The picture on the left shows the “protagonists” of the First Council of Nicaea (AD325), Pope Sylvester I. and Constantine I. (the Great), the first Roman emperor to be baptised.
Twelve years earlier, Constantine the Great had enacted the “Edict of Milan”, which accepted Christianity with state benevolence in the Roman Empire.
By the time of the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman Church had long been aware of the flaw in the Julian calendar that VEQ day was consistently moved back one day every 128 years. This coincided with the fact that Christians had long wanted to move away from the old Jewish Passover method of calculating the Easter date.
To make the VEQ day clear for Easter date calculation (computus), the synod formally fixed the date of VEQ day by church decree to 21 March, thus making it independent of the actual astronomical date. (It was gradually introduced after the year of the synod, the exact timetable for its introduction is unknown.)
The synod could have chosen any day near 21 March, but the Church does not choose arbitrarily, and the Church usually decides according to its own traditions. Even when they informally set VEQ Day, they probably chose a date they calculated as VEQ Day in the year of Jesus’ crucifixion.
The year of the synod as adopted today is AD325.
In AD325, the date of VEQ is 20 March, 13:50.
This is when the VEQ fell in Rome for a long time (AD308-AD347) on 20 March.
Looking back from the year AD325, the Church would also have seen that the day of VEQ should have originally fallen on 22-23 March, around the year of Jesus’ crucifixion.
It is, therefore, logical to assume that in AD325:
– the Church (probably following its own tradition) either set the VEQ on 22 March, since around the year of Jesus’ crucifixion (AD20-AD50), the VEQ fell predominantly on 22 March. (In AD33 and AD36, the VEQ fell on 22 March, and it has continued to shift towards the stable on 22 March);
– or perhaps the synod would have set the VEQ day for AD325 as 20 March, since in the years around AD325, the VEQ day fell decades-long on 20 March, as seen above.
This means that AD325 is out of the question,
as the year of the First Council of Nicaea, because in AD325, the synod would hardly have chosen 21 March as the official VEQ day.
After transforming AD325 two-hundred-twenty years closer to us, we come to 545CE, the new year of the Council of Nicaea.
In 545CE, the VEQ was pushed back to 18 March, 20:29.
Around 545CE, VEQ fell every two years, alternately on 18 or 19 March.
Accordingly, it is logical to assume that in 545CE:
– following the church tradition, the synod probably would have fixed VEQ day on 20 or 21 March, since around the year of Jesus’ crucifixion, 256CE, VEQ fell every two years alternately on 20 or 21 March. Probably they counted back to 256CE and found with a small error that VEQ fell on 21 March that year.
– or perhaps the synod could have fixed the VEQ day on 18 March because of the accumulated error in the Julian calendar for AD545, since in the years around AD545, the dominance of 18 March as VEQ day was imminent.
Bishops and prelates usually decide
to follow the traditions of the Roman Church,
and this may have been the case in Nicaea, too!
The Roman Church may have known that VEQ was initially on 21 March in the Julian calendar. This knowledge may also influence their decision for 21 March as a formal VEQ day for computus.
The consequence: the date fixing by the church has made it possible to produce Easter tables connected loosely to astronomical reality! The fixing of the VEQ date for 21 March made it easier for Beda to compile retroactively false Easter tables since Beda's hands were not tightly bound by the actual date of the astronomical VEQ day.
The First Council of Nicaea had not yet considered a calendar reform. Formalising the VEQ day was much easier than a hasty calendar reform would have been.
Setting the VEQ date to 21 March solved the issue of calculating the Easter date created by the backsliding of the VEQ date in the Julian calendar. The fixing of the VEQ day kept Easter as a movable holiday but also separated it from the “Jewish Passover” (which was strictly linked to the astronomical VEQ).
Conclusion:The Church's decision to set the VEQ Day on 21 March
means to me that the 220-year-later 545CE is more appropriate
as the year of the First Council of Nicaea than AD325.
Historians accept that the Coptic Orthodox Christian calendar began on 29 August AD284, commemorating the cruel Christian persecution of Emperor Diocletian. AD284 corresponds to the Coptic1 year.
Another name for the Coptic calendar is “The calendar of martyrs”. Years of the Coptic time are designated A.M., the abbreviation for “Anno Martyrum”, Year of the Martyrs. (Coptic1 = A.M.1)
Emperor Diocletian ascended the throne on 20 November 284, the first full year of his reign being AD285.
Because of the difference in the starting dates of the Julian and Coptic years:
“The Coptic year is calculated by subtracting 283 (before Julian New Year) or 284 (after) from the Julian calendar year.” So, during 2017, we can write Coptic 1734 and 1733, depending on which month we consider. (e.g., 2017-283 = 1774)
Historians have entirely ignored the fact that, according to Coptic tradition, the Coptic Church was founded by Saint Mark the Evangelist and martyr.
By the reign of Diocletian, the Coptic Church was already strong, had churches, bishoprics, and at least 20% of Egyptians were Coptic Christians!
Let us assume the legend that Saint Mark founded the Coptic Church may be true.
Why would the Copts start a new time reckoning in AD284?
Why was the Coptic time reckoning calculated from Diocletian's first year?
How did the year Coptic1 alias A.M.1 come to be
more than two centuries away from the time of Jesus?
The foundation of the Coptic Church must have been centuries earlier, much closer to the time of Jesus Christ, because St. Mark lived at the time of Jesus, although he was somewhat younger.
However, as far as I know, there is no historical evidence or legend for the restart of the Coptic calendar in AD284. Therefore, the founding of the Coptic Church and the start of the Coptic calendar may have occurred indeed in AD284.
That is why the opposite assumption might be considered, too. Jesus’ life could have happened much later than accepted today, much closer to the foundation of the Coptic Church, too!
It is known that Emperor Diocletian was a close relative and contemporary of Pope Caius. It is also known that after coming to power, Diocletian explicitly supported Christians and the Christian religion, then (allegedly) turned against them 19 years later. In contrast, years earlier, he had persecuted Christianity’s main rival religion, Manichaeism.
In AD284, Diocletian was not yet persecuting Christians. The Copts could not have founded their church in AD284 to commemorate Diocletian’s martyrs since Diocletian’s persecution of Christians began only 19 years later, in AD303. The foundation of the Coptic Church could hardly have been based on the title of Erich von Däniken’s “Memories of the Future”.
(I guess that the extent of the persecution of Christians towards the end of Diocletian’s reign has been exaggerated by historiography. These persecutions of Christians can be associated mainly with Galerius and not with Diocletian and were primarily confined to specific areas in Nicomedia (Asia Minor), and Antioch (Anatolia). The persecutions did not or only slightly extended to Egypt and did not virtually affect Coptic Christians.)
