The three scientific axes of the GPR FAn

Axis 1: Constructions of time and the challenges they represent

Before the modern era, no universal calendar and no easy way to calculate time were available. Astronomy was used to measure time by observing the stars, astrology and cosmology to interpret it, linking the world of men and the world of gods, earth and heavens, while the telling and determining of time was a matter for civic and religious authorities. These questions will be at the heart of the program’s reflections on how time – past, present, prophetic and eschatological – was conceived in ancient societies. Changes in the modes of historicity, i.e., in the ways of thinking about the relationship with time – will be studied in the different cultural areas represented. The contribution of science and the history of science, in particular astronomy and biology, will be significant in this connection. It will shed light on the complex interactions between astronomy and chronology, and their structuring character on cultures. It will, furthermore, enable us to integrate, for prehistory in particular, scientific constructions of the past through physicochemical and archeological dating methods.

 
Reflections on origins and beginnings, on periods viewed as primordial or as a “first times,” and on archaism are another central aspect of the relationship to time and the past particularly when it comes to defining oneself both for oneself and in relation to others. In this context, the study of origin myths and their relationship to a given present not only raises the question, central to the religious sciences, of the relationship between myths and rites, but also offers an opportunity to problematize the ways social institutions and scientific knowledge are constructed. At a second level, the question of historical periodizations as determined in ancient societies as well as in modern and contemporary periods will provide another perspective on the relationship with time. What is at stake in the definition of “Antiquity” and “Middle Ages,” two notions derived from European history? What happens if we shift the analysis beyond this perimeter, for example to India, where concepts of classicism, the Middle Ages and feudalism have played a major role in historiography, or to Byzantium and the medieval Near East? To take just one example, “Late Antiquity” on which a large number of PSL researchers are working is a heuristic object in its own right. Correlatively, the question of literary, linguistic and scientific canonization, as well as that of defining what is considered “classic,” in ancient societies as well as in modern and contemporary periods, will benefit from comparison between the Chinese and Japanese worlds, the Greco-Latin world, the ancient Near East and Egypt, for example, all represented in their full diachronic depth in the program.

Axis coordinators: Matthieu Husson (Observatoire de Paris-PSL), Francesca Prescendi Morresi (EPHE-PSL) and Charlotte Schmid (EFEO).

Axis 2: Constructions and representations of ancient tomes

 

Axis 3:  The linguistic shaping of the world: languages and scripts as historical objects