17th century year

[pkincaid]

I am abstracting a 1682 Scottish testament dative and inventor and the following year is given for the person's death.  I would like other opinions as the year looks more like 1619.  However, this estate is before the commissary court in 1682.  Thoughts are appreciated.

[Wiggy]

Hello,

A bit bigger snip with some extra writing would be good so people can get a feeling for the way the letters and numbers are formed - Please could we have that?

Wiggy   

[pkincaid]

Will snip some more area later.  For now, below are the other dates in the document (clearly 1681 and 1682).

[pkincaid]

As requested Wiggy, below is a wider area.  It reads

deceast Robert
[th]e tyme of his
[th]e mone[th] of 16??
givine up be

[Wiggy]

Don't know - guessing 1679.      Just wondering if the crossing of the apparent 1 is in fact the old style of writing 7 with a cross through it.  Except they've missed the top of the 7.  Well . . .  just a guess. 

Thanks for extra - it helps a bit.   

Wiggy   

[pkincaid]

Wiggy: Not sure about a 7 being crossed.  However, I do know the eights could be pretty odd looking in the 1600s in Scotland.  For examples see:

http://www.scottishhandwriting.com/cmNul.asp

I think it could be 1681 - considering the 1 has a real end of line flourish.  However, I sure appreciate more opinions, as the year of death is important to me.  A circa 1619 year of death is very different than a 1681 one!

[horselydown86]

Hi PK,

I'm not sure that the context is correct - that the transcript leading up to the "year" it is quite right.  What makes me suspicious is that the of in the line above is clearly of, but the transcribed of in the line of interest is so different.  Absent accurate context, is it even a year?

I don't want to say more than that based on this fragment;  and I'm no expert on the peculiarities of Scottish documents.

[pkincaid]

horselydown86: I've looked at dozens of similar documents and can attest that this part of the document (the time of death) varies widely.  You tend to get a month and year but the date is many times missing as is the month.

Your comment touches on something I just noticed as well.  What is written immediately before the 16 is almost identical the what is immediately after.  The next word is yeares - which is typical in these testament datives.  However, I now suspect what is going on here is the person's age (in this case 16) is simply being given as his time of death was forgotten.

It is so great to get other eyes on things when one is stumped.

[pkincaid]

For context, the following gives a transcription of a similar document for the same period.

http://thorewing.net/ewing/testaments/1675-john.html

What I am rendering is what is typically seen in the 3rd line.