BCE and CE notations

Mr. Mordoth, you are mixing both.

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan So datings made on suuch helical risings, Nile floodings etc., have been used to date Egyptian chronology?

I believe so. But when you count the New Year as starting isn'l all that important to long-term chronology like that involved in Egyptian history.

What is more important is that the Egyptian year count is very accurately aligned with the solar year. A hundred years Egyptian is, if anything, more accurate than a Gregorian or Khayyam hundred years, let alone any of the earlier calendars, or the lunar ones.    

Request to gcle2003:

The point is if the Egyptians had reportedly recorded the helical risings, folooding of Nile etc., and the dating of Egyptian events are done adopting astronomical methods, that aspect has to be verified.

For the objectivity of history to be protected ; BCE : Before COMMON Era AD : Anno Domini

(>.>)....... Mordoth, that's not objective. Anno Domini is latin for "In the Year of Our Lord." So it is even more religious than "Before Christ." Creating an objective timeframe is like creating an objective Prime Meridian, it just can't be done.

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan The point is if the Egyptians had reportedly recorded the helical risings, folooding of Nile etc., and the dating of Egyptian events are done adopting astronomical methods, that aspect has to be verified.

Against what? Even the years of accession of the latter-day pharaohs of the 26th - 30th dynasties are conjectural. If you have an inscription that such and such happened on the 1st day of Thoth in the seventh year of the Pharoah Sesotris (if it gives the pharoah, which it may not), then how do you compare it with anything else?

Some of the Egyptian king lists correlate with the Persian or Babylonian lists at some points and thence to Roman records, but they only give vague indications.

When, for instance, you can't date Hammurabi reliably to within a couple of hundred years, it doesn't make much difference whether you're working with years based on the rising of Sirius or the vernal equinox, or whenever.

How the astronomical datings have beenb accepted by the archaeologistrs correlating?

Again, correlating what with what?

These points are to be clarified in the case of Egyptian chronology.

How?

    

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan You yourself say that, "Even the years of accession of the latter-day pharaohs of the 26th - 30th dynasties are conjecture", how then the dating of Egyptian dynasties are dated back to c.3000 BCE. This, I am asking how, if it is not done based on helical rising, NIle flooding etc.

Mostly it's done by comparing Egyptian archaeological records with records from the other contemporary civilisations. Plus guesswork and intelligent interpolation, helped nowadays by things like carbon dating. Where eclipses and other notable astronomic events are mentioned - which isn't often - it's possible to back-calculate when they must have occurred in our year count.

Since the records from other civilisations are just as sporadic and hazy as the Egyptian ones, the results are never all that accurate. We have, for instance, pretty good records of the years when specific Roman consuls held office, but at best they go back to around 500 BCE, and it's rare until much later that there are Egyptian record indicating that such and such happened 'in the year of the second consulate of X'.

You seem to be wanting to say that such and such happened in such and such year on such and such a day in our calendar. In early Egyptian history you can't do that.

The Egyptian dynasties have been dated astronomically.

Not accurately they haven't.

So, how such datings have been correlated with other methods of dating? You accept that,"Some of the Egyptian king lists correlate with the Persian or Babylonian lists at some points and thence to Roman records, but they only give vague indications", but those correlatioons are accepted historically or not?

Approximately. That's the point.

    

I read that the BCE is Before Christ's Era (or something very alike) and CE is Common Era...

It would still be difficult... we would live in 5 CE (for these few days) and then we would use some old history books that tell us of 1980 CE.,.. I imagine how confusing that could be:D

The dates mentioned (as we see in the history books), are in Christian angle.

Before the medieval period, the documents do not show date specifically in Christian era.

In fact, when calendar reformation was going on another confusion was made by mentioning the dates in OS and NS, the two dates of birth are given to Newton.

Though suggested, it wasn't perhaps drawn more clearly: BCE and CE mean the same thing as BC and AD, the only thing changed are the acronyms. I for one prefer the Christ refering ones - like BC and AD or like a.C(hr). and p.C(hr) - for the sake of preserving the meaning (I find no real use to hide it behind another(!) arbitrary convention - a "common era"), the computations of a Christian monk. In a similar manner we have AUC dates, H dates, etc.. There's no fuss about them being Rome-centric or Islamo-centric (they surely are), there are just other ways to divide eras. And certainly there's no universal moment of time of same value for the entire humankind, so no matter what time division we will use it will be something-centric. We just have to live with that.