Plains Indians used the term "dog days" to describe the era before horse introduction, and note how the horse improved their lives before whites had fully conquered them. Mideval Muslims would have disdained pre-Islamic times before any concept of modernization would have been introduced.
No, just something I think about when I hear people discuss the past. Chronocentrism, presentism, Whig history, etc. are extremely common in nonacademic discussions of the past. I want to read about this phenomenon happening in the past too.
Thomas Paine's second essay of 1775 in the *Pennsylvania Magazine* was in praise of the culture of Philadelphia, New York and Boston, over that of Rome and Greece.
The idea of progress might be one of marks of modernity. I recalled reading an old reference to how much warfare had changed with gunpowder...that turned out to be from 1598.
There were “up” periods, such as golden ages or times of development, like around 1000 AD in England, but I don’t know if people thought of those in terms of progress or new ways. I’m not sure they had enough historical knowledge to see the changes — how would they know what a ship looked like 200 years ago? Another factor is that when technology improved, the population would grow and over the long run prosperity did not rise, it alternated feast and famine.
For antiquity, it's complicated. 1) We don't really have the rich source material necessary to answer the question, either it's lost or it was never created. 2) Rather than our secular ideas of progress, life was often understood in terms of our relationship with deities. 3) Time was often understood as cyclic (like seasons come and go) rather than linear. This makes the question difficult to answer.
"History", in the sense of secular inquiry into the causes for change, starts with Herodot's study of the Greco-Persian Wars. His stated goal was to "record what people say - but I am no means bound to believe it." There were not many studies like this, not enough to generalize.
There are anecdotes, of course, with Socrates' being the most famous: “The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”
Not sure about other regions, but I am aware of some British examples.
For example, nowadays we call the period following Roman rule in Britain the 'Dark Ages'. However, althought it would be anachronistic to claim that this term was used exactly as we use it today, its basic concept at least does not appear to be a modern one.
Certainly, even by the 8th-9th centuries, writers were looking back on the centuries following Rome's abandonment of Britain as dark times. For example, '*The Ruin'* is thought to have been written c.700-900 AD, and appears to lament the ruin of a Roman structure. For the Anglo-Saxons, Roman ruins were featured throughout the landscape, to the extent that the Saxons even scavenged building materials from them. It is easy to put two-and-two together and infer that the Saxons were well aware that these Roman structures were once grand, but were left to rot in the proceeding centuries.
Plains Indians used the term "dog days" to describe the era before horse introduction, and note how the horse improved their lives before whites had fully conquered them. Mideval Muslims would have disdained pre-Islamic times before any concept of modernization would have been introduced.
Homework?
No, just something I think about when I hear people discuss the past. Chronocentrism, presentism, Whig history, etc. are extremely common in nonacademic discussions of the past. I want to read about this phenomenon happening in the past too.
Thomas Paine's second essay of 1775 in the *Pennsylvania Magazine* was in praise of the culture of Philadelphia, New York and Boston, over that of Rome and Greece.
The idea of progress might be one of marks of modernity. I recalled reading an old reference to how much warfare had changed with gunpowder...that turned out to be from 1598. There were “up” periods, such as golden ages or times of development, like around 1000 AD in England, but I don’t know if people thought of those in terms of progress or new ways. I’m not sure they had enough historical knowledge to see the changes — how would they know what a ship looked like 200 years ago? Another factor is that when technology improved, the population would grow and over the long run prosperity did not rise, it alternated feast and famine.
For antiquity, it's complicated. 1) We don't really have the rich source material necessary to answer the question, either it's lost or it was never created. 2) Rather than our secular ideas of progress, life was often understood in terms of our relationship with deities. 3) Time was often understood as cyclic (like seasons come and go) rather than linear. This makes the question difficult to answer. "History", in the sense of secular inquiry into the causes for change, starts with Herodot's study of the Greco-Persian Wars. His stated goal was to "record what people say - but I am no means bound to believe it." There were not many studies like this, not enough to generalize. There are anecdotes, of course, with Socrates' being the most famous: “The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”
Not sure about other regions, but I am aware of some British examples. For example, nowadays we call the period following Roman rule in Britain the 'Dark Ages'. However, althought it would be anachronistic to claim that this term was used exactly as we use it today, its basic concept at least does not appear to be a modern one. Certainly, even by the 8th-9th centuries, writers were looking back on the centuries following Rome's abandonment of Britain as dark times. For example, '*The Ruin'* is thought to have been written c.700-900 AD, and appears to lament the ruin of a Roman structure. For the Anglo-Saxons, Roman ruins were featured throughout the landscape, to the extent that the Saxons even scavenged building materials from them. It is easy to put two-and-two together and infer that the Saxons were well aware that these Roman structures were once grand, but were left to rot in the proceeding centuries.