In contrast to the insignificant spring festival of Hilaria, one of the most important ancient pagan Roman festivals was Saturnalia.
Saturnalia was the festival of the god Saturn.
The feast began on December 17, already centuries before Caesar. Saturnalia was, at earlier times, the celebration of the end of agricultural work in late autumn.
People remembered the age of the creation of agriculture, the old “golden age” ruled in Roman mythology by the god Saturn. It was a work break and a folk amusement with music, dancing, eating, drinking, and gambling. Family members, friends and close acquaintances gave each other presents, just as we do at Christmas. People played a “reverse world”, a “role reversal”. The enslaved people became masters; the masters served their slaves, etc.
God Saturn was more than the “creator” of the “golden age”; he was also the god of time, the Roman equivalent of the Greek god Chronos. Chronos was the son of Uranus, and he was the leader of the Titans and the father of the Roman equivalent of the Greek Zeus, Jupiter.
In the days of Saturnalia, people also overcame their fear of the darkness of winter. They waited anxiously until the wheel of time had turned completely, the winter solstice, which brought them the sun’s rebirth.
Saturnalia fell some days before the winter solstice (WIS) and was associated with the traditional Roman sun cult. Saturnalia was gradually celebrated longer and longer, up to 7 days, until the day of WIS. In 45BC, the Date of WIS was 23. December, according to the new Julian Calendar.
The Romans had worshipped the sun god Apollo since the founding of the city of Rome. The “many-sided” Greek Apollo (son of Zeus) and the Etruscan Apulu served as models. They later created their own main sun god, Sol. The sun god Sol can be considered the “united” Roman equivalent of the sun gods of the conquered territories, the ancient Greek Helios, the eastern (originally Persian) Mithras and the Egyptian Re.
They built temples and celebrated in honour of their sun gods, but especially important was the Winter Solstice (WIS), the symbolic rebirth of the sun.
The cult of the sun was restored and strengthened by Emperor Augustus. Augustus was the “son of the sun” and regarded the sun as his symbol.
With the increasing importance of the sun, in AD274, Sol Invictus, the “invincible sun” festival, was set for December 25 (Mithras’ birthday). The Roman sun cult even survived the official toleration of Christianity for many decades (AD313, “Edict of Milan” by Constantine I; Constantine the Great).
People experienced the flaws of the old calendar, as the Date of Saturnalia moved away from the easily observable astronomical phenomenon, the winter solstice (WIS), and even from the winter itself.
It was crucial to bring Saturnalia back to its original position just a few days before the winter solstice.
Despite the drifts during the old, flawed calendars, people kept the dates of various old holidays, while those became independent of their original astronomical meaning. For this purpose, they could use the order and the distance in days of the various holidays.
Let us compare the distance measured in days between the first day of Saturnalia and the Hilaria day of the following year in the old Roman and new Julian calendars, according to Table 1.
In the old calendar, 12 days (29-17) have passed from the day of Saturnalia to the end of December. Add to this the days in January (29), the days in February (28) and the days until March 25. In total: 12+29+28+25= 94 days in the old calendar.
In the new Julian calendar, December and January were 2 days longer than before. So, there are 14 days between December 17 and the end of December, and 31 days have passed in January instead of 29. With formula: 94-14-31-28 = 21.
Namely: 17 December + 94 days = 21. March in the new calendar.
The old March 25 (the unimportant Hilaria-VEQ) was automatically “pushed back” by 4 days to March 21 in the new calendar by adjusting and redefining the time relationship between Saturnalia and WIS. Therefore, the Date corresponding to March 25 in the republican calendar has automatically become 21. March in Caesar’s new calendar.
There are further indirect shreds of evidence that VEQ may have fallen on March 21 in the Julian calendar’s first year, but calendar researchers have ignored these. The First Council of Nicaea set the Date of the VEQ to calculate the Easter tables on March 21, and Pope Gregory XIII also set the VEQ date for March 21 in his Gregorian calendar (see later). Both determinations could have opted for a different day. So, I find it possible that both the bishops of Nicaea and Pope Gregory XIII knew that VEQ in the Julian calendar initially fell on March 21.
My point in the above arguments was to clarify that there was no reason to intentionally set the VEQ date to a specific date in the new calendar. The VEQ day of the Julian calendar was automatically moved from the old, and in Rome,that time unimportant date, March 25, to a new date, March 21. Caesar’s priority in the calendar reform was to restore the Saturnalia. However, this also put the WIS in its old and astronomically proper place. The reform provided an opportunity to place the first Kalendae of the new calendar on January 1, on a visible new moon day. Because of the Metonic cycle, this was only possible once every 19 years.
As Dictator of Rome and Pontifex Maximus, Julius Caesar obviously had some historical and political expectations concerning the new calendar.
Mainly for political reasons, he had to try to preserve the most important old Roman traditions (as we have seen regarding Kalendae) while introducing the new calendar. For example, according to recent studies, he retained the length of the 31-day months (Martius, Maius, Quintilis and October) and the 28-day February (in non-leap years). But he had to increase the previous 29 days of April, Ionius, September and November to 30 days and that of Ianuarius, Sextilis and December to 31 days.
Later, the month Quintilis was renamed Iulius (44BC) in honour of Caesar, and the Sextilis was renamed Augustus (8BC) to recognise Emperor Augustus.
The length of the months in our calendar has remained unchanged since then.
There were widespread speculations earlier that the intervention of Emperor Augustus set the length of today’s months.
