Why is 'Dark Ages' considered innacurate?

[Tabster]

@ Ajidica

where have you got the idea about the steel/iron from ?, can't you tell me more about what you mean by "adding" , do you mean during the smelting (turning ore into metal) process maybe ?

The Anglo-Saxons had steelworking capabilities that were not surpassed until the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries.

I'm sorry but I think this paints too simplistic a picture, there are many aspects to working steel. I know you have said "capabilities" which may not include every aspect of steelworking, and indicate just one specifically, but many reading this may not realise that. It would be quite easy after reading this to assume that there was no improvement in steel working at all for centuries.

I expect you're referring to the manufacture of slashing sword, which is a credible argument, but the changing role of the sword is partially to blame here not just declining swordsmithing abilities.

As for other steelmaking capabilities, the manufacture of armour continued to improve after the Anglo-Saxons, and springs and steel hand tools are two other examples to be considered before making any judgements about their, or their successors general steelworking abilities overall.

Having said that, the Anglo-Saxons were superb metal workers, but it's in goldsmithing, in which they weren't surpassed for centuries IMHO.

 

[Agent327]

Which artistic criteria is that? There is more than one school of thought, you know, on art.

There are indeed several criteria which may be applied when judging art artistically, yes. (I would rate craftmanship very high, for one. Originality would be ruled out, as it is a very modern concept; economic value would not apply either, as explained below.)

JEELEN:
On your criticism of 'Dark Age' art, the difference between that and Renniassance art differed because how they viewed the world and what they wanted to depict. In early medieval art the world was depicted how it should be. The most striking representations of this is in Byzantine mosaics, like giving saints and angels small angular feet to represent that they were not of this world. In Renniassance art, they were trying to express Humanism which is the attempt to understand God through giving him human qualities in paintings. I'm not the best on how the paintings were made, but IIRC the type of paints used in the Renniassance differed heavily from what was used in the early middle ages. (Did they have oil paints by then?) Regardless, the early middle ages produced its fair share of epic art too. Hagia Sophia, St. Vitalian in Ravenna, mosiac on the Masjid al-Haram, ect.

Since apparently the Dark ages werent as 'Dark' as imaginged, simple question: Was average living conditions in Europe following the disintigration of the WRE and Justinians Reconquest better or worse that during the time of Constantine. (THat was early Dominate right?)

Again, I'm quite aware of these changing views; but since "Dark Ages" is generally thought to apply to the area formerly under Roman control I would also definitely exclude Byzantine art from this comparison.

On the second part I would argue that lack of proper statistical data precludes a clear conclusion on a comparison of socio-economic conditions between the Dominate and post-roman eras. Fortunately, as the Middle Ages progress, data become somewhat less sparse, and more accurate guesses can be made. Bearing this in mind, Slicher van Bath (following M.K. Benneth) assumes a - more or less - gradual decline in population numbers between 200 and 700-900 AD. (Serious epidemics have been mentioned below, especially for 543-600 AD - which then later occur again in the 14th century.) The breakdown of a currency economy between roughly the 6th and 12th century is equally problematic; in a very practical sense it means that taxes were being replaced by services - giving rise to the term feudalism, but let's not get into that now. (As a sidenote, this may very well have played a part in the disappearance of slavery, as it coincides with the disappearance of the large estates which made slavery productive.) As has already been noted, socio-economically the conditions between the late Dominate and early medieval period, may have changed not all that much for the majority of the population - again keeping in mind that hard data for this period are very sparse. It seems safe, however, to assume that population decline suggests economic decline to some extent - the precise nature of which will have to remain rather vague. One might also consider a clear difference between the early and medieval epidemics: the latter were followed by a general rise in wages (and then later, prices), whereas the earlier obviously did not. (Equally obvious it should be that a rise in wages follows from an increased demand for scarce labour.)

 

[Yeekim]

(4) This is false. The notion that trade routes were eliminated and caused an alleged Dark Age is known as the Pirenne thesis (named after Henri Pirenne, a historian that wrote the majority of his works while a prisoner during WWI), which has since been refuted now that we know of trade routes that extend as far as northern Russia, and that the Europeans did in fact trade to some degree with the Islamic caliphates.

