Themiclesian Dark Ages
 | This article is incomplete because it is pending further input from participants, or it is a work-in-progress by one author. Please comment on this article's talk page to share your input, comments and questions. Note: To contribute to this article, you may need to seek help from the author(s) of this page. |
The Themiclesian Dark Ages is a historical period in Themiclesia spanning c. 800 to 385 BCE. 17th-century historians named the period "dark" because of a want of historical records that originate or credibly describe the period, though this want has gradually been supplemented by archaeological findings.
Name and definition
The term "Dark Ages" (昏, m′rjing) was first applied to Themiclesian history by the 17th-century historian Lord Prjêng (平君), whose phrase "dark" meant "obscure". In Prjêng's diction, there seemed to be relatively little pejorative or degenerate connotation. The obscurity of the period is understood as the lack of received history between or bridging two comparatively well-understood traditions, namely Themiclesia's description in Achahan and Gojun- and Jun-era literature, dating from the 12th to the 8th century, and the emergence of reliable annals in 385 BCE.
In Prjêng's time, the earliest mentions of Themiclesian in Menghean historiography dates to the 10th century BCE. Brief descriptions by Menghean historians consisted of the "light" on Themiclesian history for some time. However, since about 700 BCE, explorations to the west were no longer mentioned in texts, inspiring Prjêng to call the subsequent centuries "dark". In the 1700s, more information about ancient Themiclesia was found in Maverican epics, though they were not dated until much later. The more recent discovery of Achahan texts referring to Themiclesia and predating Menghean texts has further expanded the protohistoric period and accentuated the lack of materials describing the period.
The period preceding the Dark Ages is conventionally called the Protohistorical Period because Themiclesia is referenced, particularly for its mineral deposits, in multiple external sources. Deposits of lapis lazuli and turquoise, identified to be in Themiclesia, are found in Maverican epic poetry, Achahan tablets, and Menghean narratives both historical and legendary. The range of references, compiled during the "historical revolution" of 1750 – 1850, appears to confirm that the mineral deposits were already broadly known in the ancient world. Yet in these references, there is no uncontroversial information about cities or even humans living in Themiclesia, contrasting with archaeological findings that suggest multiple cultures capable of copper metallurgy already existed in Themiclesia.
The historian A. Gro says that:
The research of the Dark Ages is dominated, fortunately or unfortunately, by a single question: how did Meng culture, one of many, come to dominate Themiclesia by 385 BCE?
Arrival of Mengheans
Menghean histories provide that a sudden shortage of new lapis lazuli and turquoise, valued in Meng states for their association with the mythologized Heaven, has disrupted ritualistic activity in the 10th century BCE. Though unclear to comptemporaries, this shortage was created by the collapse of the Achahan state, whose merchants then ceased to transit the Lapis Road that bridged Meng states at its east and mineral deposits in Themiclesia in its west. Explorers were therefore sent between that time and the 8th century to re-discover the mineral deposits and re-open the trade route. However, the Menghean canon does not explicitly state if and when these efforts came to fruition.
Archaeologically, metal tools of Menghean affinity have been found at various sites associated with the Lapis Road, and the oldest examples date to the 15th c. BCE. Formerly, scholars cited these findings in support of the theory that the intensive settlement of Themiclesia should be construed independently of the Meng demand for blue gemstones. Subsequent research discredited this conclusion because the source of mundane tools is deemed an unreliable indicator of the identity of its final users. However, it does support the notion that trade of the Lapis Road did not entirely cease when the Achahan culture collapsed; rather, long-distance crossing became less frequent, while segments of the route remained in active use. This means that some artifacts with Meng affinity could still have been indirectly imported to Themiclesia, which in turns may explain the scant but obvious existence of Meng artifacts there.
The prevailing view in recent years is that Meng explorers probably appeared in western Themiclesia around 900 BCE. This conclusion is supported by the appearance of a new mining technique, found in ′Ar and Nim, previously unknown to the region. Though widely cited, a minority of scholars hold that alternate intepretations are viable. Meng settlement in Themiclesia occurred considerably later, probably in the first half of the 700s. A larger body of evidence, including agricultural practice, construction style, bronze metallurgy, and funerary customs, are used to support this dating; nevertheless, earlier settlements have not been studied exhaustively, and an earlier date thus cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, there appears to be a transitional style of building technique that existed between about 800 and 600; scholars have not yet concluded whether this represents a nativization of Meng communities, or if native communities are imitating Meng practices, further complicating the identity of the builders.
The motives and character of the earliest Meng settlements are not conclusively described. Into the 7th century, a number are clearly associated with the extraction of gemstones, having taken up agriculture near to the site of extraction. Some sites are connected with rudimentary working of larger chunks of lapis lazuli, though the work of setting them to finished products seems not to have taken place in Themiclesia. Fields tilled by Meng farmers are often associated with bone or shell tools, worked with techniques novel to the region. Only a few settlements are characterized by irrigation work, suggesting that farming was not yet prevalent, so naturally-irrigated land was still widely available. Some communities show clear signs of influence by non-Meng communities in the Menghean north, such as leaf-shaped blades. On the other hand, other settlements are distant from known extraction locations and appear to be exclusively agricultural.
Dark Ages
While there appears to be some overlap between the appearance of the first Meng people in Themiclesia and occasional records in Menghean histories of sending emissaries to seek lapis lazuli ore, the last Menghean record regarding such a mineral-driven expedition is dated to 757 BCE. Subsequently, nothing in received Menghean histories until the 1st century BCE can be readily identified as a reference to contemporary events in Themiclesia. This gap contrasts with a steady supply of lapis lazuli and turquoise exported over the Lapis Road to Menghe during this time period, the quantity of recovered artifacts with Themiclesian stones increasing after 500 BCE.
There are two mutually-incompatible theories advanced to explain this incongruence. The "Lost Contact" theory proposes that the expeditions may have reached Themiclesia and established extractive operations, but trade over the Lapis Road was intercepted by any one of several cultures along the road, so no Menghean merchant was able or required to wend to Themiclesia, a trek of 4,000 kilometers. The "Normalization" theory argues that regular traffic over the Lapis Road provided a steady supply of gemstones, so there was no longer any noteworthy shortage of the material. Historians also comment that while early Meng historians had an interest in peripheral cultures, Themiclesia was often written in a highly fantastical way, indicating that contact was infrequent and non-political.
Records
