| Revision as of 13:05, 19 April 2010 edit212.85.12.187 (talk) If you check your facts, you will see that the contributor who was originally blocked was not disabled from creating an account.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:45, 19 April 2010 edit undoJc3s5h (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,912 edits Undo block evasionNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{archive box|] ]}} | {{archive box|] ]}} | ||
| ==Triennial |
==Celsus and the Triennial Cycles: A Proposal== | ||
| And a happy Mother's Day (it's different over here). I thought the indent rule was that each contributor's posts were aligned, so that on this thread Dr Bennett would be justified left, I would be on first tab and Gerry on second. If I am wrong no doubt Joe will put things right. | |||
| There is an inscription which says that in Asia in an unspecified year the last day of the old lunar calendar was 14 Peritios = a.d. X Kal. Feb. (23 January). The following day, from which the calendar would remain aligned to the Roman calendar, was 1 Dystros, a.d. IX Kal. Feb. (24 January). Thereafter, the Asian month would begin on a.d. IX Kal. of the Roman month. The old calendar being lunar, the problem comes down to seeing when 23 January equates to a full moon. | |||
| I take it from the last post that none of the people Dr Bennett wants to call as witnesses is alive. I therefore suggest the following wordings: | |||
| My table shows two likely candidates - 8BC and 5BC. | |||
| '''Motivation''' | |||
| {|class="wikitable" | |||
| !Year BC (*=regular leap year)||Julian||colspan=2|Irregular Julian (*=leap year) | |||
| |- | |||
| |10||January 19||January 16||January 16 | |||
| |- | |||
| |9*||January 8||January 6||January 5* | |||
| |- | |||
| |8||January 27||January 25||January 24 | |||
| |- | |||
| |7||January 16||January 14||January 13 | |||
| |- | |||
| |6||January 5||January 3||January 2 | |||
| |- | |||
| |5*||January 24||January 22||January 21 | |||
| |- | |||
| |4||January 13||January 12||January 11 | |||
| |- | |||
| |3||February 1||January 31||January 30 | |||
| |- | |||
| |2||January 21||January 20||January 19 | |||
| |- | |||
| |1*||January 10||January 9||January 8 | |||
| |} | |||
| The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of twelve months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27 or 28 - day intercalary month, the ''mensis intercalaris'', was sometimes inserted immediately after February 23, the last five days of February (''a.d. VI Kal. Mart.'' to ''Prid. Kal. Mart.'') becoming the last five days of the ''mensis intercalaris'' with the same names. The start of the ''mensis intercalaris'' was delayed by one day in 170BC to prevent certain festivals of March (then the first month of the year) falling on a market day. An alternative model, proposed by Mrs Agnes Kirsopp Michels in 1967, is not now regarded as viable. The decision to insert the intercalary month, etc. | |||
| There was an eclipse on March 23, 5BC (Julian date). There was thus also a full moon on January 24, 5BC (Julian date). I have not investigated the arrangement of intercalary years in the ancient Greek calendar. | |||
| '''Leap year error''' | |||
| The inscription mentions an intercalation. It is unlikely that the irregular Julian calendar was being introduced (in 8BC) because it was no longer intercalated at that time, and the purpose of the reform (as in Egypt and Rome) was to introduce the correct Julian calendar. The likely date is therefore 5BC, with the regular Julian intercalation coming a few weeks after adoption. | |||
| ...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt. | |||
| There is clear indication that, having moved to correct the calendar in Rome in 9BC, Augustus turned his attention to Asia. He would have been well aware of the situation in Egypt, and the fact that he felt no need to take any action there indicates that no action was needed. Professor Jones says: | |||
| I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table ], by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The Egyptians must at some point have become aware that the Roman dates that they assigned to particular days differed by one or two days from the dates according to the pontifices, but we should not assume that they would have immediately changed the reckoning to conform with the official version of the calendar. The calendar equation Roman July 19 = Egyptian Epeiph 27 discussed by Hagedorn indicates that conformity was imposed by 2BC. | |||
| :Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one. | |||
| This date equation puts the wandering year out of the picture, but to conclude that that indicates that the Egyptians had been forced to abandon the fixed relationship with the Alexandrian calendar seems to me misguided. From 9BC the pressure was all the other way. | |||
| :Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction '''is''' the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed '''any''' published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article. | |||
| I used the Easter holiday to translate a paper made use of by Dr Bennett in his argument. | |||
| :Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me. | |||
| Dieter Hagedorn | |||
| :Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C. | |||
| On the Egyptian calendar under Augustus | |||
| :As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ). | |||
| from: Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994) 211 - 222. | |||
| :As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --] (]) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Copyright: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn | |||
| ==New calendar (Eastern churches)== | |||
| ON THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR UNDER AUGUSTUS | |||
| There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at ]. ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Theodore Cressy Skeat is the author of that basic description of the way the Ptolemaic calendars work , of which practical conversion tables we all make use, dealing with dates, which through the naming of the regnal years of one of the Ptolemies and of the day in an Egyptian month are fixed, to convert them to their Julian equivalent. | |||
| The problem there lies in this, that one used in Ptolemaic time the wandering Egyptian year with a constant 365 days (consisting of 12 months of 30 days and 5 additional days placed at the end of the year, epagomenai), while in the Julian calendar it is well known that every fourth year is a leap year with 366 days. Through that the difference between the Egyptian and Julian year increases one day every four years from 29 February. | |||
