In the strictest sense, the 19th century ended at 11:59 PM on 31 December 1900, and the 20th century ended at 11:59 PM on 31 December 2000. (I may be off by a minute, in each case, and I suppose the dates followed around the world from time zone to time zone, as they always are regarded as doing.) The subsequent centuries began at 12:00 AM on 1 January 1900 and 12:00 AM on 1 January 2000. The most common explanation I have heard for this method of reckoning centuries is the desire to have each century last exactly 100 years--1901 to 2000, 2001 to 2100, and so forth. This occurred because the (now) Catholic Church used roman numerals (no zero) at the time they switched from calculating dates from the legendary founding of the City of Rome (c. 750 BC) to the birth of Christ (best calculated, now, as having occurred in 4 BC; a different calculation was used by the ancient Church). Thus, 1 BC was immediately succeeded by 1 AD. The change from counting from c. 750 BC to 1 AD occurred around 525 AD, though the usage became more common during the 9th century (800s AD). The now "Common Era" (AD) became worldwide due to the European expansion after 1500 AD, and the usage is now (2011 AD) completely ingrained in clocks, computers, the internet, etc.
Not to mention counting BC dates backwards, or why the 1900s where the 20th century, the 2000s are the 21st century.
D. Babson.
________________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 5:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrase Turn of the Century
Jake, your answer provides no more clarity than the "turn of the century" phrase. What year did the 20th begin or the 19th end? Are they the same? If so, how does that work? If not, why not? What about the period of time, however brief it might have been, between them? Is time, if it exists, actually continuous and therefore only awkwardly amenable to division? What's shorter than a nanosecond, can we measure it, and does it matter, if it exists?
Meli has occasioned a deeply existential and metaphysical discussion, the kind that usually is best dealt with in the evening after a long day of mostly dull papers at a conference. If we are to discuss the topic without the benefit of . . . ummm . . . exhaustion and lubricants, we must think carefully before presenting alternatives that are no stronger than the original term.
By the way, can you contact me off-list, because I've lost your post-NPS e-mail address?
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Boyer
Supervisory Archaeologist/Project Director
Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
* mail: P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
* physical: 407 Galisteo Street, Suite B-100, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
* tel: 505.827.6387 fax: 505.827.3904
* e-mail: [log in to unmask]
"This is no time for archaeologizing . . ." - Amelia Peabody Emerson (The Curse of the Pharoahs, Elizabeth Peters)
________________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jake Ivey [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrase Turn of the Century
I don't see a graceful way of using the phrase at all -- I'd say "At the beginning of the twentieth" or "At the end of the nineteenth," and stay away from a locution that's so, I don't know, last century.
Jake
On Aug 19, 2011, at 01:58 PM, Melissa Diamanti <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have a question about terminology or usage.The period around 1900 Ad used to be referred to simply as "the turn of the century." Now that we have turned another century, it is necessary to specify which one.So, would the time around 1900 Ad be the turn of the 19th century or the turn of the twentieth century?
> This question is apparently unclear to many. For example, the wikipedia entry on this topic is still being hashed out. So what do the historians/historical archaeologists on this list recommend?
> Meli Diamanti
|
