Talk:Greek Dark Ages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Greek Dark Ages, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Greece because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPGR}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPGR}} template, removing {{WPGR}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within classical antiquity.

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.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)