Meli,
Being a biological product of the 20th century, I still think of "turn of the century" as referring to the ill-defined period transition from the 19th to the 20th. I have no friggin' idea whether such a term was used prior to 1900 to refer to an ill-defined era on either side (in a linear time sense) of 1800 or 1700. Part of the ill-defined quality of the term is that it, as I have always used it and always presumed everyone used it -- without actually asking -- it seems to refer to years prior to and succeeding the pivotal year 1900. As we all learned with the Y2K fiasco, however, whether the year with double zeros is the last of the preceding century or the first of the next remains unclear. I contend that it is the former, but my wife -- neither a historian nor an archaeologist -- is secure that it is the latter (for that matter, did the new millenium begin with 2000 or 2001?) I have no idea whether there is any consensus among historians, time theorists, philosophers, or other learned peoples, so I cannot imagine there can be any consensus among archaeologists, since we still cannot agree on how many a's there are in the name of our profession (not that it matters, but I'm old school and I like two a's or that funky Queen's English letter that combines a and e and looks very scholarly).
Clearly, in any case, what happened in some ill-defined period of time surrounding or adjacent on either side of the year 2000, using our Eurocentric, linear, western calendar, constitutes a "turn of a century." Personally, I like "turn of the 21st century," since that emphasizes the linear progressiveness of a western, linear worldview, but I recognize that, if one lives without such a worldview, that transition might be much less meaningful, or even meaningless. Does it signal the renovation of a 100-year and/or 1000-year cycle? Is there such a thing as a year, and, if not, can there be a cycle of however many years? Does time even exist as an independent aspect of the universe, or is it merely an experiential concept unique to humans (my answers are "no" and "yes" but I admit to being constrained by that concept, particularly as an archaeologist, and cannot figure out whether I can live without it)?
I love the topic of time, but this is a big topic to bring up on a Friday. Hopefully, I have done little to aid in discussing or resolving it. Because it's Friday. In a linear sense. Or a cyclical sense. In any case, we're nearing the "turning of the week," and it is just as unclear whether a week, assuming it exists at all, ends on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, and whether a new one begins on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. And if you work at Walmart, today might be your Tuesday.
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Boyer
Supervisory Archaeologist/Project Director
Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
* mail: P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
* physical: 407 Galisteo Street, Suite B-100, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
* tel: 505.827.6387 fax: 505.827.3904
* e-mail: [log in to unmask]
"This is no time for archaeologizing . . ." - Amelia Peabody Emerson (The Curse of the Pharoahs, Elizabeth Peters)
________________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Melissa Diamanti [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 2:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrase Turn of the Century
I have a question about terminology or usage.The period around 1900 Ad used to be referred to simply as "the turn of the century." Now that we have turned another century, it is necessary to specify which one.So, would the time around 1900 Ad be the turn of the 19th century or the turn of the twentieth century?
This question is apparently unclear to many. For example, the wikipedia entry on this topic is still being hashed out. So what do the historians/historical archaeologists on this list recommend?
Meli Diamanti
|