largely disappeared in many parts of Europe, and wasn’t found again until roughly 700."
 * [The Roman Empire] included manufacture, trade, and architecture, widespread secular literacy, written law, and an international language of science and literature. The Western barbarians lost much of these higher cultural practices, but their redevelopment in the Middle Ages by polities aware of the Roman achievement formed the basis for the later development of Europe.

So on the whole, this article reads much like one of those sensationalist "Why Everything You Know About The Middle Ages Is Wrong" things on some virtual tabloid (and I had to wade through dozens of them to find the more balanced one I linked) and leaves out crucial information that would give the reader a more complete picture of history. --92.209.33.232 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sensationalist pieces are those that you linked to, the popular press. This article relies on academic sources. You readily admit to not being "into history at all" and I would suggest the first place to begin is by reading history written by historians who have made it their life mission to understand, and not these sorts of light journalism pieces written by generalist writers with no academic credentials and essentially repeating the same sorts of popular biases already discussed in the article. -- Green  C  17:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing anything in the list above? I wasn't asking to have that particular web page as the source, but the items listed are presumably either factual or based on outdated understanding. Either way, academic sources for such points should be found and mentioned in the article. --46.223.163.192 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also convenient that you skipped over my mention of Fall of the Western Roman Empire, which cites an academic source for the claim that certain "higher cultural practices" (examples ibid.) were lost. --46.223.163.192 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article concerns 'Dark Ages' (historiography) ie. the concept not the period. Reading the article, particularly the section on modern academic usage, just about every quote is discussing the name itself. Modern academic sources exist to support the idea of a decline (see Early Middle Ages), but none IMO argue for usage of 'Dark Ages', which is what this article is about.  --  Green  C  09:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that the EMA retained the level of urban culture (in particular) of the peak of the Roman Empire, though it is arguable that the cultural level was more widely spread, and longer-lasting. One doubts the descendants of rural Roman slaves longed for the good old days. Once the Roman army was gone, the lack of appetite in most areas for keeping Roman ways going tells you something.  Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "No one is saying that the EMA retained the level of urban culture" - well this article implies it by omission, not mentioning with a word which parts of society and culture actually experienced a "decline" from whichever perspective. That this represented an improvement for the majority of the population could be mentioned, there is no contradiction. --46.223.163.192 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not the role of this article - try Early Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Replying here avoid creating a a new thread. Considering that the first couple of threads of the talk page archives straight up call the article "propaganda by bible-bangers" (strong words and I myself would never use them, but I understand why someone would), I'd say one-sidedness has been an issue with the article for at least 15 years. The "Modern Scholarly Use" section doesn't cite any scholars that still use the term in it's original sense, while the "Modern Non-Scholarly Use" section consists exclusively of scholars trying to discredit any portrayal of the early middle ages as undeveloped, backwards, violent and superstitious.
 * To make matters worse, Howard Williams' study on the modern nationalists appropriating historical myths, is somehow presented as an explanation for these supposedly flase negative perceptions of the middle ages, which is simply wrong. Medievalism, which has always been a nationalist invention, is the idealization and whitewashing of the Middle Ages, not the perpetuation of Dark Age "stereotypes", which this artivcle is trying to argue are false. It's hard to believe there hasn't been a single notable modern day historian who argues that the Dark ages were indeed "Dark".
 * The final paragraph strikes me as particularly strange. David C. Lindberg, a science and religion historian, says the 'Dark Ages' are "according to wide-spread popular belief" portrayed as "a time ofignorance, barbarism and superstition", for which he asserts "blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian church". Medieval historian Matthew Gabriele echoes this view as a myth of popular culture. Andrew B. R. Elliott notes the extent to which "Middle Ages/Dark Ages have come to be synonymous with religious persecution, witch hunts and scientific ignorance". The only argument cited from these historians as to why these perceptions of the Dark Ages are false is the simple assertion that they are, and no historians are cited arguing in favor of these perceptions and pointing out that they were indeed grounded in reality. Surely if I were to search this term on the RationalWiki, they would have a drastically different opinion. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * 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) -- Green  C  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. -- Green  C  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)

