Re: Postscript - The Year


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Previous # Next ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]

Posted by Robert Hill on June 30, 2007 at 23:21:05 from 195.92.168.164 user eclrh.

In Reply to: Re: Postscript - The Year posted by B Henry on June 29, 2007 at 03:24:48:

However what strikes one as interesting is the actual year indicated - 'Kanchenjunga was climbed in 1930'. It seemed to be the case that many people took 1931 as the SD year with SA requiring a bump from 1929 to 1930. [snip]
So is the postscript contrary to what is generally held?

It is usual to believe the chronology S&A=1930, SD=1931. I think the reason for this is that there are two references implying SD=1931 (one on the top of Kanchenjunga, one in the footnote about Mixed Moss) compared with only one reference implying S&A=1929 (namely in the treaty).

There are of course numerous references in SD and later books implying that SD is set the year after S&A, so we must reject at least one of the textual dates.



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
Eel-Mail:

Existing subject (please edit appropriately) :

or is it time to start a New Thread?

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

post direct to TarBoard test post first

Before posting it is necessary to be a registered user.


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TarBoard ]

Courtesy of Environmental Science, Lancaster

space