Could not really help it but start this thread on the issue of date depictions. It appears that at some undetermined (so far) time we acquired this digit “1” in the year date on a more or less permanent basis. Prior to it we have either “I – (i)” or the same “I” but looking like “J”. I kinda knew that Fomenko and Nosovsky talked about the issue, but I never really gave it enough attention. Recently, I started running into these “date issues” left and right. Figured to start this thread displaying a collection of items presenting those interestingly looking date depictions.
For those who do not know what I’m talking about. Is there a difference between 1689 vs. I689, or 1636 vs. J.636, or 1712 vs i712? There probably is, and the difference could equal to approximately 1000 phantom non-existent years.
I guess this “i or j” preceding the date could mean “from Jesus”, with “i or j” being the first letter in the word “Jesus”. Whatever language is being used for these i-j’s, I’m not sure. We have all those Latin, Greek, etc languages where Jesus looks like jesua, isus, iisus, isuthi… Help out please, if you know.
The reason the digits are more commonly known as “Arabic numerals” in Europe and the Americas is that they were introduced to Europe in the 10th century by Arabic-speakers of North Africa, who were then using the digits from Libya to Morocco.
The European acceptance of the numerals was accelerated by the invention of the printing press, and they became widely known during the 15th century. Early evidence of their use in Britain includes: an equal hour horary quadrant from 1396, in England, a 1445 inscription on the tower of Heathfield Church, Sussex; a 1448 inscription on a wooden lych-gate of Bray Church, Berkshire; and a 1487 inscription on the belfry door at Piddletrenthide church, Dorset; and in Scotland a 1470 inscription on the tomb of the first Earl of Huntly in Elgin Cathedral.
Of course, the official position, as far as I understand, explains it that “I” was used instead of “1”. While this is definitely true, to a considerable degree, some of the examples clearly show that “1” was used as well. Below is an image predating 1733.
For me it started with this 1597 revolver.
J.636 / 1636
The other day I was looking at the Pyramids with tombs of the Tartarian Kings? The thread has a linked 1626 map showing the following depiction of year 1290.
i290 / 1290
Significant, that the very same map shows the below legend, where “1”, and not “i” appears to have been used. Then again, may be it is “i”, but without the dot.
Today I was looking at the first American paper money. I think this particular below large size cut out is a proposed 1690 Massachusetts $20 dollar bill. This appears to be done by hand, and “I” appears to be just that – a letter “I”.
I690 / 1690
But then, we run into examples like below, and it throws all the above theories off. It has both “1”, and “I”, with “I” being used as “1”.
And immediately we can see these perfect “1’s” on this colonial 2 shilling paper.
A Few More
KD: Just wanted to see what forum members think about these I, J, i, meaning 1, and the phantom 1,000years in general.
It appears to me that the issue is more complex than just a thousand added years. I keep on thinking that the reason 1,000 years was added on one end, because another 1,000 years (or whatever many) was taken out on the other. We have this landmark when Peter the Great went from year 7,207 to 1,700. I have hard time imagining how 5.5k years of national history get erased just like that. Can you imagine, if tomorrow our governments decide that starting on January 1st, 2019 it is going to be year 50 instead of 2019?
- In 1699 Peter changed the date of the celebration of the new year from 1 September to 1 January. Traditionally, the years were reckoned from the purported creation of the World, but after Peter’s reforms, they were to be counted from the birth of Christ. Thus, in the year 7207 of the old Russian calendar, Peter proclaimed that the Julian Calendar was in effect and the year was 1700.
In other words the reasons for such drastic changes had to be serious enough to justify all the troubles the government would have to go through.
I learned recently that in Russia there is this bizarre coin marked with the imprinted date of 1655. They call it “Efimok” There are two major issues with this coin.
original #s look more like “1” vs. “I”
- 1]. There could be no year 1655 in Russia, for the first conventionally displayed years could only be 1699, or 1700. Otherwise the coin was supposed to display year 7,162. How could they know in 1655 what Peter the Great would do 45 years later?
- 2]. The (not so much) Russian coin “Efimok” was made using the Dutch Thaler Coin. What happened in Russia to cause them to use Dutch coins?
Interesting things are hidden in our fake history…
Yes, clear as day in gravestones also.
You dated Pompeii at I631. 79 A.D. no more: Pompeii got buried in 1631
That is probably pretty accurate. The brickwork at Herculaneum an Ostia Antica looks contemporary to the new world.
This has to be copper.