Periods of the history of Venezuela 

The characterization and the delimitation of periods in the history of Venezuela 
raise some specific problems, besides those characteristic of all 
periodificación intent. This problems have to see with: 1) the simultaneity of 
the processes of «discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization»; 2) the 
historical lapse embraced by this processes; 3) the location of the 
same independence; 4) the location of the Republic of Colombia (Great call 
Colombia); 5) the delimitation of the contemporary history; and 6) the 
correspondence with the Eurus-western periodificación. To this list, not 
exhaustive, of problems specific historiográficos, it is necessary to add the 
methodological ones basic of the periodificación, concerning to: 1) 
the universality of the periodificación approaches; 2) the chronological cuts; 
and 3) the functionality of the periodificación outlines. It is necessary to 
prevent against the tendency to underestimate the importance of the problems 
raised by the periodificación of the history. They commit the same understanding 
of the history. Reducing them to an operation of courts, or of señalamientos, 
merely chronological, it harms the same essence of the historical processes, 
which should be understood as an intricate correlation of continuity 
and change. This basic understanding of the historical thing is the first one in 
suffering damage by reason of the intents or outlines of not well based, 
arbitrarily carried out or overvalued periodificación. Let us see, summarily, on 
what they consist the specific problems. The simultaneity of the processes of 
«discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization» it is an essential condition of 
the global process, without the clear perception of which is impossible to 
capture the dynamics of the same one and mainly, to understand 
the respective papers carried out in him by the Europeans and for the natives, 
first, and for the American Creoles, then. The historical lapse embraced by the 
denominated processes of «discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization» it 
charges new significance when notices himself that, in rigor, they extend until 
the present, in areas of considerable extension, since the full occupation of 
the territory has not still been completed. From the point of view of 
the relacionamiento with the indigenous base, as well as from that of the 
significance of the paper carried out by the Creole population and for the 
resources generated in the own territory, the continuity of the global process 
is extremely developing, as it is also it for the understanding in current ways 
of that relacionamiento that you/they show scarce or any essential variation of 
those generated in the XVI century. The location of the considered precursory 
intents of the independence, has great importance from 2 points of view: in the 
first place, concerning the integral understanding of the colonial, included 
period the critical processes of the same one; in second place, from the point 
of view of the legitimation to ultranza of the independence that has taken to 
rake antecedent suppositions in times so early as the historical logic tolerates 
it. Comparable difficulties raise the location of the independence, because what 
puts at stake, this way, is the national vision of the history of Venezuela. To 
separate the colonial period of the national one taking as 
approach the declaration of independence, the constitution of the First 
Republic, or even the battle of Carabobo, leaves outlined the problem of the 
continuity of the colonial régime in portions of the territory (Choir and 
Maracaibo), as well as its reestablishment during comparatively very lingering 
periods (7 years in the county of Caracas). In other words, thinks about the 
problem of marking the initial landmark of the independent Republic.Difficulties 
also comparable it raises the location of the Republic of Colombia, 1821-1830. 
Does it owe considerársele it leaves of the Independence? Is it the full 
beginning of the independent Republic? Does it constitute, in yes, a period of 
the history of Venezuela, intermission between the colonial one and the national 
one? On the other hand, the delimitation of the contemporary history raises 
special difficulties, derived point of the school periodificación, for traced a 
lot of time of the French national history, like for the prejudiced 
identification of Juan Vicente Gómez long tyranny with one century XIX 
latifundista and caudillesco. Lastly, they should take in consideration the 
difficulties outlined by the correspondence between the periodificación of the 
history of Venezuela and the Eurus-western one, or if one wants in other terms: 
for the location of the process historical Venezuelan in the supposedly 
universal outline generated by the European 
historiography. With the statement enters before to consider the basic 
methodological problem of the periodificación, and in the first place its 
universality. To this respect, León E. Halkin recommends that: «Let us don't 
forget that the classic divisions of the history, be San Agustín's six times or 
of the four ages of Hegel, they are not applied but to the general history of 
the Mediterranean and of West. They have not still imagined at the same time 
valid divisions for the art and for the institutions, for China, Mexico, Russia 
and France. 
