The Axial Age is really an attempt to describe one section of the so-called 'eonic effect. The eonic effect is a complex non-random pattern of universal history and is described using a simple model of world history based on the idea of 'eonic transitions', as intervals in an 'eonic sequence', which is evidence of the 'eonic evolution of civilization'. Don't waste time worrying about the term 'eonic', use another word, like 'intermittent', as here the short duration of a swift moving period. The term 'eonic' as 'intermittent' in the context of the Axial Age is confusing because we are seeing historical discontinuity and can't account for it. It is a little like 'boom and bust',   in economic cycles, or punctuated equilibrium in biology, but here with important differences. The transitions show directional change, and the initiation of a new era in a cascade of creative advances. These come within a brief time frame in the 'classical phase' at the onset of our source traditions, and this interval has three parts, from about -900 to -600, then the onset of a new period in itself, which rapidly shows a falloff. Note that this falloff is visible almost within two centuries in Greece. It is clear in the case of Israel, as the age of the 'Prophets' passes and the Bible begins to consolidate. This kind of 'eonic model' makes complete sense of the overall phenomenon, but still doesn't explain. It is strange, but fortunate, that such a simple model can explain as much as it does. 

The evolution of civilization shows three great beats like this, the first visible at the beginning of civilization where we see an earlier 'axial' age, but don't recognize it, because its emphasis is different, and the stages of advance are more primitive. The study of the fundamental unit of historical analysis includes both the state and the 'religion' and the religions of the Axial Age are very advanced developments and reactions against the first beginnings of the state so clear at the time of the rise of Sumer and Dynastic Egypt. By the time of the Old Testament we see two, or more, great reactions to the corruption and decline of the original states as exploitative empires. Note the elegant and wondrous appearance of 'Israel' as an idea and a state (actually two states, the 'Israel' disappearing!). This play on the idea of the state and the emergence of the religion from this husk is one of the most dramatic aspects of the eonic sequence. Thus we see that Israel is connected in its reaction and novel evolution which has gone before, something indirectly indicated quite clearly in the myths of the Bible. But let us note that the birth of democracy in Greece is another of these 'reactions' and 'rebirths' in eonic time of the original foundations of the state, passing away in Egypt and Mesopotamia into their ossified endings. We should consider however that at the birth of the state in Egypt and Sumer we see something as important, in seminal fashion, for the development of civilization as this second phase.

Our secular age is now reacting against this religious ecumenization born in the second phase of our sequence, but that does not change its historical iimportance and the immense task of unification cultural and otherwise that it brought to man in the eras of its great flourishing, notwithstanding all the immense problems and calamities these religions have suffered. We should be clear as to the confusion of the world 'religion', now taken as a form of private belief. It was always so, and yet at the same time religion, as we see from the eonic effect, comes into existence as a play on the state, and the very idea of a real Israel and a later idea of a 'kingdom of God' makes this play transparent. The modern Reformation, let us not forget, was a concealed political revolution against a complex theocratic 'state' of medieval Catholicism. And right on schedule our system is about its business with the remains of the previous period, just as it was in the time of the challenge to Mesopotamian and Egyptian eras. 

The modern period seems to follow the Hellenic tradition as renewed in modern democratic state systems. All well and good, but our 'eonic' model shows the way this is partitioned into the different intervals, indeed shows us that the 'modern age', 'seculum or age-period', reflects this eonic sequencing. 

Note Jaspers also speaks of the 'axis' of history. Yet this is outside of the Axial period. This inconsistency throws Jaspers off, when he has clearly stumbled on the a very important issue of evolutionary parallelism. The question of the onset of the Christian religion is easily solved by seeing it as the first Christians saw it, in very general terms, as reflecting the period of the Old Testament, which they saw as an era of revelation. It was an eonic transition period, which is quite different! But the point is the difference between 'generation' and 'realization'. Then everything falls into place, and, indeed, we see exactly the same phenomenon in India, of generation and realization, as between the Hinayana and the Mahayana phases. The question needs to be studied detached from the question of religion.  For this Axial  concept is being used as a surrogate for the 'age of revelation', and it won't work. Note that our process generates two religions, one theistic, the other simply 'null', if not 'atheistic'. The Buddhist were residual ex-polytheists, perhaps. Whatever the case, it is important to consider relative transformation, e.g. acceleration or amplification, growth, not absolute origins. 

