Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
jesshill

The source of the ancient 360-day calendar

52 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

jesshill

Welcome, 

Ever since my collage years, where I majored in Ancient History, I have been fascinated by the ancient 360-day calendars that were being used through-out the world until the 8th century BCE. In fact, http://360dayyear.com/ provides evidence that the Mayan Empire, Egypt, Aztec Empire, India, Sumeria, Babylonia, Armenia, Greece, Rome, China and Hebrews had all used 360-day calendars. For what purpose? 

For agricultural-based societies, the accurate timing of seasons is essential to life as well as prosperity. A 360-day calendar would be out of sink by a full month after just 5-years and would have been discarded. But, that is not what happened. 360-day calendars were in use for at least 1500-years. 

As a student and being aware of these, supposed, coincidences was a very frustrating experience for me and everyone else in my class and provided a real-life example of the major time-gaps in ancient history. I have been searching, as time permits, for an answer to this mystery every since. 

Recently, an article titled "Solving the mystery of the ancient 360-day calendar" was recommended by a colleague and, after reading the article, it felt like a load had finally been lifted from my shoulders. The article is copyrighted material and With the author's written permission and the approval of ancient-astronomer.com, I have inserted below significant parts of that article. 

Enjoy, 

Author: Ron Messick ((c)copyright 2018 by Ronald G. Messick--all rights reserved) 

"By 3,100 BC, the ancient Sumerians had already become a highly advanced and sophisticated civilization. They had a writing system (cuneiform script) and a library containing hundreds of thousands of historical documents. They also had a governmental structure and legal system and were building bridges, dams, aqueducts and irrigation systems. They also invented the wheel and plow. Mathematics appeared to be their Forte as they could perform advance arithmetic calculations and solve quadratic equations. They developed (apparently from scratch) the science of astronomy-- dividing the heavens into a circle of 360 degrees, which they subdivided into 12 intervals of 30 degrees each. They also developed the Sexagesimal structure for measuring time--using sixty-second minutes and sixty-minute hours (like we use today). Furthermore, they created our current measure of distance based of miles, feet and inches. They mastered geometry, calculating areas of rectangles, triangles and trapezoids (as well as their volumes) and were using Pythagorean therm over a thousand years before Pythagoras was even born. And, there is solid evidence that sophisticated geometrical calculations were being used to track the movement of planets (estimating the area under a curve by drawing a trapezoid or four-sided figure underneath). Using this method, they could track the position, speed and the distance of planets--a technique that is fundamental to physics and was previously believed to have originated only about 600-years ago in 14th century Europe." 

"Unraveling the puzzle 

Over the next several years an original concept slowly began to emerge. 

I discovered right away that the Sumerians divided the the day into intervals of 4-minutes (1440-minutes÷4 = 360). The resulting 360, I assumed, were degrees of rotation. They also had reckoned that the Earth’s circumference is 21,600 nautical miles (about the same value we use today). Dividing 21,600 nautical miles by 360 told me that the Earth traveled 60-nautical miles in 1-degree of rotation and that 60÷4 = 15-nautical miles per-minute (15 X 1440 = 21,600).. 

The sacred cube 

At that point I had discovered that 4 X 360 = 1440-minutes or 1-day (in minutes). Then, I discovered that 4 X 360 X 360 = 518,400-minutes or 1-year (in minutes). The next major breakthrough was learning that 4 X 360 X 360 X 360 is 186,624,000 (the same value described in the canonized book of ancient numbers as the Earth's orbital diameter or major axis. (360 cubed x 4 = Earth's orbital diameter) 

  • As a side note, the orbital diameter of 186,624,000 divided by two makes the orbital radius 93,312,000-miles. A google search of the phrase “93,312,000 + distance” has 394 listings. That means that others before me have gone down this same path. And, as author Thomas Karl Dietrich pointed out in his book (The Culture of Astronomy), the number 108 is sacred in Vedic science, which says that 108 X the diameter of the Sun equals the average radius of the Earth’s orbit—our average distance from the Sun (108 X 864,000 miles = 93,312,000 miles.)

At that point and time I hypothesized that 186,624,000 was the Earth's orbital diameter (expressed in miles) and when the miles were divided by an orbital velocity of 360-miles per-minute the value was converted to minutes (518,400÷1440 = 360-days). In other words, to the Sumerians, minutes were synonymous with miles." 