The usual divisions have been work of European; they are made for European. For 
it same it diminishes their importance. Their accuracy is not much bigger, even 
for the single Europe». It is not smaller the difficulty outlined by the 
chronological cuts, not already from the point of view of the continuity and the 
discontinuity of the history, in the sense of the imbricación of the processes, 
but from the point of view of the correlation of the diverse historical times 
that you/they are contemporary in a given moment. In sum, enough indications as 
to conclude, as for the significance of the periodificación that this 
constitutes a file or analytic resource of delicate use, in the sense that their 
employment should go accompanied by the preventions of the case. Among these 
they deserve to be underlined two: in the first place, the periodificación is 
not never innocua; in second place, only a white, explicit and critical 
foundation criteriológica makes useful the employment of a periodificación 
outline. Approaches continued in the periodificación of the history of 
Venezuela Before making a critical presentation of the periodificación outlines 
applied to the history of Venezuela, it is convenient to try to sometimes 
identify the approaches that have served them as foundation, in explicit form, 
the more than the times in implicit form. In this respect it is necessary to 
remark that the critical historiográfica allows to identify this approaches, 
even when the author of the outline has not had conscience of his explanation. 
This last one is the case of the generality of the Venezuelan historians, and it 
is the confirmation of this fact one of the foundations that has allowed to 
point out the lack of methodological elaboration as one of the characteristics 
of the Venezuelan historiography. 
It seems possible to identify basic approaches of periodificación of the history 
of Venezuela: 1) the directly transferred of the history «universal» Eurus-
western; 2) the corresponding to the perspective of the national history; 3) the 
specific one or ad hoc; 4) the chronological one; 5) the characteristic of the 
contemporary time; and 6) the historical one integral. 
The outlines of directly transferred periodificación of the history «universal» 
Eurus-western 
they reveal their incongruity that surprises to the critical spirit their 
lingering validity, so easily of not being because after her the irredeemable 
aspiration of the Creole underlies to link its history with that of the or the 
European metropolises. The base of this adjournment is the sequence Edad 
Antigua, Half Age, Modern Age, Contemporary Age, for which it becomes mandatory 
to find equivalent in the process historical Venezuelan, and that for the 
same thing it commits the reconciliation among the long period in which 
registers the Eurus-western history and the short period in which registers the 
history of the Creole society, although to overcome that obstacle throws hand 
of the aboriginal past, transforming it into the Edad Antigua or in the 
Prehistory, according to the cases of the evolution of the Creole society. The 
periodificación outline based on the concept of national history corresponds to 
a moment of the history of the Venezuelan historiography, lingering until the 
present, in which the primordial objective was not to form knowledge but 
promoting the national project. In consequence, the formulation of the same one 
became the clearest indication that with him a new period began and, what is 
more, regarding which all that happened previously became an antecedent. Of 
there the division in colonial period and national period. It is opportune to 
point out that although it is been in general very closing when speaking of 
period or colonial history, they have not lacked well historians that refute 
this denomination, be for the purpose of raking in him clear indications of the 
nationality (they are mentioned Carlos' III reformations then), well be to 
differentiate the relationship with the Spanish metropolis of the modern 
imperialistic linking (it is used in this case the denomination history or 
provincial period, and it is alleged that the term colony was outlawed 
specifically by the metropolis). In the concerning thing to the national period, 
it can be pointed out that this denomination is not always used, but rather it 
usually uses as synonym the one of «republic», although making this doesn't 
bear the acceptance of the denomination «period monarchist» for the colonial 
one, since the same conception of the national history has been taken to the end 
of denying authenticity to the monarchic past. It is sought to affirm, in this 
way that the Venezuelan society was never really monarchic. The periodificación 
outlines based on specific approaches or ad hoc are referred to moments or 
processes characteristic of the historical evolution of Venezuela. They present 
the difficulty that they reduce the possibilities of understanding 
from the historical processes when detaching them of the categories of the 
European universal history. The use of these periodificación approaches 
presupposes the specificity, or in any event a certain degree of her, of the 
historical evolution of the Venezuelan Creole society. To this respect it is 
necessary to formulate some considerations. 
