LSE 2011/2012 seminar: The Uses of Space In Early Modern History 1500-1850.
(bolding mine)

Might be the latest ending date for "early modern" mentioned in this thread up to now.

---

Found thanks to https://twitter.com/#!/guillaumeratel/status/149518170313588737

the early modern age (1500-1800).

Early Modern European History (1500-1700): Fellowship at Balliol College, Oxford with University Lectureship

The post is for a specialist in Continental European history, 1500-1700, with a preference for socio-cultural history or socio-political history. There will be no geographical restriction, but, given the Faculty’s developing research interest in Global history, a research expertise in Ottoman history (including the relationships between the Ottoman empire and western Europe) would be strongly welcomed.

the primary aim of this project is to combine archival and library-based scholarship of the Renaissance period (broadly defined as c.1300-1800) with the exploration of new modes of communication in the present.

The early modern became ensconced in the Anglophone historiographical scene about 1970. Of course, the phrase “early modern” had long existed, sometimes to refer to the first age of humans, more often to refer to a stage in language development (early modern French, or early Modern English after Old English), more rarely to refer to several centuries, and for the latter, mainly in university curricula and mainly with regards to Europe or even England. (for example, Dawson 1888, p. 398; Edwards 1896, p. vii; The Cornell University Register 1869, p. 62). But a few works in the 1960s applied the term to a broad era after the Middle Ages and it graced numerous collections and texts from 1970. Where before one might name royal houses (the Tudor‑Stuart era) or use dates of major wars and treaties (Europe before 1648), from the 1960s one increasingly turned to “early modern” to signify variously 1300‑1700 or 1500‑1800. Two nGrams show the phrase’s dramatic rise as a term in British and American texts since the 1960s (http://tinyurl.com/8to62hf; http://tinyurl.com/9ks9cbc). (Randolph Starn 2002, discovers slightly different progenitors than I do; but we both agree to the sea change in usage circa 1970).
5 0

Outside the Anglophone world, the early modern has been much less eagerly embraced. As Starn shows, German-language academics remain suspicious of frühe Neuzeit, while the French- (and Spanish-) language ones remain committed to histoire moderne as a broad designation, and the ancien régime society of the earlier part of that broad periodization. Again, using Google books Ngram Viewer (http://tinyurl.com/9dhkk9d; http://tinyurl.com/9nm9z8c) suggests that frühe Neuzeit has become increasingly used in the 1990s and 2000s (although still explained as if a novelty, and, confusingly, neuere Geschichte can also refer to the era from the 16th century onwards), while début des temps modernes has seen a steady increase in use since the 1880s (although the latter mainly refers to the point at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the early modern). Overall, historians tend to group their specialties by century (Revue Dix-Huitième Siècle), and the Anglophone world sometimes stretches that to incorporate the long sixteenth century, or the long eighteenth century (a phraseology which owes more to the Braudelian longue durée).
6 0

The underlying reasons for this change are many, but I would point especially to the triumph of Marxian, Weberian, and especially Tönniesian social theories. Karl Marx’s stadial analysis readily explains the focus on early modern Europe and England, if not the terminology. (Rollison 2005)

I’ll say a few words about each approach, alterist and continuist, both of which are as familiar in medieval as they are they are in early modern studies, before offering a third possibility.

Medieval works typically survive in multiple manuscript versions that postdate their putative origin by decades, even centuries. Some like the fourteenth-century travel narrative known as the Book of Mandeville arrive as a polyglot plethora.[3] We are fairly certain the Book was first composed in Anglo-Norman French, but a variety of English Mandevilles also erupted, leading to a tangle of versions from which no urtext can be reconstructed. We do not know who composed the “original” book (other than its author was unlikely to have been John Mandeville) or where the work first found words (France has been guessed, but there is no way to know for certain). Manuscript history suggests the third quarter of the fourteenth century as its date of composition, but the cultural conditions under which it was produced cannot be excavated – and would not, at any rate, enable us to know why Walter Raleigh was citing Mandeville when describing his adventures in Guyana. The text is not anchored in a moment of origin, and continued to reproduce, mutate, and proliferate itself for several centuries. Its narrative is a collage of borrowings, rendering its imagined peregrinations from the start a temporally thick archive.

The past is not past, is not an absolute difference; nor is the past conjoined to the present in continuity, in sameness. Past, present, and future are a temporal knot, thick with possibility even while impossible to fully untangle

The Department of History at NYU seeks to appoint a scholar of early modern Chinese history (before 1900) t