Date on #3


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Yon Bard on February 17, 1999 at 20:24:21:

I think the date on #3 could just as easily be 1292 or 1312 (probably not 1392!). There is always an element of doubt in interpreting what amounts to illiterate scrbblings. The solar-year hypothesis seems suspicious to me. Is there any reason to think that anybody in that environment would put one on a weaving?

Regards, Yon


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]