Based on the idea of Sacrobosco (13th century), it used to be assumed that Augustus shortened February by one day. Only as the result of this shortening could it become the month of August 31 days long, as the extension of Sextilis by that day. This earlier view has recently been refuted, mainly based on the writings of Macrobius (5th century).
Today's most robust assumption is that Caesar,
referring to ancient Roman traditions,
would have set the vernal equinox (VEQ) date on March 25.
Other calendar experts report that the VEQ-day was moved to March 22., 23. or 24 in the new calendar. (See Hunnivari for details).
March 23. is obviously assumed to be the first VEQ-day in 45BC because we already know today (by astronomical recalculation) that the VEQ in 45BC took place on March 23.
I state that we only assume today that the VEQ date was essential to Caesar because it is crucial today. The VEQ date in Judeo-Christian culture is used (as we have already seen) to calculate the date for Passover and Easter.
This was not the case in ancient Rome! Anyhow, in the astronomy of ancient Rome, the date of VEQ played a minor role, such as the date of the autumnal equinox, short AEQ.
In my opinion, Caesar and his astronomers hardly took the VEQ date into account when they worked out the Julian calendar. There was no official state holiday associated with the vernal equinox in Rome, and only an insignificant traditional folk spring festival, “Hilaria”, felt around VEQ day. This “spring Hilaria” was celebrated on March 25, indeed. This date was commemorated sometime much earlier because, due to known calendar errors, VEQ could usually only fall on a day other than March 25. In addition, the word Hilaria means “feast of joy” and was therefore also used for other minor holidays.
This observation leads to fundamental implications in the next post.
It is advisable to take a “short detour” here to survey the structure and logic of the Roman months, which is very unusual for us. The Roman calendar (according to ancient traditions already long before Caesar’s time) recorded only three important reference days per month.
These reference days were the following: K (Kalendae, Calendae), NON (Nonae) and EID (Idus, Eidus).
In the old lunar calendars, Kalendae meant the day of the appearance of the new crescent moon visible to the naked eye, i.e., the first day of the new month, the day of the announcement of the month.
The day of Kalendae was “proclaimed” by the priests at the beginning of each month, announcing the length of the month and calling for the payment of debts etc. (the Latin word “calo” means to proclaim). The term calendar derives from his Latin word and is used in many languages (English Calendar, German Kalender, Old Hungarian Kalendárium, etc.).
In ancient times, even astronomers considered the already visible new moon crescent as the new moon, the day of Kalendae, instead of the invisible astronomical new moon about two days before. (The binoculars were not yet known).
Idus originally meant the middle of the month when the full moon fell.
The Nonae, introduced later, represented the ninth day, calculated “inclusive” and backwards from Idus. (8th day according to our present method of calculation), the day of the first crescent, and indeed the waxing crescent.
The days were generally (with few exceptions) identified by these reference days but counted backwards and inclusive. In fact, the days missing until the specified reference day were counted.
For example, the birthday of Emperor Augustus, September 23, is called the 9th day before the Kalendae of October (ante Diem IX Kalendae Octobres) in the 30-day month of September. (8th day before the Kalendae of October for the old 29-day month of September.)
Due to changes in the lunar calendar, the old astronomical significance of the reference days disappeared. Because of the extended length of months, there was only infrequently a new moon on the day of Kalendae.
Caesar, however, mainly from political considerations, retained the tradition of reference days in the calendar structure, especially the role of Kalendae but only as the starting day of the month.But still, according to sources, in the year the new calendar was introduced, January 1 was the first new moon day after the winter solstice of the previous year.
It sounds very logical because this way, the first Kalendae day of the new calendar of Caesar announced not only the first month of the new calendar but also the new calendar itself.
In my opinion, starting the new calendar with Kalendae on the new moon was particularly important. It symbolised that the traditional date reference days and calendar structures were appreciated and retained.
As we have seen, this calendar setting may have been achieved by adjusting the length of the previous “last confused year”. (As it is known today: 46BC, 445 days)
On the other side, today, we know from astronomical retro-calculations that there was no observable new moon in the Roman sky on January 1, 45BC. The barely visible, very narrow new moon crescent appeared in the Roman sky only on January 3 in 45BC.
This consideration alone is enough to question the acceptance of BC 45 as the realistic first year of the Julian calendar! Namely, the new moon crescent was only observable in 53BC, 34BC, 15BC, AD5, AD24, AD43, AD62 (etc., according to the 19-year Metonic cycle) on January 1 in Rome.
When we hear or read “Easter table” today, we usually think of something like on the photo left. A beautifully set holiday table decorated with eggs, flowers, and bunny figurines.
But we have also inherited another interpretation from ancient times. The old term “Easter table” also has essential religious, scientific, and astronomical meanings.
In this post, we review the history of the Easter tables, which were essential in developing the AD system. We also examine the Easter tables’ supposed role in the assumed “misalignment of the AD time“.
Look at an old Easter table below; it looks like an ancient calendar!
Like its Jewish predecessor, Passover, Easter is a rotating, moving holiday whose date changes from year to year depending on the relationship between the day of the vernal equinox (VEQ) and the date of the full moon.
To simplify, the first day of Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox VEQ.
The Easter table is a timetable that astronomically summarises decades in advance on which day Easter will fall in the future. The Christian Church has proclaimed Easter every year according to the Easter table in force at that time.
Each line of an Easter table corresponds to one year.
The method (algorithm) to calculate the day of Easter (computus paschalis, or computus for short), which is connected to the AD time and so to the current hypothesis, was developed initially by Egyptian Christian priest-astronomers.
