ABSTRACT
Historians often develop strong preferences for thinking in periods: far too often we investigate historical problems in the context of predefined epochs. Nothing is so emblematic of our profession than the interruption of the flow of time according to governing elites that followed one another. ‘Periodization’ sends an encrypted message of the explicit beginning and end of an era that emphasizes the limited focus of interest. By distinguishing historical periods we anchor the dynamic, social developments to static divisions and hence we downplay the significance of long-term phenomena that overarch our classification. However, by observing the processes that run counter to our perceptions of different periods we could gain new understanding of the significance of these chapters of time.
