okamido

Why do we have such a lack of sources from this era in Byzantium? I don't want to be one of those conspiracy people who believes that a couple of centuries were 'inserted' here or there, but I would think that there would be something left over from the lone source of light in a dark europe.

Kirialax

It isn't completely sourceless. We have lead seals and religious works, and some more substantial stuff from the early seventh and later eighth century. I think a big part of it is the desperation of the period, as first they faced annihilation by the Persians and then the Arabs. Effort was directed places other than writing history for two reasons. One is that they seem to be rather convinced that the end was nigh. No point putting too much effort into recording the past if Jesus is going to show up, drive the Arabs back, and establish his kingdom on earth. The second is that there was no nice story to tell. There was no ending in sight in the conflict with the Arabs, and for the first time since the Punic Wars, it just might not end well for the Romans. As such, there was no nice place to end a historical work, and I do not think that it is surprising that the trend of classicizing historiography which broke off in 602 was only continued late in the eighth (or early ninth) century when it looked like the Arabs weren't going to destroy Byzantium after all.

Belloc

If we take the term in its original meaning, ie a lack of written records - yeah on some level it's ok. To use the term in its common pejorative use - no. However a few have already addressed the issue of how scholars of this period no longer use the term. They seem to prefer "Late Antiquity" as a label.

sylla1

If as our Belloc so rightly points out and our Kirialax has so illustratively done in practice the term is taken in its original meaning, i.e. a lack of written records, then absolutely all historical periods are already implicitly included within a full spectrum of darkness-brightness; there are plenty of periods without any single written "light" and not even any immediate past is 100% entirely bright.

On the other hand, any pejorative use is inevitably in the eye of the beholder and, needless to say, entirely subjective, unscientific & unhistorical.

Belloc

In using the term in its original meaning and context, it should be remembered that there are more than one age designated as "dark". The end of the Bronze Age is often referred to as a "dark age" as well:

More on the term itself:

Nego

One thing that's always intrigued me is why the often so glorified age of Charlemagne, the era from which the Reconquista took its roots and when christianity spread wide, has been labelled the 'dark ages' even by early scholastic authors of the late middle-ages? Is this just a way to express that the Roman glory has not been and can not be surpassed?

jdghgh

You make a valid point. I think the rise of the Franks had an important part to play in the viewing of history in those centuries as dark times. The primary reason for this was the restructuring of society under Feudalism.

However much this system contrasted itself to society under the Roman empire, I am less sure. But certainly one could view Europe as less centralised, not only because of the political turmoil but also because the Roman imperial system was giving way to Kingdoms.

Added to the fact that Europe was under threat from the Islamic caliphs and the fact that much of our historical basis comes from a western european perspective, one can come to understand why history in these times was viewed as not so glorious as in the immediately preceeding centuries; perhaps even 'dark'.

hrodbert696

First of all, the way the expression usually gets used is judgmental, pejorative, and distorting.

Even the notion that the early Middle Ages are "dark" because we lack written sources is not accurate. One need only peruse the volumes of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica to reject that notion. Merovingian Franks along warrant something like seven 500-page folio volumes.

There is a little sleight-of-hand here. The phrase implicitly contrasts the "darkness" of the early Middle Ages with the "brightness" of the Roman Empire. But it doesn't compare apples and oranges. How many Roman-era writers do we have from 500 years of imperial rule in Britain? NONE, that I'm aware of. OK, how many writers do we have from Anglo-Saxon Britain? Plenty, in both Old English and Latin - Bede, Aldhelm, the Beowulf poet, the riddler of the Exeter Book, Alcuin, etc. etc... So FOR BRITAIN, which is the "Dark Age?" What proponents of the phrase do is compare early medieval Britain with, say, Roman Egypt (without acknowledging the difference) and declare the early Middle Ages were a "Dark Age."

I think it is realistic to talk about micro-dark ages when sources really do dry up. Byzantium in the 7th-early 8th centuries has been mentioned, Greece between 1000-800 BC, sections of Europe in the 7th century. But that doesn't warrant whole eras being tagged "Dark Ages."

Gudenrath

Indeed. For example anyone studying Mesopotamian and Egyptian history and prehistory quickly learns that there is not one Dark Age, there are a lot of Dark Ages, and they are all named because of lack of sources, not because the age was necessarily particularly gloomy or degenerate (it may have been, but we will never know, will we ).

However historiographically speaking, the term "dark age" or "the dark middle ages" was used during the 18th century to describe the European Middle Ages (all of them right up to the renaissance) in an obvious loaded and moralistic manner, because the historians of that period liked to contrast their own "enlightened age" to that dark age full of popery and superstition. I like to believe that modern academia has long since abandonded such an approach.

Labienus

Agreed, I think the term can be used in reference to a period that produced none or almost no literature, like the Greek Dark Ages.

However, the traditional use of "Dark Age" to refer to the Middle Ages is incorrect and has no place in modern historiography.