This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the history of Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The chronology was copied from the internet. It appears on several sites. I didn't think it's eligible for copyright because according to copyright sites thing not eligible for copyright include, "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship. For example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources." [1]
Is that right?
An
automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the
Timeline of Islamic history article, and they have been placed on
this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Timeline of Islamic history}} to this page. —
LinkBot 00:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When trying to Wikify this line:
I found that
Abd al-Aziz and
Ibn Saud link to different people... so I am leaving it as is but it should be noted and fixed. -
gren
In the process of wikifying this I noticed that I am not particularly sure that some of these things belong in the timeline. For instance Nation of Islam is not typically considered to be Islamic. Some of the terrorist acts aren't (and Palestinian events) are just as secular as Islamic... ""Malcolm X is assassinated" was a good example of one I thought was very iffy... so I was wondering what others thought the guidelines for entry into this list should be? - gren
I notice above (in the "Copyright" heading) that this entire timeline is referenced to "the internet", and it is on "various sites". I am not questioning the validity of this timeline (I'm almost certain someone else would have already caught any obvious errors), but could an external links section be added, providing a few of these sources for observation? I'll search for a few on my own, but it would most likely prove a useful addition, should someone already know where the links can be found. Many thanks- Pellinore 04:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
heading is incorrect. muslim history start from adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.160.1 ( talk) 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
I will post this on other relevant pages too and indicate this talk-page as the place to come up with answers. Thanks. Arminden ( talk) 14:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok so now that I've understood the original question better (sorry for the earlier confusion) and that I've had time to look it up properly, I've found two periodizations that originate with two specific authors. They are cited or discussed by later scholars, so I'm confident that this is what we're looking for (or at least a big part of it). The first one, by Marshall Hodgson, is a proposed division of wider Islamic history and includes terminology that recurs in later works (whether as a deliberate reference to Hodgson or not). The second one, from Donald Whitcomb, is a proposed archeological periodization for Jordan in particular; this is presumably the one most relevant to what Arminden was asking about above, but from what I understand it was vaguely inspired by Hodgson's periodization.
I present both periodizations below, one after the other, from their original authors. I've added my own comments after in case they're helpful. Apologies for the length, but hopefully this is just stuff you can draw on for further research or discussion.
I. Hodgson 1974 periodization ("Islamicate" civilization)
This periodization was proposed in Hodgson's three-volume work, The Venture of Islam (Volume 1 was published in 1974, later volumes might have been slightly later). I've quote below his original outline and description which he presents on p. 96 of his first volume (bold and italics are from his text; formatting errors may be present from copy-pasting): [1]
Late Sasani and Primitive Caliphal periods, c. (485)-692: The intrusion of Islam into Irano-Semitic society and the genesis of a new social order. In Iran, in the Fertile Crescent, in Arabia, the way was being prepared, as it turned out, for the new order. First came the shaking up of the old Sasani political order; but the central event of the period was the advent of Muhammad and his followers' rise to power from Nile to Oxus and even beyond.
High Caliphal Period, c. 692-945: The first period of Islamicate civilization proper: A classical civilization under the Marwani and earlier 'Abbasi caliphates. Islamicate society formed a single vast state, the caliphate, with an increasingly dominant single language of science and culture, Arabic. The Islamic religion was being given its classical formulation; Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Mazdeans were renovating and weaving together the lettered traditions of several pre-Islamic backgrounds into a creative multiple flowering.
Earlier Middle Islamic Period, c. 945-1258: Establishment of an international civilization spreading beyond the Irano-Semitic areas. The great expansion of Islamicate society was based on a decentralization of power and culture, in many courts and in two major languages, Persian and Arabic. Unity was maintained through self-perpetuating social institutions which outgrew the caliphate and encouraged high-cultural sophistication and a synthesis of the lettered traditions that had been developed in the High Caliphal Period.
Later Middle Islamic Period, c. 1258-1503: The age of Mongol prestige: crisis and renewal in the Islamicate institutions and heritage. Despite devastation and conquest of the central Islamicate lands by a vigorous pagan movement, the Islamic norms reimposed themselves and hemisphere-wide expansion continued. The Mongol challenge launched a new political tradition and new horizons in high culture in the central areas, forming a Persianate culture from the Balkans to Bengal and influential even more widely.
Period of Gunpowder Empires, c. 1503-1789: Flowering of Persianate culture under major regional empires. The political and cultural impetus of the Mongol age was developed in regional empires with relatively regional cultures, especially in three: one primarily European, one centered in the old Islamic lands, one Indic. It was the height of Islamic material world power. The aesthetic and intellectual creativity and prosperity faded, however, before the new Occident in the course of a basic transformation.
