Att: Roy, I also noticed you have the massacre date as Mar 22,1622 on the web site. There was also many post made to the list in June and July in reference to the factual date of the massacre....which all started because a list member posted a message stating Samuel Maycock could not possible be the father of Sarah because he died a year or more before she was born [something like that]. Plus I have personally seen where some earlier researchers claim the massacre occurred in 1621 and others claim 1622. The following is the proof and comments that should put a stop to that controversial issue. I am hopeful you will consider changing the date on the site in order to prevent this same problem from continuing in the future. Its getting late so I am copying/pasting exactly what I have from my genealogy program notes section, some may be redundant but I am too spent to edit. Feel free to edit and eliminate or change whatever you deem necessary. Documents for proof of claims: 1. FACT: March 22, 1621 IS THE CORRECT DATE OF THE JAMESTOWN INDIAN MASSACRE...[not March 22, 1622, per some researchers claims that are currently in circulation. This date is based on the Old Julian Calendar that was used during this time frame. NOTE: The following Order was written March 4, 1622...however it states Massacre occurred 22 day of March last = 1621. From The Library of Congress web site: _http://memory.loc.gov/ cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj8&fileName=mtj8pagevc04.db&recNum=57_ (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj8&fileName=mtj8pagevc04.db&recNum=57) The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 8. Virginia Records Manuscripts. 1606-1737. Susan Myra Kingsbury, editor: Records of the Virginia Company, 1606-26, Volume IV: Miscellaneous Records, Image 58 - page 40 CCXCII. Governor in Virginia. Order to Keep the 22d. of March Holy. March 4, 1622/3 Manuscript Records Virginia Company, III, pt. ii, p. 51a Document in Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. List of Records No. 417 By the Governor and Capt generall of Virginia In consideration of Gods most mercifull delivrance of so many in this Countrie of Virginia from the treachery of the Indians on the 22th day of March last: The Governor wth the advice of the Counsell of State hath thought it very fitt, that the 22th day of March both this prsent yeare and for ever herafter (in memory of that great prservation) be in this Countrie celebrated Holy: And therefore doth straightly charg and Comand, Capt Willm Tuckar, that he, and all other that are any way undr his charge, do keep that day holy, spending the same in prayer thanksgiveing to God, and other holy exercises; not suffering any of them to worke, as he will answer the contrary at his perill. Given at James Cittie the 4th day of March 1622. The like (mutatis mutandis) to the Comander of each Plantation. Francis Wyatt Kathlynn comments: The following facts have to be kept in mind in order to prevent one from instantly thinking that Sarah Maycock born 1622/23 [based on the fact she is found at age 2 on January 29,1624/25 VA Musters] can not possibly be the daughter of Samuel Maycock who was killed March 22, 1621/22 in the Indian Massacre. Factually, these dates are correct, but they don't make sense unless one realizes: [a] The Indian Massacre occurred March 22, 1621 aka March 22, 1621/22. Most web sites and published books claim the Massacre date as March 22, 1622 [per Gregorian calendar]. This is incorrect and what causes difficulty when trying to make other document dates fit. In reference to Sarah muster dates information and father Samuel's massacre death date, regardless of which date is used they all fit perfectly, i.e., IF you use Julian dates consistantly [or Gregorian dates consistantly]. [b] 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. In 1752 the current Gregorian Calendar was adopted and a year was changed from January to January. [c] Volume year dates such as March 5, 1623/24 offer both the Old Julian year date and the New Gregorian year date and the volume dates are used only for the months of January 1 to March 25. [d] It is interesting to note this fact: There was only three days [not a year] between the above dates March 22, 1621/22 and March 25, 1622/23. Therefore, 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 or more older}. Likewise, a child born March 24, 1621 would be only 1 day older than one born 25 March 1622. [e] Sarah's mother, Mrs Samuel Maycock, was either pregnant with Sarah at the time Samuel was killed, and Sarah was born just a few months later. Or if the mother was killed in the massacre then Sarah would have been just a tiny infant. [f] You can NOT make dates fit if you use a Julian date from one document and a Gregorian date from another. Conclusion: Using both Julian/Gregorian calendar dates: Samuel killed March 22, 1621/22. Sarah was age 2 on January 29, 1624/25 muster = born 1622/23. Which appears Sarah was age 2, but not yet 3 when the muster was taken. Have I said that right? 6/18/2006 Jim > _jim@williamson-clan.com_ (mailto:jim@williamson-clan.com) writes: Kathlynn, I think we are saying the same thing. I think I just got mixed up swapping calendars back and forth. To keep me from becoming befuddled again, I am strickly using Julian calendar only and working backward: January 29th, 1624 Muster taken - Sarah has passed her second birthday but not yet attained her third January 29th, 1623 Sarah is past her first birthday but not yet attained her second. January 29th, 1622 Sarah has not reached her 1st birthday, but would have been born. Conclusion: It is possible then, for Sarah to have been born prior to the massacre on March 22nd, 1621, but no earlier than January 30th, 1621. 7/9/2006 8:43:32 AM Joe Anderson > _janders45@hotmail.com_ (mailto:janders45@hotmail.com) writes: I realize that my opinion makes no material contribution to the advancement of Pace research. I offer it in the hope that someone will correct me where I am wrong and help me to formulate a better hypothesis which will always be subject to change in the face of new evidence or when presented with a more logical interpretation of current evidence. So, here's my opinion, formed from discussions on this list, and totally unsupported by references to specific documents or links to previous posts: 1. Samuel Maycock died in the massacre. 2. His daughter, Sarah, born shortly before or not long after the massacre, survived him. 3. His wife, Mrs. Samuel Maycock, died in the massacre or not long after, possibly in the epidemic following the massacre. 4. Capt. Roger Smith took the orphan Sarah into his household and appears to be acting as her guardian, witness the Council's declaration of young Sarah's right to 200 acres of land. 5. Blanks to be filled in here. 6. On coming of age (perhaps mid teens), the orphan Sarah marries George Pace, son of Richard. Kathlynn comments: I agree! It is done, it is finished, it is sealed....and I have entered daughter Sarah's born date as Bet. January 30, 1621/22 & March 22, 1621/1622. And it a definate if her mother was killed in the massacre she would have to have born prior to March 22, 1621/22, thence, a tiny infant when her parents were killed. And if the ca 1637 marriage date estimate for George and Sarah is correct, then she would have been married at about age 16 or 17.....not 12 or 13 per some earlier researchers claim. However, I have not carved in stone yet....so if anyone disagrees, please inform me.