Julian calendar to modern day dating
UK, England, Lancashire—Nonconformist Church Records, 1647–1996 [Part B][MSGD-8C1]
This is in the 1750s and so the Julian calendar is in effect. The instructions say to use the online calculator, but then it says "This would mean that the 3rd month in 1730 would be May. In the Gregorian calendar adopted in 1752, the 3rd month would be March. When indexing records for this project, please convert the Julian calendar dates to their Gregorian calendar equivalents." I am confused because the calculator does not give the modern month.
An example: Julian date: 2 / 22 =April 22 ---------Gregorian date: May 3 (using calculator)
However if you give it the modern dating it would be Feb 22.
So which do I use? Jane
Answers
-
I've indexed quite a few of these records and as far as I can remember, I have only seen very few with numbers for the month. These seem to be dating from the 1600's - and then often only for the latter part of the year. Where the month name is recorded, that's what I have indexed - (Type what you see), and only where there is just a number would I convert it to the respective month name.
I think it has become confusing due to the Julian year starting at the end of March, rather than Ist Jan, meaning that, for example, the '6th mo.' would be September, not the June that we would think of today.
Often, the person making the record would slip an odd month name in here or there, and this can be very helpful in understanding what was meant.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Barry
0 -
Thank you for reply, I appreciate it. It's been interesting meeting up with such old records especially those before 1752. I was aware of March being the first month; it was the instructions to recalculate the date to the Gregorian calendar that confused me. They want me to convert the date to the Gregorian calendar and seem to want me to use the modern month (2 = Feb not April) yet the calculator doesn't do it that way.
I'm confused and I fear that I've not explained my situation well. Jane
0 -
I believe it would be best if indexers refused to participate in this project. It appears to break not only accepted conventions connected with genealogy, but conflicts with the usual FamilySearch indexing "rule" of only recording what you see.
In particular, the instruction to use this calendar to recalculate dates must be withdrawn immediately.
1 -
0
-
Mary Ellen,
Your note didn't come through. Could you try again?
0 -
Paul,
Thanks for your reply. I have to say that I'm at a loss as to why they are giving these instructions as it does away with the integrity of the dates. I still haven't sent the finished product as I'm not sure they are done correctly. I appreciate your input into this matter.
Jane
0 -
Hello,
I have to say I agree with the discontent on this! Why on earth would we be asked to change the dates on historical documents, thus trying to change history itself? The basic principle of indexing is "type what you see"; we aren't allowed to correct obvious mistakes, calculate dates from other information, assume gender from names or even, in many cases, attribute a parent's surname to a child, so why are we expected to put in false dates? It's true that in many parts of the world April 22nd 1750 would actually have been May 3rd - but it wasn't in England so to say that it was is wrong and misleading. Similarly, when months are referred to by number rather than name, we have to take into account the fact that the year started in 25th March, not 1st January, or the information we are putting is wrong. That is not "making assumptions" but using known facts. Millions of records have already been indexed and published using the standard (correct) format, so why change now to just mess everything up and create confusion? In fact, it isn't unknown for sets of records to be indexed more than once - or from different sources (such as Bishop's transcripts) - so it runs the risk of having different dates recorded on different versions of the same record.
Please don't make us do this!
Hilary.
1 -
Hi @Jane Adams_5 , My earlier comment was blank because there is no way to delete a comment once you start to post. My intent was to inject a note of positivity beyond the negative comments made by others. Since I don't know enough about this project to help, I am tagging @Melissa S Himes to take a look. I have found Melissa to be extremely helpful and knowledgeable on many projects -she will know where and how to get the answers you are seeking. Meanwhile, best wishes & thank you for tackling these difficult records. 😎
1 -
Thanks to all of you who have been kind enough to answer. The batch is due April 6th so I guess I'll do as the instructions say and change dates, but I'm not keen on it. Jane
0 -
Unfortunately, as @DHilary2 rightly points out, complying with these instructions will probably lead to different sets of indexed records for these events appearing with different dates. What a shame there are no means of communication with the project leader, so the folly of these instructions could be made clear. I admit I am not an indexer, but would have to return the batch unfinished if I were, as (without changes) this project will inevitably cause so much confusion to researchers when the records eventually appear online.