| Under Augustus the Egyptian calendar was reformed. The final result of this reform, which we can trace over centuries, is the "Alexandrian" calendar, in which regularly every fourth year is a leap year with 366 days. The Alexandrian and the Julian year agree thereafter in the long term, with an average 365 1/4 - day exact agreement, so that there is exact equivalence;always the leap day in the Alexandrian year was added not on the same day as in the Julian calendar, namely on 29 February , but at the end of the year as the sixth additional day. While the New Year's Day, 1 Thoth, normally falls on 29 August, it corresponds after an Alexandrian leap year with 30 August. This is regularly the case in the year which precedes the Julian leap year; up to 29 February of the following year there is always a difference compared to the normal relationship of one day. | |||
| With the completion of the above - mentioned standard work Skeat has now recently brought out a small volume with similar tables which for that will serve to illustrate the changeover from the Ptolemaic - Egyptian calendar to the Alexandrian calendar which - so it is said - was accomplished under Augustus. | |||
| In consideration of the high regard which Skeat as well as Fachmann enjoys on questions of the chronology, it is also to be expected that his interpretation becomes quickly and perhaps also uncritically generally accepted. To me there are after the reading of the little book however considerable doubts remaining on the rectitude of his approach. To me it seems that this interpretation is based on unproved (and by our present information also unprovable) theories. These are not one's own theories, which are based on other thoughts, so one comes to different conclusions. The purpose of this paper is to describe these conclusions and equally to offer them as an alternative to Skeat's solution to the question. | |||
| First the circumstances are set out in which the question how the reform of the Egyptian calendar under Augustus was accomplished become more complicated. | |||
| Notes | |||
| 1 Th. C. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies (Muenchener Beitraege zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, No. 39, Muenchen 1 1954, 2 1969. | |||
| 2 These correlations illustrate e.g. the tables by P. W. Pestman, Chronologie egyptienne d'apres les textes demotiques (Papyrologica Lugduno - Batavia, vol. 15), Leiden 1967, after p. 8 and R. S. Bagnall - K. A. Worp, The Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt (Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia, vol. 7), Zutphen 1978, pp 96 - 102. | |||
| 3 Th. C. Skeat, The Reign of Augustus in Egypt. Conversion Tables for the Egyptian and Julian Calendars, 30 B.C. - 14 A.D. (Muenchener Beitraege zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, No. 84, Muenchen 1993. | |||
| 4 I follow here entirely Skeat's implementations (The Reign of Augustus, pp 2 - 3), the explanation at that time of P. V. Neugebauer, Der julianische Kalender und seine Entstehung, in: Astronomische Nachtrichten 257, 1935, No. 6149, Sp. 65 - 74 reviews. Cf also A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I 7,) Muenchen 1972, pp 155 - 158. ] (]) 13:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Eastern European calendar: naming proposal== | |||
| On this glorious Easter Tuesday, united around the world, here is an update on the progress of the ballot. | |||
| :Option 1 - Meletian calendar - 1 vote (recommended option) | |||
| :Option 2 - New calendar (Eastern churches) - no votes (this option is not recommended) | |||
| :Option 3 - No change - 2 votes (this option is not recommended) | |||
| :Option 4 - "Revised" Julian calendar - no votes (this option is not recommended) | |||
| To vote by proxy, write QUICKVOTE and sign with four tildes. If you want your proxy to vote in a particular way, add the option number in brackets. Thus QUICKVOTE (1) means your vote will be cast in favour of option 1. | |||
| The tilde is the wavy line ~ sometimes placed above n (in Spanish) or a or o in Portuguese where, following the medieval Latin copyists, it marks the omission of a following letter n. | |||
| '''This is not the place to vote'''. Click on this link ], read the manifestos and then add your vote underneath the others. | |||
| Uma Paschoa muito feliz a todos. '''O povo unido ja mais sera vencido'''. ] (]) 18:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:45, 19 April 2010
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 Archives |
Celsus and the Triennial Cycles: A Proposal
And a happy Mother's Day (it's different over here). I thought the indent rule was that each contributor's posts were aligned, so that on this thread Dr Bennett would be justified left, I would be on first tab and Gerry on second. If I am wrong no doubt Joe will put things right.
I take it from the last post that none of the people Dr Bennett wants to call as witnesses is alive. I therefore suggest the following wordings:
Motivation
The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of twelve months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27 or 28 - day intercalary month, the mensis intercalaris, was sometimes inserted immediately after February 23, the last five days of February (a.d. VI Kal. Mart. to Prid. Kal. Mart.) becoming the last five days of the mensis intercalaris with the same names. The start of the mensis intercalaris was delayed by one day in 170BC to prevent certain festivals of March (then the first month of the year) falling on a market day. An alternative model, proposed by Mrs Agnes Kirsopp Michels in 1967, is not now regarded as viable. The decision to insert the intercalary month, etc.
Leap year error
...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt.
I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2#Celsus and the Triennial cycles:A Proposal, by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). Vote (X) for Change (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one.
- Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction is the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed any published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article.
- Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me.
- Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C.
- As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ).
- As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
New calendar (Eastern churches)
There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at Talk:Revised Julian calendar#Proposal to change article name. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories: