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 ==== PACE Mailing List ==== Check out the Pace GenConnect Boards where you can post or peruse Pace Bibles, Obits, Bios, Deeds, Wills, Queries, etc. Bookmark this URL: http://boards.ancestry.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com