In historical and literary studies, periodization is a regulative idea for classifying the literary and historical information on diachronic axis.This has been the subject of some criticism in the literary studies.This article studies the critical debates about periodization in literary history and the rethinking of the concept. We can divide these critical debates into two groups: (1) some critics call the very notion of periodization into question; and (2) others engage in rethinking and revising the concept for appropriate application in literary history.Imposition of a static framework on cultural and literary dynamics, homogenizing effect which stands in contrast with the uniqueness of literary works, mixing the histories of different literary genres, lack of conformity with reality, artificial homogeneity of the schemas of change and evolution, problems of terminology, anachronism, overlooking years and even centuries, disregarding the distance between literary production and literary reading, ignoring ethnic and gender groups, and dominance of periodization framework over critical thought are some of the problems of the current approach to periodization in literary history. Rethinking periodization should be based on new historical and literary approaches such as feminism or ethnic minorities’ studies.

One of the most fundamental acts of historiography is to classify historical information in diachronic axis. The method of this classification or periodization shows the theoretical approach of the historian and determines the structure and the form of his history. Because of multiple criteria of analysis and various literary genres, periodization in literary history is more complicated than that of general history. We can distinguish two approaches in periodization of literary history, although these can be used together: extrinsic or social cultural approach (based on criteria extrinsic to literature) and intrinsic or formalist approach (based on criteria intrinsic to literature).Then periodization in literary history can be formulated in different methods and may be based upon various criteria: chronological such as century, decade and year, organic patterns of evolution, great poets and writers, literary emblems and evaluations of every period, events, concepts and periods of general or political history, analogy of literary history and history of ideas or history of arts, approaches and styles of language, dominant literary norms.These methods actually are used together and everyone has adequacy in special kind of literary history. In periodization of Persian contemporary literature, some methods and models current in periodization of poetry have been applied identically to periodization of prose. periodization based upon century, decade and year is the simplest and most mechanical method but sometimes certain centuries in some countries have symbolic and stylistic meaning, and decades were used often for subdivisions of literary history, especially nowadays with fast rhythm of literary change.periodization according to organic patterns of evolution equates the changes of literary history with the life phases of an organism, and offers an account of birth, mature and death (and sometimes re-birth) of literary genres, but this method have been under question because the rhythm of literary change always does not follow smooth and coherent patterns. Now periodization based on great writers and poets is not current but still is the favorite method of periodization in high school textbooks of Iran. periodization based upon literary slogans and movements often is used for subdivisions of literary history. In periodization of Persian literature, this method has been used rarely.Most of stories of Persian literature derive divisions of their subject-matter from general or political history. In these cases, the periods have symbolic meaning, and describing their traits, the literary historian considers mere literary criteria. periodization in terms of some ideas derived from history of art and thought has its supporters and further opponents. Yet some concepts like Renaissance, Baroque and Mannerism have come from history of art to literary history.Seeking literary autonomous history, some literary historians accept dominant norms a base of periodization. Yet there is some disagreement in nature of dominant norms and on the other hand, the unity ascribed to literary periods is incomplete and relative.Different methods of periodization often are used simultaneously in periodizing a literary history. This combination of methods can be seen in names of literary periods. Names of literary periods come from different origins.

Historical studies mostly use periodization to categorize historical information. periodization divides historical information based on a chronological order. This article explores the background of ideological philosophical foundations and the role of periodization in history in general and the history of literature in particular. periodization is an old concept, which has undergone broad changes with the passage of time. This article shows the way that periodization has been used in the history of literature. It is, therefore, necessary to discuss the relation between periodization in general history and literary history first. Literary historians use the concept of periodization in different meanings which come from different philosophical and ideological sources. Understanding these foundations is necessary for a better comprehension of structural patterns resulted from them, in this case periodization. Although great efforts have been made to distinguish between literary history and literary criticism since the beginning of the 20th century, periodization as an act that determines the structure of literary history books, is itself considered an act of criticism and has an essential role in literary studies.

