|
|
Facts and Events
References
- ↑ Salem, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the year 1849. (Salem, Massachusetts: Essex Institute, 1916-1925)
5:274.
Gaskell, Sarath, d. Samuell and Provided (Southwick), [died] Aug. 3, 1689. C.R.7. [CR7=Salem Monthly Meeting.]
- ↑ Salem, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the year 1849. (Salem, Massachusetts: Essex Institute, 1916-1925)
1:344.
Gaskell, Sarah, d. Samuell and Provided (Southwick), [born] 6 : 9 m : 1676 [6 Nov 1676]. C.R.7
Gaskell, Mary, d. Samuell and Provided (Southwick), [born] 1 : 8 m : 1676 [1 Oct 1676]. (sic) C.R.7.
[CR7=Salem Monthly Meeting. See note.]
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Koleda, Elizabeth Potts. Gaskill genealogy. (Prineville, Oregon: E.P. Koleda, c1989)
4.
Sarath Gaskill, d/o Samuel Gaskill and Provided Southwick, b. "8m 1 1676" [1 Oct 1676], d. "8 3 1689".
Mary Gaskill, d/o Samuel Gaskill and Provided Southwick, b. "9m 6d 1674" [6 Nov 1674].
[See note.]
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Perley, Sidney. The History of Salem, Massachusetts. (Salem, Massachusetts: Sidney Perley, 1924-1928)
1:391.
view online: Children of Samuel Gaskell and Provided Southwick: "5. Sarah, born Nov. 6, 1674; died Aug. 3, 1689; 6. Mary, born Oct. 1, 1676..."
[See note.]
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 This is pretty confused.
Source:Vital records of Salem, Massachusetts, to the end of the year 1849 (228580), p. 1:344, has an obvious error. Sarah is shown b. "6 : 9m : 1676" [6 Nov 1676], but her sister Mary is shown b. "1 : 8 m : 1676" [1 Oct 1676]. Since the same parents are identified for both, and their reported births are only a month apart, this is clearly not possible.
Source:Gaskill genealogy (publ. 1988), p. 4, decides Sarah is b. "8m 1 1676" [1 Oct 1676] and Mary is b. "9m 6d 1674" [6 Nov 1674].
Source:The history of Salem, Massachusetts (227929) (publ. 1924), p. 1:391, shows Sarah b. 6 Nov 1674 and Mary b. 1 Oct 1676.
In other words, they both ended up with the same two corrected dates, but have them assigned oppositely. It is a reasonable speculation that one or both of these authors used the original records instead of the published version, thereby avoiding what appears to be a typo with the November date in the published records. So, there is some probability that one sister was born 6 Nov 1674 and the other was born 1 Oct 1676. Now to decide which sister is which date.
Given the large number of errors in the Gaskill Genealogy, and the fact that both the Salem VRs and Perley's History of Salem assign the November date to Sarah, one would at first be inclined to assume it was Sarah that was born 6 Nov 1674.
However, Source:Leaves from the tree, an American heritage : a history of the ancestral families of Robert Bone Hutchinson and Jack Thomas Hutchinson, p. 589, says "Sarah Gaskill, November 6, 1674 - August 3, 1689, aged twelve years", which clearly does not compute. One must speculate that the age of death was independently reported, not simply derived from the given dates (which would have yielded 14 instead of 12) and so perhaps it is reasonable to use this extra datum to help sort out all these dates.
It turns out there is complete agreement about the death date for Sarah (3 Aug 1689 is shared by all the sources mentioned). If the age at death was indeed 12, then Sarah must have been the daughter born 1 Oct 1676 in order to have died at age 12. Therefore, Mary would be the daughter born 6 Nov 1674.
In any event, it is not all that significant if the dates are incorrectly assigned.
|
|
