On 5/3/00 7:34 AM Neil Campling writes:
>
>Dear All,
>
>Short answer to Ed's question: No.
>
>But why use a ' 1st century' or ' 1st millennium' type term for periods
>for which there are as yet no meaningful material cultural distinctions ?
>Whereas 7th C finds may be distinctive from 6th or 8th C finds and have
>meaning in terms of cultural change, can anyone really distinguish between
>finds of the 22nd 'Bloggsium' from the 17th 'Bloggsium' BC and what the
>difference between the two 'Bloggsiums' means ?!
>
>Cheers, Neil
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 03/05/2000 09:48:11 >>>
>Neil, Andrew et al
>
>I think I didn't express my question last week very clearly. What I was
>wondering was if there is a term that means '10,000 years' in the same way
>that millennium means 1000 years. E.g. is there an accepted use of 'eon' or
>'era' or 'age' that we could use.
>
>The problem arises if we extend the 'historic period' Class list back into
>early prehistory. (Currently it only goes back to 1st Century AD) It would
>not look very neat if we had to use a term such as 300TH MILLENNIUM BC to
>refer to Lower Palaeolithic terms etc and I was wondering if there is a
>broader term for time periods larger than a millenium.
>
>I may be looking at this the wrong way - any suggestions?
>
>Edmund Lee
>
>
>
Beatrice Hopkinson 73071,327@compuserve
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|