Periodisation is the practice of dividing historical time into named periods — the Middle Ages, the Early Modern period, the Age of Revolution, the Short Twentieth Century. These divisions are not natural facts; they are analytical tools imposed by historians to make the past manageable and to highlight particular patterns of change. The boundaries between periods are always contested because they reflect judgements about what changes matter most.

Why boundaries are contested

Eric Hobsbawm’s periodisation of the ‘short twentieth century’ (1914–1991) was an analytical choice that highlighted the arc from the First World War’s beginning to the Cold War’s end as a coherent historical unit. Others periodise the century differently — beginning it in 1900, or ending it in 1989. Each choice reflects a different judgement about which events marked genuine turning points and which relationships define the period’s coherence.

Periodisation also reflects whose history is being told. A periodisation based on European political history looks different from one based on African colonial experience, or on the history of women’s rights, or on economic cycles. What counts as a turning point depends on what you are studying.

How to use it in an answer

Awareness of periodisation is relevant to synoptic and thematic questions, and to OCR’s emphasis on why interpretations changed over time. Noting that Hobsbawm’s ‘short twentieth century’ framing shapes how he narrates the Cold War’s end, or that a traditional periodisation that treats 1945 as a clean break obscures important continuities, demonstrates genuine historiographical sophistication.

Further reading: Eric Hobsbawm · Continuity and Change
← Back to Key Concepts