Re: Concalendrical reference point

On Sun, 26 May 2002 23:30:19 -0400, Roger Mills <romilly@...> wrote:

>John Cowan wrote:
>>I would recommend instead that you use the year 4173 B.C.E.
>>It is comfortably before the beginning of history, and is the base
>>date for the Julian day count: 2452421 days ago.  This date was
>>chosen as the year in which three different cycles were all in
>>registry: the 28-year solar cycle of the civil year, the 19-year lunar
>cycle
>>of the Babylonian/Jewish year, and the arbitrary 15-year cycle
>>of the Roman tax year.
>
>
>Is that date in any way related to the putative Creation according to
>Genesis, as it was determined by some 18th or 19th century cleric, working
>backwards from all the begats and kings' reigns etc. in the Bible??
That was 4004 BC.

Although Tirelat is currently using the Jarda calendar system, with names
rather than numbers for years, I haven't really used it yet, and I like the
idea of using the Julian day count enough to rethink the Tirelat calendar.
(See http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/Jarda/calendar.html for the Jarda
system.) Since the Tirelat calendar, like the Jarda one, has the winter
solstice as the first and last day of the year, I'll need to figure out
when the winter solstice was in 4174 BC (so that the start of the Julian
day count will be contained in the Tirelat Year Zero). Or equivalently, how
many days before the start of the Julian day count was the winter solstice.

--
languages of Azir------> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/index.html>---
hmiller (Herman Miller)   "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com  email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" /  there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin