Person talk:Joseph Jones (93)

Birth date and the History of Hingham [9 July 2010]

The baptism shown on this page, occurring in 1659, is incompatible with Source:History of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts, p. 387, which lists son Joseph born 16 Sep 1660. The following is a discussion of why it is believed that the History of Hingham is wrong. Unfortunately, other sources, notably, Source:General Society of Mayflower Descendants. Mayflower Families through Five Generations, v. 18 (Richard Warren), rely on the History of Hingham, and hence present the wrong date as well.

The History of Hingham notes there are several unaccounted for baptisms of Jones children in Rev. Peter Hobart's Journal. It does not know which Jones family they belong to. The one of most interest is: Joseph, Jan. 30, 16[58/]59. Why did the History of Hingham not assign this to this Joseph Jones when his parents married in 1657 (plenty of time to have a child by the beginning of 1659), and when his age at death calculates to a birth in 1658?

The answer is that the History of Hingham did not include the son John in this family. The source of the birth dates it uses (other than those children recorded in Hingham VRs) were two anonymous births noted in the Hobart Journal, one in 1660 and one in 1662, which only noted that a child of Joseph Jones was born, without naming the child. Second, because it was unaware of John, it had only two children that were not listed in the Hingham VRs: Joseph and Benjamin. From there, the conclusions presented in the History of Hingham make sense. But they were missing information.

We, on the other hand, know that John Jones is indeed a child in this family from the will of his maternal grandfather Person:Thomas Little (1) and the will of his uncle Person:John Jones (361). We know for sure John had to be born by 1671 when his grandfather's will was written. Looking at the evidence again, we now have three children not listed in Hingham VRs, but only two anonymous birth records. So now it makes sense that the baptism in early 1659 is indeed Joseph's, the eldest son, leaving the two anonymous births to be John and Benjamin. (Uncle John does not mention Benjamin, but his partial list of nephews places Joseph before John, circumstantially suggesting Joseph was older than John.)

The Mayflower Families book does include John in the family, but it just adds him with no birth date to the same family found in the History of Hingham, which it cites as a source. So apparently they recognize that John belongs here, but did not stop to re-analyze the raw data in light of this change. --Jrich 23:24, 9 July 2010 (EDT)