One of the biggest beliefs we still have that come from a Eurocentric perspective, is the still very much alive tendency to measure the "ages" according to historicist standards.
Historicism has had many names and forms in the past three centuries, but I'm talking about the idea that human society is entirely defined by its history. This concept derives from the thoughts of Leopold von Ranke. His works and views, based on empirism and positivism, on the idea of seeking sources and evidence as the major factor in historical investigation, and his firm belief in the concept of societies as primarily defined by their history, influenced many historians both in Europe and in the United States. American historian Edward Gaylord Bourne, famous for his views on Spanish colonialism, wrote works entirely on Ranke, such as Leopold von Ranke (1896). History as a defining part in the construction and constitution of the Zeitgeist (the spirit of an epoch) of a society, together with the idea of giving paramount importance to the specific figures of "great men", people whose deeds and actions were more important in the development of historical events, comes from Ranke and his disciples, who are known as the German School of Historicism (I apologize if that's inaccurate in English, that's what Spanish speaking scholars call them). In The Life and Work of the German Historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886): An Assessment of His Achievements (2015) Andreas Boldt says that the necessity to mark specific events and specific people as key in the development of human history, became paramount in the context of the aftermath of the French Revolution, when nationalistic and militaristic sentiments became the norm in academia throughout Europe.
The German School is responsible for the establishment of what we still know as the Ages of History. As empirists (even though Popper heavily criticized them in his fairly well known 1957 work, The Poverty of Historicism), they believed that the search for "objectivity" and general rules had to be the main focuses of any scientific endeavor. However, as Popper stated, they ended up being reductionistic (yes, I know, a positivistic hardliner calling others reductionistic is ironic to say the least). He wasn't wrong however, because this school of thought's measure of time is indeed reductionistic. According to them, classical antiquity corresponded essentially to the Hellenistic world, particularly the Greeks and Romans. We still think that way. The middle ages range from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 (which as any expert will tell you is just too reductionistic, because the WRE didn't fall in a day, it was a long and complex period of unrest that lead to the its dissolution), and ends either with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 or with Columbus' arrival to America in 1492. We still think of it that way. And so on with the modern and contemporary periods.
What do these measurements have in common? They are marked by specific events, which were either in or important to the development of European history; they had key players, "great men"; and they were often associated with military events. Gerda Lerner criticized this view because, as she states in The Creation of Patriarchy (1986), both the idea of "great men" and the importance given to militarism are key parts in the development of patriarchy, and in its continuation and furtherance.
In spite of the prevalence of parts of historicist thinking in our current ways of perceiving history and social life, there are many movements that strive to move away from this Eurocentric view.
In Latin America for example, there are three currents that strive for the creation of autochthonous knowledge regarding social sciences. One of them is the Philosophy of Liberation, developed by many authors such as Enrique Dussel and Arturo Roig. They believe in the importance of Latin American philosophy and human sciences, created for Latin Americans for Latin Americans and the rest of the world. Another is the Theology of Liberation, furthered by many priests and clerics such as Leonardo Boff. Their beliefs are similar to the Philosophy of Liberation, but from a religious approach, and were heavily influenced by the work of the so-called "curas villeros", priests who lived and worked in the poorest slums of Buenos Aires and other Latin American cities, fighting to restore early Catholic and Christian ideals of the defense and protection of the poor, striving for social inclusion. A different perspective comes from social scientists such as sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, who in Epistemologies of the South talks about a need to renew social sciences in Latin America, to further the development of native Americans and immigrants's knowledge alike, in order to understand the mistakes committed in the past, to build a future free of neocolonialism.
There are also other schools of thought that advocate for the end of Eurocentrism and neocolonialism in other parts of the world. In Africa for example, Ghanan politician, philosopher and Pan-African advocate Kwame Nkrumah was one of the precursors of liberation ideas in Africa. One very interesting work is Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism (1965). In Asia, there have been many developing theories calling for the need to refocus on early Asian historiography, in order to build a new approach to their history. Sanjay Pulipa with the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations has been one of India's leading voices in the matter.
With these schools of thought, new views, approaches and focuses have appeared over the last fifty years, leading to a new study of history, even changing the way historical periods are perceived. In certain parts of Asia for example, scholars refer to ages as marked by events relevant to their history, instead of things that were and are relevant to Europe. In Latin America, there is a growing consensus in the social academic world on the use of the terms Before the Conquest and After the Conquest (B.C. and A.C.), instead of the traditional B.C. and A.D.