Does Anybody Know What Time It Is?

[Kipi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon wench I also believe that the way "time" is measured, is arbitrarily human. So, as such, I don't really think the amount of units, or type of units, changes much. To me, it is sort of like discussing time in French instead of English. The words are different, but the realities of 'time' progressing continue as they always have. Or as another analogy, it is like the difference between metric and imperial measurements; ultimately it really doesn't matter if you drive miles or kilometres, you still reach your destination, regardless.

Yes, you have a good point there. The reality, which can be measured millions of different ways, still exists, though the "results" are difference. So, for example, in biological way we still live the same amount of time, but that lenght is different when using several ways to calculate it.
It could also be compared to the way we measure the temperature:
If we compare Celsius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin, we get very different numbers, when the "ultimate" temperature is the same. So, the numbers are dependable on the way of measuring, and thus very different answers may be right at the same time.

Quote:

And, I admit, I have a lot of trouble with the notion that the Middle Ages, as a distinct period, essentially didn't exist. It completely turns upside down my sense of historical chronology, and it does not appear to make any sense at all. However, I don't know anything about the theories being presented, and mathematics are not exactly my forte to begin with.

Well, in a way It makes to me. Now, lets imagine that there is a writing, that was timed to around year 0. So, what if we now can prove that it did happen a much later, lets say around year 1000? Where did all those events go which happened durint that time, between years 0-1000 which are 100% sure to happened after the writing, ie the records of those events include mention of the writing or people or events from that writing?

1) The timing of those events can also be wrong. So, as didn't the original writing exist at the time it was believed to, others could also be wrongly timed.
2) Based on number one, there is two possibilities: Either the time between events were shorter, or some or more events happened at the same time.
3) Also, the times can be wrongly mentioned in the texts describing the event. For example, a war that took 20 years according to texts, could actually have been less than that.

These possibilities are supported at least the notion that especially at early times, people didn't have so good mechanisms to measure the time. And how civilizations understood the time could and did vary very much, and the terms could have been different. Some civilizations may not think of a year, maybe they didn't have term month, but they divided time to different seasons, like season when the land was covered by snow, and the season when farms must be harvested. Due this the seasons weren't so specific, but could vary very much depening of a year, thus making it harder to tell the exact time.

Now, the most interesting thing would be what happens if the theory can be proved to true? Would the history be written again? Or are we just going to say "Yes, our measuring was wrong, but why change it?". After all, the changing would demand a lot of work, and especially it would be hard to get used to the very different time. After all, lots of terms, way of thinking and so on are dependable of our current way to think a time and what year we are living. So, because of this, I must confess that I disagree with the notion that "Time is irrelevant", or if we are more specific, "Wether it's year 1000 or 2000 is irrelevant". Suprising much is dependable on it, so it's relevant.


ps. Hopefully somebody understood this

[Fiona]

Kipi, I am not sure I understood you too well. But I think the people who posted earlier established that "day to day" time can't vary very much. You know things like comfy intervals between meals etc. That is in some sense "real time" (I do not mean to get philosophical and if you don't like that word feel free to adopt another)

In the same way I don't think a year can vary very much. For most of history "agricultural time" was as important as "day to day time". Some of the ancient peoples were very sophisticated in how they measured time and they understood astronomy quite well. I think most of the ancients had a year divided up into units and they gave those units names. You can have any number of months in a year (that is the arbitrary man-made part) but I think the year itself has to be broadly similar or the seasons for planting and harvesting won't work. That's a sort of "real time" in the sense that it has physical consequences and is related to the movement of the planet and the sun. As I understand it many ancient people knew that convenient measurements of this (like the changes of the moon, for example) were not very accurate and that they led to slippage. This got sorted out from time to time (like we use leap years).

Ancient peoples were probably quite good at measuring longer periods as well, when they were doing astronomy. But the record of history is not a physical science. Things are remembered for other reasons. Since few people could read oral history was the norm. Oral history can be very important but it is subject to more error than the written word (at least I think it is). People misremember and pass on a small change, many times as stories are handed down. And they are stories. You have to hold the audience, to some extent. Although some groups may have made great efforts to preserve accurate history in oral form, many will have recognised the need for plot and pace in the narrative. If the essence of the moral or whatever is preserved they may not have believed the detail to be important even if they knew it. And the sources of information then, as now, were presumbly subject to various types of influence ( political, or religious, for example)

I do not know how this person reached his conclusions mathematically, but he seems to me to have confused physical or scientific facts, which he knows about in his field of celestial mechanics or whatever it is called; with historical records which are a totally different kind of thing and not amenable to this taut scientific approach.

