Talk:Late antiquity

Article purpose

What should this article do? Should it highlight the various basic aspects of Late Antiquity and act as a portal to other minor topics, or should it be as encylic as possible?

If this article is to become a trunk article with Main article... headers, a good start would be to edit in direct translations of the German wikipedia article, which is already blocked into good subsections. --Wetman 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This idea has merit. Taken a step further a translation of the entire thing (of course keep/integrate existing text). I made an overture on the de article talk page to see if anyone is interested in a translation project. I'm assuming it's a good article, although German-only sources may be an issue.Stbalbach 02:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are German-only sources inherently a problem? Who doesn't read German?--195.194.143.91 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hispania, not Andalusia

I changed Andalusia to Hispania, since Andalusia comes into existence only after 711 and seems to me a strictly medieval entity. Craig Schamp 23:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sensible, since the Visigoths swa themselves as successors to Roman administrators. --Wetman 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Spätantike"

It's hard to fit Spätantike into the last sentence of the first paragraph without making that sentence awkward. I think the current version is the best, though I'm not really sure why it's needed, since Spätantike is literally "late antiquity", and it's linked as such to the de-wikipedia. Notcarlos 21:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How's Spätantike fitting now? --Wetman 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of "pagan"

The use of the word "pagan" is troublesome IMO since it glosses over a wide variety of religions, cults, cultures, behaviours and ways of seeing the world. While the link to the pagan disambig page is helpful, it is also worth noting that the first two definitions on that page (viz. "A believer in Paganism or Neopaganism" and "One who is not Christian, Muslim nor Jewish, or who does not worship the God of Abraham.") are troublesome for this project. While Neopagan religions may have roots to their classical precedents, they are not one and the same. Likewise, it seems that the use of the word "pagan" here is far too close to the second—and perjorative—definition on the disambig page for NPOV-comfort. If someone is willing to make a valid case for the use of this word, then great, but if not, I suggest we look for alternative ways to describe these "many divine spirits".

Have you read the academic literature for this period? Use of the word Pagan is standard. See Peter Brown and others. If there is some specific context to disambiguate between pagan and neopagan, than do so, but typically it is used in the context that the disambig page says, between the polytheism and monotheism. Also the concern over pejorative use has no grounds in this article. I can see this being a hot button since the word pagan is often used pejorativly in a popular sense, but the word pagan is not only legitimate, it is what it was called, to not use it would be POV. I think we can be adults and be comfortable with a perfectly legitimate and widely used word. Stbalbach 16:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, there's no reason to be rude about this. Yes, I have read the academic literature for the period—rather a lot of it actually—but that doesn't circumvent my concerns here. Perjorative or not, it's still a blanket term that should be carefully considered before its use.Notcarlos 16:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I see too many wikipedians use the NPOV "law" to literally try and change the world (as if the rest of the world cares about NPOV). We report on what the world says, not create our own insulated reality. No matter what, the primary academics use the word pagan, liberally. Pagan is a contextual term, just like Christianity (there is no single "Christianity" there are many sects); one has to be careful, but that goes without saying, its all in the context of its use. Stbalbach 17:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that the use of the word Pagan is troublesome in its usage here. The word is not contextual, but has a very precise meaning. This is covered well in the Pagan article, but I'm slightly uncomfortable with the use here. The word does not specifically refer to all polytheistic, non-Christian religions, but more accurately to the concept of non-urban religious practice, as Brown points to in his derivation of pagan/paesano/peasant. Still, I can't think of a better replacement.--Mrdarcey 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Referring specifically to the exact culture or religion you are referencing would solve this problem. I agree with your points. Various previously "pagan" pages have been converting to "polytheism" pages instead due to this exact issue. It's simple more precise and specific, which is exactly what Wikipedia requires. :bloodofox: 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have since edited the article to reflect exactly what it is talking about. Slapping something non-monotheistic with the word "pagan" and calling it a day is not acceptable. It is, however, unfortunate there's not more to the Graeco-Roman polytheism article. :bloodofox: 05:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to say that "the academic literature" in this field treats "pagan" as a standard term. The norm has moved significantly in the last decade. The people who posted these comments back in 2005 were referring to academic literature and academic conventions of discourse that are now more than two decades old, and have been superseded by new approaches. There is still some confusion over what terms might replace "paganism" to refer to cults other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but "traditional religion" or "traditional worshippers" are probably the most accepted today. "Polytheism" went through a vogue, but presents problems in itself and is now less popular in academic discourse.Ribolla (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Europe?