In the first place, «...hablar of a historical process specifically Venezuelan 
would be only possible if the very doubtful validity of that specificity was 
hidden, because for its historical development, Venezuela (that is to say the 
implanted society or Creole) inmersa has been and in permanent linking, 
regarding the European-western historical development...» In second place, 
«...sustraer to Venezuela of the square of the history universal European would 
mean to adopt a limited perspective, and until false that would prevent to 
understand the reality historical Venezuelan when whisking away this way the 
interaction, frequently decisive, with the universal thing defined...» In third 
place, «...si leaves of the acceptance of the bond with the European universal 
history, but without incurring in the simplismo of seeking <to reproduce it> in 
every period, the following periodificación could maybe be admitted: Prehistory 
(until the discovery, expert in sense beats); Modern Age (whose limit would 
depend of the approach that adopts in this respect you); and Contemporary Age 
(under equal conditions). But it won't be easy, for many historians, to give up 
a luck of Venezuelan feudalism without Half Age...» In fourth place, 
it seems licit to think that «...en that universal mark would have space the 
characterizations 
and periodificaciones inspired by the specific thing American, as well as in the 
periodificación universal European they fit regional and even national shades. 
The error would be in transferring the whole European universal periodificación 
mechanically...» it is Maybe necessary to have present that the history of the 
society implanted Venezuelan is unwrapped in the environment of the European 
Modern Age, but under the conditions of America. 
The periodificación outlines based on the chronological approach hide, with 
their apparent simplicity, all an intricate one problematic methodological that 
you can express as the frequent inadequacy between the historical time and the 
chronological time. Indeed, to distribute the history in centuries and in years 
it outlines difficult problems as for the continuity of the historical 
processes, but also as for the significance characteristic of each one of the 
lapses. For example, the imbricación has already been pointed out between the 
colonial period and the national one, but it would also be necessary to adduce 
that the century XVII Venezuelan is caught among a vast and dense XVI century, 
the one which not yet has concluded in almost a third part of the Venezuelan 
territory, and a not less dense XVIII century, which survives fragmentarily in 
some agricultural exploitations and in the sequels of the slavery. Of course, it 
continues him a larguísimo XIX century that some authors prolong until the 
decade of 1940. The situation is committed than the years «holes». Obviously it 
will be been able to object that such a situation only expressed the 
inadequacy of the available historical knowledge, or their excessive subjection 
to certain concepts of the historical thing. This way, for the warlike 
historiography the years of peace would be years without history. The evident 
inadequacy of the strictly chronological periodificación applied to the history 
universal European induced to adopt a periodificación 
in times, which were defined on the base of characteristic and not of 
chronological landmarks. The periodificación of the history of Venezuela 
according to the national approach would be, probably, its equivalent one. Also 
the characterization and delimitation of the contemporary time of the history of 
Venezuela raises difficulties, some referred to the process Venezuelan 
sociohistórico, others referred to the history «universal» Eurus-western. The 
main source of difficulties for the delimitation is constituted by the 
historical significance of those almost Juan Vicente Gómez government's 3 
decades, and in turn, this significance is linked with the deep trauma caused by 
that fact in the intellectual conscience of the Venezuelans. They are 2 the main 
attitudes: the one of those who look for to oppress that historical period 
denying him all projection in the contemporary modernity, and for they already 
wrap up it with the commented stereotyped vision of the XIX century; and the 
one of those who look for mainly to mark the difference with the subsequent 
period, and for it doesn't have enough them to it with identifying this last one 
with the democracy but rather they also make it with the XX century. In the 
bottom, it is the same approach that took to Mariano Picón Salas to point out as 
landmark the year of 1941, to be more or less the year of the first elections 
democratic happened in Venezuela during the XX century; or the one that induced 
J.M. Gornés Mac Pherson to divide the «history of free Venezuela» in 2 big 
periods: that of the national independence and that of the independence, 
taking as approach the payment of the balance of the foreign debt in 1930. Rubén 
Carpio Castillo relates the coming of the XX century, and with it of the 
Contemporary Age, with the foundation of Democratic Action. Obviously, if we 
take like guide the occurrence of momentous facts, the nationalization of the 
petroleum could claim deserved attention, and with they would get complicated it 
more the things. 
