7 ms·

> The true “dark age,” of course, was the early 1940s when, simply as a side effect of industrial killing, great swathes of the past disappeared. One small yet

> The true “dark age,” of course, was the early 1940s when, simply as a side effect of industrial killing, great swathes of the past disappeared. One small yet major example—the extraordinary series of paintings of the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, made in the 1170s either by the saint herself or under her supervision, disappeared in the general catastrophe that unfolded in Dresden in early 1945. We only know what they looked like (except from black‐and‐white photos) through accurate and beautiful copies painted by a group of nuns, by sheer chance, in the 1930s. This feels like a weird argument. Yes, the paintings were lost. But we have tons of documentation about them! We have records of their creation by Hildegard of Bingen. We have photographs and reproductions to tell us (imperfectly, but still) how they looked. We know they were taken to Dresden, and we know when -- 1945. We know that Dresden suffered a devastating firebombing by the Allies in February of that year, and we know that nobody has been able to locate the paintings since that firebombing occurred. In other words, we may not have the paintings themselves anymore, but we can construct a pretty reliable history of them -- what they were, how they were created, and when they were (sadly) destroyed. That's a very different situation than we're in regarding post-Roman, pre-Carolingian Europe. There are hundreds of years in there where we have practically no documentary evidence for anything. Kingdoms rose and fell, wars were won or lost, languages and faiths adopted or abandoned, and we can't even begin to tell any of those stories today, because nobody was keeping records. Who can say how much art was created and then destroyed in this period that we'll never even be aware existed? Who knows how many geniuses there were whose insights have been lost forever? None of this is to say that what happened in Dresden in 1945 isn't a tragedy; it absolutely was, and for lots of reasons beyond just the loss of some paintings. But the loss of something that we know existed (and can even look at photographs of!) is very different than destruction so total that it even obliterates the possibility of remembrance.

