Why do historians use terms like "the Middle Ages" or "the Renaissance" but get cross about it all the time? And keep forbidding things like "the Dark Ages"? Isn't it weird?

Well, no.

To kick off #MethodologyMonday we talk historical periods and generalisation. 1/

Fully aware that threads like this do not go viral, I would nevertheless love to show that there is a logic to historical reasoning and that we don't just write narratives willy-nilly. I'll make some "risky parallels" in hope that the benefits they bring outweigh the risks. 2/

First we need to talk very briefly what historical method is. I will do a thread about it in the future to talk about it in detail but here, very briefly:

it is the collection of techniques and tools we use to write histories of our pasts.

Yes, all plural. 3/

Part of historical methodology (the process of gathering evidence and building models to apply) is periodization. It is, simply speaking, describing time in words. We name a period based on a set of characteristics. Those decisions are discretionary but not arbitrary. 4/

Those are labels very good at explaining and showing things. It is not only a convenient but also perfectly ok to say "Gothic cathedrals were built in the Middle Ages". So long you are not making a statement that *because* it was the Middle Ages Gothic cathedrals were built. 5/

This means you cannot just say "the period between 300 and 700 is called the Blueberry Ages". You need to back it up with evidence (which you need to acquire). Ok, but historians *use* terms like "the Middle Ages" or "the Renaissance". Why? Well, will explain it with physics. 6/

We are absolutely ready to accept this in sciences like physics. For example when we hear a statement "the Moon is about 300 000 km from Earth" it is perfectly sufficient to explain to us the order of magnitude of the the distance between Earth and its only natural satellite. 7/

But if an astrophysicist wants to make an argument based on the distance of Earth and Moon they need to be precise. They can't do it based on the approximation, because the equations won't balance. If you make an argument on generalisation alone, the same works for history. 8/

Historical periods are then models of historiographical orders of magnitude: broad approximations with fuzzy edges and a high degree of uncertainty (±). A historiographical equivalent of back-of-the-envelope calculations. This kind of entity is often called a generalisation. 9/

Such generalisations are often not stable. Take Late Antiquity (broadly the period between 284 and 800: discretionary, not arbitrary). It appeared in German at the beginning of the 20th C. and was popularised by Peter Brown in 1971. Before it did not exist as "period" 10/

But those years were there! This period was researched! Of course. Just like the distance between the Sun and Earth existed before it was named the astronomical unit (AU). But here the parallels end and we enter the methodological peculiarities of history. 11/

The distance between the Sun and Earth can be precisely measured. Late Antiquity cannot. This is why you can use AU for calculating the distances to remote stars but you cannot use a historical period to make an argument. And when you use "Dark Ages" you do precisely that. 12/

"The Dark Ages" violates the rule that historical periods are discretionary but not arbitrary. Periods can be redefined but not contrary to the evidence. Calling the period after the transformations of the Roman Empire "DA" is a value judgment inconsistent with the evidence. 13/

Because periods are discretionary they will be defined differently by different historians with a varied degree of uncertainty (and varied "fuzzy edges" at the beginning/end). But while this process is an essential part of historians' work it is never to make an argument. 14/

We also have "inherited models" just like every other branch of sciences and humanities. We use "the Renaissance" even though we reason that the concept behind that name didn't really exist. Gravity for Newton meant something else than for Einstein. Same here, we redefine. 15/

This is why historians go bananas when

a) someone uses historical periods that are arbitrary and contrary to the evidence ("the Dark Ages");
b) someone *reasons* (makes an argument) based on periodization alone ("people in the Middle Ages all died early")

16/

Ergo: We can model chronology in many ways but there are rules and methods. We can also generalise those models in order to make explanations and to show the results. We can use those generalisations in everyday discourse provided that they are not contrary to the evidence. 17/

We should also add that historical periods are space dependent. In different regions, in different cultures, they can be longer, shorter, or even not exist at all! Many of the existing periodization models are very (West)Europocentric concepts. 18/