It is not known when the child Sarah Maycock was born - that is part of the problem. We just have her approximate age in January 1624/25 - 2 years - which technically can be 24 months to less than 36 months assuming her age was given correctly in the first place. I am not aware of any document that gives her age at the time of the massacre and we don't know if she was born before or after the massacre. But with the age parameters above, she could have been born in the two months prior to the massacre (less than 3 years old) and within 9 months after the massacre (when Samuel Maycock died) and still be Samuel Maycock's child and also 2 years old in January 1624/25. This would place her birth in the year 1622 not 1623. I hope this helps. Rebecca ReidingerZ@aol.com wrote: I totally forgot about the calendar change. Probably because it is so confusing, and I'd rather not think about it. But I am still confused. What I have been reading on the list is that young Sarah was born in 1623 and her father, Sam, was killed in the Indian raid of 1622. Regardless of which calendar one is using, it seems to me that this indicates that Sarah was born after the Indian raid. But my account says that she was 4 months old on the day of the massacre. I am remain sooooo confused. S Reidinger _olems@bellsouth.net_ (mailto:olems@bellsouth.net) writes: I don't know the exact date the Indian massacre occurred, but don't forget to factor in the calendar change. Until Sep 1752, Britain used the Julian Calendar (i.e. Old Style) and the year changed on March 25, not Jan 1. Thus a child born 24 March 1622 would be but one day older than one born 25 March 1623. M.A. Causey ==== PACE Mailing List ==== If you haven't done so within the last six months, please post a message describing your Earliest Pace Ancestor and how you descend from them. Please include dates, places, spouses, etc, if possible. Send the message to PACE-L@rootsweb.com