Can you tell me, generally, about the concept and use of the term “dark age”? What trends in scholarship determine an era as a dark age? It seems that contemporary historians veer away from using this term because the negative connotations aren’t always necessary and accurate. My point of reference here would be the early middle ages (immediate post-Western Roman Empire) and the immediate post-Bronze Age (after the sea people cometh). Are there other noteworthy and/or disputed dark ages? What emerging scholarship has combated an era’s status as dark age? I often read that an era (post Rome or post Bronze, for instance) was “formally recognized” as a dark age- I’m curious about what kind of work goes into deeming an era as a dark age, and furthermore, what work goes into determining that an era was inappropriately deemed a dark age.
Just to clarify, I am not saying that either post-Rome or post-Bronze Age were or weren’t dark ages, I am more so seeking commentary as to whether or not they were and, more importantly, what goes into that determination.
I find it to be a very useful term when talking with laymen. If I say I study the 'middle ages', people think I study knights and castles. If I say I study the 'dark ages', they get the right idea, and it sounds more exciting than just 'early middle ages' or 'end of the Roman empire'.
And as a bonus, I often get people asking a followup like, 'do they still call it the dark ages? I heard things weren't so bad!' (and then I get to talk about the archaeology I love!); or else, 'Yeah, it was pretty horrid and bad when the barbarians ruined everything!' (in which case, again, conversation started).
In practical terms, of course, the term is almost meaningless. It used to mean dark == horrible / uncultured / barbaric, and that misunderstanding has long been overturned. Then people used it to talk about the 'darkness' of the early middle ages that resulted from a lack of texts; but of course, the early middle ages does have texts, just not always of the same kind as those from other parts of history. And archaeology is churning out more data than we can make sense of in most parts of Europe. So we don't lack for knowledge - at least, not enough that things can be reasonably described as 'dark' anymore.
Some medievalists will get offended by the term.
I'm less well versed, however, with how the phrase is used for other 'dark ages' (like the bronze age collapse). I don't follow the conversations in those fields as closely, and hence don't know the latest accepted use of terms.
But accurate or not, the term sure sounds good. It makes my field feel like an adventure for knowledge, and I enjoy using it every now and then. It's the closest I get to a whip and fedora.
I consider the terms late antiquity and early Middle Ages more useful. They tend to emphasize the transitional aspects of the period rather than the "tragic fall" of Rome, a narrative that I think we can safely say has been rejected. Fichtenau's book on The Carolingian Empire is a great example of how demythologizing the period has been a significant and productive undertaking for medievalists. Peter Brown takes the "Late Antiquity" angle and shows how contiguous the "dark ages" really were with what was happening in time periods previously considered classical. Look, for instance, at how Augustine of Hippo responded to the sack of Rome in civitas dei. It was later medieval and modern historians who gave us the view of Rome's fall as a great disaster for civilization. The contemporary view was predictably more nuanced.