The relationship between historical chronology and order is unavoidable. Where there is enumeration there is order, where there are great events there is chronology, succession and history.<\/p>\n
Anthropology, in its beginnings, enjoyed the scientific authority to be able to name time. Distinguishing between real time<\/em>and factual time<\/em>was its task. Well-meaning early anthropologists extended the idea of \u200b\u200bmultiple chronologies: dominant and subordinate. An advanced\u00a0<\/em>culture coexisted in factual time with a backward\u00a0<\/em>culture, but never in real\u00a0<\/em>time. Pitt-Rivers, the creator of the famous Oxford Ethnographic Museum, stated that \u201cthe existing races, in their respective stages of progress, faithfully represent the races of antiquity.\u201d The study of a fossilized<\/em>or primitive culture, one which had remained stuck in time, illuminated the past.<\/p>\n “The location of time, the place where time mattered, was the West.”[1]<\/sup><\/a>Moxey, K. El tiempo de lo visual. La imagen en la historia.\u00a0<\/em>(Visual Time. The Image in History). <\/span>Sans Soleil, Barcelona, 2015, p. 25.<\/span><\/span>