h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This page is about the calendar and how we number years.
I finally got the page looking the way I want it. What do you peers and scouts think?

in case you want that address in lower case it would be
http://h2g2.com/436411/

maybe that needs a www in it. try http://www.h2g2.com/A436411

Nice entry - short, to the point, no messing...

I think the bit about the selection of year one should be rewritten slightly - people might complain at the Christian-centric viewpoint expressed as is... how about:

"... the most important event to him ... was the year of birth of Jesus ..."

That's a bit more of a secular approach in what is a non-religious entry - and that a guy called Jesus was born is a lot more certain than that God was made Flesh... though still not 100%

You need to explain what the year zero problem IS before you explain why it's not the priests fault. I'm guessing it's the problem that there is no year zero - but why is that a problem? And does everyone know that?

You should say what BC stands for... I've always thought it was "before Christ" - but that seems unlikely since it isn't latin... need only be a passing reference, until we have a guide entry on the subject, though.

Gooday Hickory,

I liked your article. Can I offer a couple of suggestions? During the Roman Republic and for several hundred years of the Empire, dating was related to the years of office of the consuls. There was no attempt to place a 'number' on a year. The Venerable Bede is often credited for 'introducing' the system of AD dating although that is not to say he actually invented it.

While for a long time the Romans didn't comprehend the notion of zero, Exiguus should have, which makes it strange that he didn't work out how much of a controversy he was going to cause with his dating. If he had commenced the AD era with the year O, as he should have, we wouldn't now be having arguments about whether this year or next year is the beginning of the twenty-first century and the new Millennium.

Just on the use of 'Current Era' instead of AD, which apparently came into vogue to avoid offending the sensitivities of non-Christians. I mean, think about it - the 'Current Era'; current relative to WHAT? What politically correct genius came up with that? AD or CE, the system of course is still tied inextricably to Christ (but just don't mention the C..... word). Perhaps the politically correct central monitoring unit should now turn its attentions to some of our Christ-related (paid) holy days such as Good Friday, Easter Monday and Christmas Day? Hope you get the 'approved' sticker.

Walter

hmm
Christmas - stolen from Pagan rituals
Easter - stolen from Pagan rituals

I'll give you good friday, though. Not that anybody pays it any attention over here (in public - privately and in churches some people pay it a lot of attention...)

And it's the common era, relative to a date 2000yrs ago that wasn't the year any religious figure was born (5yrs or so out), nor any great empire was founded. Fairly culture independant, in fact

Gooday Lucinda, and Hickory,

The day may have been 'stolen' from pagans, but it's hard to know what is more Christocentric than Christmas. The fact that people don't pay it much attention, or don't believe in Christianity, has nothing at all to do with the fact that our system of dating years is directly and explicitly related to Christ. Common era, or current era, my question is still: common or relative to what if not the birth of Christ? The argument about whether Christ was born in the year 0 or 4BC or whatever is complete red herring. The system operates on the premise of his birth being designated as 1AD. If it turns out that he was born in 4BC perhaps we should just change this year to 2004 - at least it would save any further arguments about the true Millennium year.

Walter

To quote a line from Tom Lehrer...
"Christmas, with it's spirit of giving, gives us all a wonderful opportunity each year to show what we all most sincerely and deeply believe in. I refer, of course, to money."

Anyway - I agree with you - that we really ought to be calling this year 2004AD - but still 2000CE. Guess what - the world would keep measuring their years in CE and BCE - including the christian world.

Saying that the year numbering is christian centred is rather like saying that the DeutschMark is West Germany centered - yes it was once, but now it's something used by the whole of Germany equally. Or, closer to the subject, it's like trying to pretend that the names of the months are centered around the Roman gods, or the names of the week are centered around the Norse gods. Yep - historical accident means that's where they originated - but that's entirely irrelevant nowadays - we use them because they're as good as anything else.

As the meaning of A.D. is 'in the year of our Lord', the 'A.D.' should properly appear before the date, not after. Hence this is A.D. 2000. Perhaps a minor point now, but if you're going to be historically accurate, hickory, you'll have to change your text.

Hi Xedni Deknil,

That is a very interesting point. I think my ADs and BCs are both front and back without me ever having thought it through but your argument has impeccable logic. From now on, for me, it's going to be BCs after the year and ADs before.

Walter.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review Sin Bin' to 'The Calendar in A.D. (Anno Domini)'.

Back to Entry - became Edited Entry A673535 The Calendar in Anno Domini