Yup. Thousands of Arabian dirhems from IX-XI centuries have been found around here. Actually, they make up majority of coins from that time period.

 

[Verbose]

Yup. Thousands of Arabian dirhems from IX-XI centuries have been found around here. Actually, they make up majority of coins from that time period.

Of course one interpretation of this, is that the hitherto normal east-west trade routes around the Med got disrupted by the Arab conquest, and was diverted northwards through the Baltic and Scandinavian lands.

 

[Yeekim]

Of course one interpretation of this, is that the hitherto normal east-west trade routes around the Med got disrupted by the Arab conquest, and was diverted northwards through the Baltic and Scandinavian lands.

I am having trouble imagining, how east-west trade around the Med could get "diverted" to Scandinavia and Baltics. That's certainly one hell of a shortcut to take.

Anyway, the main trade route presumably went over Neva, Ladoga, Ilmen, Msta, Volga and Caspian, with a branch-off into Don and Azow...

 

[Ajidica]

Tabster: My apologies, it was during the smelting process.

 

[Dachs]

Yup. Thousands of Arabian dirhems from IX-XI centuries have been found around here. Actually, they make up majority of coins from that time period.

That is equivalent to arguing that the Industrial Revolution in Europe cannot have happened because modern day Africa is still largely underindustrialized.

 

[Yeekim]

That is equivalent to arguing that the Industrial Revolution in Europe cannot have happened because modern day Africa is still largely underindustrialized.

Sorry, I don't get it...?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There are indeed several criteria which may be applied when judging art artistically, yes. (I would rate craftmanship very high, for one. Originality would be ruled out, as it is a very modern concept; economic value would not apply either, as explained below.)

I'm listening.

 

[Dachs]

Sorry, I don't get it...?

If Pirenne's thesis was that the so-called Dark Ages in the Mediterranean (esp. the Western Med) were due to a large-scale disruption of trade by the Muslim conquests in the seventh and eighth centuries, I don't see how indicating that there was thriving trade thousands of miles away a few hundred years later impinges on it. He was wrong, but he was wrong for different reasons.

 

[Ajidica]

There are indeed several criteria which may be applied when judging art artistically, yes. (I would rate craftmanship very high, for one. Originality would be ruled out, as it is a very modern concept; economic value would not apply either, as explained below.)

I'm listening too. You said craftsmanship is one of most important things. I challenge you to find something needed more craftmanship than the massive mosaics in the ERE such as the Hagia Sophia or church of St. Vitalian in Ravenna or any number of the mosaics. It must have be tedious putting all those little tiles up on the walls.

I don't agree with you on why Byzantine art should be ruled out. There are very few examples of surviving 'Dark Age' art that hadn't been redone, destroyed, or simply lost from the Dark Ages in europe. The Byzantine art is the closest we have to what 'Dark Age' art would have been as Europe would still have followed the Roman tradition of mosaics or icons.

 

[Agent327]

Well, thanks for listening. For one, I already mentioned that Byzantine art cannot be considered Dark Age art (and I did not even mention that Byzantium did not experience a dark age). For another, noone seems to take me up on my challenge. I rest my case, gentlemen.

 

[Yeekim]

Not at all: show me any artistic masterpiece from the "Dark Ages" and I'll explain in detail how it is inferior to Renaissance art. (Not according to "subjective", but rather artistic criteria.)

You said you value craftsmanship highly? I pick up the gauntlet.
Spoilered for size:

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[Agent327]

For some seriousness, you might want to add the approximate size, location and date of these artefacts. (But see below.)

If Pirenne's thesis was that the so-called Dark Ages in the Mediterranean (esp. the Western Med) were due to a large-scale disruption of trade by the Muslim conquests in the seventh and eighth centuries, I don't see how indicating that there was thriving trade thousands of miles away a few hundred years later impinges on it. He was wrong, but he was wrong for different reasons.

Hm. There was a relatively long breakdown of a currency economy in favour of a barter economy in the West. It would be interesting to formulate for what reasons ecaxtly the Pirenne thesis has been proven false. (Also, finding large amounts of coins - without any additional information - may also be indicative of hoarding, which isn't partucularly consistent with long range trade, but that aside.)

