RootsChat.Com
Family History Documents and Artefacts => Graveyards and Gravestones => Topic started by: SiGr on Friday 24 May 19 18:44 BST (UK)
-
Hi, Attached is an inscription from a grave in Cheshire. The first word is clearly 'August' and the year is '1799'. But I am uncertain on the day. I know the person was buried on the 12th. So, the day of death is likely the 8th or 9th. But the '9' in '1799' looks entirely different. Is this an '8' written as it often was in Registers - almost on its side like an infinity symbol ? Or is it '2nd' - meaning over a week between death and burial ? Or another day ? And what is the superscript ? It does not look like 'th'. Any thoughts/comments welcome.
-
2?
-
8 :-\
-
My initial reaction is 2.
-
9
-
I don't think it is at all like the other 9s though.
-
August 2d : 1799
-
My reaction was also a 2, but the carving/handwriting/font is diffrent IMHO... Could it maybe have been added at a different time?
Good luck!
(I am super new to all this it is just me adding my two cents, sorry if it is unhelpful)
-
Thank you for all the comments so far - they are much appreciated.
The thing that bothers me most about the '2nd' is the time gap between that and the burial on the 12th. It seems very long given the year 1799 and the need to inter before decomposition.
Again, all comments welcome !
-
There is a : with a d above it as far as I can see....
-
I can't determine what is above the : but definitely not 'th'.
Jessie -- I'm just showing my ignorance here --- what is IMHO please?
As regards the delay between death and burial -- have you looked at the others in the register for that church maybe. Is it way out of the norm? Especially the ones around that date - which may signify some local problem at that time.
-
IMHO means 'in my humble opinion'
Regards.
-
The date wasn't necessarily accurate. For some reason, according to the gravestone, my 2nd great grandfather was buried two days before he died. (Actually died 5th, buried 8th, stone says 10th).
If this happened in the winter time one might wonder if the ground was too frozen to dig, but in the middle of August?
I wonder if it took a while for him to be found, for example if he was at home alone and someone popped around to see why Bob hadn't been seen for a few days. Unfortunately that kind of thing would simply be a matter of speculation.
-
Jessie -- I'm just showing my ignorance here --- what is IMHO please?
Hi Pennines, SiGr is 100% correct, IMHO is 'in my humble opinion'. So sorry for not being as clear as I could have been :)
IMHO means 'in my humble opinion'
-
Thank you for clarifying -- I've never heard that one before.
Every day is a school day!
-
Like Gadget I thought the number was an 8, formed like an S without the gaps, or an odd example of one. :)
The superscript could be a th. The gap is too wide on the up/down strokes for it to be a ‘d’ I think. :-\
The downstroke of the small t may have been curved, similar to the formation of a C, and then crossed. The stone is quite worn but I think it possible that there is a small h with bits missing. :)
I will try to find some examples to illustrate what I am attempting to explain.
-
I read it as -
2d immediately I saw it.
Regards
Chas
-
Are there examples of other 2s, 8s or small ds anywhere else on the stone?
Added: I am reconsidering, and may be erring towards the number being a 9. It is formed the same way as the other 9s, with the addition of the downstroke curving towards the right which the other 9s don’t have. However, if you look closely, the 9s in 1799 may curve in a similar way except the carving may have been shallower and has worn, but zooming in I think I can make out those bottom curves. Why the “9” in the 9th has been so deeply carved and is so much ‘curvier’, I have no idea ... maybe a slip of the chisel? :)
Or maybe I am imagining things. ;D
-
I think it's either an 8 or 9. I wouldn't think it is the way a 2 would be written in those days - certainly it looks like a scribbled one, which would not fit with the date numerals. Also, the superscript is not very clear - it could be part of an h.
Gadget
-
I think it's either an 8 or 9. I wouldn't think it is the way a 2 would be written in those days - certainly it looks like a scribbled one, which would not fit with the date numerals. Also, the superscript is not very clear - it could be part of an h.
Gadget
I agree with that. :)
The more I look at the numbers the more clearly I see the tail of the 9s in 1799. They are identical in form to the 9th (apart from that 'extra bit') ..
If you look at the letters of the word August, you can't see a 'g' or a 't' but we know they are there - I think the same is the case with the numbers. :)
-
I noticed that the mason's style on a few graves in this graveyard is to write the names of places and months, and biblical quotes, in very stylised script, but people's names, years and relationships in gothic block capitals. The month is stylised, as we'd expected, but this number is extremely stylised. I'd go with '9', looping up at the base, but truly it could be a crazy '8' as well!
Thanks for your thorough approach, Simon!
ps - the superscript is really annoying me now! lol