Therefore, it seems unlikely, unreasonable, and even more incomprehensible that the “martyrs’ era”, i.e., the Coptic time reckoning (calendar year calculation), would have begun from the first year of Diocletian’s reign.
All this is a striking historical contradiction. This is the “Coptic Paradox” mentioned in the “Introduction” as my first historical guess for 220-year insertion. In my opinion, the resolution of this paradox is the following.
According to his own Gospel, St Mark was still a child when Jesus was crucified, and let us assume he must have been 14 years old.
In this case, the year of Mark’s birth, according to our calculations, is 242CE because we calculated the year of Jesus’ crucifixion as 256CE. So, Mark would have been about 42 years old at the foundation of the Coptic Church in AD284, and it is a realistic age for the founder of a Church.
Mark speaks (in his Gospel) in past tense about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (placed now in AD70). So, he was martyred in Alexandria somewhat later, most likely in AD72, at about 50. This year corresponds to AD292, so he survived the church’s foundation by eight years.
(If the year of Mark’s birth or death differed by a few years from the one we have now calculated, this would not affect the rest of our calculations.)
At the heart of our calculation is the observation that the Coptic Church, the Church of the Martyrs, does not commemorate the martyrs of Diocletian. As we know today, St. Peter and probably St. Paul were executed by the mad Emperor Nero in Rome in the summer of AD64. AD64 + 220 = AD284. Consequently, Nero's massacre took place 220 years later, in 284CE. So, the Coptic Church remembers the martyrs of Emperor Nero! And Diocletian became emperor in 504CE, 220 years later than AD284.
By the time of Nero’s massacre, St. Mark, on a personal mission from St. Peter, had already sailed from Rome to Alexandria, where, on news of Nero’s massacres, he had founded the local Coptic church.
Saint Mark dedicated his Coptic Church
first of all, to the memory of Saint Peter.
The Coptic Church had wholly separated from the Roman Church as early as AD451, and they did not cooperate for centuries. (In the current hypothesis, this separation occurred 220 years later, 671CE). Egypt had already come under Arab/Islamic rule in the first half of the 7th century. Therefore, if our time reckoning was subsequently messed up, it certainly did not affect the Coptic time reckoning and calendar!
It can be said that the Coptic time reckoning is independent of the AD time reckoning and is not confused. The Coptic Church, founded by St Mark, began in AD 284. The Coptic1 (A.M.1) is a fixed reference year in history.
It is written in the gospels that Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem during the tenure of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea.
According to historians, Pilate’s years in the office started in January AD26 and finished in December AD36. The years AD26 and AD36 fall full within this office time. (inclusive calculation)
For the time of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, today AD33 is the more accepted year, but AD36 is also partly accepted, as we have written earlier.
Let’s transform Pilate’s years in office 220 years forwards!
AD26 becomes 246CE and AD36 becomes 256CE.
According to the back-calculated Jewish calendar, in the interval 246CE – 256CE, only in 256CE does Nisan 14 fall on Friday.
Therefore, the most likely new dateof the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is:28 March 256CE.This date corresponds to Friday, Nisan 14 4016, in the Jewish calendar.
According to the above statement: Jesus was crucified shortly after his 42nd birthdaysince he was born on 6 January 214CE.
At the crucifixion, Jesus’ age of 42-43 is acceptable because it does not contradict some of the apocryphal gospels.
The above date of 256CE corresponds, backwards transformed by 220 years, to 30 March AD36 or 3796 Nisan 14 Friday.
Putting the year of Jesus’ crucifixion to AD33 is a back-transformation by 223 years instead of 220 years on the timeline. (256CE back to AD33)
Where can this 3-year difference come from?
Three of the Gospels report that after Jesus’ crucifixion, there was a full moon in the late afternoon and a long period of darkness, too.
There could not have been a solar eclipse because, for astronomical reasons, a solar eclipse is only possible on a new moon, and a dark solar eclipse can last only for a few minutes. (As we have already seen at the solar eclipse of Emperor Augustus.)
On 30 March AD36, there was a full moon in Jerusalem, but there was no lunar eclipse at any time close to this date.
On 3 April AD33, there was indeed a full moon and a partial lunar eclipse, but, as we calculate now, this eclipse was not visible from Jerusalem.
On the night of 28 March 256CE, a total full moon was well visible from Jerusalem. There was indeed a total lunar eclipse on this day on far East. However, at today’s accepted value of Delta T, this was also not visible from Jerusalem. If Delta T had been closer to zero around that year (as it has been consistently for the last 400 years), this eclipse would still not have been visible from Jerusalem.
The lunar eclipses of 33 AD and 256CE are shown in the following map calculation by NASA expert Fred Espenak:
(Comment: The above lunar eclipse would have been visible from Jerusalem on 28 March 256CE if the Delta T value had been around minus 9000 sec. According to our present knowledge, this enormous negative Delta T value is unlikely. There can hardly be such a significant error in the retrospective interpolation of Delta T because that would require the Earth’s rotation to be slightly accelerating, even though we know it to be somewhat decelerating today.)
The possibility arises that the researchers put the date of Jesus’ crucifixion on Friday, 3 April AD33 (3793 Nisan 14) because they were looking for an astronomically based darkness around this year. They did not know what caused the darkness but suspected a lunar eclipse. However, the lunar eclipses were inaccurately counted back at the insertion of 220 years, and a false lunar eclipse or, more accurately, “darkness tradition” was built on the inaccurate result…
The literature suggests that other natural phenomena, such as a dust cloud or a distant cloud of volcanic soot, may have caused the darkness.
Perhaps, the legend of the long darkness is only a nice metaphor, and it could be an afterthought to show a heavenly sign and underline the horror of Jesus’ crucifixion.
Post summary
Today's accepted date of the crucifixion of Jesus:
Data accepted as primary: No. 1: (223 years earlier)Date of crucifixion: 3 April AD33
Friday, Nisan 14, 3793.
Full Moon: 3 Apr AD33, 100%
The lunar eclipse occurred in the far East,
However, only perhaps faintly visible from Jerusalem.
Partly accepted data: no. 2: (220 years earlier)
(Partially accepted due to the missing lunar eclipse.)
30 March AD36;
Friday, Nisan 14, 3796.
Full Moon: 30 March AD36, 100% Lunar eclipse:There were no lunar eclipses near this date.The proposed new data: Date of Crucifixion: 28 March 256CE;
Friday, Nisan 14, 4016.