Modern Technical Age, c. 1789-present: The Islamic heritage caught up in the Modern technicalistic world. Under the impact of a new world order carried by the Modern West, the world-historical conditions of the Islamicate civilization have disappeared. Instead of a continuing comprehensive society, we have a heritage which several peoples share within a wider social order where Muslims form a minority, a minority disadvantaged by just those events which, creating the new order, brought prosperity to the new West.
I found a few other discussions of Hodgson's periodization but they're not freely accessible and a little too long to quote. At least one author ( Edmund Burke in Burns 2006 [2]) notes the importance of Hodgson's "Middle Period" as a concept to denote an important stage in the history of Islamicate culture and as an alternative to the label of "Middle Ages". You can also consult the Jones 2018 thesis I mention further below which has a wider discussion of periodization and is freely available. Here's an example of one recent scholar briefly summarizing this periodization for a 2015 book chapter about the "Middle Period": [3]
Hodgson lists six periods of Islamic history: the formative (to 692), the High Caliphate (to 945), the International Civilization (to 1258), the Age of Mongol Prestige (to 1503), the era of Gunpowder Empires (to c. 1800) and Modern Times, with the emergence of nation-states. The “Middle Period” groups together the third and fourth periods of this list (Hodgson 1974, 1: 98).
II. Whitcomb 1992 periodization (archaeology of Jordan)
Donald Whitcomb proposed the following archeological periodization for Jordan in a 1992 article that should be freely available here. [4] He presents it in a chart alongside the "political periodization" (i.e. dynastic periods), but I can't copy the chart so here are his "archeological" periods in list form:
Here's another summary and brief discussion of it from a 1999 article by Bethany Walker that might be helpful in explaining it: [5]: 207
The Problem of Chronology: The Ayyubid period covers the years 1171-1260 (the dates, as we have seen, differ from site to site), the Mamluks reigned from 1260 (in most places in the southern Levant) to 1516, and the Ottomans from 1516 to 1918. While this periodization is useful in describing political history, it does not do justice to the complex nuances of the region's social history. Neither the Mamluks nor the Ottomans maintained a regular presence in the area for the entire period of their hegemony. Furthermore, there was considerable continuity between periods in terms of material culture. For these reasons, Whitcomb has offered an archaeological chronology for the medieval Islamic periods in Jordan (Whitcomb 1992b, 1997). His Early Islamic period (600-1000 CE) corresponds roughly to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods; Middle Islamic I (1000-1200 CE) covers the Fatimid and part of the Crusader and Ayyubid periods; Middle Islamic II (1200-1400 CE) is early Mamluk; Late Islamic I (1400-1600 CE) is late Mamluk-early Ottoman; Late Islamic II (1600-1800 CE) corresponds to the Ottoman period.
The 1997 Whitcomb article cited in that excerpt should be available here. (Note that the 1997 article also has a wider scope than just Jordan.)
I also found a longer but potentially useful (and accessible) discussion of periodizations in a recent PhD thesis about archeology in Jordan (Jones 2018), [6] which should be freely available here. Specifically, see section 1.3 on pages 9 to 14. It's not a heavy read but the section is too long to quote here.
III. Additional notes (from me)
These are some follow-up comments (meant for anyone), if helpful for general discussion in the future. See also what Arminden has already said above.
Anyways, I hope some of this is useful and I hope the first two parts help to answer Arminden's original question above. Cheers, R Prazeres ( talk) 23:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
The Madaba Plains Project at Hisban has adopted a compromise of the dynastic and archaeological periodizations (Hendrix, Drey, and Storfjell 1996). This chronology recognizes continuity of material culture while asserting changes in settlement, economy, and government that accompanied each change of regime. In my adaptation of this scheme, "Middle Islamic II" is Ayyubid, "Late Islamic I" is Mamluk, and "Late Islamic II" is Ottoman. The stratigraphy of most medieval sites is poor. Urban sites, in particular, retain little stratigraphy, because they are built upon generation after generation and building materials regularly reused. It has been notoriously difficult for archaeologists to differentiate between Ayyubid and Mamluk and, recently, between Mamluk and Ottoman deposits. Furthermore, the typology of Ottoman pottery in Palestine and Transjordan, with the exception of imports and late nineteenth-century local wares, has not been established. This being the case, one reads of "Ayyubid-Mamluk" deposits, which could date anywhere from the twelfth to the sixteenth century. For these reasons, I will retain the dynastic periodization for this article. Deposits called "Ayyubid," "Mamluk," or "Ottoman" will be designated as such mainly on the basis of the pottery.
{{
cite journal}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 558 (
help)
Beautiful, and much more than I had dared to hope for. Thank you! Arminden ( talk) 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Still needs doing. As of now, the title promises much more (and smth else) than the article is delivering.