"To test that supposition I did the following: 

186,624,000-miles÷360 = 518,400-minutes÷24-hours = 21,600-nautical miles per-hour÷60-minutes = 360-nautical miles per-minute÷60-seconds = 6-nautical miles per-second (The same as the frequency described by Nicola Tesla). 
 

tabel-of-measures.png?ssl=1&w=390


In other words, the sacred cube (4 X 360 X 360 X 360) produces the Earth's orbital diameter and reversing that value (using the structure of an Earth day) identifies the harmonic structure of the ancient Sexagesimal system and the source of the 360-day calendar systems." 

Continued at ancient-astronomer.com 

I hope you enjoyed this article as much as I did. 

Jess

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
2 hours ago, jesshill said:

Welcome, 

Ever since my collage years, where I majored in Ancient History...

You may want to contact the collage you attended and demand some tuition back if you got all the way through a degree program and can't spell "college." An error like that in your first sentence severely damages your authority.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesshill

You are absolutely right.

Thanks for the heads up.

Jess :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

The article misrepresents a few things. Like using the term "quadratic equation" as if the Babylonians would even know what that was.

Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians.

You'd think an Ancient History major would know this.

I know it and I was a Math major.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesshill

Harte,

First, I want to thank you for reading my post and I do appreciate your feedback.

When I first read through Mr. Messick's material It was apparent to me that he was no academic.

But, after a series of personal communications with him, I was left with the impression that he is the real deal. He is now eighty years old and has had a long and successful business career—the last few years of which he was one of the top business turnaround specialists in the US. That said, he has still managed to spend more time in the field, attend more lectures and read more books about ancient history, astronomy and plasma physics than me and my two associates combined.
 

Like you, we were skeptical and invested a good many hours trying to disprove the logic of his Sumerian and Mayan models. When those efforts failed, we decided to embrace his work and learn as much as possible for as long as his declining health permits.

As for your comment regarding Babylonians and quadratic equations, I would expect that Mr. Messick would say that you are just a little behind the curve. This information has become fairly common in the workplace since about 2009. The paper provided at the following link has verified that the tablets with the equations are from a period at least 500-years before the Babylonians came upon the scene. Mr. Messick is of opinion that spread between the Sumerian and Babylonians is more in the neighborhood of 1,100-years.   

A Geometric Algorithm with Solutions to Quadratic Equations in a Sumerian Juridical Document from Ur III Umma
 

Again, thanks for taking the time.

Jess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

The solutions are there. The equations are not.

A quadratic equation would be how we would express the relationship today. They had no such theory of mathematics and solved their problems graphically.

I don't know Mr. Messick, but would say he doesn't even see the curve if he thinks Sumerians were solving quadratics

.I am a math teacher and I have had an interest in ancient history for several decades now. Of course i know about the find you mention. I also understand the find you mention.

It's Babylonian, not Sumerian, and it doesn't involve a single equation of any kind.

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Your source states:

Quote

They developed (apparently from scratch) the science of astronomy– dividing the heavens into a circle of 360 degrees, which they subdivided into 12 intervals of 30 degrees each.

Sumer never did that. The only evidence we have of 360 degrees comes from Babylonians, and it's a circle, not the sky (which was, as the author went on to claim, divided into 12 parts by Sumerians, but not even necessarily equal sized parts.) In Sumer and In Babylonia, the sky wasn't thought of as circular and the association of a circle with 360 degrees and the sky is currently unevidenced.

Regarding the division of a circle, it's doubtful that was used for the sky at all, and also quite probably came from what the Babylonians knew about regular polygons:

Quote

The Babylonians knew, of course, that the perimeter of a hexagon is exactly equal to six times the radius of the circumscribed circle, in fact that was evidently the reason why they chose to divide the circle into 360 degrees (and we are still burdened with that figure to this day). π=258=3.125.

Regarding developing "from scratch" the science of astronomy, that's just a stupid claim since they have the oldest written language anyone knows about. This means that we cannot possibly know how their astronomy was developed - could have been over centuries before they had writing. Obviously people were studying astronomy long before Sumer rose, judging by stone circles all over the place aligned with solstices and equinoxes.

Lastly, your source says:

Quote

I guess what bugged me most was the fact that a 360-day calendar system would have been catastrophic for agricultural-based societies. For instance, in just five short years the seasons would be out-of-sync by a full month and the calendar would have been useless for planting and harvesting. Therefore, it would have surely been discarded.

It would seem that he never bothered to find out that the oldest calendar ever discovered - from Sumer - has extra time built right into it to correct for the 5 day error he says "would have been catastrophic," as if ancient people were too stupid to figure anything out.

I really don't need to go any further about that source. But I will if you want.

Just not right now.

Harte

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesshill

Harte,

Perhaps, you mist my point.

In your first comment you said as follows:

  1. The article misrepresents a few things. Like using the term "quadratic equation" as if the Babylonians would even know what that was.
  2. Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians.
  3. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this.

