Why is 'Dark Ages' considered innacurate?

[Chieftess]

I think it's considered innacurate since there were still technological developments made during then (probably more peacetime/scientific advancements in the Middle East (due to large empires) and some wartime advancements in Europe due to all of the fighting).

There've also been several "Dark Ages":

- 2200BC (many agrarian societies declined)
- 1200BC (tin supplies ran out, and the start of the iron age. Eygpt, Greece and other cultures declined. According to some, the Phonecians sailed as far as England to find tin.)
- 500AD (The era of Great Migrations into Europe. These peoples were less advanced than Rome, so Europe sort of had to 'start over').

I've seen "Dark Ages" also defined as a decline in "The Arts" (literature, philosophy, culture), which I guess would be true if there's no large empire to keep the peace. Dark Ages tend to last a few centuries just as a Golden Age might also last a few centuries (they're economic opposites).

 

[Dachs]

Technological inferiority maybe, and in some aspects even superiority. Even the Byzantines regarded Avar technology with respect, and Maurikios in his Strategikon recommends Avar-designed bows and most of their equipment, including the stirrup. The Hunnic compound reflex bow was also a key factor in their battlefield successes.

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.

Well, don't go hatin' on iconoclasm that much. Figural religious art may not have been all that well off during the later part of the relevant period - and only really under Konstantinos V - but Konstantinos didn't destroy much of anything, just removed the pictorial art from public view (and it was restored quickly enough, first by Eirene Sarantapechaina, then by Michael III), replacing it in most cases with fairly good symbolic and/or secular art. For instance, when Konstantinos V had the pictures of the six ecumenical councils removed from the Milion, he had Hippodrome scenes put up to replace them. That very few of these survive is not really due to iconoclasm.

This being mostly a qualification of your statement, not a direct contradiction: the period highlighted was indeed one in which less art was produced (the real bad blow in this period was architecture, really; the Armenian portion of the empire and the Churches of St. Demetrios (at Thessalonike) and St. Eirene (at Constantinople) were the only standouts in the period, and obviously they don't compare to Hagia Sophia or Basileios I's Nea). Iconoclasm was responsible for ensuring that some of the pieces from that period don't survive, but most of them were destroyed or remain hidden due to other causes.

 

[Ajidica]

Barbarian technologies: The Avars also brought the stirrup to Europe, right?
Iconoclasm: Many pieces were destroyed by Leo III and any of the firebrand Iconoclasts. In addition, I thought plenty of churches were built, just as long as they didn't include Icons of religous images. I might be wrong on this, but it seemed to be a trend that any new Emeror who had originaly been a soldier would build church(es) to try and 'repent' for any damages they would cause and serve as a form of a tithe, much like the 'ascention bonus' during Severian Rome. Since there were alot of soldier emperors at this time, churches should be common.

 

[Agent327]

Interesting. With the latest posts I'm getting the impression this thread is actually getting somewhere.

You need to read yourself some Heinrich Woefflin, mate.

I think I'll pass, comrade.

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.

I am not basing such claim on production figures, but on available architecture and statues from said time periods.

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.

You might make that claim, but I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Plotinus]

You might make that claim, but I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance.

The relevance is that you said that early medieval art is inferior to ancient art because the period produced less art of a certain kind, namely architecture and statues. His point was that that is just an arbitrary assertion that the absence of some art forms indicates artistic inferiority in general. What makes the absence of statues in the early Middle Ages a sign of artistic inferiority, but the absence of illuminated manuscripts in antiquity not a sign of artistic inferiority? Anyone could say that period X was artistically inferior because they didn't produce art form Y. It's just arbitrary, and a parallel claim could be made about any period, since different art forms flourished at different times. So your assertion wasn't to the point at all. Surely this point is not hard to follow.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, that was not what I said at all - which is why I still fail to see the relevance. I hope you're not making it a habit to comment on posts you do not actually read.

 

[Plotinus]

I read them both and it seemed plain enough to me. If you meant something else when you talked about the lack of early medieval statues, then you should explain what it was you meant and why you brought the matter up, and why ParkCungHee's comment doesn't address it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think I'll pass, comrade.