The authors and constructors of the Easter tables essential for our topic are the followings:
St. Cyril of Alexandria (ca. AD376 – AD444)
Dionysius Exiguus (ca. AD470 – ca. AD544)
St. Bede the Venerable (ca. AD672 – AD735)
The AD years given above are retroactively calculated years. Earlier, other year-identifications were given without using the AD system that did not yet exist.
Alexandrian Easter tables existed before the Cyrillic period, too. Other Easter tables with slightly different algorithms were also constructed in the above time; however, they did not become significant in our AD time reckoning.
Today we are convinced that Bishop Cyril and the monks Exiguus and Bede were living historical individuals, and their successive, closely linked, “chain-like” Easter tables are genuine and relevant.
The period covered by these Easter tables is usually a multiple of the 19-year Metonic cycle. (see Explanations)
Easter Table of St. Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril continued earlier traditions invented by Anatolius of Alexandria to calculate the Date of Easter.
Ágoston Teres writes in “The Bible and Astronomy “:
“Bishop Cyril began his first cycle with the 153rd year of Diocletian and ended the last with the 247th year of the same tyrant.”
This corresponds to the Easter table period of AD437 – AD531.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire in AD476 happened during this period.
At this ancient time, counting was “inclusive”: between AD437 and AD531 elapsed not 94 but 95 years, as counting included the first and the last year. The inclusive counting (including) is unusual for us, but it is correct; it is only a matter of opinion.
For Bishop Cyril, the idea of a new time reckoning, introducing the serial numbers of the years starting with the year of Jesus’ birth or any other old Christian year, was outside his mind.
The last line of his Easter table was marked Anno Diocletian 247. Surprisingly, this marking was also abbreviated AD. (We use later for this ADio, see Abbreviations)
It is also strange that Cyril calculated many years back (starting from Diocletian) when this was not yet common.
And it is totally incomprehensible and unbelievable to me that the Christian Church dated anything concerning Diocletian, the great persecutor of Christians.
Easter Table of Dionysius Exiguus
Exiguus continued Cyril’s Easter table for the next period, AD532 – AD626, for the next 95 years, counted by the inclusive method. In the first 7 rows of his own Easter table (the rows corresponding to the years AD525-AD531, which are a repetition of the last 7 rows of Cyril’s table), he refers to the Diocletian years in the old way, like Cyril.
Exiguus introduced a new marking. He marked the first line of his own table instead of Anno Diocletian 248 (ADio248), rather.
"532 years of our Lord Jesus Christ"
“ANNI DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI DXXXII”
but only to reidentify the row of his new table.
This was a synchronization of the AD date of Christianity with the years of the Roman era from the beginning of Diocletian’s reign, albeit unintentional.
It was unintentional because Exiguus did not want to introduce a new time reckoning either. He was merely trying to calculate the years between his own year of calculation and the year of Jesus’ birth for a different reason! For Exiguus considered it unworthy to continue to number the lines of his own Easter table with the years beginning with the first year of the reign of Diocletian, who was considered a cruel persecutor of Christians. So, he switched to marking the lines of his table with the year of Jesus’ birth. We know this from his letter to Bishop Petronius.
I find it curious that a letter from a simple monk from the 6th century has “survived”. Perhaps it survived because the Roman Church attached great importance to the calculation of Exiguus, the year of Jesus’ birth? In that case, how is it possible that Exiguus’ significant result was used exclusively as the serial numbers of the rows of Easter tables for the next two hundred years?
Furthermore, it is difficult for me to accept that Exiguus, living in Rome in AD525, counted according to a “computus” of Alexandrian origin, adopted it and carried it forward. I doubt this because shortly before, in AD451, the Roman Christian Church and the Orthodox Christian Church of Alexandria had broken off all contact for the next 1000 (one thousand!) years, mainly because of religious disputes, as far as we know today!
Let us remember my note in the earlier post “Jesus’ lifetime”:
“Exiguus performed the calculation back to AD1 precisely 7 years earlier (AD525 instead of AD 532) than would have been necessary for practice, even though the count could be done at most in a few weeks. And he made 7 years of error.
The double difference of 7 years seems to be a “strange coincidence”.
Indeed, it is more than strange to me. This coincidence raises the suspicion that Exiguus actually did not make his calculations in AD525, but only 7 years later, in AD532. In other words, he was correct in his first calculation concerning the year distance between his year and Jesus’ birth year, and he backdated later the correct result by 7 years for some mysterious reason. So, he moved the year of Jesus’ birth forward 7 years from 7BC to AD1.
Returning to the calculation of Exiguus:
We do not know exactly Exiguus’ calculation method; he probably compared several lines of thought. Exiguus based his calculation neither on AUC754 nor on the 195th ancient Greek Olympic Games (both were retroactively assigned to AD525). It seems that Exiguus controlled his measures based on the indiction cycles.
More than half a millennium earlier, Julius Caesar introduced the concept and application of the indiction cycle, following the Egyptian example. Indiction-cycles (tax cycles) spanned 15 years. The duration of military service was also 15 years, and taxes were the source of the maintenance of the army.
Unfortunately, the serial number of indiction cycles was not recorded, so the back-calculation based on indiction was rather complicated and unreliable. It should also be noted that in antiquity, it was not only the use of zero (as a number), but subtraction was unknown, too. Instead of subtraction, an addition was used, as did Exiguus like below:
Exiguus concluded that Jesus was born in the 4th year of the 4th indiction cycle, which he called the first indiction cycle. Furthermore, relative to this first cycle, the year of the calculation made by Exiguus was the 3rd indiction of his 36th indiction cycle.
