The massacre was March 1621/2 [per Virginia People, 1607- English-America: The Voyages, Vessels, People and places website: _http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html _ (http://english-america.com/places/va607001.html ) 1621 is the old Julian Calendar year and the year used during the time frame we are talking about. Therefore, wouldn't 1621 be the actual date Samuel was killed? And make it evident that Samuel's wife must have been pregnant with Sarah who was then born within a few months after her father was killed, or after March 25, but in the year 1622, because the Julian months were from March to March instead of Jan to Jan. Sarah at age 2 in Jan 1624 [Julian year] = b: 1622...all fit better...right? I think the problem occur when one transcription of a document states a Julian year, and another document that is being used for discernment to make things fit, uses Gregorian year???? But that brings up another unsolved mystery.....where was Mrs Samuel Woodlief? Has anyone found her on any of the musters? I have not. ~Kathlynn~ ************************************************************************* In a message dated 6/14/2006 1:30:36 PM Central Standard Time, gnlgy458@yahoo.co.uk writes: It was March 22 1622/3. Sarah's age is stated as 2 in the muster of 24 Jan 1624/5. "Two" could mean anything from 24 months to 35 months, so let's call it "at least 2 but not yet 3". So she was born (if the age on the muster is accurate) between 25 Jan 1621/2 and 24 Jan 1622/3. She would turn 16 (legal age to marry) between 25 Jan 1637/38 and 24 Jan 1638/39. Richard Pace, her putative first-born son, comes of age at some time between 25 Feb 1658/9 (when he is only "heir apparent") and 11 Feb 1659/60, when he sells land in his own right. So -- Richard must have been born between the 26th of Feb 1637/38 and the 11th of Feb 1638/39. And Sarah could have been giving birth as early as Nov 1637/38. Seems to work. Have I made any arithmetic mistakes? Ellen MAC <olems@bellsouth.net> wrote: 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