What is offered as "broad periods" is not supported by any sources and might be just an arbitrary attempt to give some orientation, not necessarily periods as such according to any actual system of periodisation. Remider: we now have
Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 07:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the history of Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The chronology was copied from the internet. It appears on several sites. I didn't think it's eligible for copyright because according to copyright sites thing not eligible for copyright include, "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship. For example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources." [1]
Is that right?
An
automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the
Timeline of Islamic history article, and they have been placed on
this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Timeline of Islamic history}} to this page. —
LinkBot 00:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When trying to Wikify this line:
I found that
Abd al-Aziz and
Ibn Saud link to different people... so I am leaving it as is but it should be noted and fixed. -
gren
In the process of wikifying this I noticed that I am not particularly sure that some of these things belong in the timeline. For instance Nation of Islam is not typically considered to be Islamic. Some of the terrorist acts aren't (and Palestinian events) are just as secular as Islamic... ""Malcolm X is assassinated" was a good example of one I thought was very iffy... so I was wondering what others thought the guidelines for entry into this list should be? - gren
I notice above (in the "Copyright" heading) that this entire timeline is referenced to "the internet", and it is on "various sites". I am not questioning the validity of this timeline (I'm almost certain someone else would have already caught any obvious errors), but could an external links section be added, providing a few of these sources for observation? I'll search for a few on my own, but it would most likely prove a useful addition, should someone already know where the links can be found. Many thanks- Pellinore 04:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
heading is incorrect. muslim history start from adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.160.1 ( talk) 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
I will post this on other relevant pages too and indicate this talk-page as the place to come up with answers. Thanks. Arminden ( talk) 14:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok so now that I've understood the original question better (sorry for the earlier confusion) and that I've had time to look it up properly, I've found two periodizations that originate with two specific authors. They are cited or discussed by later scholars, so I'm confident that this is what we're looking for (or at least a big part of it). The first one, by Marshall Hodgson, is a proposed division of wider Islamic history and includes terminology that recurs in later works (whether as a deliberate reference to Hodgson or not). The second one, from Donald Whitcomb, is a proposed archeological periodization for Jordan in particular; this is presumably the one most relevant to what Arminden was asking about above, but from what I understand it was vaguely inspired by Hodgson's periodization.
I present both periodizations below, one after the other, from their original authors. I've added my own comments after in case they're helpful. Apologies for the length, but hopefully this is just stuff you can draw on for further research or discussion.
I. Hodgson 1974 periodization ("Islamicate" civilization)
This periodization was proposed in Hodgson's three-volume work, The Venture of Islam (Volume 1 was published in 1974, later volumes might have been slightly later). I've quote below his original outline and description which he presents on p. 96 of his first volume (bold and italics are from his text; formatting errors may be present from copy-pasting): [1]
Late Sasani and Primitive Caliphal periods, c. (485)-692: The intrusion of Islam into Irano-Semitic society and the genesis of a new social order. In Iran, in the Fertile Crescent, in Arabia, the way was being prepared, as it turned out, for the new order. First came the shaking up of the old Sasani political order; but the central event of the period was the advent of Muhammad and his followers' rise to power from Nile to Oxus and even beyond.
High Caliphal Period, c. 692-945: The first period of Islamicate civilization proper: A classical civilization under the Marwani and earlier 'Abbasi caliphates. Islamicate society formed a single vast state, the caliphate, with an increasingly dominant single language of science and culture, Arabic. The Islamic religion was being given its classical formulation; Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Mazdeans were renovating and weaving together the lettered traditions of several pre-Islamic backgrounds into a creative multiple flowering.
Earlier Middle Islamic Period, c. 945-1258: Establishment of an international civilization spreading beyond the Irano-Semitic areas. The great expansion of Islamicate society was based on a decentralization of power and culture, in many courts and in two major languages, Persian and Arabic. Unity was maintained through self-perpetuating social institutions which outgrew the caliphate and encouraged high-cultural sophistication and a synthesis of the lettered traditions that had been developed in the High Caliphal Period.
Later Middle Islamic Period, c. 1258-1503: The age of Mongol prestige: crisis and renewal in the Islamicate institutions and heritage. Despite devastation and conquest of the central Islamicate lands by a vigorous pagan movement, the Islamic norms reimposed themselves and hemisphere-wide expansion continued. The Mongol challenge launched a new political tradition and new horizons in high culture in the central areas, forming a Persianate culture from the Balkans to Bengal and influential even more widely.
Period of Gunpowder Empires, c. 1503-1789: Flowering of Persianate culture under major regional empires. The political and cultural impetus of the Mongol age was developed in regional empires with relatively regional cultures, especially in three: one primarily European, one centered in the old Islamic lands, one Indic. It was the height of Islamic material world power. The aesthetic and intellectual creativity and prosperity faded, however, before the new Occident in the course of a basic transformation.
