The GardenDespatches from The Satyrs’ Forest

Posts tagged as “history”

How my brain periodises history

Periodisation, the splitting of history into neat ’n’ discrete temporal chunks, is a time-honoured matter of debate among historians. Where are the boundaries? Why are they where they are? Can periodisation even work in a global context?

Today, i will answer none of these questions, nor even attempt to seriously tackle the subject. For this is not a post about where the ages of man truly start and end. It is a post about how my brain reacts when it sees a year number and thinks “oh, yeah, that’s in… uh, that part of history”. What’s ancient? What’s mediæval? I dunno, but my subconscious sure does!

The Bronze Age(ish): c. 3500–776 BCE

A palace at Knossos, a Sumerian mosaic, an ancient Indian sculpture
Left to right: the Palace of Minos, King Ur-Pabilsag, the Dancing Girl of Mohenjo-daro

The invention of writing is as good a time to start the clock on “history” as any, so circa 3500 BCE it is. It’s probably unfair to have a giant chunk of nearly three thousand years — as long as the entire rest of history — all by itself, split into nothing else, but when was the last time you saw an exact date in the negative four-figure range?

High Antiquity: 776 BCE–363 CE

A Mayan temple, the Parthenon, an army of statues
Left to right: the Temple of the Great Jaguar, the Parthenon, the Terracotta Army of Qin Shi Huang

This is the good stuff. I’ve chosen to start the clock not at the founding of Rome but at the (probably semi-mythical) date of the first Olympics, because Ancient Greece has always been cooler than Ancient Rome. (I can’t take a language where ⟨v⟩ is pronounced /w/ seriously.)

Weird amorphous transitional period: 363–622

An ancient codex, a mosaic portrait, a great arch
Left to right: the Vienna Dioscurides, Emperor Justinian, the Arch of Ctesiphon

I think most people generally have a decent idea of where the boundary between the Middle Ages and the modern day lies — somewhere around the end of the fifteenth century — but the line between antiquity and mediæval times has always been fuzzier, and i’ve never been sure where to draw it. After Julian died in 363, his successor was the last to rule over the empire undivided, the classical pagan relative tolerance of “anything but” giving way to the mediæval Christian doctrine of “nothing except”. It’s hard for me to fully accept what historians call “late antiquity” as firmly set in either era, so here it sits as its own weird little thing.

The Middle Ages: 622–1492

Several insets from manuscripts
Left to right: an Aztec tlacochcalcatl, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Baghdad House of Wisdom

The rise of Islam as a conquering force cements in stone the end of any vestiges of the classical era; where Christians start their calendar at the birth of Jesus, Muslims have their epoch at the year that Muhammad and his followers fled Mecca for Medina, which seems a useful line in the sand.

The Colonial Age: 1492–1776

Columbus in the Americas, a painting, a manuscript illustration
Left to right: Columbus arrives in the Americas, The Night Watch, Akbar’s court

If ever there was a single date that parts The World Before and The World After, a horrible axis mundi on which history turns, Columbus’ arrival in America was it. Two parts of the world which had been isolated for millennia1 were suddenly, irreversibly welded together, bringing untold riches and untold destruction. So much was gained, and so much more was lost. Entire cultures were snuffed out in the pursuit of sugar, and from their ashes new ones grew. It’s hard to imagine what world we would live in without the Santa María.

The Industrial Age: 1776–1918

People hard at work in a factory, Napoleon rallying the troops, an emperor making a proclamation
Left to right: the industrial revolution, Napoleon returns from Elba, the Meiji restoration

That’s not “1776” as in the American revolution, or even “1776” as in Adam Smith, but “1776” as in the year James Watt sold his first steam engine. At the start of this era, Manchester was a modest town of perhaps no more than fifty thousand people. By its end, it had ballooned to a heaving industrial city of seven hundred thousand. That about sums it up: for all the wealth made by colonial plunder, this was the age where humanity truly began to prosper.

The Postmodern Age: 1918–present

Hitler making an announcement, a man on the moon, the first iPhone
Left to right: Hitler declares war on the U.S., Apollo 11, everything’s computer

My natural impulse was to start our current age of history at 1945: the end of the war, the start of decolonisation, the thundering beginning of the atomic age… but, thinking about it, it’s all about what feels like history. I’m not sure me and someone from ancient Greece would have much in common to talk about — nor someone from mediæval France, or even Victorian London. But around the 1920s, a switch flips. They have cars. They have fridges. They have films, and radios, and fascists. I get the sense that a Paris cabaret girl and i share a society, a common world and ethos, in a way that people from before the war just didn’t. You could pluck her out of history and place her down in 2025 and, though she may be shocked at first, she’d adjust within the week. The interwar period is, to me, the beginning of “now”.

Filtered for surnames

(With apologies to Interconnected for the title format.)


I found out from a chain of comments on the venerable Language Hat that the Jewish surnames Katz, Matz, and Schatz were all originally acronyms.

Katz comes from כוהן צדק kohen tsedek “righteous priest” — you’ll of course recognise kohen as the origin of the surname Cohen, denoting Judaism’s paternal priestly lineage.1

Matz is similarly derived from מורה צדק more tsedek, meaning “teacher of righteousness”, and Schatz, the odd one out, comes from שליח ציבור shaliaẖ tsibur, referring to a cantor, though more literally translated as “emissary of the congregation”.


Meanwhile, in the Russian Empire, bastard children would often have their surnames symbolically clipped just so noöne went around thinking they had anything to do with their aristocratic fathers. Thus Ivan Pnin was the son of Nikolaj Repnin, and Elizabeta Tëmkina was the daughter of Grigorij Potëmkin.


This isn’t a surname, but by all accounts it isn’t a given name either, and once you’ve noticed it, you’ll never be able to unsee it. The name Jebediah does not exist. Jedediah was a very real Biblical figure after whom many a son has been named, but there’s no variant of any real-life person being named Jebediah with a B. (I know what you’re thinking — but, nope, Jeb Bush’s name is… an acronym, again, for John Ellis Bush.)


There’s this weird inconsistency in English in how we treat the names of people from cultures where the surname comes first. Chinese and Korean people usually keep the original order: Qian Xuesen and Bong Joon-ho are indeed from the families Qian and Bong, and it would be quite the faux pas to refer to “Mr Joon-ho”.

Japanese names are less consistent — traditionally they’ve been flipped to conform to the English order, so Hayao Miyazaki was born to a Mr and Mrs Miyazaki, but the trend in recent times has been to restore them to the original order, such that the former foreign secretary officially styles himself as Kōno Tarō, born to Kōno Yōhei.

Then, at the bottom of the ladder, there sits Hungary, whose names are so European-sounding and so universally reordered that most people don’t even realise that, in his home country, the prime minister is called Orbán Viktor. (This gets even more confusing with middle names — the mayor of Budapest, known elsewhere as Gergely Szilveszter Karácsony, is natively Karácsony Gergely Szilveszter, his given name nestled squarely in the middle!)


One last onomastic oddity. In olden days, the capital letter F was written as if double struck, looking like two lowercase f’s put side-by-side. This was copied and copied and misread over and over again until it became the case that some particularly snooty English surnames were properly spelt to begin in lowercase — such as in the cases of Gonville ffrench-Beytagh and Charles ffoulkes. Truly, the irregularities of our language’s orthography know no bounds.