Well, I can finally admit a longstanding misunderstanding which I had; today in my world history class, I heard two separate questions from two different people which confirmed that I’m not the only one who has misunderstood centuries. Having at least two cohorts in totally botching a concept makes me feel at least a little less silly.
By “misunderstanding centuries”, what I mean is misunderstanding the periods of time that a particular century refers to. For the longest time – probably a good 7 or 8 years, from the time I was 12 or 13 up until a few years ago – I thought that, for example, “13th century” referred to the years 1301-1400. It seemed like a logical assumption at the time – the 13th century starts with 1300. The 12th century starts with 1200, the 10th with 1000. Except… when you roll back the clock to the time period of 1AD to 100AD… well, oops. If “the first century” were to be 100-200AD, what would 1-100AD be? The 0th century?
In my defense33, for a long while, I didn’t study any history earlier than the 8th century (i.e., 793AD, the first recorded Viking raid). I tended to have a pretty narrow field of vision when it came to history, and felt that “that other stuff” didn’t interest me. The more I learn about history, though, the more I find that it all interests me. I don’t recall what it was I was reading when I finally ran into my blunder.
The ultimate question, though? How in the world did I read about medieval history for years, and not pick up on the fact that when an author was writing about, say, the 12th century, that all of the dates were 11-something? I’ve no idea. For that matter, I know I read at one point or another – probably multiple times, in truth! – that the first Viking raid was at the end of the 8th century. Why did it never click? Thick skull, I suppose. Even to this day, I’ll occasionally read “in the such-and-such century”, and have to pause and think – okay, that would mean it ended with that number, not the other way around.
Oh well. My secret’s out now. At least I now know there are at least two other people who have the concept borked up. Any others want to admit to it? 
3
- As much of a defense as I can muster up, anyway. It’s pretty bad for someone who’s majoring in history to admit to this, isn’t it? 333
3
Comments 7
Another brother with the same problem I see.
Though I learned this a number of years ago I still have a problem with it. When I hear or read “twelfth century” I still think 12XX and it requires some effort to remind myself of the actual meaning.
I also get messed up when I’m trying to talk or think about this concept in the BC years.
Sheesh.
Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 12:28 am ¶I only get confused when reading English texts, we don’t use “12th century” in Norwegian, well not that often, we rather use something that can be translated to “the 1300-year(s)” (1300-tallet), meaning the years from 1300 to 1399.
And then it get way too easy to translate 12th century to our Norwegian 1200-tallet.
Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 4:41 am ¶Tom: I must admit that I’m glad to know you’ve got the same problem.
I also have to pause and think quite often, especially when it comes to BC years – the “going down” of the years rather than up just makes matters worse.
zhayena: “The 1300-years” sounds far simpler. I vote English adopt it forthwith.
And indeed, going from 1200-tallet, I know I’d end up with “12th century.”
Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 9:51 am ¶“How in the world did I read about medieval history for years, and not pick up on the fact that when an author was writing about, say, the 12th century, that all of the dates were 11-something?”
Forget historical texts for a moment. How did you not notice the discrepancy of it being the 20th century when you were living in the 1990s?
Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 11:00 am ¶Joshua: My friend Chantal asked me that very question over Google Talk when she read my post. I told her that I have no idea, and I really don’t. Maybe it was that very discrepancy, “now we’re living in the 21st century”, that made me realize my blunder.
Awful, I know.
Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 11:56 am ¶Just dropping by to say that I didn’t mean to ping this post twice, – I had to split the Zha’vu’Keldi’en sites, so some pinging I never meant to happen did.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 8:05 am ¶No problem, Zhayena.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 9:24 am ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
[...] as it says more than “Legend”. this is not an affiliate link [↩]sorry, apparently making the same mistake as Josh [...]
[...] as it says more than “Legend”. this is not an affiliate link [↩]sorry, apparently making the same mistake as Josh [...]
Post a Comment