> Does anyone like to make the assertion that the 2nd century BC
> stands out head and shoulders above the other centuries over
> the last 2150 years? If so, we should discuss those events and
> developments in the 2nd century BC that make the 2nd century
> THE CENTURY. If no case can be made for the 2nd century we
> must (on logical grounds) discard the current times as the end
> of an age.
Perhaps the 2nd centur is too specific, after all: "ages are not constant because the rate of precession is steadily increasing, therefore each age is shorter than the previous age". Therefore, pehaps the transition of last age coincided with the Age of Pisces, when the fish became its symbol. We're now entering into the Age of Aquarius...