Any criticism for my History Hypothesis?

[sgatlantisrose]

You list four aspects of history. But that is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea to explain certain phenomena or events. A hypothesis becomes a theory when you offer supporting evidence. A theory will continue to be tested over time, but when enough evidence is accumulated, the theory is accepted as fact.
You don't need a hypothesis to categorize history. You would need to take a further step, and make some claim about how your categories are able to help us deduce something about history. You have a good idea, but it's not a hypothesis. You should take one more step. Can you find any events in history that don't fit into one of your categories?