Full Moon:28 March 256CE 18:33; LT Jerusalem, 100%;
Total lunar eclipse: 28 Mar 256CE 13:21 UTNot visible from Jerusalem at today's value of Delta T.A dark cloud could cover this rising full moon for a longer time.
See the full moon rise on 28 March 256CE in the Stellarium “photo” below:
Rising Full Moon in Jerusalem on 28 March 256CE, at 18H33 LMST. Stellarium Photo
The above results show that it is astronomically and calendrically possible to shift the date of the crucifixion backwards by 223 years. It is virtually a little “confusion” in the conception of the general 220-year backshift. However, do not forget that AD33 was not a generally accepted year, either. If the year AD36 had been taken earlier, our result would have been a backshift by 220 years. So, this 3-year discrepancy helps somewhat cover up the insertion of 220 years.
According to legends and to Eusebius (a great historian from Caesarea who lived relatively close to the time of Augustus), the emperor’s death was “foretold” shortly before by a solar eclipse.
For us today, Emperor Augustus died on 19 August AD14.
This date is one of the milestones of the modern historical chronology. However, there was no solar eclipse in Italy near AD14 at all! This fact indicates that AD14 can hardly be considered the year of Emperor Augustus' death.
Let us see what astronomy tells us about the year 220 years later.
The 220-years forwards transformed year of Augustus’ death is the 234CE. Just nine weeks before 19 August 234CE, on 14 June 234CE, there was a powerful partial annular solar eclipse crossing the Apenninepeninsula.
This solar eclipse was well-visible at sunrise from Rome and Nola near Naples, where Augustus died. The eclipse lasted for a very long time, and such long-time solar eclipses infrequently occur, so it was sure memorised commonly.
Solar eclipse at sunrise in Nola; obscuration: 84%. Stellarium photos of the blogger.
This eclipse was indeed symbolic:
The Moon, the symbol of the weaker deity Diana, slowly overtook the Sun and “prevented the rising” of the Sun, the symbol of the greater god Sol, for more than 3.5 minutes!
Afterwards, this eclipse remained very well observable for further 58 minutes.
The Sun also symbolised the divine emperor Augustus who was “defeated” by the disease, symbolized by the minor deity, the Moon!
Do not miss seeing the video clip of this beautiful solar eclipse:
Sun and Moon moved together long in the morning sky. Clip made by the blogger using Stellarium photos.
Our suggested
new date of the death of Emperor Augustus is
19 August 234CE.
Of course, the symbolic connection between a given solar eclipse and the death of somebody can only be created shortly after the death of the given person. A solar eclipse would hardly have been invented after the fact if the eclipse had not taken place indeed somewhat before Augustus’ death. It seems likely that such a particularly long solar eclipse in connection with the death of the emperor Augustus is not without reason preserved in the general social memory and ancient literature.
The astronomical fact of the presented
Solar Eclipse in 234CE in Rome and Nola
and its use as a symbol are essential indications that
220 years of fictive historical events are
embedded indeed in history and AD time reckoning.
We have seen that Jesus was not born on 25 December. The Roman Church made 25 Dec the day of his birth centuries later. Teres placed the year of Jesus’ birth on 7BC, between the first census of Emperor Augustus (8BC-7BC) and the date of the death of Herod the Great (spring 4BC).
In this short period, Teres identified the great Jupiter-Saturn conjunction based on Kepler’s conjecture and the legend of the Star of Bethlehem.
Unfortunately, we have no concrete historical data, so we can only start from these legends.
Furthermore, it is told that “three kings” came from the Orient to pay homage to the Child according to an older prophecy and guidance by the stars. Today we know that the three kings were neither kings of Eastern kingdoms nor rulers but wise men from the Orient. They were sages, “magi”, who knew astronomy and astrology. Today, we would say they were astronomers and astrologers, two closely intertwined disciplines at the time.
It is an essential fact that in ancient times Jupiter was the “king star”, the “star of the lord of the world”, the symbol of the supreme deity in Mesopotamia, Rome and the ancient Greeks, too, under the name Zeus.
Saturn (Kewan) is the Sabbath planet, a reference to Judaism.
The keywords in the “Three Kings legend of Bethlehem” are the number 3, star, infant, and king; these words may form the basis of the “retrofitted tradition”.
In short, the currently accepted view is that Jesus was born after the “Jupiter-Saturn conjunction” in 7BC.
It is known that there were three J-S conjunctions in 7BC (-6), which is an infrequent phenomenon. In fact (verified with the Stellarium sky simulator program), the October conjunction as a “near position” started in March in the eastern sky and was completed in late February of the following year in the western sky. This image wandered across the sky as a “guiding star” from East to West every night for several months.
In BC7, Jupiter and Saturnalmost overlapped in the sky three times.The keyword "three" appeared!Let's look at what happened 220 years later.
By transforming the years 8BC-7BC (Augustus’ census no. 1.) 220 years forward, we arrive at 213CE-214CE. The new date of Herod’s death brought forward 220 years is the spring of 217CE.
We would come closer to justifying our theory if we could identify the time of Jesus’ birth within this period, i.e. between the end of 213CE and the spring of 217CE, while retaining the statements of the legends, their essence and keywords.
Two hundred nineteen years later, in 213CE, there was also Jupiter-Saturn conjunction on 11 October in Virgo. (11 October is now in Libra due to precession.)
The Jupiter-Saturn close position began in August 213CE and lasted for one year in the western sky, extending into 214CE. (The cycle time of Jupiter Saturn conjunctions is a little shorter than 20 years, 19.86 years.)
Let’s look at the table of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions for the entire period in question.
This conjunction in 213CE moved across the sky as a “guiding star” each night from East to West, like in BC7. You can see the “rising” conjunction in the Stellarium photo below.
The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction on 11 October 213CE, as seen from Baghdad, the direction from which, according to legend, the “magi” set out to the West. The conjunction is visible at the left elbow of Virgo. Above left, the same can be seen at high magnification, photo by Stellarium.
The sages saw what we also see in the retrospective planetary simulation. They could see that Mars had just passed through the constellation Leo. They also knew what celestial event was about to happen! Let’s have a look at what happened in the sky!
As early as 15 December 213CE, Mars moved closer to the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. A “triple alignment” became visible (as seen from the city of Tiberias, on the way from Baghdad to Nazareth). Photo by Stellarium.
The peculiarity of this co-position is that from mid-December 213CE, Mars also gradually turned in a “slight arc” from Leo to Jupiter-Saturn, forming a very rare “close trine”.
The keyword number 3 of the “three kings” appeared! Such extraordinary triple conjunction of the three planets occurs about every eight hundred years.
The Jupiter-Saturn-Mars close alignment happened in the sign of Virgo. The constellation of Virgo symbolised the virginity of Jesus’ mother, Mary.
