Abstract

Dividing time into separate epochs is fundamental to historical research. However, while periodisations reflect particular interpretations of political, economic, social, and cultural developments, they often rely on the concept of ‘modernity’ as a foundation. This nexus between modernity and periodisation is well-established yet deeply problematic. Pre- or non-modern times and spaces are deemed deficient and backward, as not yet modern. This bias extends to colonial and postcolonial regions, where Western historical paradigms were imposed to interpret political and social realities. Confronting these biases unveils how historians conceptualize space and time and highlights the normative assumptions embedded within different forms of periodisation. However, simply expanding the scope or timeframes of research alone does not address the dilemma. Historians do well to historicise this nexus and develop alternative approaches to writing history. The intricate relationship between periodization and modernity forms the intellectual starting point of this special issue. Originating from dialogues between medieval and modern European history, this issue aims to critically reevaluate classical periodisation models and explore alternative paradigms. By integrating contributions from scholars of medieval, early modern, modern, and contemporary European history, this issue bridges previously separated debates, promotes a comprehensive understanding of historical temporalities and challenges established historiographical norms.