Post by GordonDIt's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero.
It's also a fact, not an opinion, that there was no year AD 1, 2, 3,
4, ... . All these things are artefacts of a system developed several
centuries later. Hence I don't see much point in arguing about
whether they happened or not, because people didn't count the years
like that at the time.
Post by GordonDHistorical events
which took place the year before AD 1 occurred in 1 BC (even though they
weren't called that until five hundred years later).
"BC" wasn't invented five hundred years later. Dionysius only used
his calendar to number current years, not to date historical events.
Bede in 731 used the term "ante vero incarnationis dominicae
tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation") to denote
years that occurred before the beginning of Dionysius's AD system.
The term "BC" wasn't used until much later. I haven't managed to find
a precise reference, but it looks as though "ante Christum" may date
from as late as the 17th century.
Post by GordonDFor this reason the
first century and millennium started on 1 January in the year AD 1.
But if the AD calendar didn't exist at the time, how can anything have
started then? I don't know when people first started marking the
passage of time by centuries and millennia, but I would imagine it was
some time in the Middle Ages. The chronology of much of the
intervening period is uncertain anyway. There's a lot we don't know
about the period AD 600-900 in particular. Some people have claimed
that the chronology is out by many years - there are even people who
claim the Early Middle Ages didn't exist at all. It seems bizarre to
be arguing about a single year when there's so much doubt about the
passage of centuries.
Post by GordonDThe last
year of the first century was AD 100 - if you class that as the first year
of the *second* century then the first only had 99 years..
Again, a meaningless statement since no one was around to call it AD
100 at the time.
Post by GordonDIf you had a large number of items that you wanted to pack (and sell) in
boxes of ten, would you put the first nine in Box #1 then start a new box
with the tenth, because that's when the numbers rolled over? It would be
tough luck on the customer who bought that first box - but that's what
you're arguing when you say that the year 2000 was the first of the new
millennium.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the AD calendar is an
artefact of a much later era, and so it really doesn't matter when AD
1 was presumed to be or when the end of the first century was. What's
important is how we count the years *now*. We talk about the 1980s,
1990s and so on because it's natural to think of a new decade starting
when the final digit changes to zero. Why suddenly throw that rule
out of the window when it comes to centuries and millennia?
--
Guy Barry