Then you can't pretend to understand art historical dynamics.

 

[Dachs]

Barbarian technologies: The Avars also brought the stirrup to Europe, right?

Well, the Avars are the most probable vector for the stirrup, anyway; the Strategikon's reference to the skala (stirrup) and other weapons "of the Avar type" is the first time it's mentioned in European sources.

Iconoclasm: Many pieces were destroyed by Leo III and any of the firebrand Iconoclasts. In addition, I thought plenty of churches were built, just as long as they didn't include Icons of religous images. I might be wrong on this, but it seemed to be a trend that any new Emeror who had originaly been a soldier would build church(es) to try and 'repent' for any damages they would cause and serve as a form of a tithe, much like the 'ascention bonus' during Severian Rome. Since there were alot of soldier emperors at this time, churches should be common.

Leon III's Iconoclasm is really the most mild episode in the idea's history. Only the most prominent icons were taken down or destroyed (items in private possession being largely ignored), and virtually none of the opponents of iconoclasm were persecuted, unless they tried armed resistance (the revolt of Kosmas in the late 720s was probably not due to iconophilic sentiment, being rather another garden-variety thematic revolt by the Kibyrrhaiotes and the theme of Hellas, but certainly exploited that sentiment in finding supporters before it was crushed). Plenty of churches and janx were in fact built, but the ones I mentioned were the most architecturally interesting ones, apparently.

Um, as for soldier-emperors and church construction, I honestly have never heard of such a connection. There certainly were accessional donatives of the monetary type (because almost always in the Byzantine state, control of the army trumped everything else - but these were granted by more or less everybody, not just soldier-emperors or usurpers), but there's very little grounds for believing that soldier-emperors or other men who reached the throne in dubious circumstances atoned for it by building a church; that's rather transparent, after all. Tzimiskes, after all, didn't have to build any churches. (He did have to get rid of Theophano, denounce a few scapegoat co-conspirators, and do public penance, though. Everybody probably overlooked it so easily because Nikephoros Phokas was unpopular and Tzimiskes was photogenic and successful. Like the young Herakleios, but more...successful.) The famous "seven revolutions" of the so-called Byzantine Dark Age weren't accompanied by extensive churchbuilding (but then again, there was no Iconoclasm!), and outside of those events, usurpations were relatively common within the period itself; the Herakleian dynasty occupied the throne for the first half, then the descendants of Leon III for the second.

 

[Ajidica]

Iconoclasm: I thought Leo III was one of the more radical. I've never been the best at Iconoclasm.

Soldier Emperors and Churches: IT may not be related, but there seemed to be a greater increase in building churches around this time and when soldier-emperors came to power. I may be wrong though as I don't have a list of when churches were built.

 

[Agent327]

I see. But

The relevance is that you said that early medieval art is inferior to ancient art because the period produced less art of a certain kind, namely architecture and statues.

is not something I said.

I still do not see the relevance with

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.

I do not

arbitrary claim that a lack of a particular form of art signals a decline or lack of art.

Then you can't pretend to understand art historical dynamics.

Because I'm not buying a book? I've got plenty of art books in my collection.

 

[Dachs]

Iconoclasm: I thought Leo III was one of the more radical. I've never been the best at Iconoclasm.

The Theophilan reaction, especially before the sack of Amorion, was probably the worst instance.

Soldier Emperors and Churches: IT may not be related, but there seemed to be a greater increase in building churches around this time and when soldier-emperors came to power. I may be wrong though as I don't have a list of when churches were built.

Well, impressive building achievements and soldier-emperors (at least, usurping or quasi-usurping soldier-emperors? wow I'm confusing myself) in general aren't associated with the 'dark age' very much. It's only with the abovementioned Theophilos, the legitimate son of the previous emperor, who was both not a soldier-emperor and the instigator of one of the most important Byzantine military reforms, that major architectural achievements really start to pick up again. Then we get the Makedonian dynasty, which did have a fair number of soldier-co-emperors-who-kinda-usurped-crap(?) like Romanos I Lekapenos, Nikephoros II Phokas, and Ioann I Tzimiskes, but none of them are particularly well known for churchbuilding. Basileios I, who did usurp the throne, was, but the two weren't necessarily linked, and the guy he kicked out, Michael III, wasn't that popular anyway. I mean, it's kinda like the Pirenne thesis in a way: no, you can't technically disprove it, but why use that explanation when there are far better ones that fit the facts better?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Because I'm not buying a book? I've got plenty of art books in my collection.

