Question

Essay writing on 'Problems of Periodization in History'

Answer 1

Why periodize?

Why do historians periodize? One of the reasons could be due to the distinct changes in the nature and quantity of historical sources that are available to the historians. For instance, the Portuguese conquest of the Sultanate of Melaka in 1511 has often been taken as the division point between two different eras of Southeast Asian history. Historical sources available on Southeast Asia history prior to 1511 consists largely of architectural remains, inscriptions, epigraphy, foreign annals and chronicles. Comparatively, after 1511, with the arrival of the Europeans, more detailed and comprehensive historical sources are now available. Jesuit missionaries wrote more comprehensible accounts of the societies as compared to inscriptions and annals, and contain less elements of the supernatural. Hence historians could periodize history based on the sources they could gather.

Periodization is also useful when we try to understand the development of historical consciousness. As mentioned in the textbook, the application of the concepts of ‘the Middle Ages’, ‘the Renaissance’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ is useful in helping us, students of the Speculative Philosophy of History, view the changes in the speculative assumptions about ‘the meaning of history’ (Lemon, p. 88).  

More importantly, periodization is useful as it helps to facilitate our study and understanding of history. Imagine study a history without periodizations. How would your textbook look like? History books without short chapters? Books without catchy chapter headings that will make it easier for you to remember and absorb the facts? Without the delineation of history, the past would be no more than sand in a sandbox, hard to quantify and account for.

Problems of periodization

Next, let us look at some of the problems of periodizing history. One of the main problems of periodization is to explain when and why a certain period arise and end. Most of the time, the starting and ending points of a historical period are highly debatable and open to discussion. Did the ‘new period’ really mark a rapid and sharp change in lives of the people living in those times? Did the people living then really saw themselves belonging to a new era that future historians may later assign to them? Did it changed their historical consciousness as and then? For instance, going back to the example of 1511 as the dividing point in Southeast Asia history, did all the locals really saw the arrival of the Portuguese as marking a new epoch in history? Were they really affected that drastically by it?

Also, by periodizing history, are we overstating change and ignoring the possibilities in the continuing trends in history? As such, did the arrival of the Portuguese in 1511 affect the whole of Southeast Asia to validate it being used as the watershed in the history of the region? For a long time after 1511, the Europeans were only able to effect changes mainly in island Southeast Asia. Life went on as usual in the mainland Southeast Asians society. The forms of indigenous political rule and traditional forms of religion practiced still remained the same as before the arrival of the Europeans. As such, did historians overstate the importance of the arrival of the Europeans in 1511 in that it made a sea-change in the history of the entire region? Are we oversimplifying the complexities in history, such as the presence of both continuity and change in between different historical periods?

Whither periodization?

To quote Lemon, “underlying [periodization of history] is an ‘understanding’ or ‘intuition’ of the meaning and significance of history which, in its turn, is a crucial component in forming their sense of the ‘meaning of life’.” Indeed, despite the presence of problems within the use of periodization in history, I feel that it is still useful and much needed in our understanding of history. Rather than rejecting or attempting to revise the periodization of history, we should instead understand its shortcomings and appreciate its worth in our reading and understanding of history.

Answer 2

Answer:

Your answer

Explanation:

Periodization in history has positive aspects to it as it sheds light on significant events of a particular time in history making it comparable to past and future events of the same nature. ... But its drawback is that it is limited to the viewpoint of the historian who wrote it.

HOPE IT HELPS !!

MY REQUEST :-

Please give it 5 stars ( rate it with 5 stars / 1 vote )

And

Give it like ( Like it / Thanks it ) also

And

Pleaseeeeeeee follow me also

And

Mark me as

BRILLIANIEST !!

TO GET SUCH BETTER ANSWERS !!