The planet Mars has traditionally been a symbol of the “community leader” (e.g., a war leader and therefore also the war, but a religious leader, too.).
As the Stellarium photo above shows, the orbital direction of Mars’ motion was from the brightest star in the sign of Leo, Alpha Leonis, towards the Jupiter-Saturn pair.
The ancient name for Alfa Leonis, still in use today, is REGULUS, which means little king, little prince. The “infant king” keyword combination appeared, too.
At dawn on 6 January 214CE, the extraordinary triple conjunction was almost in the centre of the Nazareth celestial dome, and Mars was aligned nearest to Jupiter-Saturn. Mars, as seen from Earth, sometimes makes retrograde motions that loop. At this point, Mars stopped and soon moved away from the Jupiter-Saturn pair again.
The celestial stopping of Mars symbolised for the "wise men of the East" that they had arrived at the birthplace of Jesus.
This is shown in the following Stellarium photo.
The triple conjunction was completed on 6 January AD214 over Nazareth, when the three planets came closest together. Stellarium photo.
Let us see the clip of how Mars joined the Jupiter Saturn conjunction and how the 3 planets crossed the sky:
Wandering of the “guiding stars” in the sky as seen from Nazareth between 1 October 213CE and 10 January 214CE
In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that these “3 bright stars”, the planets Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are the “Star of Bethlehem”. Therefore, this celestial phenomenon could be the origin of the “Legend of the Three Kings from the East”.
This results in the
new date of Jesus' birth 6 January AD214,
the day of today's Feast of the Epiphany.
It became understandable why the early Christians originally celebrated Jesus’ birthday on Epiphany (Epiphania Domini).Orthodox and Coptic Christians still celebrate Jesus’ birthday, Christmas on 6 January.
We have seen that a period of 220-years can be inserted while retaining or, better to say, finding the keywords of the “three kings” legend again.
Comment:
Despite the astronomical correspondences above, likely, we shall never know the actual date of Jesus’ birth. It is possible that the Bethlehem legend of the three kings in Matthew’s Gospel, the only source, is an afterthought. However, since it was a well-known legend, it had to be considered in making the “confusion” of post-Christus chronology. Since it is only a legend, it remains uncertain whether the date of Jesus’ birth is related to the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction or whether it is merely Kepler’s conjecture.
Let’s explore what the assumed sun and sunlight spectacle might have looked like on the coincided AEQ day and birthday of Emperor Augustus, 23 September 212CE and the years after!
Imagine the selected direction of the Obelisk’s shadow, pointing straight towards the centre of the western entrance to Ara Pacis. This “highlighted shadow direction” is created every day of every year but results in obelisk shadows of different lengths. For the known (accepted) topology and geometry of the obelisk and Ara Pacis, this highlighted shadow direction occurs at the azimuth angle of 251.72° of the Sun.
This shadow direction occurs at slightly different minutes and seconds when calculated for other AEQ days of other years. Still, it is unimportant precisely at what date and time it happens on a particular AEQ day. However, it is essential that on the AEQ day of any year, a very close value of solar altitude belongs to this solar azimuth. The range of the sun’s altitude is 18.9° – 19.5°.So, the length of the shadow of the 29,6m high (height of the centre of the sphere) obelisk in this direction varies only between 83.58m and 86.45m on AEQ days of the examined period.
Furthermore,both western (external and internal) upward ascending stairs of Ara Pacis virtually “break the shadow” cast on them. The shadow appears shorter than it would on a horizontal surface. The stairs “compensate by length compression” the length-changings of the shadow on the different AEQ days!
In my opinion, these simple astronomical rules were also recognised by ancient astronomers and applied to the design of the HAAP complex.
Knowing these data, both the static and dynamic “behaviour” of the shadow can be modelled with considerable accuracy for any given year, using the astronomical data of any other year. The slight difference between the shadow lengths of the model year and those of an old year could be corrected using Stellarium data.
However, as we show soon, we don’t need a numerically accurate model for a qualitative analysis of the spectacle. (Especially because the accepted topological and geometrical data might also be somewhat uncertain.)
The ArchiCADTM 3D model:
I have examined the 3D shadow modelling accuracy of ArchiCADTM. ArchiCAD is a Hungarian architectural design and modelling software application of Graphisoft SE. In architecture, no exactness in an astronomical sense is expected for shadows. ArchiCAD allows the qualitative visual shadow analysis of old astronomical AEQ phenomena by using data from today’s AEQ. ArchiCAD calculates with atmospheric refraction and optical atmospheric diffraction of sunlight by the built-in MAXON CineRender, and these are important for qualitative light-shadow analysis.
Based on topological and geometrical data from recent research (Prof. Bernard Frischer et al.), I built an accurate ArchiCAD3D model of the Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis building complex at M = 1:1.
Bird view of Obelisk Augustae and Ara Pacis. After the shadow of the gilded sphere left the red EQL, It is cast on the southern part of the external steps of Ara Pacis.
Let us first look at the movement of the shadow cast by the obelisk from morning to evening on the AEQ day, 23 September 2022. The length of the draft shadow of the obelisk is about the average size calculated astronomically. The clips show that the shadow of the gilded sphere moves along the red EQL and goes from about the middle of the external lowest stair to the south sidewall of the western entrance of Ara Pacis.
I examined the maximal shadow length which might penetrate the inside stairs of Ara Pacis, too. The southern edge of the western entrance (portal corner) is the worst-case regarding entering the shadow to the inside of Ara Pacis.
The following draft picture shows the longest possible shadow of the obelisk to this southern edge of the western entrance on any AEQ day.
The obelisk’s longest possible “enterable” (portal-corner) shadow on any AEQ day of the examined periods. Exact calculation of the shadow, cast by point like Sun. Draft “Home rendering”. Portal-corner Sun azimuth 252,7°; lowest Sun altitude 17,9°.
Conclusions of the analysis of the 3D model:
I have analysed (not given details here) the light-shadow relationships of the Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis complex and made the following observations.
– Even the longest shadow could never (neither in 9BC nor in the two millennia since) be cast on the west sidewall of the altar table on the AEQ day and on the day after the AEQ day (despite changes in the shadow length).
– Let’s look at the obelisk’s shadow to the “highlighted direction” modelled with the quasi-longest shadow of 23 September, AD2022. This picture represents the shadow length. It is rendered by MAXXON with the Sun as a point-like lights source. The MAXXON algorithm gives a somewhat longer shadow than the worst-case calculation based on Stellarium.
The above longest shadow again, as cast by a point-like Sun. Rendered by MAXXON. MAXXON calculates with somewhat longer shadows than the astronomical worst case.