Well if you haven't read it or haven't even heard of Woefflin, then how can you profess the kind of knowledge on the subject that you do? Its pretty obvious simply by your vocabulary that you don't know the subject very well, to say nothing of your erroneous conclusions about the superiority of Renaissance art or your criteria for those conclusions.

 

[Ajidica]

DAchs, I think I managed to confuse myself with the Byzantine Church building and soldier emperors. An OT question, but is it more correct to use the Greek, latinized, or anglicanized names? Take John Tzimices for example, is it more correct to use John, Ioann, or what?

JEELEN & Cheesy: The discussion over art is getting nowhere. Both time periods have their strong points and their weak points. Art criticism is always subjective based on time and point of view.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Art criticism is always subjective based on time and point of view.

But that is what is so interesting, JEELEN has claimed to have found criteria that is not subjective, but rather, "artistic", and Cheezy and myself are of course anxious with anticipation to hear about this.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes that was my eventual point, Ajidica. But my immediate point was that judging or qualifying art has to be done from a certain school, a certain methodology with certain criteria grounded in certain principles. I want JEELEN to either say what school of thought he's coming from, or realize that he has none, and thus his statements about the superiority of Renaissance art over Medieval art are merely his personal opinions, and not grounded in anything but personal taste.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I disagree with Cheezy on this. I have nothing but faith in JELEEN's ability to overturn the consensus of Art Historians, Critics and Philosophers and produce an objectively incontrovertable method for judging art.

 

[Dachs]

DAchs, I think I managed to confuse myself with the Byzantine Church building and soldier emperors. An OT question, but is it more correct to use the Greek, latinized, or anglicanized names? Take John Tzimices for example, is it more correct to use John, Ioann, or what?

It's really personal preference. Tzimisces is more familiar to English speakers, though it does have the drawback of rather uncertain pronunciation (is that a hard c or a soft one?). Tzimiskes is more faithful to the original Greek but some people complain that it's impossible to say. (As though Tzimisces is any easier.) Personally I think the whole "not latinizing or anglicizing it makes it impossible for people to understand!!!" is overblown, but then again there's not that much more merit to "but you're saying it wrong!!!" either. I don't really think there's a "more correct"; certain journals prefer certain forms of transliteration, and that's about as far as it goes. I personally use the transliteration I do because I think that Greek pronunciations sound cool and I want to evoke that in my writing, combined with an asinine sense of superiority that I half-believe. When I post normally I tend to use that transliteration form; when I write history articles, I don't, and I'm not entirely sure why.

Did that help at all? I dunno, my thoughts on this aren't really that clear.

 

[Agent327]

JEELEN & Cheesy: The discussion over art is getting nowhere. Both time periods have their strong points and their weak points. Art criticism is always subjective based on time and point of view.

I'm inclined to agree on the first - but not for reasons of subjectivity; any art can be judged based solely on artistic criteria. That said, art should also be viewed within context - in this case historical context -, and any claim that art from either the late Republic-early imperial Roman era (or Renaissance for that matter) is superior artistically to that of the so-called Dark Age - an age, as mentioned, limited both geographically and temporally - does not necessarily reflect on the cultures that produced them. As I agree on that it is, nonetheless, not very productive - for various reasons - I'd close the subject for now. I'm sure I'll miss the ironic/sarcastic comments though.

As for the main theme, I think we can agree that, although the term "Dark Ages" is innacurate, nevertheless such terms, once coined, may stick. (For instance, the term "Middle Ages" - also coined in the Renaissance era, I believe - has also stuck, despite its apparant lack of meaning. There was a discussion about it on an earlier thread.)

 

[innonimatu]

And we've even had "moderns", "post-moderns"... during the past century! I wonder what current art is called now? Post-post-modern?