[Aegis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona I do not know how this person reached his conclusions mathematically, but he seems to me to have confused physical or scientific facts, which he knows about in his field of celestial mechanics or whatever it is called; with historical records which are a totally different kind of thing and not amenable to this taut scientific approach.

Before making such a conclusion, keep in mind that for someone to be accepted into a field of study at a university, it usually denotes some form of authority. Add to that he is using a method used for centuries (as far back as ancient Incan and Mayan methods in South America, and the Eygptians in Africa). Now, I can not say I know the methods or the science behind tracking and measuring the passage of time through celestial bodies, but a practice that has been used, and effectively, for several centuries stirkes me as at least being worth a second glance.

Having said that...

Historians for years have already been tinkering with the idea that the Dark Ages did not actually exist. One of the strongest factors to support this theory is the lack of textual evidence. There was very little written at the time to provide precise dates, with much of it having disappeared towards the Middle East and Jerusalem during the Crusades.

Additionally, it has already been seen many times that, until standardization of time measurement, there were numerous different calanders in existence. Not only that, but the way of measuring time was quite fickle, with no solid system. There exist documents that measure the course of what could be one modern year, in the form of about four years, with each season representing a seperate year.

It is aspects such as these that allow for study such as Fomenko's, and it is one that could very well hold some legitmacy. I am not about to jump onboard, and cry bloody murder at the existing history (that would be very poor or me, seeing as I am historian), but as such, I'm going to pay close attention to the study that comes out of here. As DW stated, this is something that could very well turn the historical world on its head.

[Fiona]

Aegis I did not mean to cast doubt on his method, as it applies to astronomy. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but I meant to accept that part wholly. All I meant was that I tend to agree with what was said in the article. I do not think it is possible to take the "facts" of history in the same way. Surely the search for the eclipse in the real world which matches one described in ancient texts depends for its legitimacy on assumed accuracy of the description of that eclipse. That is what I think cannot be taken for granted.

[Kipi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona In the same way I don't think a year can vary very much. For most of history "agricultural time" was as important as "day to day time". Some of the ancient peoples were very sophisticated in how they measured time and they understood astronomy quite well. I think most of the ancients had a year divided up into units and they gave those units names. You can have any number of months in a year (that is the arbitrary man-made part) but I think the year itself has to be broadly similar or the seasons for planting and harvesting won't work. That's a sort of "real time" in the sense that it has physical consequences and is related to the movement of the planet and the sun. As I understand it many ancient people knew that convenient measurements of this (like the changes of the moon, for example) were not very accurate and that they led to slippage. This got sorted out from time to time (like we use leap years).

Good point there, thought that wasn't exactly what I was meaning by my post.
It was more what Aegis mentions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis Additionally, it has already been seen many times that, until standardization of time measurement, there were numerous different calanders in existence. Not only that, but the way of measuring time was quite fickle, with no solid system. There exist documents that measure the course of what could be one modern year, in the form of about four years, with each season representing a seperate year.

This was more what I meant, in more understandable form. The calendars of different cultures vary, making it maybe hard to fit to same timeline. Also, especially when talking ancient times, we may have understood the lenght of time differently what it actually was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis Historians for years have already been tinkering with the idea that the Dark Ages did not actually exist. One of the strongest factors to support this theory is the lack of textual evidence. There was very little written at the time to provide precise dates, with much of it having disappeared towards the Middle East and Jerusalem during the Crusades

I have too heard this theory before.
Now, if we think of it, and lets say that the theory is true. What could have caused it?
The term Dark Age (or Middle Age, both mean the same period) means a period of time between the fall of Rome and the and the Renaissance. And as the Aegis mentioned, there is suprisingly few texts from that period. So, what if current estimations of the time when the era started is wrong? Let's that it was shorter, very much shorter. Now, if we get all those years away from the current time, we have removed almost that 1000 years which were too much when comparing to theory of this topic. That and few other mistakens could cover the whole difference.

