https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/roman-soldier-remains-year-zero-b2663810.html
Interesting, assuming it was his bowl...
I thought there wasn't a year zero - that it went from 1 BC straight to 1 AD?
True....
If I read the term Year Zero, it immediately makes me thing radical change. Here it just seems to mean late 1st century BC - early first century AD. So, a misleading headline.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on December 14, 2024, 09:49:41 AMI thought there wasn't a year zero - that it went from 1 BC straight to 1 AD?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on December 14, 2024, 09:49:41 AMI thought there wasn't a year zero - that it went from 1 BC straight to 1 AD?
Except in Cambodia, and that wasn't a good thing.
Erm....yes
The Khmer Rouge givernment was outside the ancient and medieval period that is the focus of this Forum and is therefore excluded from any consideration. Year 0 therefore becomes an exclusively good thing in this context.
Incidentally, many ancient and even a few modern societies tend to restart their calendars whenever there is a change in monarch. Do such new reigns start at year 0 or year 1?
???
Too complex for my mushy brain....
Quote from: Nick Harbud on December 14, 2024, 06:14:38 PMDo such new reigns start at year 0 or year 1?
British regnal years start at 1 (it being the first year of the reign).
It's normal (AFAIK) to start everything with year 1. Such as the first year of your life, which is from age 0 to 1; it is not the noughth year of your life.
Year Zero means something specific (like Ground Zero).
FWIW, Oxford terms have numbered weeks, starting with First Week. The week before, when everyone starts arriving, is Noughth week. The week before that is Minus Oneth week, and so on.
Interestingly D Day was preceded by D-1, D-2 etc
The day after D day was D+1
But this was a planning thing. When the operation is planned the actual date is probably not known, so rather than say 5th of June which can change, you just use D Day
Not sure if this is appropriate to the Roman army in this case ;)
With calendars they are normally started retrospectively so you have the start point (The founding of Rome) and date from there.
Regnal years never go to zero, because the year before Charles' first regnal year was Elizabeth's last regnal year. There is never a gap to be zero.
So, if I have understood this correctly, one's birthday is actually the noughtth birthday anniversary...
???
Which for some most of us is a long time ago....
Quote from: Nick Harbud on December 15, 2024, 08:40:19 AMSo, if I have understood this correctly, one's birthday is actually the noughtth birthday anniversary...
???
Or, to put it another way, the anniversary of one's birth day. (Two separate words.)
Quote from: Nick Harbud on December 15, 2024, 08:40:19 AMSo, if I have understood this correctly, one's birthday is actually the noughtth birthday anniversary...
???
Some societies have/do date from conception not birth :)
Others officially date the birth from when it is registered rather than when the baby appears. In areas of the world with low incomes and high infant mortality, it was (and occasionally still is) not unusual for one's documented birthday to be several years after the event, much to the confusion of officialdom elsewhere.
:-\
Quote from: Nick Harbud on December 15, 2024, 11:55:04 AMOthers officially date the birth from when it is registered rather than when the baby appears.
This happened with my wife's aunt, whose birth wasn't registered until she went to school at the age of five. This was in 1920s Poplar, an area of low incomes and high infant mortality, as Call the Midwife fans will know :)
Quote from: Nick Harbud on December 14, 2024, 06:14:38 PMIncidentally, many ancient and even a few modern societies tend to restart their calendars whenever there is a change in monarch. Do such new reigns start at year 0 or year 1?
Mesopotamian kings used the concept of an "accession year" - which would effectively be a Year Zero, though less than a year in length - and only started Year One at the beginning of the calendar year after they came to the throne.
Chinese emperors used "era names", starting each at Year One of the new era; usually an era started partway through a calendar year, so Year One would be a short one.
This escalated quickly :P
;D
Quote from: Jim Webster on December 15, 2024, 09:26:31 AMSome societies have/do date from conception not birth :)
How do they know?
Presumably by campaigns dates... ;D
Don't even get me started on why the new Millenium should have been marked in 2001...
Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 16, 2024, 07:23:00 AMPresumably by campaigns dates... ;D
As in, if you go off on campaign, and return to find your lovely young wife pregnant, then you know the conception must have been on the night before you left?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on December 16, 2024, 09:12:00 AMQuote from: Imperial Dave on December 16, 2024, 07:23:00 AMPresumably by campaigns dates... ;D
As in, if you go off on campaign, and return to find your lovely young wife pregnant, then you know the conception must have been on the night before you left?
Honey, I'm home from the siege of Troy... gosh, was it really ten years? Gosh, you are looking very plump...
;)
Quote from: Jim Webster on December 15, 2024, 09:26:31 AMSome societies have/do date from conception not birth
Rome is one such nation. According to Orosius (2 2), all the histories of Rome began with Procas, the grandfather of Rhea Silvia, who was the mother of Romulus. Orosius claimed that: "there was an interval of 64 years from the first year of the reign of Procas to the founding of the city of Romulus. Thus, in the reign of Procas the seed of future Rome was sown, although as yet the shoot had not appeared." Therefore, Rome was conceived 64 years before Rome was founded. In Pythagorean lore, the integer seven related to the body and the integer nine to the spirit. (7) As the Pythagoreans believed pregnancy lasted for seven months (210 days), each month of pregnancy in the life of Rome was equivalent to nine years, and when the seven months of pregnancy are multiplied by nine years, the result is 63 years. Therefore, Orosius figure of 64 years has been rounded from 63 years. As Orosius associates the history of Rome as beginning with Procas, by taking Orosius' founding date of 751 BC for Rome, and after adding the 63 years, the first year of the reign of Procas would be in 814 BC, which matches Timaeus' date of 814 BC for Rome's founding. Therefore, Timaeus has confused Rome's date of conception as being Rome's founding date.