Summary
In her article Lights and Darks: Data, Labeling, and Language in the History of Scholarship in Early Greece, Murray S. C. attempts to make sense of the terminology and available discoveries and finds of Dark Age or Early Iron Age Greece by comparing quantitative historiography with neighboring periods. In other words, the author raises the issue that the Dark Ages have a constant problem of interpretation due to the lack of historical data, including from archeology (Murray 45). From a historical perspective, the problem of the terminology of a particular period is dictated by current trends and tendencies of modern approaches and methods in history – at some point, more attention is paid to the ideology and direction of thought of that time, at some point – to economic indicators.
The central thesis and purpose of the article are to clash the terminology “Dark Age” and “Early Iron Age,” within which approaches and attitudes to other historical aspects are compared. The article uses various evaluation methods, from comparing the occurrences of a term in an article looking for correlations with archaeological finds over time to the literary analysis of direct sources (Murray 27-42). The author begins the assessment with broad statements about terminology in Greek history studies, gradually narrowing the search down to a specific problem and conducting a quantitative analysis. As a result, Murray concludes that both terms have a right to life, and although “Dark Age” is sought to be replaced by a more neutral “Early Iron Age,” it is essential not to miss the central dynamics of that time (Murray 46). Building new development paths in a volatile world is the central thesis of using the terminology of the “Dark Age,” which is essential in understanding that time and which cannot be neglected in the author’s opinion.
Critical Analysis
In the article, the author carries out a rather voluminous work, analyzing many articles to use appropriate terminology. The work makes some progress in understanding the use of terms about objectives and thesis. However, at the same time, the work has several disadvantages, some of which are noted by the author himself. The limitations of this study are primarily in the context of the terms used. Murray emphasizes that the term “Dark Age” is often criticized, which is why a simple count of mentions without context may lack statistical significance (Murray 28). At the same time, the author goes further and evaluates the articles of the authors directly according to their preferences in this choice, and indeed, by now, the term “Dark Age” is mentioned much less than the “Early Iron Age,” however, in aggregate with all articles of the past, they are approximately on the same level.
Therefore, the strength of this study lies in Murray’s precise work on the use of terms and the search for a correlation between the dynamics and the location of archaeological discoveries. Naturally, excavations were carried out in those places where there were more than any artifacts of the antiquity of various periods. However, during the “Dark Age,” such excavations were in the minority in percentage terms compared with other periods (Murray 35). The article highlights the need to preserve essential characteristics associated with the “Dark Age” to preserve critical aspects of the historical understanding of that period. However, most of the article is devoted to evaluating the use of terms in and the debate between them, while there are no disputes (Murray 46). The article would likely have brought more excellent scientific value by considering more specific aspects of the historical importance of the term, confirmation from the literature of the 70-the 80s, when it was used much more often than the “Early Iron Age.” In this regard, the goals set by the author have been achieved thanks to first-class analysis; however, from the point of view of history as a science, the article is of little interest in its current manifestation.
At the same time, it cannot be said that the author does not carefully consider the topic or is unclear to the reader. Each aspect put forward is backed up by charts and tables of data values that provide color identification of the benefits display. Each received statistical fact is accompanied by a clear example, which in the end is collected in one standard diagram that reflects the dynamics of the article’s question. At the same time, it is precisely the historical issues that led to such dynamics in terms that are not covered in great detail. The writings of other scholars who raise this issue are cited as specific positions with which Murray disagrees or agrees. The thesis analysis is presented in total, but causal relationships are omitted since the volume of the article would then have increased significantly. Nevertheless, within these reasons lies a complex answer to the question of the use of terms. In part, the author presented these reasons in the conclusion.
As evidence of statistical conclusions, the author uses reliable historical sources in the form of articles in peer-reviewed journals and archaeological finds from certain cities. We can assume that the author uses primary sources, and therefore the analysis of statistics does not have any shortcomings. In addition, one more conclusion the author is important, which is generally essential in the framework of such a humanitarian science as history. Murray believes that a complex approach to the name of the period does not have any adverse effect on the understanding of history and does not wreak havoc in terminology (Murray 44). On the contrary, different points of view on the same period can give a broader picture of understanding the direction of thought of the inhabitants of that time, considering aspects from the other side. The “Dark Age” explains that this period was vague, while the “Early Iron Age” – the crisis was the beginning of discoveries.
Comment
The class discussion of the Bronze Age in Greece, intersecting with the Dark Ages, was not initially perceived as a period of unrest crisis. After reading this article, my assessment of the period was revised by me; a deep immersion in the terminology gave, oddly enough, a more sensual understanding of the atmosphere of that time. The history of development turned out to be cyclical: any heyday is waiting for stagnation, and any crisis is waiting for progress. I will understand different topics in the class from this point of view: how long development periods are, what reasons lead to changes, and whether it is possible to find some general patterns.
I also learned about the divergence of opinions in historical circles about terminology from the article. Even today, when most of the terms are approved and their use in the scientific community is centralized, there are references to the “Dark Age.” In my opinion, there are significant reasons for this, which are dictated not only by an old habit or a tribute to the works of the past. These reasons are laid down in the works of the 70-the 80s when the “Dark Age” was widely used in everyday scientific life. It is worth noting that Murray proved that this was not a trend of new terminology and fashion: both terms have existed since the end of the 19th century and were used approximately equally in scientific works. I want to study the theme of the Dark Ages in more depth, the terminology associated with this period, and draw parallels with the literature of those times. The Dark Age is not a unique term for world history in Greece. Other countries also experienced troubled times, which in periodization bear similar names. In this regard, one can undoubtedly find many parallels in historical terminology, which can answer various questions besides archeology.
Reference
Murray, S. C. “Lights and Darks: Data, Labeling, and Language in the History of Scholarship on Early Greece,” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 87(1), 17-54.