Just something to ponder while trying to sleep

[Lestat]

Found this.

[Aegis]

Quote:

Now, if we think of it, and lets say that the theory is true. What could have caused it? The term Dark Age (or Middle Age, both mean the same period) means a period of time between the fall of Rome and the and the Renaissance. And as the Aegis mentioned, there is suprisingly few texts from that period. So, what if current estimations of the time when the era started is wrong? Let's that it was shorter, very much shorter. Now, if we get all those years away from the current time, we have removed almost that 1000 years which were too much when comparing to theory of this topic. That and few other mistakens could cover the whole difference.

Partially right. The Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, to most Historians, are two seperate time periods between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. The Dark Ages, as it exists, was commonly thought to be the period between the fall of Rome (circa 450) and just before the beginning of the Reformations (1450). With the Reformation came the Renaissance, and the many texts which had disappeared from Europe at the time

Looking at the above dates, though, it is a period of 1000 years. While those are not the exact dates in which the Dark Age is thought to encompass, those are the years where Historians have much less to work with, then the Middle/Medieval years.

Also, much how how chronology was recorded was through speculation, and comparison. After gathering much of the information, historians of the time would simply make guesses and assumptions as to what fit where with who. Because many of these people would Christian Europeans (for the context of this discussion, I'm leaving the Pacific cultures seperate), there would more than likely exist some pre-disposed notion that Christianity, being the superior religion, would naturally be older. Thus, certain concessions would be made to the chronology, fitting Christianity in earlier than many other events.

The above is simply hearsay, with not contextual or factual proof, but given the nature of this discussion, it is plausible theorizing.

To fit into it all, though, when compiling dates and events for a chronology, if speaking to a person who uses a different caldender (say a historian is using the Gregorian, and he speaks to a Moor in Spain, who used a different means of tracking time/years), he could get a very interesting result. If the Moor used a system in which each season was a year, while the Gregorian used a more primative version of the current one, and an event that occured a year previous the gregorian was asked about, the translation would come as four years, not a year. So, fitting such information into a European chronology, a sort of inflation would be created.

I hope that makes sense. I am writing much of this in somewhat of a hurry, so I am more than willing to clarify anything I say.

@Fiona: My apologies, I misunderstood what it was you were saying in your previous post

[Kipi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis Partially right. The Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, to most Historians, are two seperate time periods between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. The Dark Ages, as it exists, was commonly thought to be the period between the fall of Rome (circa 450) and just before the beginning of the Reformations (1450). With the Reformation came the Renaissance, and the many texts which had disappeared from Europe at the time Looking at the above dates, though, it is a period of 1000 years. While those are not the exact dates in which the Dark Age is thought to encompass, those are the years where Historians have much less to work with, then the Middle/Medieval years.

okay, I may have understood you wrong, but isn't Dark Age same as Middle Age?
WHat I remember from my history courses, the term Middle Age was invited by people living during Renaissance, for the fact that there was a period of time between the fall of glorious Rome and the birth of Renaissance, which was trying to reach same glory in arts and such as during the time of Rome. So from that came the term Middle Age.

Quote:

Also, much how how chronology was recorded was through speculation, and comparison. After gathering much of the information, historians of the time would simply make guesses and assumptions as to what fit where with who. Because many of these people would Christian Europeans (for the context of this discussion, I'm leaving the Pacific cultures seperate), there would more than likely exist some pre-disposed notion that Christianity, being the superior religion, would naturally be older. Thus, certain concessions would be made to the chronology, fitting Christianity in earlier than many other events.

Actually, when also considering how many other things Church has been lying especially during Middle Age, I wouldn't be suprised if that theory is even partially true. But then again, how could all these modern researches been fitted to those timings, because at least I haven't heard any well proved claims that those historians have been knowingly lying. (of course I'm leaving out that article Lestat posted, since theories in it didn't base any scientific research, just opinions and believes.)

