Talk:Greek Dark Ages

Iceland Volcanoes That Appear To Correspond To The Decline Of European Countries And Empires

It appears that when ancient people spoke about 'Dark Ages' they literally meant 'Dark Ages'. The 'Greek Dark Ages' appear to have been worse than the 'Dark Ages' that brought down the Empire of Rome; but it could appear that way because there is so little information available. The 'Greek Dark Ages' occurred between ca.1200 BC - 800 BC, which appear to corresponds to the Iceland's volcano eruption of Fremrinamur in ca. 800 BC (±300 years). There are several facts that support the idea that a period of time called the 'Greek Dark Ages' truly happened; but two facts stood out from the rest. Those two facts were, 1.) Great cities and palaces were destroyed or just simply abandoned. 2.) Smaller and fewer settlements found by archaeologist suggest famine and depopulation. It was also the period of the collapse of the Bronze Age Civilization in the Eastern Mediterranean World. Perhaps, the appearance of an eery dark cloud caused many people to run from their homes or famine led to vast numbers of people leaving their homes to look for food.

The Fremrinamur is a Stratovolcano volcano; which actually is the most common type of volcano. Stratovolcano ejects very fine ash particles and gases into the Stratosphere; the Stratosphere is about 30 miles (50km) above the Earth and is where the ozone layer is. The ozone layer protects us from Ultraviolet Radiation(UV), which can cause sun burns, skin cancer, and eye problems resulting in cataracts. Some of the fine ash particles and gases are called Sulfur Dioxide(SO₂), which becomes Sulfuric Acid when it come in contact with the water in the clouds. The Sulfuric Acid blocks out some of the sunlight from the Earth, which cools the Earth. Just a change of 1 or 2 degrees can cause crops to fail, which results in a human famine and death. We may never know how bad the 'Greek Dark Ages' and the 'Roman Dark Ages' really were, since people did not keep records about the event. It appears many people believed they were being judged by God.

Some Scientist believe that the famine and civil war of the 1800's that occured in France was due to an eruption of one of Iceland's many volcanoes. Perhaps, the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, April 14, 2010 is a wake-up call to all Europeans, that the 'Dark Ages' of the past could and most likely will occur again!

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 01Ashley01 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark Ages were a Victorian Myth created by Egyptologists?

David Rohl in his book "Lords of Avaris" convincingly argues that there was no Greek Dark age. The Dark Ages were invented by Victorian Egyptolygists to massage the Greek and Roman histories to fit Egyptian chronologies. All historians and archaelogists since then have been forced into attempting to fit their own dates around this ficticious dark age. This explains the many inconsistencies and mysteries of the old history model. Troy VII is accepted as being the city of Priam attacked by the Myceneans. Troy VIII is accepted as being the start of the Trojan "renaisance". The idea that Troy VII remained unoccupied for 300 years and was then reborn is ludicrous. Troy would be under several layers of dirt after so long and unrecognisable and the last place to build a new city. Another problem for the dark age is the Minyanwar/Geometricware of the pre-dark age, pops up suddenly after the end of this 300 year gap...with no sign of it anywhere to be found in between. There are innumerable problems with the Dark Age which many archaeologists have been concerned about due to the wafer thin layer that it left..apparently even defying the laws of nature. The problem is caused by the incorrect old chronologial date of 1200 BC for the fall of Troy. This has since been re-dated to 860BC and the whole of ancient history fits very neatly into this new date with no need to have a "dark age" to explain anything.

After all, a Dark Age is by deffinition a period with nothing in it to show us. How convenient for the old Egyptologists to have such a thing to explain the fact that there is not a shred of evidence found even today to back it up. I think we need to rethink this in the modern age of science and archeology that was not available to those frankly backward Victorian Historians. The fall of the old Mycenean world was followed soon after by that dominated by Dorian/Phrygian invaders filling a power vacuum with no 300 year gap. There was no Greek Dark Age.--158.43.39.218 (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

David Rohl was never taken seriously. I'm pretty sure his main objective was to revise history so that it fit the Old Testament. Furthermore, he was not an Egyptologist.

Comments

Can someone rewrite this to incorporate new thinking on architecture, material culture and trade derived from the British Archaeological School's excavations at Lefkandi. BAAexcavator Thank you.

The latest edits are rude, badly written and overpowering in their attempt to erase all other contributor's information. It has ruined this article totally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.249.235 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilkens?

