I have produced the following notes whilst writing ‘AntiquityComplete.com’
1) On providing a real solution to the so-called ‘two-year problem’ in the BC/AD dating system
The notation xx-00-yy should replace the fragmented xx-BC-AD-yy format. The spaces on a timeline are bounded by tick marks placed at the start of BC years and the end of AD years. When these eras are added together, they produce an extra year, causing the so-called ‘Two-Year Problem’. Traditionally, this has been addressed with the equation (64 + 27 – 1 = 90), which does not represent the underlying spatial flaw. Because the last second of the BC era must reach and pass through zero before the first second of the AD era can begin, the boundary should be treated as a strict mathematical axis ’00’ in space and not as concepts such ‘Year 0’ or ‘Year 1’.
On a timeline, by labelling the ticks as mid-year points (1 July), the 1 BC and 1 AD tick marks sit exactly six months to the left and right respectively of this zero datum 00, forming a single one-year span. This allows historical intervals to be calculated by adding linear distances on the timeline together across the epoch boundary. For example, the interval 64-00-27 can be calculated from the scalar addition of their respective mid-year points on the timeline (63.5 + 26.5 = 90 years), eliminating the traditional insertion of the extra year and representing the true situation, eliminating the so-called ‘Two Year Problem, justifying the introduction of the datum ’00’, and aligning the site with astronomical year numbering and ISO 8601 protocols.
2) On debunking the use of ‘BP’ (before present) and 1950 AD in the dating system
One of the most distant physical records of a solar eclipse ever committed to writing is found on a cuneiform clay tablet excavated at the ancient city of Ugarit. Modern astronomers and historians believe it captures a total solar eclipse that occurred on March 5, 1223 BC. Yet, while textually anchored events can provide this rare, pinpoint precision, they are the final exceptions before a major chronological threshold.
With few exceptions, dates farther into the past than and including 1000 BC, almost rely on scientific instruments or scarce historical cross-links; they are, by nature, approximate. When a publication omits their specific margins of error, a reader’s only guide to a date’s reliability is how it has been rounded off.
For instance, the majority of archaeological dates older than c.1100 BC – the era marking the final collapse of the Mycenaean civilization – end in at least two zeros. With no explicit limits shown, this date must be assumed to represent a rounded window between 1050 BC and 1149 BC, carrying implicit limits of 50 years further back into the past and 49 years closer to the present.
Herein lies the systemic design failure of continuing to use ‘BP’ (Before Present) as a general unit of time. Because the ‘Present’ is an ever-advancing point, scientists permanently locked its baseline to 1950 AD. However, this fix created a mathematical trap for authors converting historical dates. Adding 1950 to an ancient date like c.1100 BC distorts the figure into 3050 BP. Authors are then caught in a dilemma: leaving it as 3050 BP implies a false sense of exact precision, while following standard rounding rules creates a century-wide distortion of 3100 BP. The system forces the human user to compromise their data.
While organisations operating within a closed framework should undoubtedly continue using 1950 AD and ‘BP’, a logical, more usable framework for the rest of the world requires a different approach. The constant of 1950 AD is replaced entirely by 2000 AD. Under this rule, the unit ‘kya’ is used exclusively for the Palaeolithic era, running down to the threshold boundary of 11.7 kya / 9700 BC, while the unit ‘ya’ is reserved solely for the Holocene epoch, handling the narrative from that human turning point down to 1 BC.
Compare the user experience: c.1100 BC + 1950 = 3050 BP, whereas c.1100 BC + 2000 = c.3100 ya. The transition is seamless, the original century-scale intent will, of course, be preserved, and the awkward ’50’ that triggers the rounding trap completely disappears.
Note: The most consequential turning point in human history is not the transition from BC to AD. That boundary is merely a man-made inaccuracy based on the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, an event historians estimate actually happened between 6 BC and 4 BC, and serves only as an arbitrary reference point. There is simply no comparison between an arbitrary calendar error and the true planetary turning point of 9700 BC. This boundary marks the monumental environmental shift from the end of the Palaeolithic era (11.7 kya) to the beginning of the European Mesolithic and the Holocene (9700 BC), when the planet warmed and human civilisation began to evolve.
3) On restricting the use of circa (c.) to achieve an efficient chronological system
§2: While organisations operating within a closed framework should undoubtedly continue using 1950 AD and ‘BP’, a logical, more usable framework for the rest of the world requires a different approach. The constant of 1950 AD is replaced entirely by 2000 AD. Under this rule, the unit ‘kya’ is used exclusively for the Palaeolithic era, running down to the threshold boundary of 11.7 kya / 9700 BC, while the unit ‘ya’ is reserved solely for the Holocene epoch, handling the narrative from that human turning point down to 1 BC.
With few exceptions, all the dates farther into the past than and including 1000 BC entirely rely on scientific instruments or scarce historical cross-links; they are, therefore, approximate by definition and do not need individual qualification. Within this deep-time era, the use of ‘circa’ (c.) is completely redundant..