Quote:

To fit into it all, though, when compiling dates and events for a chronology, if speaking to a person who uses a different caldender (say a historian is using the Gregorian, and he speaks to a Moor in Spain, who used a different means of tracking time/years), he could get a very interesting result. If the Moor used a system in which each season was a year, while the Gregorian used a more primative version of the current one, and an event that occured a year previous the gregorian was asked about, the translation would come as four years, not a year. So, fitting such information into a European chronology, a sort of inflation would be created.

I believe there lies the basic thing which could have caused the errors in times, if that has even happened. After all, it's not so well proved that our measurings has failed, because the theory only bases to describes of astrological and natural events, which surely can be very inaccurate, thus beeing not so good contexts to be based on.

[Lestat]

Concerning the Dark Ages:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia When the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, it is intended to be non-pejorative, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us, due to the paucity of historical records compared with later times. The darkness is ours, not theirs. However, since there is no shortage of information on the High and Late Middle Ages this required a narrowing of the reference to the Early Middle Ages, a period roughly 300-1000 AD. Late 5th and 6th century Britain for instance, at the height of the Saxon invasions, might well be numbered among "the darkest of the Dark Ages," with the equivalent of a near-total news blackout compared with either the Roman era before or with the centuries following. Further east, the same was true in the formerly Roman province of Dacia, where history after the Roman withdrawal went unrecorded for centuries as Slavs, Avars, Bulgars and others struggled for supremacy in the Danube basin, and events there are still disputed. However, at this time the Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate experienced Ages that were Golden rather than Dark; consequently, this usage of the term must also differentiate geographcially. Ironically, while Petrarch's concept of a "Dark Age" corresponded to a mostly "Christian" period following pagan Rome, the neutral use of the term today applies mainly to those cultures least Christianized, and thus most sparsely covered by the Church's historians. However, from the mid-20th century onwards an increasing number of scholars began to critique even this non-judgmental use of the term. There are two main criticisms. Firstly, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "dark ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend it that way, but this does not mean that ordinary readers will understand it so. Secondly, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages which 20th-century scholarship has achieved means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". Consequently, many academic writers prefer not to use the phrase at all.

My emphasis. E.g. in Flanders as in Italy, the period of 11th to 14th century was a period of economic progress, with the rise of many towns & cities, well documented in documents of that period.

Concerning the use of calendars: two were in use in Europe and nearby regions around the Mediterrenean: Julian (later replaced by Gregorian) and Islamic. The first used basically solar years, while the second uses lunar years (slightly shorter). But since many happenings are chronicled in both calendars because they involved both Muslims and Christians (Battle of Tours, Capture of Jerusalem, Battle of Manzikert, etc.) calibrating is feasible.

Furthermore, though occasional errors might crop up , the general timeline is not only supported by documents, but by sequences & developments in technology, society, language, architecture etc. of which there is material proof.

[Aegis]

Quote:

My emphasis. E.g. in Flanders as in Italy, the period of 11th to 14th century was a period of economic progress, with the rise of many towns & cities, well documented in documents of that period.

In comparisson to the documentation we've seen elsewhere, there is not that much more to available. The reason there is slightly more is simply because Italy, specifically Florence and Venice, were the cities in which the majority of Humanistic thought and ideals came out of. That is why you see progressively more written sources come from there, but hardly enough to give Historians a clear view of what was happening.

The seperation of the Dark Ages and the Middles Ages I have emphasized is one that is done by critics of historians like Petrarch, who's writings on are being found to be quite contentious these days. The time periods are inclusivce to Medieval history, but too many historians have begun to challenge the concept of the 'Dark Ages' in conjunction with what is taught and researched as the 'Middle Ages'.

Also, and take this as you will, if you are going to using evidence from anywhere, I would not suggest Wikipedia. The fact it is a free encyclopedia which relies on volunteer information and additions, it has a nasty habit of sporting inaccuracies and fallacies. In other words, it can hardly be viewed as a reliable source.

[Fiona]

Aegis, I know you said you were leaving eg asia out of this, but I just wondered if you have information about China? As I understand it this culture has a very long written history and would it not be able to shed some light on what time it is?

[Aegis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona Aegis, I know you said you were leaving eg asia out of this, but I just wondered if you have information about China? As I understand it this culture has a very long written history and would it not be able to shed some light on what time it is?

