Something to think about: If the father who died in 1690 was 70 years old at death and his first son was born in 1640 this could be (1) b. 1920 died 1690 (2) son born 1640 (3) grandson b. 1660 (4) ggrandson b. 1680 (5) gggrandson b. 1700 (6) ggggrandson b. 1720. This, of course assumes each is the first son of the first son. A generation is generally considered to be 20 years. Men in the early years often produced children from about age 20 - 60. Do you know when the father, died 1690, was born? At what age did he die? Or do you know of other children by this father that would help establish an age range? I have one ancestor who's first child was born in 1810 and his last child was born in 1853; 21 years after his first grandchild b. 1821. The ancestor was 77 at this death. Good Ciphering, Gava

JOHN was b. 1604.. died 1690.. The next generation that some has being the son of JOHN is BENJAMIN who was born 1720.. I think the real father of Benjamin had to have been born between 1633 and 1690... Right or wrong? Thoughts, comments, suggestions? Lanita