-----Original Message-----
From: Richard D Arnold <richard.arnold@juno.com>
To: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Saturday, January 02, 1999 3:06 AM
>The common and accepted practice seems to be that we begin a new century
>when the "digits roll over," ie, 1 January 100 began the second century,
>1 January 1900 began the twentieth, etc. As a practice we do not include
>the year ending in 00 in the previous century (ie, the year 1900 is never
>referred to as part of the 1800s or nineteenth century).
>
>It seems, then, that as a matter of convenience we have set the number of
>years for the first century as being 99, with all centuries following
>each containing 100 years. As this has been a commonly accepted and
>practiced tradition for several hundreds of years (almost 2000 by my
>reckoning) it appears that we have constructively accepted this as the
>manner of calculating the arrival of each new century, and, from that,
>each new millenium. Thus, we are equitably estopped from arguing an
>alternative.
>
>I would also note that we have no real method of calculating the
>correctness of these dates. As I understand it, the common era (AD or
>CE) calendar begins with an arbitrary date; that is, the birth of the
>Christ (I won't go into whether or not such event occurred as it is
>obviously a matter of personal belief). Unfortunately, no one seems to
>agree on when this occurred in relation to the modern calendar. Some
>claim it occurred before the year 1 (as calculated under the modern
>calendar), some claim afterward. It would seem, then, that it is
>entirely possible that the millenium has already come and gone, and
>equally likely that we will celebrate early (even if we hold off until
>2001).
>
>We must also consider all the irregularities and changes to the calendar
>that have occurred since the starting date (we 'lost' 11 days in the
>1600's for example), as well as the lack of record keeping in regards to
>years during the first millenium. In the grand scheme of things, though,
>I think we must consider that, other than being an interesting diversion,
>whether or not the millenium change occurs this year, next year, the year
>after, or some other time, really doesn't mean a whole helluva lot.....
>YMMV
>
>Just my $0.02....
>
>Rich
Wow almost all the points I've been mulling over during this whole
discussion.
I might also add that according to the people who think it is important, if
these dates were not totally arbitrary and there was no year zero, there
would have been two consecutive year ones( one B.C. followed immediately by
one A.D.) And you guys are worried about Y2K? I am relatively sure that the
whole world did not get together on Dec.25, 1B.C. and say," hey, let's make
Jan1 the first day of the last year of B.C.!"
Then again, I wasn't there for the formalities.
Perhaps some of the older list members would care to comment?
|