MfD: Dark Ages in Europe drafts
Miscellany for deletion/Dark Ages in Europe -- Green  C  16:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How can I lend you my support for this deletion? Or didn't you say it has already been deleted? I'm lost. Is Dark Ages up for deltion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like to support go to Miscellany for deletion/Dark Ages in Europe and add to the bottom the page . You could optionally add more reasons why you support. The pages being deleted are in User: space. --  Green  C  22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there were not enough knowledgeable participants to delete the pages, but I guess page blank is better than nothing. -- Green  C  20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Restore lead
The recent change in the lead went too far in the direction of emphasizing present-day usage of the term. The article includes present-day usage, it's very important, but the article's primary purpose is a history of usage. Per WP:LEAD the section is meant to be a summary of the article and thus include, mostly, a history of usage. It's a terminology history article, not an essay concerning present-day usage. The original lead is in chronological order mirroring the structure of the article itself - a summarized mini-version of the article. -- Green  C  21:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Green thank you or coming here and explaining what you have already done, but I can't agree that your edit is a good one.
 * In the first four words it says "is" not "was". This isn't an article about a literary work, so there is no reason to use "is" when referring to the past. "The "Dark Ages" is a term" implies it is still active. If this is simply history, it should say it was a term commonly used from the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries. It should be clear when use of the term began and when it ended.
 * A history of terminology article should say up front that's what it is. Right now it begins as if it is going to talk about the Middle Ages and "characterizing it". It's misleading and confusing: is this about the term or the period or what?
 * The first sentence is not good, by your own terms and definitions, and that is only highlighted by making it stand alone.
 * Please rewrite the lead sentence to reflect the characteristics you describe. Make it clear this is a history of a term used in the past that is no longer accepted as valid. A short summary of why would also be nice to include in the lead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I did was revert the bold edit you had made (without an discussion), it's WP:BRD. The article concerns a term, we speak of a term in the present tense. It does not imply the Dark are still active, your conflating the term with the period in history. It most clearly says "a term", and the article title is "historiography". That it is no longer valid is already spelled out in the lead section. The first sentence describes what the term means, a definition. Later in the lead it discusses current-day usage, just as later in the article it discusses current-day usage. The lead is chronological mirroring the articles which is chronological. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." --   Green  C  03:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Green So we both made edits without getting agreement ahead of time. It isn't really necessary to do so - except it's smart when reverting someone which I did not do. Now we have the opportunity to come to a consensus.
 * Yes, do that with the lead, and do so accurately and within the rules of good grammar. There is no rule exempting a history of terminology from the use of the past tense. History is history. Buy a "Brief English Handbook", it has all the grammar rules neatly organized and easily accessible. Or just look online. Here: "The tense of the verb in a sentence reflects the time at which the action is set."[] Look it up anywhere. If it's a history, the action is in the past - by definition - which uses the past simple or the past perfect verb tense.
 * The exceptions that allow for the use of the present tense when discussing something historical are literature, the telling of stories, or when the author is drawing a conclusion, since "the opinion exists now and should be stated as such". That would be OR, and unless you want to argue you are putting forth your own views, story telling, or that this has suddenly become an article about a piece of literature, the rule is "past-tense verbs should dominate history papers".
 * One more exception: "Present-tense verbs are appropriate in historical argumentation, so long as the writer is discussing the current nature of research and modern ways of approaching historical data. In other words, "Homer composed (past tense) poetry long ago, but we today interpret (present tense) it along certain lines." The only place a use of present tense is appropriate in this article is in the discussion you removed.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a term of periodization. One does not discuss terms of periodization in the past tense, it makes no sense eg. "The Early Modern era was a term for .." I suppose one could argue it is no longer in use thus past tense, but that is not accurate as it is still used, if a minority. And popular culture usage is actually increasing over time, it's a current and widely used term, Google it. While it would be nice to say the term is not used anymore, it is not true in reality. The article discusses the terms history, present-day usage and present-day proscriptions to usage (which is a POV). --  Green  C  04:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Green Au contraire mon frère. One would in fact say "The Early Modern era was a term for .." if it was a term that had been used in the past, that is no longer used in the present, and one were writing the history of it. That's exactly how one goes about writing history. "Is" implies current status. It's just the way language works.
 * We don't go by what's popular, we go by what scholars say. But I don't have a problem if you want to write that the term is used popularly, but not by scholars, and say why. It is absolutely true that it is not used by current scholars outside of those scholars of English history when referring to a specific time period of their own (that is actually much later). It is a defunct word. No medievalist would use it.
 * At any rate, you can't have it both ways. This is a history of a term or it isn't. If this is an actual discussion of periodization - or the changes in periodization - or the current state of periodization - or any other aspect of periodization and all the many theories surrounding that can of worms, well then, the scope is no longer simply the history of a past term, is it? This would turn it into something else entirely.
 * Make up your mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate. The issue is more nuanced not so binary. I truly wish it was that easy. In any case, the article covers popular usage, also, so you can't say "was a term" when it's still being actively used. I actually find popular usage as interesting (from a scholarly perspective) as the old debates about scholarly usage; popular usage is an academic area of interest. Not sure what "an actual discussion of periodization" would entail that doesn't comprise this article. -- Green  C  06:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Green Sorry it has taken so long to get back here, I had other obligations yesterday.