drb91 8y ago
This is a very specific, narrow interpretation of the dark ages. It is not a good term to use in any circumstance, which the article illustrates well. Secondly, in the event of societal collapse, I'm not exactly looking for a great work of art. I image we lost far more texts through preventable destruction and lack of preservation than we lost novel texts written during the post-roman european collapse. I think the quote illustrates a meaningful parallel. > But the loss of something that we know existed (and can even look at photographs of!) is very different than destruction so total that it even obliterates the possibility of remembrance. Categorically different maybe, but consequentially equivalent. I can rattle off a ton of lost texts, but that's mostly meaningless and these works hold virtually no cultural value compared to works we can actually read and engage with.
- admax88q 8y ago
  > but that's mostly meaningless and these works hold virtually no cultural value compared to works we can actually read and engage with. You've basically defined away the problem. If its lost then we can't read and engage with it and therefore has no cultural value. I mean sure, things we don't have by definition can't contribute to culture today. But that is a useless tautology when talking about lost works.
  - chc 8y ago
    I think you've misinterpreted their point. They were pointing out that whether or not we know the thing existed doesn't change the fact that we don't have it, and it's the fact that we don't have it that prevents it from contributing to culture today.
  - drb91 8y ago
    My point is that it’s the existing that contributes to culture, not knowledge that something once existed.
coliveira 8y ago
The so-called dark ages are not much worse than other periods of human history when there is were no large government institutions. With the end of the Roman Empire in the west, Europe came to be ruled by local tribes, in the same way that happened throughout history. Europeans demonstrated to be as barbarians as any other group of people in the world that had no strong institutions to protect society from their immediate power urges. It took centuries for larger government institutions to form again.
- ardit33 8y ago
  Not correct. They were much worse indeed. Remember, Romans had a fairly advanced society, and buildings, architecture, and infrastructure. Roads crossing whole regions, (the highways of the time), aqua-ducts, ways to dispose sewage, etc... This all slowly degraded and eventually disappeared with the fall of the empire. Stone building were replaced by mud huts, and I don't know about you, but not having running water in your town, or paved roads to the next town or port seem like huge drawbacks to life quality. The first Anglo-saxons that came in Britania, after the Roman left lived in what you would call downright primitive huts made by either mud or wooden planks with mud in them. That and the constant warring, in many ways, it was a huge set-back for the people there.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    I think you misread the parent: "The so-called dark ages are not much worse than other periods of human history when there is were no large government institutions." It's not a comparison to the Roman Empire.
  - llukas 8y ago
    > This all slowly degraded and eventually disappeared with the fall of the empire. BULLSHIT. How on earth you can present blatantly false presumptions as information? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Romanesque_art_and_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Romanesque_art_and_archite... "In most of western Europe, the Roman architectural tradition survived the collapse of the empire. The Merovingians (Franks) continued to build large stone buildings like monastery churches and palaces." BTW we still have Roman aqueducts, roads and bridges all over Europe.
acqq 8y ago
> That's a very different situation than we're in regarding post-Roman, pre-Carolingian Europe. There are hundreds of years in there where we have practically no documentary evidence for anything. It is even more specific. Eastern Roman Empire remained functional until it fell to the Ottomans in 1453 AD. But in Britain there were not even coins between the years 410 and 600 AD: http://www.numsoc.net/darkages.html http://www.numsoc.net/darkages.html "History has proved time and time again that when money is in short supply – the people turn to a token or obsidional coinage, no matter how base, rather than do without money as a medium of exchange completely. This has been demonstrated by siege coinages, lead tokens, brass farthings and merchants’ tokens over the millennia." But there was nothing for these two hundred years. Not even foreign coins, and not any kind of substitute. That's why these years are considered completely dark there. And that's why it looks like a real collapse there. So whenever we speak about some dark ages we have to be aware also about which land area we talk about.
- Balgair 8y ago
  The Dark Ages were very much regional, with separate areas undergoing their own eras of 'darkness' and losing communication with the rest of the world. Interestingly, Ireland during the 400's to 600's was something of a bastion of Catholicism and 'western/classical' thought in their monasteries. Even though Britain was very pagan and 'dark', Ireland remained 'enlightened' at this time (though the populace was still very 'dark' and pagan in Ireland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(400%E2%80%93800) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(400%E2%80%... Under this regional definition of 'dark ages', even today they occur. Lost tribes in the Amazon, the populace of North Korea, very rural towns in Alaska, etc. all can be considered to be in 'dark' ages to some degree or another.
  - acqq 8y ago
    > Even though Britain was very pagan and 'dark', Ireland remained 'enlightened' at this time (though the populace was still very 'dark' and pagan in Ireland). Do you happen to know something about the coinage in Ireland in that period? Also, searching for the survived original sources in that entry, they are either first half 400, written outside of Ireland, then some written later than 600 AD? Maybe I missed something?
diminoten 8y ago
Has anyone else here heard of the historical conspiracy theory (I don't know how else to describe it) that the european dark ages literally never happened, and the Gregorian calendar simply skipped those years entirely? It's pretty fascinating as a concept, though it hits many obvious pitfalls (what about all the stuff that's said to have happened during those years?!?!) and I'm not versed enough in the "theory" to give it justice. It's certainly fun to think about, even if it's complete nonsense!
- edgarvaldes 8y ago
  The Phantom time hypothesis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis
- jonjacky 8y ago
  You might be thinking of Fomenko's New Chronology, presented in a series of books that were popular in Russia in the 1990s. It sounds very far-fetched: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)
- nonbel 8y ago
  I actually thought this on my own after watching some history channel series about the first millennium AD, roman empire, whatever. I was struck at the similarity of some events that were supposedly separated by hundreds of years, almost as if it was the same story told from a different perspective. Then I found Anatoly Fomenko, Gunnar Heinsohn, Herbert Illig, etc had investigated this. I'll add another link to the two already shared by sister responses: https://www.q-mag.org/the-1st-millennium-a-d-chronology-controversy.html https://www.q-mag.org/the-1st-millennium-a-d-chronology-cont... Definitely a fascinating topic. I emerged from that rabbit hole unconvinced but definitely with far more doubt about the reliability of the mainstream chronology.
UnhelpfulYoda 8y ago
San Francisco disproves this thesis. It's impossible to build anything new, because of inane historical significance given to even the most decrepit cow palace or laundromat. I can only pray that San Francisco experiences a "Dark Age" where ugly old crap is replaced with shiny new towers.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  Easy there, Le Corbusier[0]. That may be your preference, but others, like me, have seen enough giant glass monoliths to last a lifetime. Also, are you aware that you're implicitly saying that you would love it if San Francisco was bombed or suffered a big earthquake or some other horrible disaster like that just because you don't like its architecture? I doubt you intended that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier
- z3phyr 8y ago
  A "Dark Age" means a time where the stuff which is happening is not recorded or documented. It does not mean "Starting from scratch"
cocochanel 8y ago
The Dark Ages are only dark to us.
- z3phyr 8y ago
  And hence the name. Because there is only us who can name.