The exceptions to this rule are absolute dates verified via tree-ring dating/dendrochronology, approximate dates with refined limits (‘±xxxx BC’ and ‘xxx±xx cal BC’ – noting that these dates without their qualifiers simply become approximate), and standalone approximations (c.xxxx BC).
From the above, it can be seen that European Mesolithic dates from 9700 to 1000 BC are, with few exceptions, defined as approximate and do not require ‘circa’ (c.). Dates between 999 and 1 BC fall into two distinct groups: those ending in the digits 1 through 9 are derived from written histories that match modern astronomical computer models. They are absolute by default and do not require ‘circa’. Conversely, dates closer to the present than 1000 BC that end in the digit ‘0’ serve as the designated resting places for approximations. For these dates, the use of ‘circa’ is mandatory, except when a zero-ending date is historically or astronomically exact – in which case it is explicitly qualified with the modifier ‘abs’ (e.g. 440 abs BC).
Thus, dates from the deep past up to and including 1000 BC are approximate unless they have qualifiers, and dates 999-01 BC are absolute unless they have qualifiers.
Summary
The only introduction necessary is the heading, “Unmarked dates from the deep past up to and including 1000 BC are approximate, and dates from 999 to 1 BC are absolute. It is the authors’ responsibility to place the correct qualifiers, which include circa (c.), against the respective exceptions.
The unit ‘kya’ replaces the unit ‘BP’.
The constant 2000 AD replaces the constant 1950 AD.
In the conversion from ‘BC’ to ‘kya’, the qualifiers – or the lack of them – are carried through completely unchanged.
With very few exceptions, dates further back in the past than, and including, 1000 BC are approximate. Having been identified as such and isolated, the use of circa (c.) here is unnecessary and has therefore been abandoned.
Conversely, dates from 999 BC to and including 1 BC are mostly absolute -Although chronological progress was ragged as dates moved towards the present, during and following the Middle Ages these absolute dates have become the larger group.
One of the only ‘xx0 BC’ dates that historians are absolutely sure is exact is the eclipse of 310 BC, when the Greek ruler Agathocles snuck his fleet out of the harbour of Syracuse (Sicily). Because many modern authors fail to use ‘circa’ (c.) where they should, unverified dates look identical to verified ones. To separate ‘xx0 BC’ iron-clad dates, such as that of Agathocles, from these approximations, they should be written in the format of ‘xx0 abs BC’, matching the style of scientific dates like ‘xxx cal BC’.
| Era / Date Range | Example | Qualifiers |
| Up to 11.7 kya | Approximate (implicit) | None |
| 9700 to 1000 BC | Approximate (implicit) | None |
| 9700 to 1000 BC | Approximate with limits | ±xxx BC’, ‘xxx±xx cal BC |
| 9700 to 1000 BC | Absolute (exceptions) | xxxx abs BC |
| 999 to 1 BC, ends in 1 to 9 | Absolute (implicit) | None (verified) |
| 999 to 1 BC, ends in 0 | Approximate | Circa (c.), mandatory |
| 999 to 1 BC, ends in 0 | Approximate with limits | ±xxx BC’, ‘xxx±xx cal BC’ |
| 999 to 1 BC, ends in 0 | Absolute (exceptions) | xxxx abs BC |
| xx-00-yy | – | – |
| 01-Present | Similar to 999-01 BC | ≡ |
Also,
4) On the debunking the use ‘Earlier’ and ‘Older’ in positioning text
In both the BC and AD eras, relative time markers like ‘earlier’ or ‘older’ trigger an immediate conflict between a forward-moving historical flow and an absolute numerical countdown. For instance, stating that an event occurred ‘prior to 1000 BC’ can mean either further back in time (e.g. 1200 BC) or closer to the present (e.g. 800 BC), depending on whether a reader visualises history chronologically or numerically. Similarly, a phrase like ‘prior to the 18th century’ causes readers to mistakenly target the 1800s rather than the 1600s because the absolute digits override the historical coordinate. This mental shortcut consistently compromises chronological clarity. To eliminate this confusion, explicit descriptive clauses such as ‘further back into the past’ and ‘closer to the present’ should be used.
5) On the rejection of material-based eras
Following the Pre-Roman Iron Age, the term ‘Roman Period’ should be used in place of ‘Roman Iron Age’. Once complex imperial administration and broad trade networks consolidated, the Roman epoch evolved far beyond raw material production; reducing a complex society to a single metal label oversimplifies its history. Consequently, material-based terms for subsequent eras – such as ‘Migration Iron Age’ or ‘Viking Iron Age’- should be rejected, as these tags reduce massive human, societal, and seafaring movements to mere technological classifications. This is particularly misleading given that iron-working itself underwent no revolutionary change during these times.
6) On omitting the comma in four-digit dates
The thousands separator comma should be omitted for all four-digit years in new entries. Dates should be formatted cleanly without punctuation (e.g. 1066, 1453, 1492, 2026).
Leave a Reply