By the 4th year of the first indiction cycle, 3 of the 15 years had elapsed. So, there were 12 years left up to 15 (to be added instead of subtracted 3). Of these 12 years, the first year was a fraction of a year of Jesus’ life, but according to the inclusive convention, this was counted as a full year, making up 12 years.
Thereafter, 34 complete indiction-cycles elapsed, so 34*15 = 510 years.
Exiguus’ own year was the 3rd year of his current cycle, and this was also a fraction of a year since the year Jesus was born to consider. Including calculated, Exiguus also took this year as an entire year, which means 3 years to add.
Hence, the result of Exiguus’ indiction calculation is as follows:
12 + 34*15 + 3 = 525; (including the year of Jesus’ birth and the year of his calculation). Furthermore, 525 + 7 = 532, because Exiguus did his calculation 7 years in advance.
The “Great Easter Cycle” of St Bede the Venerable
Bede continued the Easter table of Exiguus some 200 years later. He referred to Exiguus several times as Venerable Dionysius in his writings.
Bede incorporated Exiguus’ Easter table into his own table and then extended it up to AD1063.
The period of the first part of Bede’s Easter table was a repetition of Exiguus’ table. Thus, it spanned the period AD532 – AD626. The second table period, spanning 95 years, too, covered the years AD627 – AD721. The third covered AD722 to AD816, and so on up to AD1063.
The Easter tables of Bede span the duration of precisely one so-called “Great Easter Cycle”, i.e., including 28*19 = 532 years; 1063-532+1= 532. Moreover, in his own tables, Bede even calculated the date of Easter for the year AD1064, the 1st year of the next Great Easter Cycle.
Bede put into practice his idea that the years since the birth of Jesus and the AD notation could be used for “long-distance retrospective and prospective time reckoning”. This was obviously an excellent idea for the Christian church and religion. By spreading AD dating, the very act of saying or writing the year would have reminded believers of Jesus! But for a long time, almost nothing happened!
It is very controversial that although Bede had calculated 300 years ahead, the spread of AD time reckoning took about 300 years!It is possible that the progress of spreading was so slow because one wanted to cover something up.
The Connection between the Easter Tables and the AD Time.
As mentioned, each row of the Easter tables corresponds to a year, so these tables are, in fact, “simple calendars of year counting, year numbering”.
According to István Hahn, a Hungarian historian and member of the Hungarian Academy, in his work “Calendar systems and time reckoning “: “From the 11th century onwards, the calendar of the birth of Christ was the only calendar used in most of Europe.” (The book exists only in Hungarian. The blogger translated the title and citation.)
So, the Easter tables above begin in the Roman era and end in the period when our present-day AD time was already widespread! (Roman era: see Explanations)
Since the year of Jesus’ birth is linked to the Roman era, it can be said that there is a single continuous period of over a thousand years (including the 283 years before Diocletian) in history.
It can be stated that the Christian Church has recorded the year of Jesus’ birth at least since St. Cyril. The year of Jesus’ birth was (at least indirectly, in the form of identifying the lines of the Easter tables concerning Roman history back to Diocletian) well known.
To sum up, even the very continuity of the Easter tablesvirtually does not allow the insertion of a 220-yearerainto the timeline of history!
However, it is also noticeable that Bede retroactively repeated the Easter table of Exiguus. Then from AD627 onwards, i.e., before his own time, he produced a further retrospective Easter table. But any retrospective Easter table is meaningless and unnecessary because it has no practical application. The question arises: In the 95 years after the end of Exiguus’ table, was the date of Easter calculated annually? Someone else should make an Easter table between the time of Exiguus and the time of Bede. Why would there have been a need for Bede’s retrospective Easter tables?
We have already seen that the period from 476 to 725 AD could theoretically be appropriate for the insertion of a Phantom Time.
The retroactively compiled and retrospective Easter tables of Bede fall into this possible period.One might wonder whether Bede’s retrospective Easter tables were not made as “a virtual calendar of year counting” to bridge a historical time gap, to hide a phantom historical time.
We will see later that the subsequent falsifiability of the Easter tablets was made possible precisely by an ecclesiastical decision that influenced the computus.
We have mentioned that many medieval documents were proven to have been forgeries made retroactively.
Why should it not have been possible that the Easter tables of Bede were also forged?
The posts in chapter 1. are only a recapitulation of what is known to most readers, so it aims to help all readers to join.
It is often, but erroneously, called a “calendar error” when it is thought about the mistake or confusion of the time reckoning. However, the calendar is not confused.
The Julian calendar, still in use today, and the widely used Gregorian calendar derived from it work correctly according to the original plans.
Only the year numbers assigned as calendar years to the historical events could be confused.
That is why it is essential to see that the calendar and the reckoning of time are close today but originally had little or nothing to do with each other.
All calendars attempt to reflect the year’s structure in terms of astronomy, seasons, weather, related agricultural work, etc. However, the calendar did not have a year in the past because, in today’s sense, there was no year number, that is, no long-term serial number for the year!
The calendar could be carved in stone, as it remained valid for many years (until a possible calendar reform). An example of this is the initial, an image of an old “peasant calendar” carved in marble.
The calendar years we use today for antiquity are only the results of subsequent historical back-calculations. Some other time-calculations still alive today go back with their time reckoning even longer, 4-6 thousand years and their old years are the results of historically not too old retro-calculations.