drb91 8y ago

This is a very specific, narrow interpretation of the dark ages. It is not a good term to use in any circumstance, which the article illustrates well. Secondly, in the event of societal collapse, I'm not exactly looking for a great work of art. I image we lost far more texts through preventable destruction and lack of preservation than we lost novel texts written during the post-roman european collapse. I think the quote illustrates a meaningful parallel. > But the loss of something that we know existed (and can even look at photographs of!) is very different than destruction so total that it even obliterates the possibility of remembrance. Categorically different maybe, but consequentially equivalent. I can rattle off a ton of lost texts, but that's mostly meaningless and these works hold virtually no cultural value compared to works we can actually read and engage with.

admax88q 8y ago
> but that's mostly meaningless and these works hold virtually no cultural value compared to works we can actually read and engage with. You've basically defined away the problem. If its lost then we can't read and engage with it and therefore has no cultural value. I mean sure, things we don't have by definition can't contribute to culture today. But that is a useless tautology when talking about lost works.
- chc 8y ago
  I think you've misinterpreted their point. They were pointing out that whether or not we know the thing existed doesn't change the fact that we don't have it, and it's the fact that we don't have it that prevents it from contributing to culture today.
- drb91 8y ago
  My point is that it’s the existing that contributes to culture, not knowledge that something once existed.

coliveira 8y ago

The so-called dark ages are not much worse than other periods of human history when there is were no large government institutions. With the end of the Roman Empire in the west, Europe came to be ruled by local tribes, in the same way that happened throughout history. Europeans demonstrated to be as barbarians as any other group of people in the world that had no strong institutions to protect society from their immediate power urges. It took centuries for larger government institutions to form again.

ardit33 8y ago
Not correct. They were much worse indeed. Remember, Romans had a fairly advanced society, and buildings, architecture, and infrastructure. Roads crossing whole regions, (the highways of the time), aqua-ducts, ways to dispose sewage, etc... This all slowly degraded and eventually disappeared with the fall of the empire. Stone building were replaced by mud huts, and I don't know about you, but not having running water in your town, or paved roads to the next town or port seem like huge drawbacks to life quality. The first Anglo-saxons that came in Britania, after the Roman left lived in what you would call downright primitive huts made by either mud or wooden planks with mud in them. That and the constant warring, in many ways, it was a huge set-back for the people there.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I think you misread the parent: "The so-called dark ages are not much worse than other periods of human history when there is were no large government institutions." It's not a comparison to the Roman Empire.
- llukas 8y ago
  > This all slowly degraded and eventually disappeared with the fall of the empire. BULLSHIT. How on earth you can present blatantly false presumptions as information? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Romanesque_art_and_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Romanesque_art_and_archite... "In most of western Europe, the Roman architectural tradition survived the collapse of the empire. The Merovingians (Franks) continued to build large stone buildings like monastery churches and palaces." BTW we still have Roman aqueducts, roads and bridges all over Europe.

