4 ms·
The article says the skeletons date to 400-100 BC, so, no. Year 0 doesn't exist (1 BC is followed directly by AD 1), and the holy grail would have to date from
by Telemakhos 2y ago
The article says the skeletons date to 400-100 BC, so, no. Year 0 doesn't exist (1 BC is followed directly by AD 1), and the holy grail would have to date from AD 33 or so, because Jesus didn't die in the year of his birth.
- auadix 2y agoRomans were like, what is this 0 you're talking about?
- gerdesj 2y agoIt's roughly 753 ab urbe condita, big nose!
- SoftTalker 2y agoHow accurately can skeletons be dated? Within 100 years? 10 years? a year?
- kelnos 2y agoThey didn't actually date the skeletons, because they haven't excavated the site to physically examine them. The time range given by the article is just from the date the city was founded, until it was annexed by the Romans. It's a pretty safe assumption that they were buried there before the Roman annexation. My guess would be they were buried much closer to 400 BC than to AD 106.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago> The article says the skeletons date to 400-100 BC...and the holy grail would have to date from AD 33 or so It says "between 400 B.C. and A.D. 106". That encompasses all relevant dates.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]