To these difficulties those should be added arisen of the linking of the history 
of Venezuela with the «universal» Eurus-western. There are 3 areas, at least, in 
those that one manifests this situation: in the first place, the still not 
completely overcome delimitation of the Contemporary Time starting from French 
Revolution; in second place, taking as landmark for the humanity everything, and 
consequently also for Venezuela, the Russian Revolution; and lastly, the 
pretendidamente skilled solution of taking as approach the one of «the most 
recent history», what doesn't make but transferring the problem. A specific 
methodological study proposes as point of beginning of the Venezuelan 
Contemporary Age 
the Second World War, with a phase or transition stage that it embraces the 
years 1928-1936-1945. The periodificación, been founded in an integral 
historical approach, seeks to take exactly that is to say as central element 
what constitutes the obstacle of other outlines, the continuity of the 
historical processes; the coexistence of different historical times, 
expressed in the high level of contemporaneidad of the formation historical 
Venezuelan; and the simultaneity of the processes conformativos picked up in the 
installation concept (for example, a XVI century that runs until the present in 
the ways of the relacionamiento with the aboriginal societies). The purpose of 
capturing this imbricación of simultaneous, continuous and interrelated 
processes, took to adopt the division in phases, without being held to strict 
chronological terms, like it will be seen later on. As will have been possible 
to appreciate, this intent of identification of the basic approaches continued 
in the outlines of periodificación of the history of Venezuela admits the 
possibility of diverse combinations of the same ones. It is more, it can be 
affirmed that in rigor, they don't usually apply scatteredly. Certainly that it 
contributes to create this situation «...la lack of legitimation methodological 
observable in the periodificación outlines elaborated by the Venezuelan 
historiography...», and which is noticed equally in the periodificaciones that 
derived patterns of the universal historiography continue and in the outlines ad 
hoc, and the absence of methodological legitimation is manifested so much 
in the use of the chronological order as in the followed approaches to break 
into fragments it. In the first case it is observed that confusion exists 
between the long one and the short historical period, and this until the point 
that you ends up demarcating periods in whose hardship is impossible to think 
that they could be formed and to acquire full entity characteristic historical 
forms, not already structural but even secondary: this way, we find periods that 
are equal to centuries, decades and even half a decade, located in a plane of 
correspondence that was historically untenable. As for the periodificación 
approaches, these are usually more or less uncertain and in general they change 
in the development outline, with what the periodificación loses all sense. 
To appreciate the game of the approaches of followed periodificación better in 
the outlines of periodificación of the history of Venezuela, it is useful to 
pass magazine to some representative examples, containing them in 3 big items: 
1) that of the inspired ones in the most usual outlines in the history 
«universal» Eurus-western; 2) that of the inspired ones in specific approaches 
or ad hoc, and 3) the one based on the integral historical approach. 
Concerning the inspired outlines directly in those more used in the 
historiography «universal» Eurus-western, and about which it has already been 
said that they are generally a methodological adjournment, it usually plays with 
the outline Edad Antigua, Half Age, Modern Age and Contemporary Age, as made it 
Eloy G. González, when referring to Simón Bolívar, it differentiated their luck 
of that of Francisco of Miranda in «our old age» and that of J.M. Vargas in «our 
half age». Francisco Javier Yanes, toward 1840, it had divided the history of 
Venezuela in «old» and «contemporary», taking as dividing the independence. On 
the other hand, Felipe will Knit, in his Manual of history of Venezuela, it 
used the division among «old history» and «modern history», subdividing this 
last one in turn. It is necessary to make some señalamientos as for the use of 
the directly inspired outlines in the periodificación of the history «universal» 
Eurus-western. In the first place it is necessary to refer to the relationship 
that you/they keep with the outlines based on specific approaches or ad hoc. It 
is possible to think that the inspired ones in the history «universal» they 
govern for the long period, while the other ones make it for the short one 
and the brief period. But this distinction loses force when we notice that 
almost a lifetime historical of Venezuela it lapses in the Modern Age, before 
which would only be necessary to speak of an extensive and diffuse it was before 
Columbus or prehispanic, that would make completely impossible to think of some 
equivalent of the ages Antigua and Half Europeans. On the other hand, well it 
can be thought that the employment of that periodificación for Eloy G. González, 
Francisco Javier Yanes and Felipe will Knit «...no responds to a similarity or 
correspondence of its historical contents with its equivalent ones European, but 
only to the purpose of marking landmarks or stages that allowed to differentiate 
studies of the historical life of Venezuela...» In the case of Eloy G. González 
the Edad Antigua would be a period of uncertain beginning that would close with 
the achievement of the independence, beginning the Half Age then, which would 
culminate in some moment before the publication from its work To the margin of 
the epic poem (1906). 