However, because astronomical years differ, the old calendars can still help determine historical year distances to build up the correct chronology. Thus, we can retroactively assign a year number to historical events. For this purpose, I will start my analysis later with the astronomical dates of Julius Caesar’s calendar reform.
It is common knowledge that in our present AD calendar, we think about the past and the future in terms of the birth year of Jesus Christ, AD1.
The serial number of years goes back to the ancient, fixed year AD1, so the year numbers encompass a very long period of years for the past and the future.
For us, past or future years and periods are well illustrated by the calendar years because everyone can subtract and add. Today, the calendar and the reckoning of time are closely related.
The ancient Roman (except for a few scholars) thought about time in terms of a short period elapsed since a near and crucial historical event. For example, he talked about the years since the first year of an emperor’s reign, the year of office of a particular consul, or the fractions of a 15-year indiction cycle (see later). Thus, the starting point (the reference year) of the current ad hoc era changed rapidly.
As a post-summary, it should be noted that the serial number of years was not recorded earlier because the long-term year numbering in the modern sense did not exist. As a result, time reckoning was and is based on retro-calculations.Therefore, the year numbers (today’s calendar years) could be easily miscalculated, manipulated, or falsified and are uncertain.
It is now accepted that Jesus Christ was not born in AD1, as assumed for many centuries, but 7 years earlier, in 7BC (in astronomy, 7BC is marked as -6)!
Any “phantom time theory” seems to be unbelievable and unacceptable. This is probably why even those who like to deal with history show little interest in the suspected but not yet proved and accepted inaccuracy of our AD chronology.
Or more precisely formulated, in the confusion of the AD time reckoning.
(AD stands for Anno Domini, see Abbreviations. Chronology and time reckoning has different meanings: see Explanations. Sometimes I use “AD system” or “AD time” as synonyms for AD time reckoning.)
This lack of interest is understandable since professional historians emphasise that the open questions about the more than 2000 years old AD era have long since been resolved.
The only exception to this disinterest is Heribert ILLIG’s book on the falsification of our chronology, “The Invented Middle Ages “., generally called the most famous “Phantom Time Theory“.
It is a well-known historical fact that there were many forged documents in earlier times. The usual purpose was to retroactively prove the origin of specific claims (e. g., inheritance and property rights). ILLIG, too, based much of his work on the existence of a considerable number of forged documents.
In my opinion, ILLIG’s fiction became famous mainly because science (instead of refuting it with plausible counterarguments) put the stamp of “conspiracy theory “, short “CT“, on it. In our time, many people like fiction (although many also consider it fact), e. g. science fiction, (sci-fi), and even conspiracy theories. CTs are based on accusing certain groups of “misdirection”, “secrecy”, and “stealth”. Undoubtedly, this also finds a strong emphasis on ILLIG’s theory.
(As an aside, my general opinion on CTs is that people usually make them up after the fact. However, not entirely without reason. Because throughout history, there has always been a lot of misdirection and “manipulation” to enforce an interest. I call this a “conspiracy practice”. Since the manipulated cannot understand what has happened and why and are reluctant to admit that they have been misled, they invent a conspiracy theory for the unpleasant situation that has arisen spontaneously, as the result of many manipulations, not necessarily coordinated in a conspiration).
The main difference between science fiction and CT is that sci-fi is characterised by rational or seemingly logical reasoning. I enjoy sci-fi, but CTs don’t make me angry either because I tend to think they might also have a kernel of truth like the origins of legends. Despite my indulgent attitude, I have so far found all fiction and conspiracy theories I have read, including ILLIG’s theory, unacceptable.
Nevertheless, my present hypothesis is a distant relative of ILLIG’s theory and originated on the fringes of these two “fashionable genres”. I classify my own “invention” in the genre of “historical fiction “, as I mentioned above.
It resembles science fiction because one of the definitions of sci-fi says that it “deals with unrecognised problems and offers a rational solution to them.” My writing offers a rational, astronomical solution to suspected historical issues that science does not recognise. At the same time, my hypothesis can also be considered a conspiracy theory, although I only touch on misdirection, secrecy, and camouflage.
I state:
A significant miscalculation of AD time cannot be ruled out!
I claim that the possible error in the AD time reckoning is:
Insertion of 220 years of historical events that never took place!
A "confusion" of the AD time by 220 years is possible!
I use the term “confusion” because the word may mean both intentional and accidental mistakes. Moreover, the most significant event of the AD time reckoning has been shifted in the opposite direction than the other ones, and this bidirectional falsehood is a “confusion” indeed.
The above statement is, of course, only a hypothesis until proven by scientists in the fields concerned.
(This is why I ask the reader to put my “feverishly exploratory” statements, even definite statements, in conditional mode.Unless my hypothesis can be proven by scientific rigour, I have written a scenario on systematically constructing complex historical fiction. While entertaining myself, I learned a lot about history and astronomy!)
Although it starts with an ABSTRACT, the present hypothesis is not a scientific work. I summarise my observations in a simplified form, hoping that this simplification results in better clarity. Even though what I have to say is complex.
Scientists can regard my view as fiction alone because I am not an expert in the concerned fields, but only an amateur, a computer engineer interested in calendars, history, and time reckoning. But the abstract is not intended only for experts who happen to stumble across my blog; it can be helpful for any reader to decide if he is interested in this topic.