 * Pages xiii - xiv: Peter Wells writes that the term "Dark Ages" is a 'historical relic' from a time when texts were the only source of information about the past. Archaeology, art history, anthropology and more have fully demonstrated that the fifth through the eighth centuries were anything but dark.


 * Page 285: "the so-called Dark Ages to the Renaissance is undergoing a considerable modification, for we are realizing that the Dark Ages were not dark" Page 285 of


 * On page 9: "there was no such thing as a Dark Age as historical research constantly demonstrates"


 * This is an old book yet it says: "medieval has generally lost its meaning of "dark" ... then followed naturally a new division of history ... Dark ceased to be the popular term" on page 4. I could go on of course, but why?

Definition of dark age:
 * If you are going to say this is a history of a term, and say that includes its popular usage, you will need to add in all of this:
 * 1) a time during which a civilization undergoes a decline
 * 2) "Dark Ages" plural : the European historical period from about a.d. 476 to about 1000 broadly : middle ages
 * 3) or Dark Age : the Greek historical period of three to four centuries from about 1100 b.c. — often plural
 * 4) or Dark Age : the primitive period in the development of something — usually plural as "in the dark ages of medicine"
 * 5) a state of stagnation or decline — usually plural – in any circumstance


 * Let me offer a compromise instead. How about turning your first sentence into "The "Dark Ages" is a disputed term for the Western European historical period, either from about 476 to the 700s or from 476 to the 1400s, characterizing it as marked by economic, intellectual, and cultural decline".? Would you be okay with that?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think it makes little difference, but I slightly prefer the old version, which unfolded more logically (and linked Petrarch at 1st, not 2nd mention). I don't like the alternative first sentence just above either. As the article says, the term is not used by professional historians, but still often is by non-historians, even academic ones (especially scientists).  I don't call that "disputed". Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Right agreed on the quotes. Check the AfD I made a list of similar/same quotes. There is no question the tide has turned against Dark Ages it's no longer fashionable. Nevertheless, you are arguing something specific, That is not true, it is easy to show, reliable sources sometimes still use it (which I prefer not to list if possible). It's not a totally defunct phrase. The compromise solution disputed term will probably trigger editors to start adding material in support of Dark Ages. The problem with disputed it's not really disputed in the sense there are people arguing in favor of usage. More accurate it is deprecated by medieval historians, with deprecated defined as follows (comments added in green) : "the discouragement of use of some terminology .. typically because it has been superseded  or is no longer considered safe, without completely removing it or prohibiting its use ". With that said, the lead section already makes this point of deprecation quite nicely, it would be repeating and comes across a bit strong repeating the point. It also breaks the chronology of the lead section mirroring the article.  --  Green  C  20:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with GreenC and Johnbod. There are some WP articles on historical phrases in which both the entity and the historiography and populist commentary should be presented as past tense (and so we do use "was"). But this is not one of them. User Jenhawk777's argument is flawed and presented in a condescending way - User GreenC is not the one who needs to "buy a Brief English Handbook" - and, in my view, is owed an apology. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All right then. I bow to consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 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. -- Green  C  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)