The 1602/03 is the old-style/new-style date indicator. It implies the julian year 1603.
1603 is the gregorian year 1603.
Due to days lost in the calendar change, the gregorian year 1603 is ten days earlier than the julian year 1603, and hence the "death before birth" warning.
PGV is (pedantically) giving you exactly what you asked for!
If you mean the julian year 1603, then enter "@#DJULIAN@ 1603", and the warning will disappear.
In any case, the 1602/03 notation is fairly meaningless without a day/month.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
OK, I understand. The raw data I have suggests that the birth was early in the Julian year (Jan/Feb) but is unsure when. The death was definitely later that year, so 1603 by both accounts. I guess sit is understandable to say that a bare year means start-of-year and 1602 would be March. Harumph.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The 1602/03 is the old-style/new-style date indicator. It implies the julian year 1603.
1603 is the gregorian year 1603.
Due to days lost in the calendar change, the gregorian year 1603 is ten days earlier than the julian year 1603, and hence the "death before birth" warning.
PGV is (pedantically) giving you exactly what you asked for!
If you mean the julian year 1603, then enter "@#DJULIAN@ 1603", and the warning will disappear.
In any case, the 1602/03 notation is fairly meaningless without a day/month.
OK, I understand. The raw data I have suggests that the birth was early in the Julian year (Jan/Feb) but is unsure when. The death was definitely later that year, so 1603 by both accounts. I guess sit is understandable to say that a bare year means start-of-year and 1602 would be March. Harumph.
I suggest you simply add the calendar indicator to the death date. After all, this was presumably a julian date.