> From: Adrian Bruce > Sent: 05 May 2012 17:20 Yes. > ... And if so, why? The explanation on Wikipedia is a good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar#New_Year.27s_Day When Julius Caesar introduced the Julian calendar, the year started on 1 January (the calends of January), and calendar years continued to do this, with leap days every fourth February. In England, 1 January was known as New Year's Day from at least the Middle Ages. OED gives a quote from 1393: 'The frosti colde Janever, Whan comen is the newe yeer'. Other forms of year started on other days, including the civil or legal year which started on 25 March, and formed the basis for most of the dates written in years AD. 25 March was the celebration of the Incarnation of Christ - a point from which it is quite logical to count years Anno Domini. Double dating of the form you mention was used to avoid ambiguity; I've seen it quite widely used in documents from the late 16th century onwards. Best wishes Andrew -- Andrew Millard - [email protected] Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

<<snipped>> In England, 1 January was known as New Year's Day from at least the Middle Ages. OED gives a quote from 1393: 'The frosti colde Janever, Whan comen is the newe yeer'. Other forms of year started on other days, including the civil or legal year which started on 25 March, and formed the basis for most of the dates written in years AD. ... Double dating of the form you mention was used to avoid ambiguity; I've seen it quite widely used in documents from the late 16th century onwards. <<snipped>> Andrew, Thanks for this. I'd actually seen that Wikipedia reference but was looking for Leap Year references so skimmed over it, missing the significance of when the new year could be said to start. I suspect the thing I really hadn't twigged was that double dating isn't a modern invention to translate their dates to ours, but something used back then, implying more than one year number system then. What's interesting is that it tends to split the year number away from the calendar in a sense - indeed, "Other forms of year started on other days" suggests that different people would have different year numbers. Which makes using regnal years (e.g. 5th year of the reign of King ...) rather less perverse than my tidy mind imagined. If you have several (well, two) year number systems, what's one more? And the ordinary peasant in the street becomes more disconnected from the year number, suggesting that the inability of people to know their exact ages is not only forgetfulness but also a disconnect from the year numbers that would tell them. Fascinating stuff, Adrian B