It is almost impossible to sort out the phenomenon indicated without a broader context of rigorous intervals laid down against the data to see what they show. This results in the frequency hypothesis, which may or may not be correct, but will indicate the broader context of the period of 'Axial phase'. Then we see the first 'axial' age at the beginning of civilization, so to speak. These are not then 'axial ages' at all, but phases of transformation. 

 The study of the eonic effect resolves all the issues of the 'Axial Age' pointblank and shows, ( not necessarily with a full explanation of the full enigma in the large!), the overall context of the phenomenon, including the difficulties many have had with it. Our eonic approach to history is essentially a powerful technique of periodization (actually double periodization, interval analysis), and quickly uncovers both the significance of the so-called Axial Age, and the reason it is often misperceived. Much effort in the field of evolutionary theory and/or philosophy of history is speculative, or attempts the search for 'historical laws', which can be in vain. Using periodization we can see the the emergence of civilization falls into a definite rhythm. Indeed, if we adopt our eonic timing method, we suddenly notice a strange things about world history, it is on-off in some strange fashion. It is like an economist, he looks backward, and discovers economies have a structure. But note that this structure cannot violate the principle of 'free activity'. Yet, an overall pattern often stands out. Free of crypto-deterministic assumptions, we see an intermittent effect. If we were to model the data as a 'system', we would, so to speak, look through our toolkit book of differential equations for the section that says, 'discrete-continuous' type of equations. This is the clue behind the concept of the Axial Age. A clock shows this effect, a discrete system to measure hours and minutes embedded in a continuous stream of time, and so on.  This 'double aspect' is essential, since we cannot say either that determinism or free will holds, the result is mixed. We must wrest degrees of freedom from determination.

The Axial Age concept never quite made it into the realm of historical sociology, with its current domination by the 'economic theories of history', which tend to simply ignore or misanalyze the history of religion. The 'axial' effect makes scared rabbits of obsessive self-proclaimed materialists, but its correct understanding might deliver historical thinking from its reductionist monomania, without reinventing transcendentalism. Debating materialism and idealism is a complete waste of time, look at the data. The evidence could be indirect indication of an evolutionary dynamic. It resembles a discrete-continuous model of a special kind. The problem is that Axial Age concept is taken in isolation. Once we see what is afoot, we are suspicious of a system operating in a natural frequency, and we wonder at its period. Try 2400 years backward and forward. It's hard to know what to do with this conclusion, but the concordance overall is exact, though fragmentary.

Our 1-2-3  pattern, in a limited form, was thus almost seen by Karl Jaspers, summarizing earlier observers, but he fumbled the ball and lost the thread of what he was trying to understand, in part because he wished to reconcile his findings with a sort of teleological Augustinian compromise to save the great religion of Christianity as unique, and which didn't even arise in his Axial period.  The data was telling a plain story of another kind, although Jaspers' classic treatment is of interest.. The great religions of Christianity and Islam are later phenomena, while their sources, which are so poorly recorded, seem to concentrate in a mysterious period ca. -600, along with the Greek Enlightenment, which is the first 'secular' age. This makes no sense. What's going on?

There isn't, or wasn't, really an Axial Age at all (indeed Jaspers could see as much, but his idea has become associated with a sort of historical equivalent to revelation). But the phenomena that he was grappling with were very real, and show a mysterious logic of evolutionary parallelism, in a brief period somewhat earlier, from about -900 to -600. This era is confused with its first climactic outcome, the age of Classical Greece, for example.But the real source is earlier, ca. -800 onward, as in the quiet but revolutionary period of Archaic Greece. The whole thing is quite over by -400. That is one part of the data. But it is only subset of a greater whole.