It is very marked the chronological disproportion between both periods, because 
the Half Age would cover less than one century. In the case of the 
periodificación settled down by Felipe will Knit, if we take into account the 
date of 1873, in which appears prefaced, as well as the fact that for modern 
history understands each other the one that begins in 1821, it is clear the non 
correspondence with the concept of modern history used in the historiography 
«universal» Eurus-western: this way, the Edad Antigua of Venezuela (from 
1500 until ends of the XVIII century) it would correspond to the European Modern 
Age, while the Age Modern Venezuelan would correspond to a part of the European 
Contemporary Age, according to the classic periodificación that makes pull up 
this of 1789. 
Concerning the outlines of leaning periodificación in specific approaches or ad 
hoc, is necessary to observe, in the first place that vary following a rule 
given by the periodificación outline that distinguishes basically among Colony, 
Independence and Republic, according to a political approach. In the colonial 
period the aboriginal past is included as antecedent and denominated stages are 
demarcated «discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization», without fixing 
approach regarding the simultaneity or sequence of the same ones. 
TheIndependence is usually fractioned in «republics», also settling down a 
bigger diferenciación among 2 stages delimited starting from the constitution of 
the Republic of Colombia, and in «years». When considering this periodificación 
pattern's samples critically, it can be concluded that their character ad hoc 
more than to mean an intent of reception of the specific thing of the process 
historical Venezuelan, it demonstrates subordination to the historically 
incidental thing, if it is that it doesn't denote interpretive outrage. Rafael 
María Baralt established this periodificación pattern when dividing his work in 
2 parts: They summarize of the history of Venezuela from the discovery of their 
territory for the Castilian in the XV century, until the year 1797 and they 
Summarize of the history of Venezuela from the year of 1797 until that of 1830 
(1841-1843). When taking John the Baptist conspiracy Picornell, Manuel Gual and 
José María España like dividing between the colonial period and the beginning of 
the Independence, sat down the rule of isolating of the period previous to the 
independence and their prolegómenos. Guillermo Tell Villegas, in their work 
popular Instruction in Venezuela (1899), being founded in an expressed political 
approach, it distinguished 4 stadiums or political phases: «...Primera. That of 
the time that remained under the government from Spain, that is to say you the 
colonial one that began August of 1498, 1 in that the Iberian caravelsdiscovered 
our costs, and their boss took possession from our country to name of the Crown 
of Castile, up to April of 1810, 19 in that the country, illuminated politically 
for the brand of the French revolution, and with the conscience of his right, he 
took the first step that separated it of the native mother. Second. That of the 
war, begun with Spain that rejected the demand, and finished in the glorious 
field of Carabobo June 24 1821. Third. The one that in 1821 it began in the 
cradle, and in 1830 it finished in the tomb of Colombia, of that colossal 
Republic that arose to create an illusion and to engender a hope. Fourth. 
That of their autonomy that dates from 1830 in that, separating the Colombian 
unit, had a seat among the sovereign nations...» it Surprises, in this 
outliine, the ingenuousness in thechronological demarcation of the stadiums that 
arrives until pointing out year, month and day, without taking in consideration 
the imbricación of the political processes. Equally calls the attention the 
chronological imbalance among the stadiums. José Gil Fortoul, in their 
constitutional History of Venezuela (1907), it introduced a variant inspired by 
the constitutional classification. It distinguishes a first period denominated 
Colony that culminates in 1809, with what differs significantly of the outline 
applied by Baralt, since it considers the first symptoms of the political crisis 
of the colonial society as part of the colonial period. The second period, «The 
Independence», begins in 1810 and it culminates with the «Breakup of Colombia» 
and the death of Bolivar, in 1830. The third period, «Rebuilding of the 
Republic. The Conservative Oligarchy», begins in 1830 and closes 
with the events of January 24 1848. The fourth period, «The Liberal Oligarchy», 
extends up to 1863. Also, previó other denominated periods «The Federation», 
«The Autocracy», 
The Eclecticism» and «The Restoration», with what would have paid tribute to the 
merely incidental thing until weakening all their outline, in which the most 
novel thing the periodificación of the lapse 1830-1863 that has lasted until 
today was. Regarding this periodificación outline, which enriches the basic 
outline respecting it in the essential thing, is opportune to point out that in 
their conception it weighs the author's approach constitutionalist a lot, which 
takes him to center their history in the evolution in the constitutional way, 
although without disregarding the rising political practice. As for their 
demarcation in «oligarchies», it seemed that didn't have for object defining 
historical periods in strict sense, but rather it constitutes a methodological 
resource to differentiate stadiums of a republican period that, when appearing 
undivided, would suggest a deceiving homogeneity. This last would allow to 
understand, in passing, the sequence of successive microestadios that the author 
didn't end up trying. That is to say that in that way their periodificación 
would be reduced to the 3 basic periods: Colony, Independence and 
Republic. 
