Historical Dating / Base Years

From my earlier post, I again ask this question;

"Can any of us actually point to the date that was (at one particular time) accepted as a starting point for our historians and chronoligsts to really date events in the past? This is a really serious question, since it really had to have occured!

After all, no Roman, nor Greek, nor Persian, nor Egyptian documents was ever found written as "XXXX BCE? Was there one? NO!

It could be argued that the dating of the birth of Christ might well be that date, but it seems that date itself is mythical as well!

So, just what event or a series of fully verifiable dates were used to first write our chronologies and histories with modern dates?"

Come on guys and gals! Just what is the date that "HAD TO BE ACCEPTED?"
Regards,

TGS, you just wrote;

"There is no single point to begin history, different cultures use different dating systems."

You must be kidding? "Differnet cultures use different dating systems." A very weird answer!

Then TGS, just how were all of these "different dating systems" amalgamated into todays system? Please tell me, I am dying to know?

Just think about it? There had to be a "hub" date? There had to be some historical event, or a few of them if necessary, to combine all of the chronology we see today? Or was it just taken "Out of thin air?"
Regards,

TGS wrote the following message;

"Are you being serious right now? Ok, for example, the Christian calendar uses a different dating system than the Islamic calendar."

Of course I understand that in the Islamic world every thing begins and ends with Muhammed! But what does that have to do with my question above?

"Right now, in the Christian calendar, we are in the year 2009. In the Islamic calendar, it is the year 1431. In the Hebrew calendar it is the year 5770. Get it now? And conversion is simple, you pick one event where you are certain of the date, such as the invasion of Iraq for example. Then you see what date that is in the Islamic calender, what year that is in the Gregorian calender, then you match all according dates relative to that to convert them...

The world doesnt revolve around the Christian West"

Well f**king right! Of course it doesn't! Do you think me a fool? Laugh! But, just think man!, just how did all of these dating systems become "involved?", or "composed?", or "amalgamated?"

Think TGS? Before someone or someones made a "chronology of the past" there had to be some agreed upon point in the past where by all of these "seperate but equal?" dating systems were started from? Boy, what a poor sentence? chuckle

"Its really very simple. For more information please see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar""

No, it is not simple! You must think about what I have earlier said?

Regards,

Well, you didnt understand my answer. I'm saying that just like we have different calendars today and we can convert between calendars, we can do the same thing for ancient times as well.

Its all arbitrary, history begins at different times in different cultures, which is what I said, and by comparing different calendars we can come up with conversions.

I was using today's example to explain how we can decipher the past. The further we go in history, the harder it is to pin-point dates, which is why historians do not give specific dates for things that old, but rather use centuries to give us an idea of when an even took place.

We would not have history unless we figured out a solution to the problem that you pose, which is not a new question, but was a question that we based our information on after coming up with a method to solve it.

Historical data is mentioned in a lot of scripts. E.g. 234 years after the foundation of Rome or in the 7th year of the reign of......or 932 years after the birth of J.C. and s lot more.

Well, you are right. The beginning of Rome in 753 is probably not correct. But important is the dating after it. It like BC/AC. Jesus wasn't born in the year 0, especially because a year 0 doesn't ever have existed, he is probably born between 6 and 3 BC. But if we have a dating by the Gregorian calender, e.g. 1601, then we can be quite sure, that this is an reliable date. If the Romans say cesar was murdered 709 years after the beginning of Rome, then we can be quite sure that it was 44 BC.

TGS, wrote;

"There is no single point to begin history, different cultures use different dating systems."

Sorry TGS, in my previous answer I might well have responded in an incorrect manner? I tend to agree with your statement! But, one cannot deny that these various and "different dating systems" have been amalgamated into one cohesive unit! E.g., Rome is connected to Greece; Israel/Judeah; Carthage; Persia; Gaul; Briton; Spain / Iberia?; Parthina; Goths; Vandals; Egypt; Syria; etc., etc.! The history of Greece is also connected to various of the above list, including predecessors of those listed by Roman History, and as well places where Roman Legions never penetrated. The various Persian Empires, and Babylonian, or Mesopotamian empires are also connected via contact with all of the above! But, the dates we aquire in our present history and chronology books, are all presented in our current system of dating, e.g. "the Gregorian calender!" See;

http://charon.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html

"In most societies a calendar reform is an extraordinary event. Adoption of a calendar depends on the forcefulness with which it is introduced and on the willingness of society to accept it. For example, the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar as a worldwide standard spanned more than three centuries.
The legal code of the United States does not specify an official national calendar. Use of the Gregorian calendar in the United States stems from an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1751, which specified use of the Gregorian calendar in England and its colonies. However, its adoption in the United Kingdom and other countries was fraught with confusion, controversy, and even violence (Bates, 1952; Gingerich, 1983; Hoskin, 1983). It also had a deeper cultural impact through the disruption of traditional festivals and calendrical practices (MacNeill, 1982)."

