3 ms·

> A ‘Dark Age’ implies the existence of a contrasting ‘Bright Age’ which preceded the darkness Not true. A "dark age" only implies some contrasting age, not ne

> A ‘Dark Age’ implies the existence of a contrasting ‘Bright Age’ which preceded the darkness Not true. A "dark age" only implies some contrasting age, not necessarily a predecessor. The European "dark ages" were named that by people who claimed to be "the enlightenment." I would guess elsewhere it's also always a slur used by elites to distance themselves from whatever they see as lesser.

ggm 4y ago
They are dark in the sense of "through a glass, darkly" -they were not pits of despair, they moved from Roman(esque) architecture to a more detailed sense of ornamentation and painting, which was not understood or appreciated by later cultures. The specific use of "dark ages" was not meant to imply somehow lesser or worse: just unknown, because undocumented.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  But also tremendous losses of both knowledge and technology; Christianity eventually rejected almost the whole of known medicine seeing it as a competitor to God's mercy, for example.
  - ggm 4y ago
    Yes but it was kept alive in Islam, as was most of the historical deep-time knowledge (and developed) And while I don't disagree some things were lost, some other things were made. Industrial processes have their roots in the 'dark ages' experimentation in dye, and new modes of production, in the new social structures which replaced the Roman systems, in the consequences of the black death (which came later) on economics of labour and labour migration. It has aspects of "let a hundred flowers blossom" which is of course destructive of some things, but gives birth to others (I know this is a contentious analogy) It was during this time the Rus (vikings basically) went down the rivers from northern europe to the byzantine empire. It was during this time Visigothic culture exploded in Spain and southern France, and new laws and social constructs emerged. Rome tended to aggregate capital into the center. When there was no center, capital distributed. A flood of enterprise emerged, because there was no longer a central taxing authority stuck on an old model. That said, a lot of it was wasted, and lost. The existence of "hoardes" implies people strategising burying value in a field and running away was a better bet than admitting it existed. Transmigration was happening. The Silk road, spices, all kinds of things flowed. The portugese were on the brink of discovering the grand banks. Iceland was meshed with Orkey and Denmark in trade and religion. Monks went from Ireland into the north of Britain (and beyond) and swept down, meeting Monks coming up by more orthodox routes from the south.
goto11 4y ago
> The European "dark ages" were named that by people who claimed to be "the enlightenment." No, the "dark ages" terminology is from the renaissance. Petrarch is named as the possible origin. They considered classical antiquity the height of civilization and the age after the fall of Rome the dark ages.

ggm 4y ago

They are dark in the sense of "through a glass, darkly" -they were not pits of despair, they moved from Roman(esque) architecture to a more detailed sense of ornamentation and painting, which was not understood or appreciated by later cultures. The specific use of "dark ages" was not meant to imply somehow lesser or worse: just unknown, because undocumented.

Nomentatus 4y ago
But also tremendous losses of both knowledge and technology; Christianity eventually rejected almost the whole of known medicine seeing it as a competitor to God's mercy, for example.
- ggm 4y ago
  Yes but it was kept alive in Islam, as was most of the historical deep-time knowledge (and developed) And while I don't disagree some things were lost, some other things were made. Industrial processes have their roots in the 'dark ages' experimentation in dye, and new modes of production, in the new social structures which replaced the Roman systems, in the consequences of the black death (which came later) on economics of labour and labour migration. It has aspects of "let a hundred flowers blossom" which is of course destructive of some things, but gives birth to others (I know this is a contentious analogy) It was during this time the Rus (vikings basically) went down the rivers from northern europe to the byzantine empire. It was during this time Visigothic culture exploded in Spain and southern France, and new laws and social constructs emerged. Rome tended to aggregate capital into the center. When there was no center, capital distributed. A flood of enterprise emerged, because there was no longer a central taxing authority stuck on an old model. That said, a lot of it was wasted, and lost. The existence of "hoardes" implies people strategising burying value in a field and running away was a better bet than admitting it existed. Transmigration was happening. The Silk road, spices, all kinds of things flowed. The portugese were on the brink of discovering the grand banks. Iceland was meshed with Orkey and Denmark in trade and religion. Monks went from Ireland into the north of Britain (and beyond) and swept down, meeting Monks coming up by more orthodox routes from the south.

goto11 4y ago

> The European "dark ages" were named that by people who claimed to be "the enlightenment." No, the "dark ages" terminology is from the renaissance. Petrarch is named as the possible origin. They considered classical antiquity the height of civilization and the age after the fall of Rome the dark ages.