1 -
Thanks for the tag and the compliment, @maryellenstevensbarnes1 Sorry for the delay, I am not participating as much in the community as I once did.
Personally, I think they mean that you need to change the month and then use the date calculator to cover the 11 day difference. But, since it doesn't matter "a hill of beans" (as my granddaddy would say), because we can't search on month and day anyway, use your best judgment! The researcher will find the name on a search and come to their own determination whether the great, great, great, great ancestor was born in March or May.
1 -
This is a very interestring discussion. I agree that Melissa is always helpful and knowledgeable, but I have to disagree with her in this instance.
It does matter "a hill of beans" (lovely expression) what we put as, although we can't search on day or month, once we have found a likely candidate for our ancestor, other information on the index really matters. The index is surely there to help the researcher to locate the right person for his or her family tree and send them to the original document for verification/further info. If an index has incorrect information it can throw the researcher off the scent completely and it's not always easy to access the original documents so what is on the index is often taken as fact. In the 1600,1700, 1800s families were fairly static in England and tended to stay in the same locality. Family names were passed on from father to son to grandson etc (there were only a few common names, anyway) so it was not unusual for there to be several people with the same first and surname and even a father with the same name (though not the same person). To be able to distinguish which one of these was actually your direct ancestor you have to rely on any other information that is there. You may have found a date of birth/marriage/death from a gravestone, family bible or old aunty Gerty's diary so to find a person with a different date would lead you to dismiss that person as not the right one. I doubt any researcher would say, "O, I see what they have done; they have converted the date from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian calendar to the date he would have been born had he lived in France (or somewhere). How very helpful!"
If we are really being asked to make changes like this, I fear I shall not be doing much more indexing/reviewing as I think it is absolutely wrong and goes against all the principles of creating an index.
Hilary.
1 -
Hi @DHilary2 - Correct me if I'm wrong,--I think the purpose of indexing and reviewing is to transfer old paper and microfiche records to 21st century, ie computer/internet, for the purpose of making these old records available to any amateur or professional researcher interested in creating an accurate personal family history.
I am learning much from you and from Melissa and from @Jane Adams_5 and from @Paul W - so I hope neither of you will leave --- we count on you for your knowledge and willingness to share and I am tagging @annewandering to see if she can direct this entire thread from its beginning to those who write the Project Instructions because each of you is/are absolutely correct. It seems to me a real shame when some people cannot or do not learn from each other in our courageous endeavor to preserve an accurate history for our children and for generations to come. Mary
0 -
Hi, @BarryJohnson, This is not the only project with confusing and conflicting instructions so I hope you all as moderators can direct the excellent information given by @DHilary2 and others to those who write Project Instructions. Thank you. Mary
1 -
I like the idea of sending this string to someone in charge so they can see what is confusing to us. Perhaps they could reword the instructions or even change them so they are clearer to us.
Thanks to all who answered my first post -- much appreciated!
Jane
1 -
Hi @maryellenstevensbarnes1 The paper records have already been digitised. The purpose of indexing is to make them searchable. Think of them like a library catalogue which helps you to find a specific book, or maybe the Google search engine which lets you search for individual items. Without an index you would have to plough through masses and masses of documents to find what you were looking for. Reviewers are needed because we are all just human and make mistakes and some people are just learning and don't have quite the same skills as others. My problem with the instructions we have been given is that they are asking us to alter the information in the records, not just record what is there. If the dates are altered, that is not indexing it's interfering with the original information and hindering research. I don't think I can do that!
Hilary
2 -
This went to the project managers a long time ago (Jan or Feb) and that is when they added the calculator and instruction. It made no sense then and it still doesn't. But, it is always up to the researcher to determine if this is "the right person or not" - our task is to help them find the records via a name search, and possibly a year if they want to try to narrow things down. Frankly, I would have people indexing the year and forget about the month and days in this type of situation - or type what you see and not make any calculations which has always been the case until this fiasco started.
*I went back and searched this group - the project instruction change was made on January 22. The questions about this issue started in December.
3 -
Yeah, I won't be using a calculator to "correct" any dates. Leave it as written. If it matters, and for most purposes it doe not matter, then let the researcher can make whatever final correction is needed.
0 -
See the Research Wiki page on this, and its talk page:
https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Julian_and_Gregorian_Calendars
0
