More than one time to define

The most uncomplicated of definitions would describe “time” as the basic component of the system used to measure the duration of events and the intervals between them while providing a sequence to those events. Time is divided into years, weeks, months, days, hours, and minutes, with the clock and calendar used as the primary forms of temporal measurement. This division of time allows for the communication of when things happened, are happening or will happen through the past, present and future tenses.

This modern definition emphasizes the fact that the organization of time and its employment as a system of measurement were prescribed by human beings and used for our benefit. Of the two principle philosophies concerning the nature of time, this definition appears to support the theory of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, where time is inextricably tied to human intervention. In this tradition, time (along with space and number) is seen as part of the intellectual structure within which humans employ to sequence and compare events. The opposing school of thought is founded under Isaac Newton’s argument that a singular, universal time exists independent of human interpretation. Newton explained that, “Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in and of itself and of its own nature, without reference to anything external, flow uniformly and by another name is called duration.” Supporters of Newtonian time would argue that the passage of an hour, a single hour made up of sixty minutes across the universe, is the same as the uncountable number of hours that have passed since the beginning of the universe.

In actuality Newton was incorrect. The reality of the time’s diversity was discovered by Einstein and explained in his general theory of relativity. The theory describes that clocks tick at different rates when under extreme velocities or gravitational forces, causing time dilation. For example, on the surface of a neutron star, where gravity is usually a billion times stronger than the earth’s, time flows approximately twenty percent more slowly relative to the earth. Aside from scientific experimentation, many individuals understand that time isn’t only expressed by numbers. Time is also an experience. By examining the differing conceptions of time from the dawning of the human consciousness across a variety of cultures, the ontology of time is found in time’s social construction and inter-dependence with human subjectivity.

The earliest indications of time perception among humans are found in the form of markings on artifacts, such as bones or stones, from the Upper Paleolithic period, interpreted as lunar calendar systems, or something similar. Such temporal perception would coincide with the beginnings of art and religion, significant facets of culture that also vary between groups. As explained by Gavin Lucas in Archaeology of Time, primitive time perception was astronomical or seasonal, where only a small portion of societies had “time reckoning” by matching their perception with a mathematical system that marked the passage of time. Most primitive societies, on the other hand, saw time in reference to natural events, which were more irregular and only provided “time indication.” Time indication is evidenced through practices such as farming or rituals, which were temporally-based (i.e. harvesting the field in a particular season, burying the dead on a certain day). Lucas ironically uses a tower clock as an example of a more contemporary strategy for time indication. In the Medieval ages such clocks were designed to strike a bell at a particular time. The clocks didn’t necessarily have hands, for their purpose was to indicate a certain time, such as the beginning of mass or daily festivities, and were not designed to show the exact time of day.

Other conceptions of time emerged as new societies were formed. Jews and Christians constructed the linear concept of time from the Bible. These religious communities believed that time had a beginning, with the creation of the world by God, while Christians also saw an end with the Second Coming of the Christ. When a monk in the sixth century created the yearly number system still used today, with this year being 2008, he organized time around the birth of Jesus. The monk’s motivation was to change the contemporaneous AD system, which stood for “after Diocletian” in a period when time was reckoned according to the rule of emperors, because he found the system disrespectful when predicting future celebrations of Easter. As a result, time was divided into a past before Christ (BC), and an ongoing present and future anno Domani, or in the year of our Lord (AD). Contrasting linear time, other ancient cultures perceived time as cyclical, like a wheel, where ages repeated with each new birth of the universe.

Today, the linear concept of time remains the most dominant, but it has been removed from a Christian context. Changes took place from the Renaissance and into the period of Enlightenment, where the individual became farther removed from the divine nature of God and time became a progression to a point of almost utopian perfection rather than a universal end with the Second Coming. In the realm of archaeology (and history in general), the singular, linear progression of time is signified in the formulation of chronologies, which range from site-specific to universal. Such a linear progression between the past, present and future reinforces time as a narrative and continuum, ever flowing.

It is concerning today’s conception of time that Gavin Lucas heeds warning to the archaeologist on multiple levels. Firstly, Lucas understands that the discipline of archaeology itself is tied to the use of chronologies and periodization, but that our perception of a progressive, linear time should not influence interpretations of the past. This is because past societies had their own socially constructed perceptions of time that would have translated into their relation with the physical world and material objects. Lucas applauds the employment of non-linear dynamics of time by the Annales school, where time is not used as a container of events, but moulds these events as the events mould time. By acknowledging that time differed for past societies, the archaeologist can open the possibilities of temporal disruptions and dislocations in the linearity of narrative time.

Furthermore, Lucas discourages the archaeologist from viewing the material culture of the past as something belonging to the Other from a different time. Lucas believes that the use of periodization only strengthens the notion that materials of the past belong to another time and are therefore out of context in the present. However, if time and objects or events were considered as inter-dependent as in the Annales school or in the philosophy of Kant and Leibniz, then the separation between the “past” belonging to artifacts, and the present belonging to the archaeologist, would collapse.

In the end, time perception is comparable to sight perception. The question can be asked: Is their only one correct way to see the world? For centuries one-point, linear perspective was employed in picture-making because it was believed to properly portray reality. But one-point perspective was a construction, an attempt to translate a three-dimensional world onto a two-dimensional surface. Other cultures, like the ancient Egyptian and Chinese, created unique systems of visual representation drastically different from one-point perspective. These systems of representation may have been more difficult to understand by the foreigner, but not necessarily less true to reality. So, too, is there no singular, true, universal time that embodies all cultures across history. Gavin Lucas would agree with the psychoanalyst Elliot Jacques when he wrote “In the form of time is to be found the form of living.” Lucas recognized that past conceptions of times need to be acknowledged when forming an interpretation because these past perceptions of time are intertwined with the functioning of society.

Time is a social experience, constructed and inter-dependent with human subjectivity. Time isn’t necessarily precise. Time doesn’t have to last forever. Time can be money – if that is how a society perceives it.

Que no son todos los tiempos unos. (For not all times are the same.) -Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra Don Quixote de la Mancha

Bibliography:

Bluehorn, Allen C; 2002. The Human Organization of Time. Standford University Pres.

Lucas, Gavin; 2005. Archaeology of Time. New York: Routledge.

Thomas, Julian; 2004. “The emergence of modernity and the constitution of archaeology,” Archaeology and modernity. London and New York: Routledge, 1-34.