Historical criminology, a moving target: Understanding and challenging trends in British and American periodization

Within historical research, any identification of a chronological start and end point constitutes a tacit assertion that the period is worthy of study as a complete narrative. For that reason, an historical subfield's cumulative decisions regarding periodization may offer valuable insights into how it envisions its most important eras and epochs. This article analyzes periodization choices within historical criminology, employing a convenience sample (n = 1966) of representative monographs and articles as a means of creating a general, if provisional, sense of which time periods scholars working on United States- and Great Britain-based subjects consider most worthy of study. Based on an analysis of titles with explicit periodizations (n = 703), the authors uncovered distinct patterns, as British topics decidedly leaned toward the early Victorian Era (1835–1849), whereas United States-focused works lean toward the late Gilded Age (1890–1901). We contend that, in both instances, an era's privileged place within the literature is attributable to a variety of factors, including availability of evidence, the state of the secondary literature, and a feeling that the period resonates in the present day. The authors conclude that, because historical eras are post facto inventions and all times are ultimately interrelated and inseparable, historical criminologists should push to “flatten the curve” of periodization by giving approximately equal attention to all time periods, beginning with greater attention to the Colonial United States and pre-Tudor England.