–A visible shadow of the sphere did not even reach the outside steps on the day of the AEQ. This is because the sphere’s shadow became practically “dead” at this distance! The solar disk encircled the gilded sphere, and its shadow became a completely “lifeless” dimmed, almost invisible penumbra. Standing in front of Ara Pacis in the shadow of the sphere, it was hard to realize the shading effect of the shadow, the own shadow of the observer remained virtually unchanged. Because the differences in the shadow length are minor and because of the unsharp penumbra, the results of the 3D model can be considered qualitatively correct. Look at the photorealistic, scattered penumbra of the obelisk and the spherein the next photo. The photorealistic picture was taken in very bright sunlight to highlight the shadow. The sphere’s slow-moving shadow virtually could not be seen at all.
The above longest shadow is calculated by MAXXON Cinerender with the real Sun. Photorealistic penumbral shadow. The Shadow of the gilt sphere disappears.
I am convinced that ancient astronomers knew these attributes of shadows, too.
That is why I guess that the relative position of the two buildings and the sphere were deliberately sized so that the sphere’s shadow would “fade and disappear” on astronomical AEQ days when it would have reached the western outer stairs of Ara Pacis.
– Furthermore, the gilded sphere did only partly obscure the Sun. This covering caused an “artificial annular (ring-shaped) solar eclipse” to such an extent that it at least helped to look towards the Sun. The artificial annular solar eclipse generates an umbra (dark shaded core part), a penumbra (partially shaded part on the sides of the umbra) and an antumbra, a lighter shaded part of the shadow beyond the core umbral part. An antumbra seems to be a light spot compared to the umbra. This quasi light spot symbolised the virtual entry of the Sun into the Ara Pacis. To an observer (sitting on the external steps of Ara Pacis or standing in front of the steps) looking alternately towards the Sun and Ara Pacis, it seemed that the “Sun itself was entering the sanctuary of Ara Pacis “!
This novel “Sun Spectacle” feature
of Horologium Augusti - Ara Pacis is a virtual
“Symbolical Sun Entry Birthday Function”
to honour Emperor Augustus.
The obelisk’s long umbral shadow functioned as a bidirectional pointer to show where the observers should look to.
Let’s see the marvellous artificial annular solar eclipse in a backlit photo via a somewhat darkened glass.
The “Artificial Annular Solar Eclipse”, as seen from the external steps of Ara Pacis.
– The day before the AEQ day, the shadow of the obelisk body was still too short; however, two days after the AEQ day, it was already disturbingly long. In fact, from the 2nd day after the day of AEQ, the tip of the pyramidion’s shadow extended to the vestibule in front of the inner altar steps more and more visibly. Therefore, the above “Sun Spectacle” only worked properly on the day of AEQ and the day after. The two-day celebration of the birthday of Emperor Augustus, the biduum, thus constituted a kind of borderline date-pair (in AD212 and after) for the observability of this “Sun Entry Phenomenon”, the “Symbolical Sun Entry Birthday Function “.
To sum up:Buchner was right so far that the two beautiful buildings“cooperated” on the birthday of Emperor Augustus.However,from 212CE,on the two days of the birthday celebrations of Emperor Augustus,not the shadow of the obelisk but symbolically“The Sun as Symbol of Augustus Entered” the inner sanctum of the Ara Pacis.
Let us see another novel and beautiful “Sun function” of Ara Pacis:
Let us examine what happened after the obelisk’s shadow left Ara Pacis.
While the shadow of the obelisk passed in front of the Ara Pacis, the shadow of the wall above the western portal (straight arch) fell on the front wall of the altar table. Because of the shading effect of the straight arch, the late afternoon sunshine could reach the altar table only when its rays approached the horizontal, that is, at sunset.
Sunset on the evening of the AEQ day. The Sun Symbol placed on the Altair Table is illuminated by the last rays before darkness.
As the day of the AEQ approached, the sunset shadow of the north side wall of the western entrance was cast less and less on the altar as sunset occurred further south. So, the sunshine could be projected undisturbed to the middle of the altar table. From the day of the AEQ, full sunlight flooded the centre of the altar every sunset. A solar symbol (like another gilded sphere) placed on the middle of the altar table would glow with beautiful light at sunset. This “sunset phenomenon” continued through winter until the next Vernal Equinox (VEQ).
The Ara Pacis was the "symbolicalguardian" of the entered Sunfrom the day of Autumnal Equinox, from the birthday of Emperor Augustus until the next Vernal Equinox.
I guess the priests of Emperor Augustus lit some candles inside Ara Pacis after sunset to maintain the brilliance of the gilded sphere placed on the altar table during the night, too.
These phenomena were only significant for Emperor Augustus
if they were observable on his birthday,
i.e. if his birthday fell on the day of the AEQ. All these light phenomena on the astronomical AEQ day
strengthen my hypothesis that
the Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis complex
was designed not only for the AEQ day but also for
the coinciding birthday of Emperor Augustus.
The coincidence indicates that Emperor Augustus
lived 220 years later than currently accepted.
The building complex of HAAP, Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis Augustae was oriented, designed, and built according to the architectural “light principle and astronomical considerations” of the great Roman architect Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, furthermore based on the astronomical calculations of the famous mathematician Facondus Novius.
Because of the established connection between HAAP and AEQ, it is essential to point out again that VEQ and AEQ move perfectly together in the sky. They also keep together in the calendar if we calculate the hours and minutes.
Beginning from BC9, the VEQ has shifted from 23 March to 22 March in 2 of every 4 years. Along with this, between 9BC and AD11, the AEQ day fell on 25 September every year. Of course, this was only the case if the leap years followed each other correctly for 36 years after BC45, i.e., every 4 years without a 3-year leap year error, as we have shown earlier.
Adding 220 years to BC9 (-8), we arrive at AD212 = 212CE, which is the new first year of the HAAP’s operation, as we assume.Around 212CE, VEQ fell on 21 March.The VEQ day on 21 March typically coincides with an AEQ day on 23 or 24 September, as we have already seen.
Let’s have a look at what our VEQ/AEQ table around 212CE says:
Tables 9 and 10. show the UT time values. The Roman zone time is 1 hour more, and the local mean solar time (LMST) is only 49 minutes later. On 23 September AD212, the LMST is 13:02 instead of 12:13, depending on the actual value of Delta T. (LMST, Delta T: see Abbreviations.) Shortly after the local noon, it is an almost ideal time to create an average shadow length of a gnomon on an AEQ day.
