Talk:Early medieval literature

This article originally conflated the 6th to 9th centuries because there wasn't enough material for standalone articles by century. As material accumulates, it could well be split into four separate articles based on 10th century in literature and seqq. The same considerations apply to the ancient literature article. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Discover this!
Could be a New-Age angle? It seems to stem from Edward Sapir, to create this idea of classical language, on Wikipedia, but whose idea is it to extend this vision to the term 'medieval literature'? It is a good way to deconstruct, in practice, the always oldfashioned periodizations, but is that the intention? Not to mention the expertise required to include all global regions in what could otherwise, boringly traditional, have been an attempt to describe the literature in the early middle ages, obviously from the European region.

It's not that I reject the challenge - although as an editor I do reject the challenge - but it is simply a misnomer to use the phrase early medieval literature to describe global literature in a chronographic periodization. Sort of, if not wholly an expression of cultural imperialism, not to forget the above mentioned active deconstruction of the already complex medieval studies.

The challenge is real enough. Would it not be worthwhile to consider a different periodization for this sort of globalization? For example, in millenia: Text evidence earlier than the 1st millenium BC; Text evidence 1st millenium BC - 1st millenium AD; Text evidence 2nd millenium AD - present.

I must admit that I am not at the moment planning to do anything, I just think the article is fatal enough to justify comment 'out of the blue' :) Sechinsic (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)