[acqq]

> That's a very different situation than we're in regarding post-Roman, pre-Carolingian Europe. There are hundreds of years in there where we have practically no documentary evidence for anything.

It is even more specific. Eastern Roman Empire remained functional until it fell to the Ottomans in 1453 AD.

But in Britain there were not even coins between the years 410 and 600 AD:

http://www.numsoc.net/darkages.html

"History has proved time and time again that when money is in short supply – the people turn to a token or obsidional coinage, no matter how base, rather than do without money as a medium of exchange completely. This has been demonstrated by siege coinages, lead tokens, brass farthings and merchants’ tokens over the millennia."

But there was nothing for these two hundred years. Not even foreign coins, and not any kind of substitute.

That's why these years are considered completely dark there. And that's why it looks like a real collapse there. So whenever we speak about some dark ages we have to be aware also about which land area we talk about.

[fallingfrog]

David Graeber’s book “debt: the first 5000 years” has some passages on this. I think they just bought everything on credit, and continued to give prices in denarius even though nobody had any. Then periodically they would settle debts in a circle, so to speak. They also had a system of debt sticks where they would snap a stick in half, each party getting one, then when the debt was settled the “stock” and the “foil” were matched together and discarded. It’s a fascinating system but basically the point of the book was that during large sections of human history coinage wasn’t the method people used to buy things, and right now we’re moving away from coinage again as most people use credit cards and so forth for purchases.

[Balgair]

The Dark Ages were very much regional, with separate areas undergoing their own eras of 'darkness' and losing communication with the rest of the world.

Interestingly, Ireland during the 400's to 600's was something of a bastion of Catholicism and 'western/classical' thought in their monasteries. Even though Britain was very pagan and 'dark', Ireland remained 'enlightened' at this time (though the populace was still very 'dark' and pagan in Ireland).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(400%E2%80%...

Under this regional definition of 'dark ages', even today they occur. Lost tribes in the Amazon, the populace of North Korea, very rural towns in Alaska, etc. all can be considered to be in 'dark' ages to some degree or another.

[acqq]

> Even though Britain was very pagan and 'dark', Ireland remained 'enlightened' at this time (though the populace was still very 'dark' and pagan in Ireland).

Do you happen to know something about the coinage in Ireland in that period? Also, searching for the survived original sources in that entry, they are either first half 400, written outside of Ireland, then some written later than 600 AD? Maybe I missed something?

[Balgair]

Sorry, coinage isn't an area of expertise for me. I'd just be googling for any info.

[rgblambda]

In Ireland we were taught in school that coinage was introduced by the Vikings and previous to that was a primitive system of cattle trading.

[z3phyr]

Pagan does not constitute dark. Most of the pagans recorded history when they were in power.

[acqq]

Yes, the term is problematic: "pagan" was traditionally just a derogatory term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

"The notion of paganism, as it is generally understood today, was created by the early Christian Church. It was a label that Christians applied to others, one of the antitheses that were central to the process of Christian self-definition. As such, throughout history it was generally used in a derogatory sense. - Owen Davies, Paganism: A Very Short Introduction, 2011"

[acqq]

And another quote from the same Wikipedia page:

"The term pagan is not attested in the English language until the 17th century.[24] In addition to infidel and heretic, it was used as one of several pejorative Christian counterparts to gentile as used in Judaism and to kafir ('unbeliever') and mushrik ('idolater') as in Islam.[25]"