In analysing the calendar restoration of Emperor Augustus, we have seen that (because of the omission of 3 leap years after 9BC), the AEQ day in the calendar would have changed rapidly between 22 and 25 September. It is easy to see that a similar calendar-date-changing effect would have been produced by a possible calendar reset 220 years later, too.
It is a well-known historical fact that in ancient architecture, buildings were very often constructed that were in some way connected to the vernal equinox (VEQ) and the autumnal equinox (AEQ).The astronomical time of the AEQ played a particularly important role in calendar-making and architecture in the areas of Asia Minor and Egypt conquered by Rome, and it also had a significant influence on Roman attitudes.
Taking all the above together, I think it is likely that the HAAP as a significant calendar instrument was built to function accurately for many years from an astronomical point of view. At the same time, the HAAP construction took advantage of the fact that the birthday of Emperor Augustus happened to coincide with the day of the AEQ.Therefore, I maintain that the HAAP building complex was designed for the astronomical day of AEQ, but not for the calendrical AEQ day, which was to change rapidly,if Emperor Augustus really restored the calendar, whether after 9BC or 212CE.
As seen from the Earth, the sky position of the AEQ point measured to the Sun is stable. This results in given Sun lights directions on the astronomical AEQ days of every year. The required obelisk shadow angle of incidence to Ara Pacis occurs on the astronomical AEQ day of each year. Even the corresponding shadow length produced on the astronomical AEQ day of each year shows only a slight length difference. Even the time of occurrence of a given shadow direction changes year by year only with some minutes. The variation in the shadow length associated with the required direction on the AEQ day falls within a narrow interval in different years, only somewhat more than plus-minus 1,35 meters in the case of the Obelisk of Augustus. If the Horologium were still standing today like erected in BC9, the shadow length of the obelisk would fall within this narrow band even on the present astronomical AEQ day. This is a fact I have verified by Stellarium calculations not detailed here. I am also convinced that ancient astronomers were informed about these simple astronomical facts,
Sunshine design versus shadow design:
Returning back to Buchner’s theory: The earlier mentioned simulation of Professor Frischer et al. refutes Buchner’s “birthday shadow theory”. Despite the fact of this refutation is likely that Emperor Augustus was setting a symbolic monument for himself by building the Ara Pacis and erecting the obelisk.
In my view, Buchner’s theory is not only erroneous about the date of coincidence of the AEQ day and the birthday of Emperor Augustus in 9BC!Buchner’s claim that Emperor Augustus would have chosen the shadow in any building as a positive, celebratory symbol is also a misconception. The shadow was always and is also nowadays a negative symbol.
The emperor had to “cast the main role” on the Sun and sunlight! The Sun was the symbol of Emperor Augustus. As highlighted earlier, he dedicated his obelisk to SOL, the Roman God of the Sun. Emperor Augustus was known for his vanity. Therefore, only a building complex that was linked to the AEQ day as his birthday and at the same time to the Sun could have importance and symbolic meaning for Emperor Augustus.
It is reasonable to state that the birthday function did not operate by the shadow but had to show a phenomenon related to the Sun and sunlight. Furthermore, this supposed “sunlight-related birthday function” worked not in 9BC but functioned 220 years later in 212CE.
The question for me was what the observersstaying in front of the Ara Pacis might have seenon the astronomical AEQ daywhen the shadow of the obelisk moved near Ara Pacis.
We know from Pliny the Elder that in Rome on the Field of Mars (Campus Martius), the erection of an Obelisk (shipped from Heliopolis, Egypt in 10BC) was finished in BC9.
In January BC9, near the obelisk, the shrine Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Peace of Augustus) was completed, too.
Another name for the above Obelisk, including its supposed sundial function, is Horologium Augusti or Solarium Augusti (the Solarium of Augustus). The obelisk is a “gnomon” (vertical shadow-caster) whose possible various functions are partly disputed today. According to Pliny, it was not only the obelisk itself that served as a shadow caster on the pavement of the Field of Mars. The shadow of a gilded bronze sphere, the “gilt ball” (aurata pila) mounted by a rod on the “pyramidion” (small pyramid) at the top of the obelisk played an important role, too.
Emperor Augustus dedicated his obelisk to the God Sun, Latin “SOL”.
You can watch the almost 5-minute video of Professor Bernard Frischer and his fellow researchers about the simulated antique Mars field.
The obelisk collapsed in the 9th or 10th century, was buried, and was found in 1512. In 1789, it was re-erected in Piazza Montecitorio (south of its original location), where it is still on display today (that is why now known mainly as the Montecitorio Obelisk.) The restored Ara Pacis is also not on display in its original location but in a new museum in Rome, built especially for the reconstructed version.
The two monuments were not only built at the same time but are also linked in other ways. One of these links is the topographic alignment of the two objects, namely, the sides of them are axially turned to each other. When I refer to both “objects” simultaneously, I will call the pair of Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis together briefly as the “HAAP” in this blog.
The way any gnomon works is that the peak of its shadow virtually draws lines on the horizontal surface, as shown in the figure below.
Exactly at local noon, the middle of the shadow line of the obelisk itself shows from South to Nord along the meridian, the line running S-N across the vertical axis of the obelisk in the horizontal base plane. The direction of the obelisk’s shadow shows the local noontime on each day of the year as usual by gnomonical instruments. Using the sphere’s shadow, the meridian markings can indicate the sun’s position every noon of the year. On the day of the equinoxes (VEQ and AEQ), the shadow of the gilded sphere follows the so-called equinoctial line (EQL, perpendicular to the meridian line) along the West-East direction from sunrise to sunset.
Based on the above facts, the functions usually assigned to Horologium Augusti and Ara Pacis (HAAP) are the following:
Meridian function
Equinoctial function
Sundial function
AEQ-birthday function
Meridian function:
According to the experts, the length of the shadow at noon, i.e., the position of the shadow of the gilded sphere indicated the day of the year, or more precisely, mainly seasonal time boundaries during the year, like the weather- and wind- changings. The shortest shadow belongs to the longest daylight of the year at Summer Solstice (SUS), and the longest shadow belongs to the shortest daylight of the year at Winter Solstice (WIS). In 1980, the renowned German archaeologist Edmund Buchner found bronze gravings in the antique pavement marking the meridian. Due to this archaeological find of Buchner, the obelisk’s “meridian function”, which is virtually a “noon sundial function”, became certain.
Due to the height of the obelisk, the length position of the spherical shadow on the meridian changed on the calendrical VEQ and AEQ day of the successive years. This change happened in a cycle of four years. The measure of the change was sufficient so this made the Horologium Augusti a suitable instrument to show and prove the correctness of the four-year leap year cycle of Caesar’s new calendar. However, the change in shadow length remained in a narrow band at noon on VEQ day and AEQ day of the different years.