I assume that when you use the term; misrepresents, you mean that there are no legitimate sources to back such a statement. Therefore, I provided you with the following link to a legitimate source (UCLA and the esteemed Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden). The title of the paper clearly sites "Solutions to Quadratic Equations in a Sumerian Juridical Document".  Then, you responded by saying "They had no such theory of mathematics". 

So, I assume what you are now saying is that Mr. Messick misrepresented and UCLA misrepresented and Chalmers University of Technology misrepresented.

As for your rude statement (Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this). I offer the following in rebuttal:

Babylonian astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Babylonian astronomy was the study or recording of celestial objects during early history Mesopotamia. These records can be found on Sumerian clay tablets, inscribed in cuneiform, dated approximately to 3500–3200 BC.

In conjunction with their mythology, the Sumerians developed a form of astronomy/astrology that had an influence on Babylonian culture.

 It clearly states that the clay tablets that the Babylonians were studying were found on Sumerian clay tablets from a period much earlier. The article also says that the Sumerians developed a form of "astronomy" that "had an influence on Babylonian culture"--not the other way around.

Finally, I would like to say this; Mr. Messick nor I or selling anything. Everything we are trying to do is absolutely free, above board and honest. At 80-years old and in rapidly declining health Mr. Messick is well beyond having any commercial interest. Furthermore, In the field of research, where you are dealing with events that occurred several thousands of years ago, scientific methods don't really apply. We have to settle for informed opinion which is precisely what Mr. Messick has offered--but he has been there. When you suggest he has intentionally misrepresented the facts and call him stupid you are no longer arguing a point. You are being both unprofessional and a bully.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Cox
4 minutes ago, jesshill said:

Harte,

Perhaps, you mist my point.

In your first comment you said as follows:

  1. The article misrepresents a few things. Like using the term "quadratic equation" as if the Babylonians would even know what that was.
  2. Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians.
  3. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this.

I assume that when you use the term; misrepresents, you mean that there are no legitimate sources to back such a statement. Therefore, I provided you with the following link to a legitimate source (UCLA and the esteemed Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden). The title of the paper clearly sites "Solutions to Quadratic Equations in a Sumerian Juridical Document".  Then, you responded by saying "They had no such theory of mathematics". 

So, I assume what you are now saying is that Mr. Messick misrepresented and UCLA misrepresented and Chalmers University of Technology misrepresented.

As for your rude statement (Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this). I offer the following in rebuttal:

Babylonian astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Babylonian astronomy was the study or recording of celestial objects during early history Mesopotamia. These records can be found on Sumerian clay tablets, inscribed in cuneiform, dated approximately to 3500–3200 BC.

In conjunction with their mythology, the Sumerians developed a form of astronomy/astrology that had an influence on Babylonian culture.

 It clearly states that the clay tablets that the Babylonians were studying were found on Sumerian clay tablets from a period much earlier. The article also says that the Sumerians developed a form of "astronomy" that "had an influence on Babylonian culture"--not the other way around.

Finally, I would like to say this; Mr. Messick nor I or selling anything. Everything we are trying to do is absolutely free, above board and honest. At 80-years old and in rapidly declining health Mr. Messick is well beyond having any commercial interest. Furthermore, In the field of research, where you are dealing with events that occurred several thousands of years ago, scientific methods don't really apply. We have to settle for informed opinion which is precisely what Mr. Messick has offered--but he has been there. When you suggest he has intentionally misrepresented the facts and call him stupid you are no longer arguing a point. You are being both unprofessional and a bully.

 

 

Hart are you a x-man? Can you mist people's points? Im sure they meant missed? 

 

@jesshill maybe Im missing something here? You have somewhat of a math GURU telling you the facts and not what you want to hear.

 

I believe a quadratic equation was first used in 2000bce but stand to be corrected. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 hours ago, Harte said:

Regarding developing "from scratch" the science of astronomy, that's just a stupid claim since they have the oldest written language anyone knows about. This means that we cannot possibly know how their astronomy was developed - could have been over centuries before they had writing. Obviously people were studying astronomy long before Sumer rose, judging by stone circles all over the place aligned with solstices and equinoxes.

The Shenk's Ferry Culture of Lancaster  County, P.A. had some seriously accurate astronomical alignments in their town centers. It had nothing to do with math. Just good long term observation. Possibly for decades.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, jesshill said:

Harte,

Perhaps, you mist my point.

In your first comment you said as follows:

  1. The article misrepresents a few things. Like using the term "quadratic equation" as if the Babylonians would even know what that was.
  2. Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians.
  3. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this.