In the extensive range of the periodificación outlines based on approaches ad 
hoc, they occupy a special place those that take those «you revolutionize» as 
landmarks. Andrés Puts on he offers in his work How to save Venezuela a 
specially eloquent sample of this periodificación gender. It distinguishes «nine 
periods of revolutions»: 1810-1819; 1819-1830; 1830-1846; 1846-1858; 1858-1863; 
1863-1868; 1868-1870; 1870-1900 and 1900-1935 (the work was published in 1936). 
In this outline it is clearly perceptible the chronological disproportion among 
the periods, as well as the fact that in the most lingering in them, that is to 
say the one that runs between 1900 and 1935, didn't have, according to 
the author revolutions «...en the technical sense of the word [...] only some 
hand blows, non insurrections...», what means that it is not governed approach 
equally that the precedent periods. Being largely subtracted to the basic 
pattern of periodificación enriched by José Gil Fortoul, in recent years has 
intended some periodificación outlines that fit also in the item of those been 
founded in approaches ad hoc, even when some of them incorporates new component 
historiográficos and ideological. Among these outlines interests to comment 
especially, for their projection prolonged in the Venezuelan historiography, the 
employee for Carlos Irazábal in their fundamental work, Toward the democracy. It 
distinguishes 5 denominated periods: «The Colony», «The Independence, «The 
democratic régime is not stabilized», «The womb of the absolutism» and «Toward 
the democracy». In rigor, the last one is not properly one period but a 
prospective ideological-politics. To constitute the work rather a group of 
rehearsals that a systematic exhibition of the process historical Venezuelan, is 
not easy to establish the correspondence with chronological demarcations. It is 
not exaggerated to also say that the periodificación on which is erected 
combines the traditional thing with the incidental thing, it doesn't seem to 
obey clear, much less expressed approaches, and the most significant thing, it 
doesn't evidence the purpose of elaborating a periodificación outline been 
founded in the historical materialism, of which is advanced however in the 
sciences social Venezuelans. Similar considerations, as for the methodological 
indetermination and criteriológica, they can be made about the outline 
elaborated by Federico Brito Figueroa for their economic and social History of 
Venezuela. 
It distinguishes 3 big periods: «The Formation of Venezuela», «Venezuela XIX 
century» and «Venezuela XX century» and in this last one, it establishes 2 
times: «Venezuela in the time of the imperialistic penetration» and «The time of 
the neocolonialismo». The foundation criteriológica of this periodificación 
outline is not clear, because it combines the traditional chronological 
structuring with a vision of the XX century not inspired by a Marxist conception 
elaborated. 
Concerning the periodificación based on an integral historical approach, fits 
to say that it constitutes an intent of methodological replanteamiento of the 
periodificación of the history of Venezuela, assisting to the group of the 
historical factors, and overcoming the periodificaciones been founded in the 
«universal» Eurus-western and in the approaches ad hoc. The completed 
proposition, in this sense, serves from structure to the work historical-
social Formation of Venezuela, elaborated by the team sociohistórico of the 
Center of Studies of the Development of the Central University of Venezuela. On 
the base of a systematic methodological inquiry, referred so much to the group 
of the Latin American societies as to the Venezuelan, a periodificación approach 
was adopted that obeys to a new perception of the specificity of the formation 
social Venezuelan, based on 2 fundamental features: 1. «...La unit of the 
process sociohistórico of the formation social Venezuelan can even not be 
analyzed as an installation process concluded, 2. The high contemporaneidad 
degree...» In each moment of that development sociohistórico the simultaneous 
and articulate presence of elements is appreciated generated in different 
moments of that development. This way, the present reality is constituted of a 
simultaneity of elements