[jbandela1]

One issue is that this is mixing civilizations where we have a written historical record with civilizations where we don't have that and rely on archeology alone.

The problem with that, is that the historical record allows much finer grained distinctions which makes the civilizations seem shorter, while the archeological record can not have those distinctions which makes them seem longer

For example, without the historical record, could we really distinguish between Ancient Rome and Roman Empire. Or between Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom Egypt? Or between the various Chinese empires since there has been a continuity of civilization and culture even across the various empires.

So this article ends up averaging two very different things.

In addition, some of the numbers are suspect. For example, Byzantine Empire is listed at 350 years. Most scholars would agree that the fall of the Byzantine Empire is 1453 with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. The latest date for the considering the empire "Byzantine" would be 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne as split from western Europe. This gives over 600 years. If you take 476 (fall of Western Roman Empire) as the start of the Byzantine Empire, that gives almost 1000 years.

[aitium12]

Also, we only started calling the eastern roman empire ’byzantine’ recently. The people of the ’byzantine’ empire still considered themself ’romans’.