Why is Imam Wilkens in the reference section of this article? --5telios 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

because he keeps spamming articles [1] he is mentioned on Shippea Hill railway station for crying out loud :\ dab (ᛏ) 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilkens is not imam but his name is ImaN. He was already removed as reference 27 september so what's the fuzz all about? As far as I know he never contributed to WP so how on earth can he be accused of spamming? Antiphus 07:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Antiphus, dbachmann thinks that you are Iman Wilkens. You may not be, but all of your WP contributions relate to Wilkens' work, including putting him in many articles where he does not belong. This contribution pattern arouses suspicion. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

dbachmann may think I am Wilkens, which is no the case. I just happen to believe Wilkens has a point and I want people to take the item serious so that proof can be found or even maybe proof that he is wrong, but as long as references are deleted no one can learn about them and proove they're right ór wrong either. And yes, I think his ideas are exciting, don't you? I don't care who dbachmann thinks I am ,but you can tell him: I am not Wilkens, I don't know him personally and have never seen him and I háve done other edits, for instance about Nelli Cooman. If dbachmann writes about someone or quotes from a book, does that mean that he ís that person? And what about this complaint of 5telios about a reference that was nota bene already deleted by you? Are you people never satisfied? for crying out a tiny bit louder? Antiphus 15:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like your edit to Nelli Cooman is the only edit you've made that isn't somehow related to Wilkens; even your edit to Songlines was inspired by Wilkens' work. You've stated many times that you're on WP to evangelize for Wilkens' ideas. If you don't see why this makes people think you're Wilkens, I can't help you. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So? I've only been here for a few months. Is this the way you welcome new editors? Antiphus 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you are Wilkens any more than I care whether Rose-mary (talk · contribs) is Jean Faucounau. You are fapp his meatpuppet. Wilkens is a crank. That is fair enough, I think cranks are interesting too, and I am all for having an (1) article about his stuff. He should not show up in any serious articles though. [User:Dbachmann|dab]] (ᛏ) 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it that with (1) you tried to refer to (1)? Antiphus 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, I suppose his biographical article could be merged there, it has just two lines of actual biographical information. See also Talk:Heribert Illig. I don't mind having the Iman Wilkens article separate, though. The book just shouldn't be cited in all possible and impossible places. dab (ᛏ) 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving this a cleanup stamp pretty soon

Parts of this article are incomprehensible. Beyond that, the article is disorganized and dense.

"One commentator, Massey, speculates that this sense of there having been a golden age long ago is connected with this disaster and has continued as a cultural meme in societies and cultures with roots in Classical Greece. On this reading, the collapse which resulted in the Greek Dark Ages is not due primarily to a Dorian invasion, but rather to environmental damage in the first, or a contributing, instance."

????! I would clean this up myself, but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

The title of this article is misleading. If anything, it is better known as the "Anatolian Dark Age", given that there was at least a "bright age" of Hittite and Akkadian historiography and literature before the dark age among the Hittites. As far as we know the Greeks of the Late Helladic III period didn't use their script for literature. For the Greeks, the age before the Dark Age was pretty dim.

Also, the Egyptians in the Late Bronze Age were a world power until 1200 BC, and then went into a decadent period themselves.

We need a section giving the history of the concept. I doubt that "Dark Age" was even used of the period before the 20th century decipherment of the Boghazhoy archive.

-- Zimriel 05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been a number of attempts to give an overall explanation of the "Dark Age" concept, but it seems to have been converted into an article focussing exclusively on the early middle ages. John D. Croft 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I marked up one section for <citation needed>, and made some minor wording changes, but the entire article seems to need citations.Mcswell (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous versions held no information on Dark Ages beyond what was lost and what happened after. I have rewritten some of my notes I use for lecturing on the Dark Ages as a quick fix. I hope it stands up okay as a wee summary of the situation and evidence left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaktoria (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous versions held no information on Dark Ages beyond what was lost and what happened after. I have rewritten some of my notes I use for lecturing on the Dark Ages as a quick fix. I hope it stands up okay as a wee summary of the situation and evidence left.

This pages seems to be more about post-Dark Ages Greek

There seems to be little info about the actual Greek Dark Ages, mostly information about the era after the Greek Dark Ages. But that's why they are "dark," I guess. We don't know what it was like! Just my 500th two cents. Arthurian Legend (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Title: Dark Ages vs Greek Dark Ages

I changed the bold term in the intro paragraph to Greek Dark Ages from Dark Ages. This is conform with the Manual of Style that suggests the article title should be bold in the first sentence. It once was "Greek Dark Ages" but it was changed by an IP-only edit. If, in fact, "Dark Ages" is preferred, I would recommend the article be moved to "Dark Ages (Greek)" instead of "Greek Dark Ages". Jason Quinn (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

writing system

The syllabary of the Mycenaean Linear B script was replaced with a new alphabet system. Linear B died out long before the new writing system was introduced, so the new system couldn't possibly be a replacement. This is precisely why they're called the Dark Ages. Mijewell says that you are all right :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.6.11 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)