I assume that when you use the term; misrepresents, you mean that there are no legitimate sources to back such a statement. Therefore, I provided you with the following link to a legitimate source (UCLA and the esteemed Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden). The title of the paper clearly sites "Solutions to Quadratic Equations in a Sumerian Juridical Document".  Then, you responded by saying "They had no such theory of mathematics". 

So, I assume what you are now saying is that Mr. Messick misrepresented and UCLA misrepresented and Chalmers University of Technology misrepresented.

As for your rude statement (Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this). I offer the following in rebuttal:

Babylonian astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Babylonian astronomy was the study or recording of celestial objects during early history Mesopotamia. These records can be found on Sumerian clay tablets, inscribed in cuneiform, dated approximately to 3500–3200 BC.

In conjunction with their mythology, the Sumerians developed a form of astronomy/astrology that had an influence on Babylonian culture.

 It clearly states that the clay tablets that the Babylonians were studying were found on Sumerian clay tablets from a period much earlier. The article also says that the Sumerians developed a form of "astronomy" that "had an influence on Babylonian culture"--not the other way around.

Finally, I would like to say this; Mr. Messick nor I or selling anything. Everything we are trying to do is absolutely free, above board and honest. At 80-years old and in rapidly declining health Mr. Messick is well beyond having any commercial interest. Furthermore, In the field of research, where you are dealing with events that occurred several thousands of years ago, scientific methods don't really apply. We have to settle for informed opinion which is precisely what Mr. Messick has offered--but he has been there. When you suggest he has intentionally misrepresented the facts and call him stupid you are no longer arguing a point. You are being both unprofessional and a bully.

 

 

So your an academic who resorts to Wikipedia for a source?

What collEge did you go to?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So your an academic who resorts to Wikipedia for a source?

What collEge did you go to?

 

One that doesn't have a subscription to a academic paper site apparently. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 minutes ago, Piney said:

One that doesn't have a subscription to a academic paper site apparently. 

Pretty sure I get mine through my old college.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Pretty sure I get mine through my old college.

I go up on my stepsister's computer to read them now. ( She's a former biology instructor) but I use to have them through the museum. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane

 

Perhaps there's been some kind of misunderstanding here ...

 

10 minutes ago, jesshill said:

The title of the paper clearly sites "Solutions to Quadratic Equations in a Sumerian Juridical Document".  Then, you responded by saying "They had no such theory of mathematics". 

 

Harte's full statement was: "They had no such theory of mathematics and solved their problems graphically."

This page discusses Babylonian mathematics and equations, but adds that:

 

Quote

Let us stress at once that we are using modern notation and nothing like a symbolic representation existed in Babylonian times. Nevertheless the Babylonians could handle numerical examples of such equations by using rules which indicate that they did have the concept of a typical problem of a given type and a typical method to solve it. 

 

So was Harte perhaps saying that the Babylonians could solve the relevant mathematical problems: but not in the same way that we would today ...?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
5 hours ago, jesshill said:

Harte,

Perhaps, you mist my point.

In your first comment you said as follows:

  1. The article misrepresents a few things. Like using the term "quadratic equation" as if the Babylonians would even know what that was.
  2. Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians.
  3. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this.

I assume that when you use the term; misrepresents, you mean that there are no legitimate sources to back such a statement. Therefore, I provided you with the following link to a legitimate source (UCLA and the esteemed Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden). The title of the paper clearly sites "Solutions to Quadratic Equations in a Sumerian Juridical Document".  Then, you responded by saying "They had no such theory of mathematics". 

So, I assume what you are now saying is that Mr. Messick misrepresented and UCLA misrepresented and Chalmers University of Technology misrepresented.

As for your rude statement (Much of what the article is talking about came from the Babylonians, not the Sumerians. You'd think an Ancient History major would know this). I offer the following in rebuttal:

Babylonian astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Babylonian astronomy was the study or recording of celestial objects during early history Mesopotamia. These records can be found on Sumerian clay tablets, inscribed in cuneiform, dated approximately to 3500–3200 BC.

In conjunction with their mythology, the Sumerians developed a form of astronomy/astrology that had an influence on Babylonian culture.

 It clearly states that the clay tablets that the Babylonians were studying were found on Sumerian clay tablets from a period much earlier. The article also says that the Sumerians developed a form of "astronomy" that "had an influence on Babylonian culture"--not the other way around.

Why, yes. Sumerian astrology had an influence on Babylonian astrology. Where have I indicated differently?

And your paper clearly states in its title that SOLUTIONS to what we would express as quadratic equations (but the Babylonians didn't express in quadratic equations) can be found in a Babylonian document (written in Sumerian, the religious and administrative language of Babylonia,) and therefore is in agreement with what I previously asserted.

