Historical Time Julie Blackett SID 17354921 Time. Without it there can be no meaning or understanding history.

Without time, there would be chaos. Knowing this, the question becomes how to define historical time. This is quite a difficult matter and has been explored by a number of scholars over the years. The theorists that I will be focusing upon include: Reinhart Kossellek; David Christian; and Andrew Shylock. These theorists have examined the issue of time, and have come to different viewpoints. I will attempt to explore their theories of historical time, with a focus upon both differences and similarities. In doing so, I will also briefly touch upon other theorists as needed. This essay will examine my understanding of the main points of each theorists ideas on time, before examining the generally accepted ideas relating to time. The concept of time is a complex issue filled with contradictions. It is only recently that it has been explored, rather than merely accepted. As Patomaki (2011) states: While the nature of time has been theorised in philosophy, social theory and (world) political theory, in practice historians and social scientists tend to equate time with the modern linear concept of time, organising their narratives and explanations in a chronological order, without reflecting upon the complexities of time and temporalities of social being (p. 1).

SID 17354921

To fully gain an understanding of humanity, events and our history, it is necessary to explore the complex nature of time. It is a nature that is almost impossible to fully understand, but one that provides a fascinating insight into the minds and nature of mankind. This essay will attempt to provide some understanding of the nature of time, by exploring the theories that have been developed. It should be noted that these are only a small sample of the extraordinary nature of time. Kosselleks Theories Kosselleks theory of historical times can perhaps be best summed up by the following statement: It is a false simplification to regard historical time as either linear or circularanalyse historical time on several levels (Kossellek, 2002, p. 123). Kossellek has developed many ideas relating to the theory of historical time that support his notion of multiple temporalities, and defy the idea of periodization. Kossellek sees time, as related to history, as a metaphorical concept, rather than a temporal one (Kossellek, 2002, p. 102). One of the more important notions that Kossellek develops is that of natural time versus historical time. Natural time refers to time limits that are pregiven by nature (Kossellek, 2002, p. 102). Kossellek believes that humans depend upon these time limits, even when they increasingly learn to manipulate these times more and more through technology or medicine (Kossellek, 2002, p. 102). He further develops this idea by exploring how humans have developed ways to monitor and organise time, first with that the times of the day and the seasons were guiding forces for the first selforganization of human societies (Kossellek, 2002, p. 102). By further
SID 17354921 2

examining the development of chronometers, in particular the mechanical clock, we can see how the concept of time has changed and become standardised. This is, however still based upon natural time, as our entire chronometry, in minutes and hours, in units of years and centuries, which we create artificially, is based on the regularity and cyclical return of naturally pre-given dates. For historical chronology, at least, time is measurable only because of its natural recurrence (Kossellek, 2002, p. 1056). Kossellek further expands upon this idea and explores some of the difficulties associated with chronometry, by examining the fact that chronologies are developed by humans and are thus culturally influenced. By examining the different calendars used by various societies, we come to one of the difficulties with time in a historical sense. Although these calendars are based upon natural time, they vary with each society. This creates problems for historians, because the times can be quite varied which makes it difficult to determine when events actually occur. As the current standardised calendar has now become virtually universal, that is how humans try to relate to events that have occurred in previous time. This is one of the troubles faced with the concept of historical time. Each person or society creates their own terms to understand time and they are rarely if ever, the same. As Kossellek (2002) puts it, all chronologies are products of certain cultures and are, in this respect, relative (p. 106).This relativity is one of the main problems of historical time. Kossellek (2002) explores some of the developments in historical time and the events that contributed to these changes. Before the Enlightenment,