At my age, I would be particularly pleased to be accused of having too vivid an imagination because I follow Mark Twain: “You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”
Having come across a seemingly impossible hypothesis, I may shock the esteemed reader. Although my theory refers to long past times, it also causes the present. Therefore, I hope it will provide new ideas for those interested in history and astronomy, whether my fiction is true or just a reflection of my imagination.
I can see that my hypothesis is extraordinarily bold, and my imagination is so fierce that only an amateur may propose such a hypothesis. Already by the hint of a similar theory, any respected authority could lose its scientific reputation.
The AD time reckoning used todaywas verified astronomically.So, I want to show that exactlyon an astronomical basis:“Another historical chronology”seems to be possible.
In this study, I try to present my hypothesis understandably but also concisely. At the same time, I tried to check some historical data on an astronomical basis. Precise astronomy as a rational means of proving the hypothesis may offer a chance to get some experts thinking about the new year numbers.
This “intermediate way” is not easy because the average reader might have little knowledge about the necessary astronomical basics. Therefore, the reader can skip the astronomical details, and it is sufficient to understand the gist of the text accompanying them. And for readers interested in background information, there is the possibility of instantly accessing the underlined references in the text by screen-clicking. However, I would prefer to recommend that you study the details afterwards. It may be sufficient to use the buttons Abbreviations and Explanations when reading on screen.
There are also some less essential references in the text to give sources (especially the source of images), which cannot be clicked. Some of the attached pictures and figures can be enlarged by clicking.
I consider the AD time reckoning only as a year scale in which an old historical course, i. e. a more extended period, could also be wrongly classified.
Of course, it would never have occurred to me to change the AD system, which has been familiar for a long time! Therefore, I remain with the AD time system and assign a new AD year or date to certain old events. To facilitate the distinction, my “new AD years“, which are proposed in the context of my hypothesis, are marked with the equivalent year notation CE (Common Era) for AD and BCE (Before CE) for BC. (See Abbreviations, or Common Era – Wikipedia)
Shortly, my hypothesis is an imagination
on the one side
but is an invention based on astronomical facts
on the other side.
The decision is yours whether you see my hypothesis as
“a novel theory of phantom time.”
or
“a novella on phantom time theory”.
Of course, the reader is right to ask how an amateur can have the courage to make such a far-reaching hypothesis.
The following thought-provoking quotations and my comments on them are my attempt to “explain” my audacity:
“The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy.”
My comment:
-Therefore, history writing is inherently subjective, even according to the known and respected historian. Thus, even an amateur can fantasise about history or theorise about falsifying it in the past.
Napoleon Bonaparte, Churchill, Dan Brown, and others said:
“History is written by the victors”.
My comment:
– Indeed, the victors rewrite past events to make their “own history” seem better.
– But the chronology and a given time reckoning should be written by the stars of the heavens!
“Chronology is the backbone of history “, the old saying goes. But there is no consensus among historians on the absolute historical chronology. The fitting of the quasi-known “relative chronological fragments” is in many cases questionable. This applies mainly to older (ancient) events, e. g. “as many Egyptian chronologies as there are Egyptologists”.
There is already a seemingly clear consensus in the chronology of the last 2000 years of European history, reflected in the AD time reckoning.
It is possible, however, that this mirror is still curved!
The polysemantic title of this blog, “The Recounting of Time”, is a paraphrase. The paraphrase of “The Reckoning of Time“. (It is the usual translation of the title “De Temporum Ratione”, the monumental work of Saint Bede or The Venerable Bede.)
My hypothesis has to do with chronology, with the fallibility of our Anno Domini time reckoning.
“Recounting” should be interpreted as a comparative recalculation of time. A comparison of the elapsed astronomical time since some old historical events with the currently accepted calendrical years of the same events. Accordingly, the recalculation and comparison are based on astronomical foundations.
Despite this scientific basis, this writing, at least from a historical point of view, belongs more to the realm of phantasy. In this sense, I see my writing as an “invented historical story”, a “historical fiction”.
On the one side, the result of my fantasy is “tentative” in its current summarising form. It is still freely malleable, plastic within certain limits, and it flows almost down from my desk like Dali’s “melting” clock. By this, I mean that the details and consistency of the hypothesis can and should be further refined.
On the other hand, the hypothesis is complex and challenging for sensitive readers. Despite its complexity, I hope my writing is a generally understandable thesis formulation.
The blog might be of particular interest to readers who do have a taste for old history. At the same time, they should be ready to enjoy an “immersion” in astronomy, in the world of wild imagination and unusual ideas. (e.g., science fiction and conspiracy theories) I recommend it to “open-minded” readers who are “naturally curious” and, above all, ready for a “brain-training” away from the usual, nowadays fashionable ideas.
My blog puts together the thought process that led me to make my assertions. The fictional story is a “scenario” to explore a possible way. A way to examine and solve the chronological correspondence of astronomical phenomena and selected “historical key events” of the Roman Empire’s era and early medieval past.
A friend of mine told me that I (as an older man) look back to the past because I find it hard to bear the untruths and manipulations of the present. Well, who doesn’t? As a “consolation” for all of us, I realise that the falsehoods and manipulations may have been quite similar in the past because they are, unfortunately, human.
I will underline the possibility of a time-distant manipulation of our chronology. The same topic was presented somewhat similarly by others in the past but was not accepted by official science. Perhaps I can prove the misinterpretation or rather the falsification of our chronology? Previous theories to discover this medieval manipulation have failed, so it is likely that my exploration will also remain just another attempt.
