Dear Readers,
Each week, I write a seminar for you based on my lectures for CHRN/AUG 100, my introductory Anachronism class. So far we've talked about types of sources, source criticism, emotions and anthropology, and done a couple of case studies.
This week, we tackle a sticky subject: time! Time is critical to an Anachronist. I know that statement seems ironic at first, given that it is a subject studied only by those with a vantage point outside of normal time, but it's true. We've talked before about putting sources in context, and one of those contexts is a temporal context. If you can't say when something happened, you don't know a lot about what it means.
Take, for example, the Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. It just so happens that the Japanese also launched a surprise attack on Wake Island on December 7th, 1941 as well. But the Wake Island attack occurred on the other side of the International Date Line, and so from Washington's perspective, took place on December 8th, 1941, about a day after the Pearl Harbor assault. That problem with date confusion makes a big difference. And if the Pearl Harbor attack were delayed due to bad weather and the Wake Island assault still went off fine? Then December 8th would be the day that lives in infamy, as it is in some time streams. So to know the time of something is, in fact, quite critical.
There are other problems with time. It's a sticky issue, really. For one thing; what if I find a coin (or, via Augury, an image of one) with Abraham Lincoln's head, and the number "2035" on it. Is that the year? The serial number of the coin? Since it's probably the year, what year was zero? Was it when Jesus was born? When he died? A poor approximation that is nearly a hundred years off? An arbitrary date picked to validate his mythical existence? There's a time stream for every answer.
That's why the earlier methods of establishing continuity are the more important. I can't look at something that says December 8th, 1941 and something that says December 7th, 1941 and know that the intervening events between the two sources put them in the same time stream. I've got to establish first that they're from the same sequence of events before I can even think of putting them in order.
Relative dates, though, are still useful even before I've put them in the same time stream. Let's say I don't want to make a timeline. Let's say I want to make a time-tree. Then I can try to use relative dates to put things in order, but it's shakier. Let's say that the decision of when to put the year zero was different in two time streams. Then we have a problem.
Usually, though, you can identify certain cultural "markers" in a source that indicate it uses a specific chronology. We have entire catalogs of these markers, and they make it a lot easier to figure out context for sources. Still, they can be a trap. They need constant attention and editing, since they can lead to false assumptions. Use them with a grain of salt, and never be afraid to suggest a new marker or a change to an old one.
Next seminar, I'll write about some of the tricks and markers that work well, and work through some examples.
Always,
Dr. John Skylar
Chairman
Department of Anachronism
University of Constantinople
No comments:
Post a Comment