Modern Technical Age, c. 1789-present: The Islamic heritage caught up in the Modern technicalistic world. Under the impact of a new world order carried by the Modern West, the world-historical conditions of the Islamicate civilization have disappeared. Instead of a continuing comprehensive society, we have a heritage which several peoples share within a wider social order where Muslims form a minority, a minority disadvantaged by just those events which, creating the new order, brought prosperity to the new West.
I found a few other discussions of Hodgson's periodization but they're not freely accessible and a little too long to quote. At least one author ( Edmund Burke in Burns 2006 [2]) notes the importance of Hodgson's "Middle Period" as a concept to denote an important stage in the history of Islamicate culture and as an alternative to the label of "Middle Ages". You can also consult the Jones 2018 thesis I mention further below which has a wider discussion of periodization and is freely available. Here's an example of one recent scholar briefly summarizing this periodization for a 2015 book chapter about the "Middle Period": [3]
Hodgson lists six periods of Islamic history: the formative (to 692), the High Caliphate (to 945), the International Civilization (to 1258), the Age of Mongol Prestige (to 1503), the era of Gunpowder Empires (to c. 1800) and Modern Times, with the emergence of nation-states. The “Middle Period” groups together the third and fourth periods of this list (Hodgson 1974, 1: 98).
II. Whitcomb 1992 periodization (archaeology of Jordan)
Donald Whitcomb proposed the following archeological periodization for Jordan in a 1992 article that should be freely available here. [4] He presents it in a chart alongside the "political periodization" (i.e. dynastic periods), but I can't copy the chart so here are his "archeological" periods in list form:
Here's another summary and brief discussion of it from a 1999 article by Bethany Walker that might be helpful in explaining it: [5]: 207
The Problem of Chronology: The Ayyubid period covers the years 1171-1260 (the dates, as we have seen, differ from site to site), the Mamluks reigned from 1260 (in most places in the southern Levant) to 1516, and the Ottomans from 1516 to 1918. While this periodization is useful in describing political history, it does not do justice to the complex nuances of the region's social history. Neither the Mamluks nor the Ottomans maintained a regular presence in the area for the entire period of their hegemony. Furthermore, there was considerable continuity between periods in terms of material culture. For these reasons, Whitcomb has offered an archaeological chronology for the medieval Islamic periods in Jordan (Whitcomb 1992b, 1997). His Early Islamic period (600-1000 CE) corresponds roughly to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods; Middle Islamic I (1000-1200 CE) covers the Fatimid and part of the Crusader and Ayyubid periods; Middle Islamic II (1200-1400 CE) is early Mamluk; Late Islamic I (1400-1600 CE) is late Mamluk-early Ottoman; Late Islamic II (1600-1800 CE) corresponds to the Ottoman period.
The 1997 Whitcomb article cited in that excerpt should be available here. (Note that the 1997 article also has a wider scope than just Jordan.)
I also found a longer but potentially useful (and accessible) discussion of periodizations in a recent PhD thesis about archeology in Jordan (Jones 2018), [6] which should be freely available here. Specifically, see section 1.3 on pages 9 to 14. It's not a heavy read but the section is too long to quote here.
III. Additional notes (from me)
These are some follow-up comments (meant for anyone), if helpful for general discussion in the future. See also what Arminden has already said above.
Anyways, I hope some of this is useful and I hope the first two parts help to answer Arminden's original question above. Cheers, R Prazeres ( talk) 23:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
The Madaba Plains Project at Hisban has adopted a compromise of the dynastic and archaeological periodizations (Hendrix, Drey, and Storfjell 1996). This chronology recognizes continuity of material culture while asserting changes in settlement, economy, and government that accompanied each change of regime. In my adaptation of this scheme, "Middle Islamic II" is Ayyubid, "Late Islamic I" is Mamluk, and "Late Islamic II" is Ottoman. The stratigraphy of most medieval sites is poor. Urban sites, in particular, retain little stratigraphy, because they are built upon generation after generation and building materials regularly reused. It has been notoriously difficult for archaeologists to differentiate between Ayyubid and Mamluk and, recently, between Mamluk and Ottoman deposits. Furthermore, the typology of Ottoman pottery in Palestine and Transjordan, with the exception of imports and late nineteenth-century local wares, has not been established. This being the case, one reads of "Ayyubid-Mamluk" deposits, which could date anywhere from the twelfth to the sixteenth century. For these reasons, I will retain the dynastic periodization for this article. Deposits called "Ayyubid," "Mamluk," or "Ottoman" will be designated as such mainly on the basis of the pottery.
{{
cite journal}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 558 (
help)
Beautiful, and much more than I had dared to hope for. Thank you! Arminden ( talk) 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Still needs doing. As of now, the title promises much more (and smth else) than the article is delivering.
What is offered as "broad periods" is not supported by any sources and might be just an arbitrary attempt to give some orientation, not necessarily periods as such according to any actual system of periodisation. Remider: we now have
Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 07:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)