why history is divedd into three periods?name name
Answers
Answer:
Historians try and divide history into different periods to capture the characteristics of a particular time. This helps to focus on the central features of a time. This also shows how we see the significance of the change from one period to the next.
Human history is commonly divided into three main eras — Ancient, Post-classical, and Modern.
Hope it ⸙HELPS⸙
Answer :
❥︎ We divide history into different periods to understand the events easily. If we divide it into periods than it will be easier for us to remember the events for different period of different kings. History is not small, It's so big that's why it's impossible the remember each and every event is every king, etc.
Why is history divided into three periods?
Not really. Not always.
❥︎ Here’s of major periods popularly used to divided history:
Palaeolithic is also divided into Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic ages. There’s Chalcolithic (Copper Age) and Megalithic ages considered. Modern times are divided into Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance Period etc.
But, well, there is a slight bias towards splitting things up in threes — Stone-Bronze-Iron, Palaeo-Meso-Neo, Ancient-Medieval-Modern, Early-High-Late… and so on.
It is probably so because us humans have this peculiar tendency to see things in threes. Here’s a very interesting essay on the phenomenon — Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases for Standards of Decision.
Even gods come in threes.
All branches of sciences tend to categorize their subject, not only history.
The pupil can better understand the topic.
The scientist are not experts even in their own science but in a small parts of it.
The more categories exist the more departments need separated professors on the universities.
It is another question that the limits between historical ages, just like between organic and inorganic chemistry are arbitrary.
Historians divide history in as many parts they deem convenient, and I’d say there are as many ways to divide history than there are historians.
Your idea there are three parts is eurocentric. We do this for Western European history. It might be quite not valid for many other places. For Africa, a concept of “Middle Age” can be relevant sometimes, but for different reasons, it’s a coincidence. Subsaharian Africa, while there are historical and archeological sources and no emptyness, it is generally quite obscure indeed so there is a sort of fit. You see it sometimes being applied to Japan, but often they would stress it’s very incorrect to think of the shogun era as being anything like a Middle Age, especially the Edo era that on the contrary had a formidable development of a central Japanese state. In China it just doesn’t work at all. China stopped being feudal very very early in its history, and if you may consider things such as the Yuan Mongol occupation a terrible decline, it’s still is quite different from an European Middle Age. In America it’s even worse. Usually you have pre-colonial, colonial, and something else like a “republic” or a current regime, and you can actually wonder if the “colonial era” has ever ended and if it will ever end someday.