OK: that makes sense now: thanx
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barbara Hickman"
Subject: Re: calendars part 2

 The 1st of January had been the informal New Year's Day for a long time, 
bur 25 March was the legal start of the year.

Barbara J Hickman, Staff Archeologist
Archeological Studies Program
Environmental Affairs Division
Texas Department of Transportation
125 East 11th Street
Austin TX 78701
Telephone: 512.416.2637
Fax: 512.416.2643




>>> Smoke <[log in to unmask]> 06 June, 2007 8:47 AM >>>
The ways various Societies date their volumes over the years is many
and varied.  Here are two MORE reasons for double dates.  Sometimes
the double date is used to volumes that only come out every two years.
 Another method uses the year for which the paper or articles were
written and presented to the Society at their meetings with the second
date being the year in which the volume was actually published.  There
are probably even more reasons than this.

Smoke

On 6/6/07, geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> pursuant to the last query: Stukeley has a strange reference to "In Feb. 
> 1727-28" in a letter published in Vol. 35 of the "Philosophical 
> Transactions of the Royal Society" - I wasn't sure if this represented 
> vagueness on his part about the date "they" did some plowing, or (the idea 
> I just had) that maybe the year began sometime in the middle of February 
> back in the 1720s...?
> then i realised that Vol. 35 is dated "1727-1728," but published sometime 
> after (i assume), so...
> curioser & curioser...
> anyone have any clever explanations?


-- 
Smoke Pfeiffer

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson
(Carved at the base of the dome, interior of the Jefferson Memorial,
Washington, D.C.)