Equinoctial function:
Because of the existence of the theoretical equinoctial line EQL (which is virtually a narrow equinoctial band if we examine many years), some researchers state that the days of the equinoxes (VEQ and AEQ days) were also indicated by the west-to-east tracing of the shadow of the obelisk’s gilded sphere, from sunrise to sunset, along the EQL. There is no historical record or archaeological evidence of this equinoctial function. No equinoctial signs like the meridian signs in the antique pavement have been found on the Field of Mars.
Sundial function:
Pliny did not write about a sundial. However, following the opinion of Edmund Buchner, the obelisk is generally considered a colossal sundial (Horologium, solarium) with a horizontal clock face. Buchner based this partly on earlier opinions and partly on his own considerations. Buchner’s hypothesis is logical because gnomons were often used as a sundial. However, no ancient descriptions or archaeological evidence of a complete sundial function (according to the above image) has yet been found on the Field of Mars.
AEQ-birthday function:
According to Buchner, the obelisk and the Ara Pacis were not only built but also designed together and functionally linked to form a“cooperating architectural ensemble”.
Buchner considered one of the main tasks of the obelisk to be to cast the shadow of the golden sphere on the altar of Ara Pacison the day of the AEQ, which was the same as the birthday of Emperor Augustus, 23 September. According to Buchner, this could symbolise that the emperor’s mission from birth (natus ad pacem) was to establish peace. But Buchner did not know in 1976-1980 exactly on which day AEQ fell in BC9!
Namely, in BC9, the AEQ fell on 25 September and therefore did not coincide with the birthday of Emperor Augustus, as we have already seen!
According to a recent Astro-archaeological digital simulation (Prof. Bernard Frischer et al.), on 23 September 9BC, the sun was still so high that the obelisk’s shadow was too short, so it could not reach the western opening of Ara Pacis, let alone the altar. A few minutes later, when the shadow was longer and could have got the “door”, the shadow had veered more off the opening and turned south, moving to the south outside wall of the entrance.
So, Buchner’s AEQ-birthday function did not work in BC9!
However, on 25 September BC9, the day of the AEQ, the shadow of the golden sphere could already reach the threshold of the Ara Pacis too. But even on this AEQ-day, the shadow did not reach even the western sidewall of the altar table.
It is a fact that the EQL topologically points towards the altar of Ara Pacis. Indeed, on the day of AEQ, the shadow of the golden sphere moved along the EQL towards the western entrance and altar of Ara Pacis.
For me, based on astronomical considerations, this means the following:
The spatial position of the AEQ, as seen from the earth, is stable, resulting in relatively stable Sun lights directions on the AEQ days of every year. The required shadow angle of incidence occurs on the AEQ day of each year. Even the corresponding shadow length produced on the AEQ day of each year shows only a slight length difference.
On the AEQ day of different years, the time of occurrence of a given shadow direction changes year by year only with some minutes. The variation in the shadow length associated with the AEQ day falls within a narrow interval in different years. If the Horologium were still stable standing today, the shadow length of Obelisk would fall within this narrow band even on the present AEQ day. I have verified these facts by Stellarium calculations, which are not detailed here.
In my view, the Obelisk-Ara Pacis complexwas designed and built to bestrongly linked to the AEQ day.
(In an astronomical and not calendrical sense).
We will see in the next bloghow "special" the Horologium many years longfunctioned on the astronomical day of AEQ.The day of AEQ fell not in 9BC but,
as we have already shown, 220 years later, in 212CE,
on the calendrical and at the same time
on the astronomical birthday of Emperor Augustus.
Emperor Augustus was born on 23 September63BC, as it is known today, under the name Gaius Octavius. He was a member of the Roman elite, the son of Julius Caesar’s niece. Caesar adopted Octavian because Octavian’s father died early, and the young man was very talented.
Augustus’ parents were aware that the Roman calendar was not only wrong but also confused. Under these circumstances, it is logical that his birthday was not tied to the calendar day. The day of his birth happened to coincide with the astronomically important day of the autumnal equinox (AEQ). This day was also considered to have symbolic astrological significance, so the day of the AEQ was noted as his birthday. Augustus had just turned 17 when his stepfather, Caesar, introduced his calendar reform.
After he came to power in 27 BC, Augustus celebrated his birthday as an official holiday on 23 and 24 September (biduum, a period of two days). I assumed that it could be related to the AEQ day.
Let us first examine which calendar day the AEQ fell in the reign of Emperor Augustus, according to the AD time accepted today.
Repeating what we presented earlier: The most widely held view among calendar scholars today about Augustus’ restoration of the calendar is that it began after 9BC. 9BC was the last leap year erroneously used (every 3 years instead of 4). The result of the calendar restoration was valid from AD8. From this point on, the Julian calendar was fully restored, i.e., it functioned according to the original plan, in summary, without omission or insertion of days.
The table below shows that from the beginning of the calendar reform and for many years afterwards, the AEQ would have fallen on 25 September every year if the leap year cycle had not been broken from 4 to 3 years.
In Table 7, grey highlighting indicates the 4-year leap year cycle and yellow highlights the 3-year leap year cycle. The final year of calendar reset AD8, a 4-year cycle year, is marked by turquoise highlighting. Green and blue highlighting indicate which of the 3 leap years Emperor Augustus could have ignored, depending on whether they were cancelled in every 3rd or 4th year of the restoration period.
It can also be seen in the table that the date of the AEQ would have changed very rapidly between 22 and 25 September during the years of the restoration.
In my opinion, Augustus could hardly have accepted that his birthday and the day of the AEQ should not coincide in the calendar and even that the day of the AEQ should permanently revert to the previous date of 25 September.
In the next post, Horologium Augusti, we will see that the period of the supposed calendar restoration was important to Augustus for other reasons, too.
Let’s see how the date of AEQ day evolved 220 years later:
Table 8. shows that the AEQ day moves roughly in line with the VEQ day in the calendar. This is because the astronomical time difference between the AEQ day and the following year’s VEQ day is approximately 178.84 days, and the time difference between the VEQ day and the AEQ day of the same year is about 186.4 days (178.84+186.4=365.24). The calendar “tries” to follow this strictly, although accuracy is virtually impossible because of the fractional days. It is somewhat inaccurately told that if VEQ falls on 21 March, then AEQ falls on 23 September. The day of AEQ fell on 23 and 24 September every 2 years, alternately, from AD184 onwards. Later, from AD216, for 100 years, it fell predominantly on 23 September.
As already described, Emperor Augustus celebrated his birthday on 23-24 September (biduum). Presumably, this was because in the starting year of the assumed calendar reset, AD212 = 212CE, the AEQ day still alternated between these two days, as shown in Table 8.
