From: Kathlynn3@aol.com [mailto:Kathlynn3@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:13 AM To: jim@williamson-clan.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Re:Jamestown Massacre: What year did it occur? Hi Jim, thanks for your input....this is so complicated it's beginning to get funny. I thought I had this all figured out perfectly, now I'm not sure! I'm having a little trouble with your statement "However, if the massacre were March 22nd, 1622 on the Julian calendar, then the year 1623 started a mere 3 days later. My problem is due to the fact that the document has the massacre occurred March 22, 1621 [per Julian] = March 22, 1622 [per Gregorian]. Tell me how I am mis-reading this? Isn't it funny how we each use a different mathematical formula........mine seems to be more complicated. Now isn't that the usual for female way versus male way???? LOL! Here is the explanation that I have put in their notes section: [Jim maximize email screen and hopefully it will put it back in proper format...I don't know why it tends to shuffle out of format when the screen is smaller?] Facts to Remember when discerning Samuel's death date and his Daughter Sarah's born date: 1. The Old Julian Calendar dates were used during this time frame when the year began on March 25 and continued to March 25 of the following year......until the current January to January began in 1752 when the Gregorian Calendar was adopted. 2. Volume year dates such as March 5, 1623/24 offer both the Old Julian year date and the New Gregorian year date. 3. A child born anytime during January 1621 up to March 25, 1622 would be only be a few months older than a child born on or after March 25, 1622 [not a year + months}. Another example: A child born March 24, 1621 would be only 1 day older than one born 25 March 1622. 4. March 22, 1621 or March 22, 1621/22 is the correct date that the massacre occured and the date that should be used for the ones that were killed in the massacre in order to make other documents fit....example father Samuel Maycock's death date and daughter Sarah at age 2 on 1624/25 muster = Samuel died March 22, 1621 aka March 22, 1621/22 [three days later, on March 25, the new 1622 Julian year began aka 1622/23] = Sarah born 1622/23. Or another correct way to enter the born date, for genealogy programs like my FTM program that will not allow the entry of only the year double dates: Sarah born Aft. March 25, 1622/23 OR bet. March 25, 1622 - March 24, 1623. And that fits with the 1624/25 Muster document showing Sarah at age 2. However, you DO derive with the same born date for Sarah when only the Massacre date March 22, 1622 is used when trying to discern Sarah's born date which is the current Gregorian calendar date that is found on most web sites and published books = 1624/25 muster date minus her age 2 = born 1622/23. But to reiterate: Unless you keep the fact in mind that there is only three days [not a year] between March 22, 1621 and March 25, 1622 it does make one instantly think that Sarah can not possible be the daughter of Samuel when you see a claim that has Sarah was born 1622/23 and her father Samuel died March 22, 1621. Whew! These complicated facts could blow a persons mind....hope I have said it all correctly. Jim, tell me if and how I am wrong? OR are we saying the same thing in a different way? ~Kathlynn~ *********************************** I think we are saying the same things. I think I just got mixed up swapping calendars back and forth. Let's see if I can explain my reasoning differently. The 'Order to keep March 22nd Holy' is dated March 4th 1622/23. That date would be March 4th 1622 on the Julian Calendar, and March 4th 1623 on the Gregorian calendar. They refer to the previous year. That previous year would have been 1621 Julian, 1622 Gregorian. So, either date would be correct, as long as we keep the right calendar in mind at all times. So, if we stick to the Julian calendar, and start with the January 29th 1624/25 muster and work backwards, using strictly Julian calendar, I will not be inserting the /year January 29th 1624 - Muster taken - Sarah has passed her second birthday but not yet attained her third Therefore, January 29th, 1623 Sarah is past her first birthday but not yet attained her second. March 4th, 1622 - 'Order' written January 29th, 1622 - Sarah has not reached her 1st birthday, but would have been born. March 22nd, 1621 - Massacre took place It is possible then, for her to have been born prior to the massacre on March 22nd, 1621, but no earlier than January 30th, 1621 Again, all dates there are Julian, to keep me from becoming befuddled again. I don't know what I thought I was seeing before, but this is as simple as I can make it now.. And I think my headache is starting to ease up some.