Re: Picts (the painted ones)
- From: kenney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:33:43 -0500
In article <MHpJg.91134$fV1.64846@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
iomorrison@xxxxxxxxxxx (Ian Morrison) wrote:
'm quite happy to accept a common starting point for
year-counting, as is most of the rest of the world, and it
might as well be 0 CE,
You do not seem to understand the rest of the world. Muslim
countries use a calendar dating from the Hegira and for that
matter there is no AD date corresponding with OCE anyway. The
main problem I have with using AD is the possible confusion of
Anno Domini with Anno Diocletan which was a highly popular
calendar system before Anno Domini came in. Anyone researching
historic documents has to be prepared to deal with two calendars
Julian and Gregorian, three or more systems with different start
dates for calculating elapsed time and different start dates to
the calendar year. I resent anything that could increase
confusion.
Ken Young
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Picts (the painted ones)
- From: Inger-Eleonora
- Re: Picts (the painted ones)
- Prev by Date: archaeology and theoretical foundation.
- Next by Date: Re: Appalling British weather blew out early settlers
- Previous by thread: Re: Picts (the painted ones)
- Next by thread: Re: Picts (the painted ones)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