SID 17354921

historical time was not really defined. The historical time-plan was divided up according to mythical or theological categories and had a beginning, a middle, and an end (Kossellek, 2002, p. 119). Events were placed into a certain chronological order based upon calendars of seasons or dynasties, but there was no attempt to create a definition of historical time itself, nor were they concerned with the calendars of other cultures. This began to change with the invention of periods to break history into more manageable portions. However, such periodization has its own problems, most notably that they are not always accepted, nor are the precise time frames universal. They tend to be more of an approximation of when events occur, or what is considered part of each period, age, or era. This is the other problem with such categorisation, each term means something different. What is commonly identified as modern time, has been associated with progress, particularly on a technological front, since it was progress that conceptualized the difference between the past so far and the coming future (Kossellek, 2002, p. 120). With this change in understanding, it becomes clear that history and time must be looked at via different means or categories. Instead of focusing upon the logic of periodization, which In terms of a chronological succession of more or less well-defined units of time, can only be one of many different temporal experiences, structures and layers of work at any moment in history-more or less decisive, depending on the subject and the material in question (Jordheim, 2012, p. 157).

SID 17354921

Historians begin to examine historical events based upon politics, religion, economics and other such factors. According to Jordheim (2012), this relates directly to Kosselleks theory that time and history must be examined through not just one natural chronology, but through a plurality of different temporal experiences: If one assumes that historical time remains embedded within natural time without being entirely contained in it; or, to put it differently, that whereas chronological time may be relevant for political decisions, historical interrelations cannot be measured with a clock; or, to put it differently yet again, that the revolution of stars is no longer (or not yet again) relevant for historical time, we must find temporal categories that are adequate to historical events and processes (Kossellek, cited in Jordheim, 2012, p. 161).

This perhaps best sums up Kosselleks ideas on historical time, that it has multiple layers and cannot simply be examined from one direction. Shryocks Theories Shryock (2011) in turn, focused more upon the theory of deep time and the idea of kinship when examining the question of historical time. They make the important point about deep time, that it is not restricted to one aspect or discipline of history, but rather changes depending upon the purpose. The deep time of a discipline is not a specific date range or era: it is simply the earliest period to which the discipline pays attention (Shryock, 2011, p. 3).

SID 17354921

Shryock sees history as a multidiscipline field, with each area making up a part of the whole. Also, they view time in layers, with deep time being the thick bottom layer, the middle layer making up the majority of time and events, and the top layer a thin veneer of modern events that is much shorter in terms of the length of time, however, often of most interest to people as they can relate more easily to the more recent events (p. 3). From this framework, it is clear that time means different things to different groups, depending upon their purpose, for example, just over 150 yearsequivalent to about seven generations for an anthropologist, a long century for a historian, and an acceptable error range in a radiocarbon date for an archaeologist. (Shryock, 2011, p. 23-4) The idea of history and the way it is recorded has also changed and focusing upon the current trend as defined by Shryock (2011): In the modern tradition of history writing, the author blends narrative, chronology, and textual evidence to produce an account that seems full and convincing. Without dates, storylines, and documentary evidence, todays historians cannot practice their craft; if even one of these components is missing, the historian is confronted by debilitating gaps (p. 21-2). We understand that history is a complicated and multifaceted concept. Having accepted this, why should we believe that the concept of time, in general, and historical time in particular is any less so. Time is neither linear nor cyclical but vertical and layered. It must be dug into rather traced with a finger or walked as a timeline. Deep time
SID 17354921 6

presents itself as sequentially compressed slabs composed of different materials, both organic and inorganic; it is compacted, oppressively heavy, and impenetrable; it is hidden from public view (Shryock, 2011, p. 26-7). This shows just one facet of the concept of and focuses upon deep time. Many of the ways in which we divide history seems to come in groups of three. For instance: the three ages-the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age; the three states of mankinds development-savage, barbarian and civilised; and the three states of developing human societies-foraging, agricultural and industrial. There are certainly many other ways to measure and divide time. Another area to consider is the question of when history actually begins, as well as what is meant by the term. Often history is accepted as including people, and is often related to written, and in more recent times, other recorded history. Some of the problems associated with history, is that many of the documents used to gather evidence about events and people are either not dated at all, or are dated with a different calendar. As Shryock (2011) states: To the extent that humans still believe that history is about us and that our history, like the biblical one, should go back to the beginning, the discovery of deep time requires us to imagine human nature in new ways (p. 23).

