Maia

Each country will have its own definitions of this rather imprecise term, depending on local conditions. It basically means a period about which historical records are sparse, that comes after a period of relative abundance. Prehistory doesn't count, in other words. The sparsity of records is caused by a collapse of civilisation of some sort.

In Britain, I think the dark ages run from the withdrawal of the Romans in 410, to their return, in the form of the Catholic Church, in 597.

DreamWeaver

The term Dark Ages (not the capitals) has fallen out of favour with historians, though one might still see and use dark ages (note the lack of capitals) in a comparative context. Rather the terms has been replaced by ones such as early middle ages or late antiquity, ones based on chronology rather than any other term with inherent judgement in its name.

One then comes into the difficulty, since the term previously referred to in general the period in the wake of the fall of Rome. However since dark ages is a comparative term there are other 'dark ages' that exist in time other than in the context of the fall of Rome. Thus there may be many dark ages.

Maia

It's not a pejorative judgement to say that a certain period has less surviving records than the preceeding one. They are often the most interesting periods too.

DreamWeaver

No its not, in that you are quite correct. But people unfortunately do, that's why its fallen out of favour.

That there was an economic downturn, that standards of living dropped and infrastructure broke down, and that there was a dearth of source material from which to understand the period is undeniable. However the use of the term Dark has implied negative connotations, that result in a judgement based on preconceptions and associations. Ultimately undermining the understanding and appreciation of what there was, what achievements and items/sources were made.

DreamWeaver

That said in regards to the OP

597, can you elaborate further?

Many might put a much later date on it.

Virgil

Has anyone else heard of the theory that a great calamity happened, such as an enormous volcanic eruption or an asteroid impact? That there was so much debris in the atmosphere that crops were ruined?

Maia

Yes, the Krakatoa eruption of the 530s.

Virgil

What I would suggest is that civilization was possibly derailed by that event, if it happened. It would explain a lot when you think of the transition from Greek to Roman to ? There is a gap there that needs to be explained I think, because after a certain gap a great civilization evolved.

Maia

It was the 530s AD, not BC. It pretty much marked the end of the Classical world.

Iolo

I think that - insofar as we can still use such terms - 'dark ages' refer to periods about which profound disagreements about major facts are possible. What 'withdrawal of Romans' was there, for instance? Was Christian Britain properly described as 'Catholic' at the time when, according to Zosimus, the imperial governors were kicked out by the British Romans, and why was the particular bit of Papal aggression that occured in 597 'civilized'?