I have been researching quite a bit about the Pacific countries of late, but nothing I have on hand could be considered comprehensive or a definitive authority. What I do know, though, is that both Japanese and Chinese culture has a remarkable tapestry of history. The issue with both, however, (and this is more so in China than Japan) is that governments and Emperors have always controled, and strictly, what is written about in history. So while there quite a bit of documentation, it is hard to discern what was legitmate and what was propaganda of the Shoguns or Emperors.

Additionally, both functioned off a different calender than the Europeans. It throws a whole new equation into the fold, and muddies the compilation even further.

Having said all that, I lack the relevant and needed amount of knowledge on the Pacific countries for me to bring them into any sort of depth in the discussion.

[Lestat]

@ Aegis: I think there is some confusion as to what we each consider to be the dark ages. I've been rereading the post especially this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis Partially right. The Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, to most Historians, are two seperate time periods between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. The Dark Ages, as it exists, was commonly thought to be the period between the fall of Rome (circa 450) and just before the beginning of the Reformations (1450). With the Reformation came the Renaissance, and the many texts which had disappeared from Europe at the time Looking at the above dates, though, it is a period of 1000 years. While those are not the exact dates in which the Dark Age is thought to encompass, those are the years where Historians have much less to work with, then the Middle/Medieval years

.

From the quote above I cannot really determine what you consider dark ages and middle ages and whether you consider them as distinct periods.

From the web, and from my own understanding, there are a multitude of sources for definitions to be found but basically they agree on the following:
Middle Ages/Medieval period: from the decline/fall of the Western Roman Empire (5th century CE) until the Renaissance (15th century CE).

Dark Ages: 2 rough possibilities
1. Other name for Middle Ages (and thus start and end dates as above), this would be amongst others the use that Petrarcha meant.
2. Other name for the early Middle Ages (same start date but end mostly given as around 1000 CE, though even more variation as for end date of Middle Ages).

Concerning the documents: there exist thousands of acts (administrative documents) for the region corresponding to current day Belgium, for the period of 700-1200, alone. So it's not really as if we have nothing to go by.

[Aegis]

Until now, I've just stated what I have gathered from research, and discussion with Professors on the topic. My personal feelings on the Dark Ages is that they were the period from the fall of Rome to about the year 1000. I believe that because it was after the crusades that much of the information, knowledge and learning started to return to Europe.

I think a miscommunication between us is that when I say documents, I am refering to more than just legal and commuity records (and even there, those are primarily concerned with the immediate town, not the events and happenings of an entire country/territory, and are all subject to the same theory of time inflation that Fomenko discusses). When I mention such documents and history, I speak of books, literature and historical, religious texts, philosophical texts and other such things. The Dark Ages is thought as that because of the lack of knowledge and understanding that existed within the time frame, as well as what we have access to regarding the time frame.

Besides, Historians need far more to go off of than just administrative documents and legal documents. It gives little to social context, and what happens outside of the legal world.

[Lestat]

I cited the example of the administrative texts to show that even if you count a subset of documents in a relatively limited (though fairly prosperous) geographical region already quite a few documents exist for the period I mentioned.
Secondly administrative documents have the advantage that they are often dated, and the originals exist still today (unlike literary texts which were often copied with faults and all from an original).

And as far as Fomenko goes, time inflation isn't the only thing he is about. I don't know how far you have been looking into him, but apparently he claims there has been a massive falsification effort of history in the renaissance, and tries equating lines of rulers in different countries at different periods with each other in a statistical way. And he discounts other research methods such as archaeology and carbon-dating.

But even if we don't consider the whole theory and just go for the historical inflation. The dark ages were 'dark', only in Western & Northern Europe. In the East the Byzantine Empire was flourishing, and from Spain to Persia and beyond stretched the Islamic lands with a rich and varied culture. And their timelines can be correlated with those of Western Europe, by "shared" events.
Also the documents described above do not stand alone they describe interactions with neighbouring regions.
I do not say that study of the Dark Ages in Western Europe is as easy as for other periods, or other regions at the same period. But how one can collapse this whole period to next to nothing escapes me.
And as I said in the earlier post, documents are not all that exists as proof, there is a lot of material culture too.