Maynard, at that time they were still going by the "old" calendar, when the new year didn't start until late March (somebody can give us a better exact date). Thus, under this old system, January, February, and most of March were still in the old, previous year. Thus January 1739 by our new calendar would have been January 1738 under the old system. The "correct" way to record these dates (in my opinion) is to put both years down. January 1738/39 would mean January 1738 (old system)/39 (new system). This tells anyone who reads this that, in fact, the old/new system of dates was considered when it was written. Lou -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 5:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Lost year? Anybody want to field this one? I am transcribing PG Minute Book 1737-1740. It is a well done document from an otherwise competent seeming clerk. All of the pages\ are numbered sequentially for the entire book. The Poythress crowd seemed to live in the court house as they have two or three entries per month. The documents BEGIN in Jan, 1738 (ignoring 1737). That can be accepted perhaps as simply an error in the "title" of the book. The clerk procedes with dates and page numbers referring to them from the start as 1738 and going month by month. Then, when it comes time for January, 1739 the clerk dutifully starts dating everything as of January 1738 all over again. Barbara Neal, you have seemed well informed on the calendar adjustments needed from time to time. We didn't have to repeat a year did we? And if not, would you (or anyone) suggest a rationale for the clerks dating? Failing to figure this one out, I'd plan to just date all the 1739 ones as "1739 (sic, '38?) if left to my own devices. However if there is a protocol would someone share it with me. Thanks, Maynard ==== POYTHRESS Mailing List ==== The Poythress Web Page is at http://www1.minn.net/~atims/