Quote

Finally, I would like to say this; Mr. Messick nor I or selling anything. Everything we are trying to do is absolutely free, above board and honest. At 80-years old and in rapidly declining health Mr. Messick is well beyond having any commercial interest. Furthermore, In the field of research, where you are dealing with events that occurred several thousands of years ago, scientific methods don't really apply. We have to settle for informed opinion which is precisely what Mr. Messick has offered--but he has been there. When you suggest he has intentionally misrepresented the facts and call him stupid you are no longer arguing a point. You are being both unprofessional and a bully.

I have clearly stated the first few items misrepresented by Mr. Messick. I maintain that anyone that cared to actually know anything about ancient Mesopotamia wouldn't have made the statements Mr. Messick made.

It is indisputable that Mr. Messick has misrepresented the ancient past in that paper. Did I indicate he did this for money?

I believe I indicated that he did this out of either true ignorance of the facts I mentioned, or pretending ignorance of those same facts in order to be more sensationalistic in his writing.

It would seem that you wish me to go on vetting what Messick says in that paper. I haven't read it all, given that the opening paragraph is horribly wrong.

Maybe it gets better?

Harte

 

Edited by Harte
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
5 hours ago, Peter Cox said:

Hart are you a x-man? Can you mist people's points? Im sure they meant missed? 

 

@jesshill maybe Im missing something here? You have somewhat of a math GURU telling you the facts and not what you want to hear.

 

I believe a quadratic equation was first used in 2000bce but stand to be corrected. 

Actually, the solutions you're referring to here were again graphical (geometric) and did not involve equations.

Rene Descarte was the first to develop methods of solving actual quadratic equations, after the equals sign - which defines an equation (thus the name) - was invented by Recorde.

That is not to say that solutions weren't found by non-graphical methods. The quadratic formula was invented centuries before that in India, for example. But that's an algorithm, not an equation.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

 

Perhaps there's been some kind of misunderstanding here ...

 

 

Harte's full statement was: "They had no such theory of mathematics and solved their problems graphically."

This page discusses Babylonian mathematics and equations, but adds that:

 

 

So was Harte perhaps saying that the Babylonians could solve the relevant mathematical problems: but not in the same way that we would today ...?

 

That's pretty much it.

But throw out the quadratic equation claim. Note there are other misrepresentations.

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Cox
8 minutes ago, Harte said:

Actually, the solutions you're referring to here were again graphical (geometric) and did not involve equations.

Rene Descarte was the first to develop methods of solving actual quadratic equations, after the equals sign - which defines an equation (thus the name) - was invented by Recorde.

That is not to say that solutions weren't found by non-graphical methods. The quadratic formula was invented centuries before that in India, for example. But that's an algorithm, not an equation.

Harte

I 100% understand what you saying and 100% agree. The theory or should I say "formula" was not invented until much later.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

I have no input on the topic and hate being a grammar nazi, but when someone with a college major misspells "sync" as "sink", "missed" as "mist" and  "college" as "collage" - red flags pop up everywhere. Those aren't simple misspellings, those are mistakes a 5th grader would make.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Could be English is not his first language so I show a little forbearance in criticizing spelling.

My Brother-in-Law is one of the smartest people I know, and he can't spell very well either.

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 hours ago, moonman said:

I have no input on the topic and hate being a grammar nazi, but when someone with a college major misspells "sync" as "sink", "missed" as "mist" and  "college" as "collage" - red flags pop up everywhere. Those aren't simple misspellings, those are mistakes a 5th grader would make.

I agree, however my spelling and grammar are atrocious and I'm pretty well educated. However during college exam's you still need to be able to spell to a good standard, so I'm skeptical about the poster's claim of having the credentials to be able to hold their opinion with authority. Which generally means having a PhD.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
51 minutes ago, danydandan said:

exam's

*exams.

 

Sorry buddy, couldn't resist, given the topic at hand! :P

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Podo said:

*exams.

 

Sorry buddy, couldn't resist, given the topic at hand! :P

Told you.

 

Fecking auto-correct.

Edited by danydandan
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
10 hours ago, danydandan said:

So your an academic who resorts to Wikipedia for a source?

What collEge did you go to?

 

I’m an academic who uses Wikipedia. Not as a direct source, obviously, but I use the work cited/references of good articles as I research — earlier this week, I used the site to find publication data for a modern edition of the Annales Quedlinburgenses. 

Also, I just discovered my iPhone can autofill “Quedlinburgenses” which I think is pretty nifty. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • justin3651