Some would now think that in a postmodernist age we will have a new 'Axial Age' to deliver us from modernism, as a gesture of renewed religious post-secularism. That is dangerous thinking, and a misunderstanding of the Axial concept (which is hard to understand, because it is not properly defined). The irony is, the rise of the modern is the only 'new Axial period' we will get. This idea is mentioned in Karen Armstrong's recent new book, The Battle for God, in the context of the rise of fundamentalism. The reviewer for the Times notes:

We lie on the cusp of a great religious experiment, one similar to the upheaval that led to the decline of paganism and the rise of reformers and prophets during the so-called Axial Age (800 BC-200 BC) when the most important thoughts worth thinking were first thought. Regretfully, for the moment, all innovation, passion and energy lie with the adversaries of secular democratic society.

It is hard to see how democratic society has lost its innovation. But, in any case, as to some future 'axial age',  it won't happen that way. Modernism is generates a postmodern reaction for many reasons, but the results are still modern. We feel 'postmodern' because of our distance from the explosive period of the rise of the early modern, which created our age, and then produced a great deal of confusion in the midst of 'progress'. The idea is under challenge, but that cannot result in the complete abandonment of the idea. Since we can stand back and look at the outcome of something we call 'modernism', it is simply the way we define periods to speak of 'postmodernism'. We can move on from that, but it would be hard to surpass the Enlightenment period. To speak of the postmodern, we use all the concepts spawned by modernism itself.  But if we deviate from its basic core, we can only go backwards. The point should be obvious, but we live at a point and time where many are attacking 'Enlightenment rationality' as a 'postmodern' gesture. We can attack rationality all we please, but it won't make any difference, since the Enlightenment thought up the idea of attacking 'rationality', also.

In any case, the only solution for the future is creative advance that transcends the past, and integrates all that man really is. It is egregious to attack rationality. Take a vacation if rational smoke is coming out of your ears. But to abandon 'rationality' simply won't work. It can only become worse. The failure of rationality is generally the failure to use it, and the mechanical tactics of 'rationalist fanatics' to hound all forms of discourse except narrow Enlightenment cliches. The future is never so easy, since we are still drawn toward the phantoms of antiquity in the name of tradition. And this can never succeed, since we don't even know what that past really is. The idea that modern Protestantism represents traditional religion is quite ludicrous, since it is a modern creation. 

After saying this, we should consider now the Axial concept.One danger in the Axial idea is the way it restates the myth of revelation in a secular guise, when, in fact, it is but one aspect of an historical sequence reconciling slow and fast evolution.   The idea of postmodern religion is simply a misdefinition. What does 'religion' mean? A close look, and indeed Jaspers was well aware of this, shows the parallel emergence in a sort of Axial fashion, of the classic Greek Enlightenment, in parallel with the birth of Judaic history, Indian Buddhism, the world of Confucius, etc,... It has nothing to do with religion, but with a mysterious creativity that breathed on the dying world of the Assyrians as the decrepit remnant of a still earlier epoch. Really the Axial concept is a clue to the evolution of religion, but one that requires a complete retreatment, confer, World History and the Eonic Effect, with its frequency hypothesis.

We can easily resolve the issue with our other, eonic, approach. It is the middle beat in a greater series. The 'Axial Age' is wrongly named and given the wrong interval, is not unique, and shows the second massive stroke of the eonic effect. It has nothing inherently to do with religion, a term bandied about, but rarely used with care, historically. It is misleading to attempt some philosophic generalization of an 'Axial Age', since the basic dynamic is revolving around something deeper, at the foundations of civilization. Once we generalize the terms of discourse to the broader evolution of civilization as such, the pieces fall into place, and we find the earlier stroke of the drum in early Sumer and Egypt. We see that the eonic mechanism is not associated with its content, and like something from electronics, simply surges in its proper interval, transforming whatever it in its wake.