HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Aaron Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 1 Dec 1998 13:21:17 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
I am currently conducting research employing a sample of probate documents
from Surry County, North Carolina which date to the 1770's and 1780's.  I
have been confused for some time now about the uses of the words "to" and
"by," which are commonly found preceding entries in these documents.  Many
of the examples of "to" appear in the context of accounts of sales of
estates, in which "to" seems to imply "toward" ("John Doe To a pot 0:1:0,"
for example), or in appraised inventories of estates ("to six sheep
3:0:0").  In other cases, however, entries in inventories are prefixed with
"to," with no values given (such as "to sheep, to pots, to spoons," etc.).
This practice does not appear to be consistent within inventories:  Within
a given inventory, some entries may be prefixed with "to" and others may
not.  An example of this that I have in front of me right now contains an
entry "To 1 Cow  & Calf & Yearling 4:15:0," followed on the next line by "1
Cow and Calf 3:10:0".  Similarly, but less frequently, "by" is used in a
similar manner. So far, I have not encountered any sources explaining these
usages, and any pointers in the right direction would be greatly
appreciated.
 
Thanks,
Aaron Russell

ATOM RSS1 RSS2