Should this article be limited to Europe or not. I'm thinking of expanding some of it with info about Aksum. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E

Well, it is a bit problematic. The term really reflects periodizations that make sense only in the Mediterranean world, while they risk being confusing used out of that context.--Aldux 14:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The periodization has been used for Aksum before, which is why I'm considering it. See, e.g. Aksum: A civilization of Late Antiquity by the now late Dr. Stuart Munro-Hay. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 16:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering Egypt was part of Late Antiquity, and the ties between Aksum and Egypt, maybe it is not such a bad idea; even if I feel this article should speak more of the concept, the terminology, the historical debate than the period's events.--Aldux 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Art section

Restored the art section as the author Wlsankey contacted me, it is probably not a copyright violation. He says "I wrote this entry as part of a local wiki project at Yale University." -- Stbalbach 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Grazers

The Christian Grazers are a well know radical movement in Syria that a simple Google search will verify, it just hasn't had an article written about it yet - I removed the fact tag but can provide simple links [1] to verify it is real. -- Stbalbach 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact tag came back, and to my suprise I found some stuff searching google before reading the talk page. I am a total amateur about references, but I did find this link: [2]. That link has some references in its comment section. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Can you give us the exact years of the "late antiquity", the time period? Like between xxx-zzz please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.88.89 (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• In terms of exact years, the best definition could be 284-641 CE (from the beginning of Diocletian's solo reign to the death of Heraclius).--FreedonNadd (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved this to its own bottom section.. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "Late Antiquity" depends where you are looking: it could be defined socially rather than politically with the de-criminalization of Christianity in 311. For comparison, could I give you the exact years of "modernity" in any meaningful way?--Wetman (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Peter Brown, who did much to define the period, runs it from 150 to 750; I suggest the article follow his guideline. It makes the later cut-off near the end of the Merovingian period, the beginning of the Carolingians, and the Golden Age of Islam. By the time of the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 we're certainly in a different world. All of these pivotal transformations can be taken as marking the end of late antique culture and suggest 750 as a good endpoint. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The current date range is inconsistent with the subsequent description. Islam did not exist before 610. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have info on population, climate, farming practices, etc.?

It seems like the Wikipedia coverage of climate history has something of a black hole before late medieval/early modern times. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've been trying to add info on the tsunami of 365, which has a great deal to do with the decline of the Roman empire but has been ignored by most historians.Ericl (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well WP will follow "most historians", so until they catch up, don't try to right great wrongs in general articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is "Amber"?

In the lead paragraph, this exciting observation: "Amber was a very distinguished member of the late antiquity and enjoyed writing essays on it". Wonderful, but who the hell is he or she? Should it not immediately explained? Puzzling, to say the least.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Trivial vandalism that was reverted by a more insightful IP on the next day (clearly you did not even check the history). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dark Ages, so-called paucity of historical records?

Quote article's Lead Section:
  "As a result of this decline, and the relative paucity of historical records from Europe in particular, the period between the fall of the Empire and the Middle Ages became known as the Dark Ages, a term displaced in most current periodisations by the introduction of "Late Antiquity"."

Huh? So the Christian-theocracy-defenders now want to blame the Dark Ages on Antiquity!?

I thought all respectable divisions had Antiquity before the Middle Ages, and Dark Ages as firmly and by definition as part (or whole) of the latter? ...with 529 often given as a dividing date due to the long-term institutionalization of autocratic theocracy and loss of individual freedom of thought and the suppression of public (non-theocratic) education, etc?

"The Dark Ages is a historical periodization used originally for the Middle Ages, which emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire." --Wikipedia

"Historians from Romance-speaking countries tend to divide the Middle Ages into two parts: an earlier "High" and later "Low" period. English-speaking historians, following their German counterparts, generally subdivide the Middle Ages into three intervals: "Early", "High", and "Late".[1] In the 19th century, the entire Middle Ages were often referred to as the "Dark Ages",[16][B] but with the adoption of these subdivisions, use of this term was restricted to the Early Middle Ages, at least among historians.[2]" -- Middle Ages

Please clarify these contradictions in the article.

It is also being argued in Talk Middle Ages, in Talk Dark Ages, and elsewhere that in fact the paucity of historical records should not be emphasized and NOT carry the emblem: "in particular," as if that were a key identifying character or defining point in the "dark" of Dark Ages. In fact, "Dark Ages" implies much, much more, such as the decline and paucity of art, science, philosophy, and freedom of thought, as well as institutionalized centuries of atrocity, and so forth..... In summery, the argument is that the concept of "the paucity of historical records" (despite the age of that observation) is NOT critical nor logical, nor a popularly used benchmark, and is in fact a red herring or a convenient straw man whereby if accepted, the rising numbers of defenders of medieval theocracy could falsify that darkness by falsifying that paucity of records. (In fact that argument is currently being made.)
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

