Quote:
Now, if we think of it, and lets say that the theory is true. What could have caused it?
The term Dark Age (or Middle Age, both mean the same period) means a period of time between the fall of Rome and the and the Renaissance. And as the Aegis mentioned, there is suprisingly few texts from that period. So, what if current estimations of the time when the era started is wrong? Let's that it was shorter, very much shorter. Now, if we get all those years away from the current time, we have removed almost that 1000 years which were too much when comparing to theory of this topic. That and few other mistakens could cover the whole difference.
|
Partially right. The Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, to most Historians, are two seperate time periods between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. The Dark Ages, as it exists, was commonly thought to be the period between the fall of Rome (circa 450) and just before the beginning of the Reformations (1450). With the Reformation came the Renaissance, and the many texts which had disappeared from Europe at the time
Looking at the above dates, though, it is a period of 1000 years. While those are not the exact dates in which the Dark Age is thought to encompass, those are the years where Historians have much less to work with, then the Middle/Medieval years.
Also, much how how chronology was recorded was through speculation, and comparison. After gathering much of the information, historians of the time would simply make guesses and assumptions as to what fit where with who. Because many of these people would Christian Europeans (for the context of this discussion, I'm leaving the Pacific cultures seperate), there would more than likely exist some pre-disposed notion that Christianity, being the superior religion, would naturally be older. Thus, certain concessions would be made to the chronology, fitting Christianity in earlier than many other events.
The above is simply hearsay, with not contextual or factual proof, but given the nature of this discussion, it is plausible theorizing.
To fit into it all, though, when compiling dates and events for a chronology, if speaking to a person who uses a different caldender (say a historian is using the Gregorian, and he speaks to a Moor in Spain, who used a different means of tracking time/years), he could get a very interesting result. If the Moor used a system in which each season was a year, while the Gregorian used a more primative version of the current one, and an event that occured a year previous the gregorian was asked about, the translation would come as four years, not a year. So, fitting such information into a European chronology, a sort of inflation would be created.
I hope that makes sense. I am writing much of this in somewhat of a hurry, so I am more than willing to clarify anything I say.
@Fiona: My apologies, I misunderstood what it was you were saying in your previous post