SID 17354921

Thus the time before humankind and some form of recorded history is often termed pre-history. History can also be said to begin when humans began to change and conquer nature, rather than adapting to it, or the birth of civilisation. The exact timeframe of this is often debated as each person has a different idea of what this constitutes, and as the accepted ideas change from religious based to a more scientific approach (Shryock, 2011, p. 8-9). The study of pre-history or history before written record is complicated by the fact the evidence that is found must be deciphered, not unlike the analysis of a written text, but we must try to place evidence in context, without the benefit of written evidence to support our understanding. The development of our understanding of deep time has resulted in large gaps in our history. These remote areas in the human past can be understood with the use of kinshipping. Kinshipping (moving through time and space by means of relationship and exchange) has proved an effective way of exploring these areas and reconnecting with them (Shryock, 2011, p. 32). One of the most useful tools when exploring history from the basis of kinship is the family tree or genealogy. The use of genealogies allow historians to trace the movements and developments of humans through time and space. We can follow genealogies to explore how and when different groups, cultures, or societies met and mixed. As such they are an invaluable tool for the historian, particularly when moving back through the further reaches of time. David Christians Theory

SID 17354921

Christians theories of history and time are almost a combination of Kosselleks and of Shryocks, as he further explores and expands upon some of their concepts. Christian (2011) touches upon a number of theories about the manner in which time operates and how humans organize time for different situations and circumstances. Time is a complex issue that is full of conflicts, contradictions and paradoxes. As humans, we have created a standardised view of how time works that has become based upon the clock. This has been formed from the idea that Time seems to flow, and that flow usually seems linear, directional, regular and even. Time also seems to be an objective quality of the world, in the sense that different people and clocks can agree on the speed of the flow and where we are in that flow (Christian, 2011, p. 353). This has become the standard for time in most of the world, however, Christian (2011) points out a number of problems with this view of time. When examined logically, there is some question about what is outside of time, the infinite divisibility of time, as well as the directionality of time. These questions can only be truly understood as our knowledge of the world and science develops. In some ways these questions are more a matter for scientists, physicists, and philosophers more than historians. Anthropologically speaking, there are different perspectives of time for different cultures. For people in small scale societies, for instance, time is often perceived as cyclical rather than linear, as moving at very different
SID 17354921 9

paces, and often there seems to be no single concept of time (Christian, 2011, p. 354). From a psychological perspective, our perception of how time moves changes depending upon the circumstances. While it can be argued that the flow of time itself is not changing, if our perception of it changes, is that really an important distinction? This depends upon why time is being measured, as in some cases the perception of time is more important than the reality. Having said that, Christian (2011) also makes the point that there is no single, universal measurement of the velocity of time (p. 355), nor is there an understanding of the directionality of time. All these problems and ideas lead to the understanding that time is a social convention (p. 356), a construct created by humans. Christian (2011) expands upon Kosselleks (2002) idea of natural time, and makes the distinction that rather that natural time, there are natural rhythms, pulses, periods of stasis and change, some of which are regular, some of which are not (p. 356). In this way, time functions simply as a sort of spacer, a way of ensuring everything does not happen all at once (Christian, 2011, p. 356). Christian also raises the idea that our perception of the natural rhythms of the world is related to our survival. As humans we find it difficult to perceive the miniscule divisions of time, as well as the notion of millions of years, or even hundreds of years. This is because our sense of time can only handle that which directly relates to us and our survival (Christian, 2011, p. 357). Returning to the idea of time as a social construct, Christian (2011) explores the idea of the balance of social and natural rhythms. As society becomes
SID 17354921 10