In my understanding, the talking point of "actually, there were no Dark Ages" used to be a hallmark of the "internet historian" (by which I do not mean historiography of the internet), c. 2005-2015. Sure, the "darkness" aspect may well have been exaggerated by some writers of the 19th century. There is only so much insight to be gained from pointing this out. I think this article (slatestarcodex.com) explains the phenomenon pretty well. It may be important to understand that "there are signalling aspects" involved:

Since everybody hears a vague Monty-Python-And-The-Holy-Grail-esque conception of the Dark Ages (“He must be a king…he doesn’t have shit all over him”), but only people who take a history class in college hear about the Continuity Thesis, loudly proclaiming that there was never a Dark Age is one way to signal education and intellectualism [...]. On the other hand, if you’re one of those people who rails against “postmodernism” and “cultural relativity” and wants a reputation for “calling a spade a spade”, it might be gratifying to get to say that actually, that one historical era that seems kind of sucky (but fancy college professors keep insisting otherwise) does, in fact, suck.

Once again, you try to study history and end up learning at least as much about yourself and your contemporaries as you learn about the epoch in question. --dab (𒁳) 07:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"but only people who take a history class in college hear about the Continuity Thesis"

Bullcrap. I was taught brief overviews of Byzantine history in Dimotiko, Gymnasium, and Lyceum, and the cultural continuity in art, architecture, etc was always emphasized. For more details, you could rely on publications available in local bookstores. I still use the books on the subject that I had purchased during my teen years. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't apply to you specifically doesn't translate to "bullcrap" necessarily. The concept of "Dark Ages" in the history of Western Europe specifically clearly does have its justification even if it isn't a cleanly delineated historical epoch. The more you know about a specific topic in historiography the less you need to rely on simplistic periodisation, but this should go without saying, there fact that details exist does not invalidate the attempt of delineating large historical trends. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Add Timeline

I am going to add an timeline here from the Ancient History article. The timeline is specifically for the Late Antiquity period.Sunriseshore (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Rome

"though Rome was soon part of the Kingdom of the Lombards" When was that? The main article on the Kingdom of the Lombards reports that it failed to capture the Duchy of Rome (536-756) which continued to separate the northern Lombard areas from the Southern ones. The Duchy was in Byzantine control until the 750s. Dimadick (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Yes that should be "Italy" not Rome. GPinkerton (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy on the Taq Kasra

This article states: "At Ctesiphon, the Sasanians completed the Taq Kasra, the colossal iwan of which is the largest single-span vault of unreinforced brickwork in the world and the triumph of Sasanian architecture."

However, on the article on the Taq Kasra, it is described as the SECOND-largest single-span vault of unreinforced brickwork in the world.

This should be resolved. 73.163.28.168 (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Late antiquity end date?

I've noticed that a few weeks ago somebody decided to make the timeline go past the year 700 to cover events such as the Battle of Tours, Charlemagne etc., which are not usually considered a part of Late Antiquity. I tried to correct it but it kept getting reverted back without a thorough explanation. I know the article states Peter Brown stated the era lasted well into the 8th century but then again he also stated that it started in the middle of the 2nd which is obviously not shown in the timeline. The common historical consensus (not merely Brown's dating) is that the period ended with the Islamic conquests in the 7th century, as it ended the Greco-Roman dominance in the Mediterranean that defined classical antiquity. This was supported by the timeline on this page for years (the fall of Carthage was the last event on the timeline), until someone suddenly decided to extend it well into what is usually considered to be the Early Middle Ages. Is there a substantial historical consensus besides the proposal of just one historian that late antiquity lasted until the late 8th century? 141.155.35.58 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Obviously all such boundaries are artificial. but we might as well follow the academic herd. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the consensus of the "academic herd" and where is it referenced? Rjdeadly (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There are various dates:Hugh Elton, The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, A Political and Military History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. xii, 378. ISBN 9781108456319 apparently stops LA at 641 for example. 750, 800 & other dates have fans. Note that all these give a big overlap with Middle Ages - mostly 476 - whereas our lead claims it is a term setting the boundary there. I notice "Centres for LA studies" tend to claim a wider empire than other sources. For Britain it pretty clearly stops before 600. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• I notice the current ref 1 (Library of Congress), supposedly supporting "generally spanning from the late 3rd century up to 7th or 8th century..." actually says "roughly corresponding to the late third century up to the sixth or seventh century depending on location"! Mind you, they contradict themselves (in a single long para!) by talking about the early 8th century. Nice to see it is not just WP that gets tied up in knots over this. The lead needs rewriting, or we need a section on "scope". Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)