In summary:
We pointed out that Emperor Augustus did not tie his birthday to a specific calendar date but to the day of the AEQ. During his reign,the day of AEQ fell more and more frequently (first dominantly, and later for decades, precisely) on 23 September. This fact was obviously calculated in advance by Augustus’ astronomers and reported to the emperor. So, Emperor Augustus must have placed his birthday on 23 September because his astronomers told him that the AEQ would occur on that day for many years of his life.
Comparison:Astronomical data for AD8 in Rome.VEQ: 22 March AD8, 15:34, LMT (Local Mean Time, Rome),AEQ: 25 September AD8, LMT 1:30Astronomical data for AD228 = 228CE in Rome.VEQ: 28 March 228CE, 22:33 LMT
(due to the leap back leap year, not 21 March but 20 March)
AEQ: 23 September 228CE, 10:11 LMT Both VEQ and AEQ are very much in their right place!
According to another astronomical programme (Time and date):
in 228CE in Rome
VEQ fell on 21 March, 0:44 and
AEQ on 23 September,12:23.
From the above, the calendar restoration by Emperor Augustus probably did not happen because 220 years later, the calendar restoration was not necessary, as we have assumed.
Comment: In my opinion, Emperor Augustus would have “used” the date of AEQ a priori (thinking in the long term) by setting 25 September from AD8 onwards and 23 September from 228CE onwards as his AEQ & birth date. Whether or not he had to restore the Julian calendar before those years. I think it should be re-examined by scientific methods whether the two much later recollections of the restoration of the calendar by Emperor Augustus are misinterpretations or forgeries. If Emperor Augustus did indeed live 220 years later, then the leap year error theory could be forgotten, and the subsequent calendar restoration would become unnecessary. Happened as happened, the Julian calendar from at least 228CE onwards functioned correctly according to its own rules until the calendar reform of Pope Gregory XIII (AD1582), as told already.
It seems that a period was prolonged after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. But I can imagine that at the same time, an earlier period was also “pressed together”, like wine grapes… Of course, from this “pressed period” remained only its essence. Let us see why and how was it astronomically feasible to shrink an older period.
I have extended the insights of Thompson and the other scientists above as follows:
I have assumed that Ptolemy, or rather Hipparchus himself, converted the difference in celestial coordinates in general from RA to Ecl. long. coordinate. This assumption is justified because of 2° Ecl. long. is a better illustration of precession since 2° is precisely a “round fraction”, 1/180th of the total angular rotation of precession of 360° Ecl. long.
I also assumed that the 2°40′ difference for the period 128BC – AD131 (or AD131) described by Ptolemy “remained somehow” in RA coordinates.
Ptolemy had left by mistake the angular rotation of Spica in RA,or had deliberately changed it to RA. It is also possible that this data retroactively (even centuries later) have been transformed, by mistake or intentionally to RA. After all, the very important original works somehow "disappeared"!?
Ptolemy also wrote about the trigonometric transformability of celestial coordinates, for which Hipparchus developed the “chords” procedure. (Not incidentally, the genius Hipparchus is also the father of trigonometry.)
It is easy to find out today that the equivalent of 2°40' RA is 6°34' Ecl. long.Obviously, an angular rotation of 6°34' Ecl. long. corresponds to a much longer period than 265 years. It results in around 480 years! Expressed in precession, this makes round:1°/73 years angular velocity or 26.280 years cycle!A reasonable approximation compared to today's parameters!Not like the one attributed to Almagest(min) 1°/100 years and (max) 36.000 years!
So, to continue our train of thought, let us accept that Hipparchus’ years are astronomically in their correct year. (Year of his measurement 128BC). This is also acceptable because Hipparchus’ years fit well into the (from Rome) independent early relative chronology of ancient Greek history before the Roman conquest, within which it could hardly be misinterpreted.
Let us also assume that Ptolemy’s “own” data came from a year of AEQ & full moon simultaneity. So, we temporarily accept as Ptolemy’s measurement year the previously proposed year AD131 instead of AD138.
The only year (after 128BC)
corresponds well to 6°34' Ecl. long.
precession angular rotation,
as well as the coincidence of AEQ & full moon, is:
AD351.
The recalculated angular rotation is
for the period 128BC - AD351:
2°40'55" RA = 6°37'01" Ecl. long.
It also follows that 2°40' RA was measured quite accurately in antiquity.
It appears that someone could have
"misinterpreted" 2°40' RA as Ecl. long. or changed it to Ecl. long!
Let us see all these in detail below:
Table 6. (Author’s calculations based on Stellarium.)
If the year of Hipparchus’ measurement (-127= BC128) is correct and the year of Ptolemy’s measurement was AD351 instead of AD131, as I had previously assumed, then Ptolemy’s real, original years have, for some reason, been shifted back precisely 220 years (from AD351 to AD131) along the time axis.
The Almagest dates from AD370, not from AD150!The Era of Ptolemy has become due to backwards shifting closer in AD timeto the years of Hipparchus than it really was.The time difference between Hipparchus and Ptolemyhas "shrunk" by 220 years.This "shrinkage" may be due to the centuries later "extension" of an epoch by 220 years,as assumed in the current hypothesis.
I note that the “shrinking” of a long past period is more difficult to recognise retrospectively as the “extension” of a younger period. The original state is more difficult to reconstruct than it is in the case of the “stretching” of a later period.
If an old year (such as the year 128BC of Hipparchus) lies correctly in the AD system, then the insertion of an extended period (such as the 200 years of Hunnivári and the 247 years of Szekeres) must be accompanied by a shortening of an earlier period. The authors of these earlier theories do not mention the possibility of a similar shrinkage of an earlier period!
Following in the footsteps of Exiguus and Beda and accepting their data, later historians “quasi automatically” shortened the period of ancient Greek and Egyptian history before the Roman occupations. An earlier period of history in these regions had been compressed.
To mislead later historians, all that was needed was to “remove” the historical descriptions of some earlier “historical key events”, thus “erasing the past”. Only some old documents relating to Greek and Egyptian history had to be removed or destroyed. The removal and destruction had been “supported” by the serial and supposedly deliberate burning and then final destruction of the famous library of Alexandria (Musaeum) in the 7th century! Shortly before the period of forgery that I assume…
My note: Another possible way of solving the issue of precession objection is to assume that the era of Hipparchus and Timocharis was 220 years closer to the present as we date it now. In this case, we must assume that the speed of precession is not quasi-constant, but that it was for some reason greater in antiquity than in the present.
The RECOUNTING of TIME 