So, we see that general acceptance of the Gregorian model took, it seems, about 300 years before all historians could converse and have discourse about chronology, and history in the same numerical language! One must remember also that every book that used other systems,like the Julian, ect., had to convert all dates to the Gregorian! And it seems that this was not the first time such an event had occured!

Please read this?;

"History of the Julian Calendar
The year -45 has been called the "year of confusion," because in that year Julius Caesar inserted 90 days to bring the months of the Roman calendar back to their traditional place with respect to the seasons. This was Caesar's first step in replacing a calendar that had gone badly awry. Although the pre-Julian calendar was lunisolar in inspiration, its months no longer followed the lunar phases and its year had lost step with the cycle of seasons (see Michels, 1967; Bickerman, 1974). Following the advice of Sosigenes, an Alexandrine astronomer, Caesar created a solar calendar with twelve months of fixed lengths and a provision for an intercalary day to be added every fourth year. As a result, the average length of the Julian calendar year was 365.25 days. This is consistent with the length of the tropical year as it was known at the time.
Following Caesar's death, the Roman calendrical authorities misapplied the leap-year rule, with the result that every third, rather than every fourth, year was intercalary. Although detailed evidence is lacking, it is generally believed that Emperor Augustus corrected the situation by omitting intercalation from the Julian years -8 through +4. After this the Julian calendar finally began to function as planned.

Through the Middle Ages the use of the Julian calendar evolved and acquired local peculiarities that continue to snare the unwary historian. There were variations in the initial epoch for counting years, the date for beginning the year, and the method of specifying the day of the month. Not only did these vary with time and place, but also with purpose. Different conventions were sometimes used for dating ecclesiastical records, fiscal transactions, and personal correspondence.

Caesar designated January 1 as the beginning of the year. However, other conventions flourished at different times and places. The most popular alternatives were March 1, March 25, and December 25. This continues to cause problems for historians, since, for example, +998 February 28 as recorded in a city that began its year on March 1, would be the same day as +999 February 28 of a city that began the year on January 1.

Days within the month were originally counted from designated division points within the month: Kalends, Nones, and Ides. The Kalends is the first day of the month. The Ides is the thirteenth of the month, except in March, May, July, and October, when it is the fifteenth day. The Nones is always eight days before the Ides (see Table 8.2.1). Dates falling between these division points are designated by counting inclusively backward from the upcoming division point. Intercalation was performed by repeating the day VI Kalends March, i.e., inserting a day between VI Kalends March (February 24) and VII Kalends March (February 23).

By the eleventh century, consecutive counting of days from the beginning of the month came into use. Local variations continued, however, including counts of days from dates that commemorated local saints. The inauguration and spread of the Gregorian calendar resulted in the adoption of a uniform standard for recording dates.

Cappelli (1930), Grotefend and Grotefend (1941), and Cheney (1945) offer guidance through the maze of medieval dating."

So, we see that our entire dating system, as used by most scholars today, is based upon a forced conversion of a mismash of dates and its subsequent conversion into chronological tables! As you have read above, it seems all of this was a result of one event, and it seems that it was all corrected or semi-corrected at one time in our past!

It is by the conversion of a messed up Julian System into a less messed up Gregorian System, that we now have some degree of continuity in historical chronology!

Regards,
Ron

But that's why we often find e.g. as date 998/9 BC. The most dates have just the year, not day or month. But if the date cannot be given exactly the work of historians begins. So if we have the information that somebody died in 998/9 and we have another information that he took part in an event in 999, then he probably died in 999. Or if it is said that he was born in the third year of the reign of king X (and we don't know when it was) and during the reign of pope Y, than we can say it was between date A and B. If we are lucky, then it is written that it was during the invasion of XY. Historians usually don't pretend to fix a date more accurate than this, but this is usually not a big problem. Perhaps sometimes we have problems with the chronology but that is what makes history so interesting.

Nobody denies that there are a lot of false information, but that doesn't mean everything is wrong

Dear Gerry57!

I am sorry, but I just cannot fathom your words? If I were to guess your age, I would say you are from 17 to 25 years of age? But, you might well be either a few years younger or older, so I would place you in a catagory of (13-27)! Am I close?
I would whole heartedly suggest that you begin to read, and read hard! I actually have a step daughter who did not like to read, so one time, I offered her $50.00 US, a number of books, written by females, for her to read, and upon the written synopis of said books, I would forward into her teenage hands the monies!

But, alas! It cost me nothing! She would not even read for money!

Of course, like every fairy-tale that you might have seen, she did become a "Princess!" NO! She was not kissed by a frog, but she become a (are you ready for this?) "Librarian!"
She is now aged 33 and still a Virgin! That is, unmarried! choke!

"I kid you not" (the previous quotation was coined by Jack Paar, who used to host the "Tonight Show!)

I kid you not! NO wonder most young people are confused! Laugh!
Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 04-Jan-2010 at 15:41