Translation and A.D.

[Bjorn-Are.Davidsen@s.prosjekt98.telenor.no]

Some follow ups from 820.

Don:

Re: "Greater than Rome"

> I can't recall exactly what the"greater than Rome" reference was to in 
> regards to that whatchacllit Mexican city. But I believe it referred to its 
> physical size -- it covered more area. And perhaps (with its 
> pyramids) it was taller in spots?

I accept both explanations (even if you must remener Rome was built 
on seven hills and did have some tall spots :-)). The actual wording 
used in the trnaslation is, however, not "greater", however, more like 
"mightier" og "more powerfull". I have no objections to Teotihuacan 
being larger ("the ruins cover 13 square km" as Donald says). But 
"more powerfull"? No. I guess it all goes to show that translators need 
to study the material (e.g. historical) behind the story to make a right 
translation. They may even need to read the actual text properly, 
sometimes.

Re: North

The need for translators to read properly is revealed in your 
explanations of what you put into the original manus  ("Why should 
they have necessarilly put North at the TOP of their map?"). The 
Norwegian version is (retranslated...): "There is something wrong with 
this map. Why has the Adena people put North on the top?" Which 
gives quite a different meaning.

Re: A.D.

Yes, A.D. should be put first. Interesting, as Tommy tells, that some 
monks thought of this new way of chronicling the years in A.D. 525. 
However, I'm rather sure that Irish monks would not have started to use 
this new way so quick (remember both the speed of travelling and the 
usual conservatism of monks and scholars)! I'm even surer when your 
encyclopedia explicitly says that it would take about 500 years before 
this was a widely accepted way of marking the year. However, I'll try to 
dig more into it next week.

Incidentially, the people starting to use this miscalculated the years, 
so that the birth of Christ was put at least five years too late! In reality 
we're now living in the year 2000!  The next time someone comes 
knocking at your door (or stopping you on the street) saying you have 
to repent because the world is going to end in the year 2000, you have 
something to tell!

Nevertheless, I hope chronology will never hinder those of us who 
need to repent from doing that :-)

Re: Ingstad

I think some of his books are translated to English, Todd! If you ever 
find any, please tell! 

BTW, I do believe that most of this New England monuments have 
been proven to be fakes, or put up in the 17th century by pilgrims and 
other fathers. Do you have any specific examples? Another 
Norwegian, Kaare Prytz, has reseached this a lot (and come up with 
some suggestions of a "Medieval Stone Tower" and some "Viking 
mounds"), however, he has also met a lot of resistance and seems to 
me to be disproven. That's also the case with a famous "runic stone" 
found late last century or early in this, however  which is proven 
to have been faked by a Swede or something. 

Bjorn-Are 

bjorn-are.davidsen at s.prosjekt98.telenor.no
**********************************************************************************
                                   -  The Weaver in the Web that he made -
**********************************************************************************