acqq 8y ago

> That's a very different situation than we're in regarding post-Roman, pre-Carolingian Europe. There are hundreds of years in there where we have practically no documentary evidence for anything. It is even more specific. Eastern Roman Empire remained functional until it fell to the Ottomans in 1453 AD. But in Britain there were not even coins between the years 410 and 600 AD: http://www.numsoc.net/darkages.html http://www.numsoc.net/darkages.html "History has proved time and time again that when money is in short supply – the people turn to a token or obsidional coinage, no matter how base, rather than do without money as a medium of exchange completely. This has been demonstrated by siege coinages, lead tokens, brass farthings and merchants’ tokens over the millennia." But there was nothing for these two hundred years. Not even foreign coins, and not any kind of substitute. That's why these years are considered completely dark there. And that's why it looks like a real collapse there. So whenever we speak about some dark ages we have to be aware also about which land area we talk about.

Balgair 8y ago
The Dark Ages were very much regional, with separate areas undergoing their own eras of 'darkness' and losing communication with the rest of the world. Interestingly, Ireland during the 400's to 600's was something of a bastion of Catholicism and 'western/classical' thought in their monasteries. Even though Britain was very pagan and 'dark', Ireland remained 'enlightened' at this time (though the populace was still very 'dark' and pagan in Ireland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(400%E2%80%93800) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(400%E2%80%... Under this regional definition of 'dark ages', even today they occur. Lost tribes in the Amazon, the populace of North Korea, very rural towns in Alaska, etc. all can be considered to be in 'dark' ages to some degree or another.
- acqq 8y ago
  > Even though Britain was very pagan and 'dark', Ireland remained 'enlightened' at this time (though the populace was still very 'dark' and pagan in Ireland). Do you happen to know something about the coinage in Ireland in that period? Also, searching for the survived original sources in that entry, they are either first half 400, written outside of Ireland, then some written later than 600 AD? Maybe I missed something?

diminoten 8y ago

Has anyone else here heard of the historical conspiracy theory (I don't know how else to describe it) that the european dark ages literally never happened, and the Gregorian calendar simply skipped those years entirely? It's pretty fascinating as a concept, though it hits many obvious pitfalls (what about all the stuff that's said to have happened during those years?!?!) and I'm not versed enough in the "theory" to give it justice. It's certainly fun to think about, even if it's complete nonsense!

edgarvaldes 8y ago
The Phantom time hypothesis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis
jonjacky 8y ago
You might be thinking of Fomenko's New Chronology, presented in a series of books that were popular in Russia in the 1990s. It sounds very far-fetched: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)
nonbel 8y ago
I actually thought this on my own after watching some history channel series about the first millennium AD, roman empire, whatever. I was struck at the similarity of some events that were supposedly separated by hundreds of years, almost as if it was the same story told from a different perspective. Then I found Anatoly Fomenko, Gunnar Heinsohn, Herbert Illig, etc had investigated this. I'll add another link to the two already shared by sister responses: https://www.q-mag.org/the-1st-millennium-a-d-chronology-controversy.html https://www.q-mag.org/the-1st-millennium-a-d-chronology-cont... Definitely a fascinating topic. I emerged from that rabbit hole unconvinced but definitely with far more doubt about the reliability of the mainstream chronology.

UnhelpfulYoda 8y ago

San Francisco disproves this thesis. It's impossible to build anything new, because of inane historical significance given to even the most decrepit cow palace or laundromat. I can only pray that San Francisco experiences a "Dark Age" where ugly old crap is replaced with shiny new towers.

vanderZwan 8y ago
Easy there, Le Corbusier[0]. That may be your preference, but others, like me, have seen enough giant glass monoliths to last a lifetime. Also, are you aware that you're implicitly saying that you would love it if San Francisco was bombed or suffered a big earthquake or some other horrible disaster like that just because you don't like its architecture? I doubt you intended that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier
z3phyr 8y ago
A "Dark Age" means a time where the stuff which is happening is not recorded or documented. It does not mean "Starting from scratch"

cocochanel 8y ago

The Dark Ages are only dark to us.

z3phyr 8y ago
And hence the name. Because there is only us who can name.