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