Unlike previous “fact-finders,” I do not claim to be correct. The thought merely attracts me that I might be right. I believe that the issue I have raised is not closed and needs to be reconsidered scientifically. Because I am an amateur in the relevant fields, my age, and the interdisciplinary nature of the subject, I cannot take this in detail. So, I will barely touch on some key historical events (this isn’t a book). In any case, it would be difficult for any individual to solve this issue. A re-examination would require the collaboration of scientists from several disciplines. At least temporarily, these scientists would have to abandon their previous beliefs, which I certainly see no chance of doing.
The goal of my writing is to think further together.
Therefore, I would like to think together, above all, with people who are also amateurs. Those whose “professional competence has not yet clouded their view”, as my first boss (chief designer of a computer development), wittily, ambiguously, but seriously “encouraged” young electronics engineers more than 50 years ago.
Of course, it would be fascinating for me to talk to professionals who are sufficiently “brave” because their reputations could be at stake. I consider the blog very suitable because any expert can comment “incognito” here.
The exchange of opinions is only possible with different views.
I cordially invite interested readers
- to pose passionate, critical questions and
- to put well-founded counterarguments.
I would also appreciate it if my hypothesis would be refuted by experts strictly scientifically. This would strengthen my opinion that all calculations, even astronomical data, sometimes can be misinterpreted.
Hoping for a sympathetic discussion, I commend my study to all my dear and interested readers.
So, if you’ve read my post this far, you’ll have a sense of what the blog is about. Please share the blog with your friends and acquaintances on your favourite social media, even if you are not interested in the topic.
The old books of Venerable Bede provided the impetus for the practical introduction of today’s Anno Domini time reckoning. So I bow first and foremost to Bede’s life-work and initiative.
I remember with thanks the words of encouragement of my friends Tamás Gyorgyevics and Gábor Szalay.
I greatly appreciate the comments of my friend László Fabó, electrical engineer and the operational chairman of the Philosophical Discussion Group in Budapest, whose notes have made my message clearer.
To the bests of my remembrance belongs the gesture of Sándor Szekeres. Long before the birth of my hypothesis, he had conjured up on his screen the star Regulus, which is one of the astronomical cornerstones of both his and my theory as well.
Many thanks to Zoltán Hunnivári for his helpful comments in support of my hypothesis. He did it despite the decades of work he had put into his own theory, which is partly similar to mine. His theory and method of working were very stimulating for me.
I would like to express my special thanks to my astronomer friend Albert Gesztesi for his valuable professional and literary advice, especially for verifying my initial astronomical data and findings.
I am grateful to my friend Ingeborg Burger-Balogh for having revised my German version of the text with such care that she even contributed to the clarifying addition of the original Hungarian text.
Finally, although I wish I had done it first, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Böbe (Dr Erzsébet Urban), my wife, who has tolerated my frequent and lengthy browsing of books and screens with understanding and patience.
Chronology is the schedule of historical events, and its essence is the relative order of events. The chronology can be expressed by the time distance of the events, too, without dates, without giving the calendar years according to any time reckoning. For example: ‘The thirty-year-old emperor attacked our country, but our king, who was 15 years older in the twentieth year of his reign, defeated the emperor in a duel”. From this description, a sequence of events can be constructed.
Time reckoning is the system of time calculation beginning from a known or imagined historical or astronomical event.
A given chronology can be expressed correctly in different time reckoning systems. For example, the sequence of the events of a given decade of our AD system is the same in an old Chinese or in a younger Islamic time reckoning system. Only the dates belonging to the events become different in another time reckoning system.
Gregory’s dilemma: (as described by the blogger)
If our calendar were correct, Pope Gregory XIII could not have corrected the Julian calendar by deleting ten days when he introduced the Gregorian calendar in AD 1582. He would have had to omit 13 days. The vernal equinox (short VEQ; see Abbreviations) moves back one day every 128 years in the Julian calendar. The backwards shift would have been 13 days in 1626 years (45BC-AD1582), while the deleted ten calendar days correspond to only 1280 elapsed years.
Conjunction:
When two planets, as seen from Earth, appear to be so close that they “overlap” (super conjunction), or at least appear very close, the difference in their hour angle or longitudinal ecliptic coordinates is/are within 1 degree. Conjunction (astronomy) – Wikipedia
Metonic cycle (lunar cycle):
This cycle means that a particular lunar phase, e.g., the new moon, falls only after 19 years on the same day of the year, concerning a fixed point of the year, such as the astronomical VEQ-day. The Metonic cycle was the basis of the solar year correction of some lunar calendars in ancient times. Metonic cycle – Wikipedia
Solar cycle: (as a calendar cycle)
The period of 28 years after which, in the Julian calendar, the weekdays of a 366-day leap year return to the same date. After 28 years, the leap year calendars are identical to each other. The 365-day standard years are more often similar. Solar cycle (calendar) – Wikipedia
Nisan: (also called Nissan)
Nisan is the first month in the “religious” Jewish calendar. It lasts 30 days. The beginning of the month of Nisan falls in the period from mid-March to mid-April, as the Jewish calendar is lunisolar. Nisan – Wikipedia
Roman Era:
753BC (founding year of Rome) – AD476 (fall of the Western Roman Empire) or 533BCE – 696CE, according to this study. Consequently,the last period of the Roman Era is the Western Roman Empire (27BC – AD476 or AD194 – 696CE, according to this study).
Middle-Ages:
AD476 – AD1492 (discovery of America by Christopher Columbus) or 696CE – 1492CE, according to this study.