Four examples of Renaissance art:

- the first is obviously not of the same size as the given examples, but do excel in pure craftmanship alone
- the second might be considered comparable; even on this scale the craftmanship is obvious (on a personal note: my mother has a relief copy of Dürer's Praying Hands on a dining room wall)
- the third is a rather clear example of the effective use of geometrical perspective, giving depth to a completely flat surface (geometrical perspective being a Renaissance innovation/invention)
- lastly an obvious choice: notice how the proportions are slightly off and the head is larger than life (because the statue was intended to be viewed from below); also notice the veins on the right hand, holding the invisible rock and the guessing expression on the face (finally the genitals should also be noticed: natural, but likely to be cut off in a more Christian era).

For specific jewellery examples see:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/47299-popup.html (Northern Renaissance) or
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/2395/1/DSCN1331.JPG

 

[Yeekim]

First item is so-called "Kingston Brooch" from 7th century, now located in Liverpool Museum. Size about 8cm in diameter.
For second one, see here.
EDIT:

For specific jewellery examples see:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/47299-popup.html (Northern Renaissance) or
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/2395/1/DSCN1331.JPG

And the detailed explanation as to how these are supposed to be superior according to artistic criteria?

 

[Agent327]

I think people can see for themselves. In this case I would rate the cameo higher than the brooch example shown in your post, though only because of the cameo, not because of lack of craftmanship, which is exquisite. (To be true, I wasn't exactly thinking of small jewellery items for my claim, as such works of art are unlikely to go out of fashion in any given time period.) However, I would argue that the "Dark Ages" - in fact the era from the late Roman period onwards - shows a decline in both quantity and quality of art. For this instance I might mention the lack of an equivalent of, say, late Roman republic-early Empire architecture and statues compared to the early medieval time period. (The cause of this may be purely economical: not only did the Western Roman empire fall away completely at one point, its funds were dwindling fro quite some time before that. While the empire in the West was gradually being replaced by Germanic kingdoms, these were by necessity smaller in nature and of a different character than the former empire. With the advent of Islam and Charlemagne things would change again, for the better.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You need to read yourself some Heinrich Woefflin, mate.

 

[ParkCungHee]

shows a decline in both quantity and quality of art.

Claiming the quantity of art produced declined in the early middle ages is going to require some serious citations. Since it's pretty much impossible to assertain production figures in either this or the Roman period, I doubt you have those citations.

For this instance I might mention the lack of an equivalent of, say, late Roman republic-early Empire architecture and statues compared to the early medieval time period. (The cause of this may be purely economical: not only did the Western Roman empire fall away completely at one point, its funds were dwindling fro quite some time before that. While the empire in the West was gradually being replaced by Germanic kingdoms, these were by necessity smaller in nature and of a different character than the former empire. With the advent of Islam and Charlemagne things would change again, for the better.)

I see. I might similarly make the claim that the Roman and Helenistic periods show no great artistict achievements based on the lack of say, stained glass work, or illustrated books. That is, I can also make an arbitrary claim that a lack of a particular form of art signals a decline or lack of art.

 

[Dachs]

(and I did not even mention that Byzantium did not experience a dark age)

Sure they did, it was just shorter and slightly less devastating.

Hm. There was a relatively long breakdown of a currency economy in favour of a barter economy in the West. It would be interesting to formulate for what reasons ecaxtly the Pirenne thesis has been proven false. (Also, finding large amounts of coins - without any additional information - may also be indicative of hoarding, which isn't partucularly consistent with long range trade, but that aside.)

The point isn't really that Pirenne's thesis is false, it just has very little grounding in fact, and most of the trade downturn can be safely attributed to other factors without resorting to the Muslim conquest.

 

[Ajidica]

The Byzantines did have a signifigant Dark Age dating from 641-780 (source, Oxford History of Byzantium) which in many ways was due to the loss of Egypt and the Levant due to the Arabs. However not much art remains due to economical instability and Iconoclasm.

In the 'Dark Ages' art would likely have been just as exquisite as during the Renniassance because anyone who would purchase or commision a piece of art wanted to show off their wealth. As such they would want it to be as intricate as possible.