No or different historical divisions

[NapoleonXIV]

What if the idea of divisions of historical times, that is, the Renaissance, Medieval, Ancient, etc, had never caught on, or been discredited early (like they are today to some extent). History remains the "seamless web" it was until the 1800's.

Conversely, what are some other divisions of history that could have come about, and how would it affect things if they had been the ones used.

 

[David S Poepoe]

There are probably far more historical divisions/periods in existence that we don't know about. The best place to really look for them may be at universities and the catalogues of major national libraries. However, there are really only a few that are popularly known and spoken of on a daily basis.

I think it is human nature to classify which leads me to think that the idea that no historical periods were used before the 1800s is completely wrong. Tho I could agree that as university studies really started to fall into place and some form developed in the 1800s that new methods of historical classification came into being.

 

[zoomar]

A fascinating question and one which archaeologists have discussed ad nauseum. Are the periods or stages we use to divide history and prehistory "real" in some basic sense or are they mostly items of convenience for modern scholars? I tend to fall in the latter category, and so do many others in the historical fields, since we see much less use of these concepts in the technical literature than we used to

My belief is that how we divide human history up tells us more about the attitudes of historians and archaeologists than historical reality. Since humans by nature like to name and divide things, I suspect few scholarly traditions would last long with a "seamless web" approach, plus there are some real discontinuities in regional history which need to be identified (such as pre-Columbian and post-Columbian America). However, continued use of schemes such as "paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic, bronze age, and iron age" has more to do with eurocentrism than anything else, and the use of "ancient, medieval, rennaissance, enlightenment" etc probably are a completely arbitrary and value-laden way of characterizing history.

 

[Alexius]

Well, if Byzantium had survived and we were writing from a Byzanto-centric viewpoint, there would be no Dark Ages, and thus no Renaissance. They'd probably place their first division of history at the Milvian Bridge, dividing the pagan and Christian eras. Later stuff dissolves into a swarm of butterflies, considering how early the PoD has to be for a surviving large Byzantine empire.

 

[B_Munro]

Well, Islamic-dominated worlds divide history between post-Muhammed and the previous "age of ignorance", plus whatever may strike them as vital divisions in the subsequent 14 centuries. (TLs where Islam develops science may have a concept of "modernity" predicated on a scientific revolution or perhaps an Islamic "reformation" of sorts, if it is considered a precursor to the other. They're unlikely to have a concept of a "Renaissance", tho'.)

Bruce

 

[MrP]

No WWII after the Great War = no Inter War Years

 

[David S Poepoe]

"age of ignorance"

I believe we see this division in teenagers. It is preceeded by the 'Age of Innocence' and then the 'Age of Indifference' and succeeded by the 'Age of Experimentation' and the 'Age of Rebellion'. The 'Age of Self-Discovery' may be in there also somewhere.

 

[Codae]

The invention of the moldboard plow might be seen as a greater discontinuity.

 

[sunsurf]

Terms like "Iron Age" do seem valid and useful...except that the "Iron Age" was at different times for different regions. The same goes for "Bronze Age" and other terms. And by the way, when was the end of the "Bronze Age"?

Ancient Greeks described previous historical periods as "golden age", "silver age", etc.
Which suggests some connection with Olympic Games medals.