Anything deemed as an object of historical study goes through changes with the passage of time. What historians do is partly to explain such changes, and periodization is a conceptual tool devised for this purpose. periodization both reveals the historians’ position regarding the changes they perceive and the origins and results they assign to them, and shows how they understand their subject matter. In this paper, we have reviewed the body of the Iranian architectural historiography to determine how historians have used periodization to explain the formation of Iranian architecture; how their understanding of “ architecture” and “ Iranian architecture” affected the periodization they have used; and what consequences such periodization have on the historiography of Iranian architecture. This study reveals that the architectural histories have mainly borrowed from the periods already established in the field of the political history of Iran. The periodization reflect the major ruling dynasties in consecutive eras, and architectural historians have associated the works of architecture with their contemporary political context to the point that they have considered the state as the main force behind any significant change in architecture. Adopting the political criteria of periodization has lent historians a useful framework, but its dominance have made them oblivious to the possibility of alternative histories that could include more diverse works of architecture and offer different explanations. Architecture is a vast concept and historians of Iranian architecture have relied upon different definitions of it, such as a fine art, the embodiment of culture, the symbol of civilization, and the reflection of a nation’ s spirit. These definitions have helped them to identify the periods of time in which apposite examples have emerged in the Iranian architecture. These periods are mostly similar in different historiographies; however, they cannot agree on periods earlier than Median and Achaemenid to mark the beginnings of Iranian architecture. They have also distinguished the works of architecture as “ Iranian” by acknowledging specific properties in them; among which “ continuity” , “ monumentality” , “ historical value” , and “ aesthetic value” are recurrent themes. The idea of continuity has an important role in determining whether or not the more recent architectures, such as Qajar architecture could be considered a period of the historical architecture of Iran. The contemporary architecture has been also shaped around the idea of a period of discontinuity in otherwise continuous Iranian architecture. Current forms of periodization impose some limitations on how we understand the history of Iranian architecture. The cliché of 2500 years of Persian civilization, that has found its way into many architectural histories through the works of orientalists, leaves out long periods of our past as irrelevant or negligible. The political criteria of this periodization advocates the state as the main power that shapes architecture, thus historians tend to focus on the monuments, not the mundane, residential or rural architecture. It also prevents them from studying the works of architecture located in areas that are peripheral to a specific dynasty’ s realm.

The main problem of the current research is whether it is possible to present an indigenous periodization of the history of Iran in addition to the European-oriented periodization. In order to answer this question, the author tries to present his proposed model rejecting European-oriented periodization. The methodological approach in this research is "systemic analysis" and the unity of the criterion determined for periodization is "the nature of the political system". With these considerations, the author divides the history of Iran into five different periods:King of Kings period (from the rise of the Median dynasty to the decline of the Sassanid)Caliphate-Royal period (from The arrival of Islam in Iran until the fall of the Abbasid caliphate)Khanid period (from the Mongol invasion of Iran to the establishment of the Safavid state)The absolute monarchy period (from the rise of the Safavid dynasty to the establishment of the constitutional system) andThe period of constitutional monarchy (from the establishment of the constitutional system to the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty).

The writing of Iranian architectural history has, from its start, followed the principles of western historiography. Portions of this history are well expected to be neglected or unattended when writing of it takes place outside its intellectual framework that essentially reflects the Iranian throught world. To have a truly Iranian architectural historiography, one has to find the theoretical principles which are deeply rooted in the Iranian Islamic culture. Although pre-modern Iranian historians never wrote a history of architecture, they were exponents of historiography during a millennium of cultural flourishing and vigor. Since any sort of historiography, as well as literature, usually is based on principles and ideological views about history and time, Persian historic texts can be considered as worthy sources regarding theoretical bases on which we can build the Iranian philosophy of architectural history. Persian prose of the early centuries of Islam is among these sources. One of the common, prominent themes in these texts is the nature of time or history. It is presented as a sensible, living being whose states relate to human events and phenomena across time. A new theory of periodization of Iranian architectural history can be drawn based upon this theory.