Dark Middle Ages: about the first 300 years of the Middle Ages.
Note: The period of the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages is a subject of discussion among historians and might change country by country, depending on the history of the given land.
Parthia or Parthian Empire: (also named as Arsacid Empire)
247BC – AD228 as accepted today, or 27BCE – 448CE according to this study. The Parthian Empire defeated the Seleucids and often the Romans and occupied today’s Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel (Galilea).
Seleucids, Seleucid Empire:
312BC- 63BC as accepted today, or BC312 – 158CE according to this study. The Seleucid Empire was one of the Hellenistic successor states formed after the death of Alexander the Great. The empire initially included Bactria, Persia, Mesopotamia, Media, Babylonia, Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine.
Anno Domini (year of the Lord; in the year of the Lord). Applied in many languages for time reckoning beginning with the year of birth of Jesus Christus. Anno Domini – Wikipedia
BC:
Before Christ, used to denote the years before the birth of Jesus. There is no “year zero” in the AD-BC system; 1BC is the year immediately preceding AD1.
But in astronomy, the year numbering has no abbreviations, and year zero exists, too. For example: AD1 = 1; although 1BC = 0; so 9BC = -8.
AD-BC System, or AD System for shorter.
Synonyms of the AD-BC or AD time reckoning, short AD-Time.
CE:
Common Era, international designation, an equivalent of AD. For example: AD2017 = 2017CE
BCE:
Before Common Era, international designation, equivalent of BC. 45BC = 45BCE.
In the current hypothesis, we remain in the AD-BC system. For distinction purposes, the CE and BCE abbreviations are applied in this hypothesis to mark our proposed new years of some historical events (instead of the equivalent AD and BC). Common Era – Wikipedia
AUC: Ab urbe condita; since the foundation of the city (Rome).
The year AUC1 corresponds to the year 753BC. The year AD1 corresponds to the year AUC754. According to some experts, AD1 = AUC 753; others say AUC755. Even the ancient Roman historians were unsure how many years earlier Rome was founded. The AUC year designation was not used in practice, and it was applied only by a few ancient historians to determine the year of critical old events. Later historians also used it to date events in Roman history, but AD-BC superseded its use. Ab urbe condita – Wikipedia
UR: indication of the years of the Parthian UR time reckoning.
UR1 = 247BC, AD1 = UR248 as accepted today.
UR1 = 27BC = 27BCE, according to this hypothesis.
AJ: Anno Jesu:
The year of Jesus’ birth according to the present hypothesis. The abbreviation AJ is introduced in the current hypothesis.
AJ1 = 7BC+220 = AD1+213 = AD214 = 214CE.
AJE: Anno Jesu by Exiguus:
The year of Jesus’ birth, by Exiguus according to this hypothesis. It is introduced in the present description.
AJE1 = AJ1+7 = AD214+7 = AD1+220 = AD221 = 221CE
AC: Abbreviation for the Coptic time reckoning.
AC1 = AD284; The year accepted today and accepted by the present hypothesis, too.
ADio: Anno Diocletian
This notation for the years of Emperor Diocletian is introduced in the present hypothesis. ADio1 = AD284 as accepted today.
ADio1 = AD504 = 504CE according to the present hypothesis:
ADR: Anno Domini Recounted.
The year, calculated backwards from the current year of the AD time reckoning with our proposed new chronology, in other words: AD with omitted fictitious years. The abbreviation ADR is introduced in the present hypothesis. ADR aka CE
UTC: Universal Time Coordinated, Universal Coordinated Time
Conventional Universal Time, the average time defined by the Earth’s non-uniform rotation, is measured relative to distant stars. Today the version UT1 is used. For “everyday use”, it corresponds well to UTC (Universal Time Coordinated) and to the older GMT, too. Universal Time – Wikipedia
TT: Terrestrial Time.
Modern astronomical time standard. Ideal, theoretical, uniformly elapsing time approximated by atomic clock time with high accuracy. Terrestrial Time – Wikipedia
LMST: (Local Mean Solar Time) Also called LMT (Local Mean Time).
The LMST, as an average, corrects for the variations in apparent local time (the Local True Solar Time (LTST), sundial time) caused by the uneven rotation of the Earth.
The sky simulator program Stellarium shows Local Mean Solar Time (LMST) by default since local time and time zones are new terms unknown in ancient times.
In Stellarium: LMST = UTC + Longitude Offset.
The longitude offset of 1° from the conventionally assigned 0° at Greenwich results in a 4-minute offset of the LMST value.
Not to be confused with the artificial local time (clock time) and zone time.
In precise timekeeping and counting, ΔT is the measure of the cumulative effect of the time by which the Earth’s rotation period deviates from the average length of day. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/deltat2004.html
VEQ: Vernal Equinox; March Equinox; Spring Equinox.
The VEQ point is the celestial location on the ecliptic where VEQ occurs. The VEQ day is the day on the calendar when VEQ occurs. When VEQ itself is used, its meaning is given in context. The term “vernal equinox” refers to both the celestial point and the calendar day of the vernal equinox or the exact time of the vernal equinox. Equinox – Wikipedia
AEQ: Autumnal Equinox; September Equinox; Fall Equinox.
On the ecliptic, the AEQ point is approximately opposite the VEQ point. Its interpretation is otherwise analogous to that of the VEQ. Equinox – Wikipedia
WIS: Winter Solstice.
It is the shortest day and the longest night of the year for the Northern Hemisphere. Winter solstice – Wikipedia
The RECOUNTING of TIME 