more complicated and widespread, social mechanisms to keep track of time or to align with the rhythms of other humans, became more elaborate and sense of time acquires increasing articulation and universality (Christian, 2011, p. 358). As humans experience a growing sense of change over time or history, our understanding of evolution and history has developed, for only when significant change occurs within human memory (as it clearly does in modern times) can we expect people to experience change (and therefore history) as a basic quality of reality (Christian, 2011, p. 358). It is because of this that the writing or recording of history and events becomes so important. It allows us to gain knowledge of events outside our immediate memory and thus detect long-term change. Thus the ability to record events and dates, or to write, has provided the basis of the evolution of the mode of thought known as history (Christian, 2011, p. 359). The development of the mechanisms of time evolved with society. In small, foraging communities, social Scheduling with other humans was, in comparison, relatively simple, and most of it could be done face to face and ad hoc [It] did not require elaborate social conventions. What it did require was an extreme sensitivity to and understanding of the many different rhythms of the natural world (Christian, 2011, p. 360). As such, these communities lacked precise ways of dating events. While events, particularly catastrophic events, may endure for centuries in public memory, the ability to date those events is another matter (Christian, 2011,
SID 17354921 11

p. 360). However, as society expanded, particularly with the development of agriculture, there was an increasing need for greater coordination for gatherings, events, and even everyday tasks, which led to a united idea of time and mechanisms to measure it (Christian, 2011, p. 362-3). These ideas and mechanisms eventually gave us the ability to look centuries and millennia back into history and consider life and changes based upon evidence, not merely supposition. While the pre-historic societies experienced the rhythms of the world as multiple rather than unitary, as largely non-anthropogenic, as cyclical and repetitive rather than directional and linear, and as shallow rather than deep (Christian, 2011, p. 361), more modern societies have created a unified concept of time, which is linear and have created the mechanisms to measure, divide and organise time. In conclusion, as these theorists, and many others agree, time is a metaphorical concept. It can be measured when it is passing and we can be aware of time, but time has no real existence otherwise (Patomaki, 2011, p. 2). It is also generally accepted that time is a social construct that has developed along with human societies. As Panofsky (2004) puts it: historical (cultural) time is not the same as astronomical (natural) timea point in time that is indicated not only by concrete events but also by specific and concrete cultural characteristics (p. 5). As our society has become more complex, so has our need to standardise time. Although this standardisation has some problems, it has largely made the measuring and understanding of time, events and humanities history much easier to accomplish.
SID 17354921 12

While theorists agree that there are many different ways to explore time and history, they are divided about the exact ways to achieve this. It is important for historians to remember that every historical phenomenonmust necessarily belong to a multitude of frames of reference (Panofsky, 2004, p. 10). However, this does not usually happen. Most historians focus upon a particular time period or section of society and explore it in detail. While this can lead to some different perspectives, different notions of time is rarely included. Further, as ideas of time change and develop, there is some debate about what is constituted in a particular period of time. When does it start and end? When does history begin? How important is it to have accurate dates when exploring the history of the world? All these questions are important and very difficult to answer. Each person has a different idea that has been developed through their own personal history. It all depends upon how one approaches the complex issues of time and history. To further understand historical time, it is necessary for continued study into the nature and development of time and how it relates to history, and not merely overlook it as simply being there. Without time, there can be no understanding history or the development of humanity. But who can know where time will lead us? That is a question for the futureor perhaps the past.

SID 17354921

13

Reference List Christian, D. (2011). History and time. Australian Journal of Politics and History 57 (3), p. 353-365. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8497.2011.01601.x Jordheim, H. (2012). Against periodization: Koselleks theory of multiple temporalities. History and Theory 51 (2), p. 151-171. Doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2012.00619.x Kossellek, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Panofsky, E. (2004). Reflections on historical time. Critical Inquiry, 30(4), 691-701. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198826223?accountid=36155 Patomki, H. (2011), On the Complexities of Time and Temporality: Implications for World History and Global Futures. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 57, p. 339352. Doi: 10.1111/j.14678497.2011.01600.x Shryock, A. (2011). Deep history: The architecture of past and present. Berkeley: University of California Press

SID 17354921

14