Periodisation

Contents

1. Various conceptions of time
2. The arbitrary nature of Year 0
3. Numerical divisions and historical interpretations
4. Critical interpretation and meaning assignment
Conclusion

Jacques Le Goff, a famous medievalist, questions periodisation in his book: Must We Divide History into Segments? published in 2014.

Periodisation is about dividing time into blocks or epochs and giving specific meaning to these periods.

History comes from the Greek word ἱστορία (historia), meaning “inquiry, report, history.” We consider it to begin around 3500 BCE, as there are no written sources before the invention of writing. In France, our conventions are as follows:

Antiquity: from 3500 BCE, the invention of writing, to 476 CE, the fall of the Western Roman Empire
Middle Ages: from 476 CE to 1492, the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus
Modern Times: from 1492 to 1789, the French Revolution
Contemporary Era: from 1789 onward.

According to Le Goff, the periodisation we learn and teach is convenient for understanding the transformations of Western societies but potentially misleading because it does not apply globally. Moreover, the breaking dates are arbitrary and reflect a particular interpretation of our history.

#1. Various conceptions of time

Each civilisation has its own concept of time: while we use a linear model, moving from the past to the future, other civilisations view the world and time differently. Some, for example, conceive of time as a cycle: time is a circle, with events repeating themselves. This cyclical view still exists in Hinduism and Buddhism.

At the core of our concept of time is the idea of progress, especially evident in the history of science. However, imagine the opposite—that everything tends toward decline. We would move from a golden age to downfall and decay. This decline-oriented view can be found among 19th-century romantics or contemporary thinkers who believe that everything will inevitably worsen, that the golden age is behind us, and that great empires will inevitably fall apart.

Thus, our four-period division (Antiquity, Middle Ages, Modern Times, Contemporary Era) excludes certain conceptions of time and is not necessarily valid for understanding the diversity of the world. These conventions are eurocentric.

#2. The arbitrary nature of Year 0

As we have seen, religions play such a significant role that they inspire periodisations. For instance, while Christ is believed to have been born in the year 0, in Islam, time begins with the Prophet Muhammad’s exile: the Hijrah in 622 CE. Furthermore, the year of Christ's birth is debated: scholars agree he was likely born between 7 BCE and 5 BCE.

Similarly, different ideologies or systems of thought have created their own calendars. For instance, the revolutionaries created the Republican Calendar, which begins with the founding of the First Republic in 1792. The goal was to secularise time.

It is clear that time markers vary and are of practical, ideological, and religious origins.

#3. Numerical divisions and historical interpretations

We commonly divide time into numerical values. A decade equals ten years, a century equals one hundred years, and a millennium equals one thousand years. However, this division also depends on our numerical system and our calendar type. It is entirely different, for example, in China, where the traditional calendar is lunar. The date of the Chinese New Year varies from year to year.

Historians also define shorter periods, known as chrononyms. We name years and decades based on historical readings of events. The “Century of Pericles” in Ancient Greece does not strictly cover one hundred years (from 479 BCE to 429 BCE) but highlights the importance of Pericles in the development of Athenian democracy before the Peloponnesian Wars. The “Cultural Golden Age” in Germany refers to a period of economic growth and cultural flourishing between 1924 and 1929.

#4. Critical interpretation and meaning assignment

As mentioned earlier, divisions are arbitrary. By dividing and naming periods, we politicise history. The teaching and learning of these historical markers serve a purpose, which varies from one country to another.

Jack Goody, in The Theft of History, writes:

Since the early 19th century, with its colonial expansion and Industrial Revolution, Europe has dominated the construction of world history.

It is therefore necessary to critique this periodisation to move beyond ethnocentrism. For many countries that experienced colonisation, the date of decolonisation might hold more meaning as a profound transformation justifying a historical break in the chronology. Should the year 0 for Mauritius, for example, be 1968? Given the deep-rooted religious diversity, this is, of course, debatable.

Furthermore, as historian Jacques Le Goff reminded, periodisation can negate historical continuity. As a medievalist, he saw a continuity from the Middle Ages to the 18th century, which is supposed to belong to the Modern Times, since the discovery of the Americas did not mark any profound changes in economic structures.

Similarly, although we live in the Contemporary Era, there seems to be little in common between our lives and those of people in 1789.

#Conclusion

Periodisation is convenient and reflects cultural, ideological, and religious visions. These periodisations vary greatly across the world, and our own periodisation is open to debate, as it reflects political and educational objectives. Applying it elsewhere, outside France or outside the West, could be seen as the remnant of cultural imperialism, reflecting a past power whose relevance today is questionable.

The role of historians is to deconstruct and explain and combine the different periodisations.