|
|
Joseph Fuller's Date of Birth [26 January 2012]
Despite Cutter's long association with NEHGS, his books are not as reliable as one would hope. They appear to have been put together in a manner somewhat similar to the "mug books" of the late eighteenth century and are for the most part unsourced. One would suspect that most of the actual compilation was done by others. They're certainly better than what one finds at familysearch.org or rootsweb's worldconnect, but need to be approached with some degree of skepticism.
Anderson indicates that the ages given for Joseph's older brothers in various depositions are somewhat suspect, although he does not further address Joseph's age or depositions (if any) that he may have made.
One other consideration is that information provided at the time of a person's death may be less than accurate, so the VR that says he died at 71 should be considered approximate, not exact. As a case in point, I was not involved in the preparation of my mother's obituary (in Florida while I'm in New York). That obit had her born in the wrong state. In Joseph Fuller's case, the documentation of his date of death is much closer to being a primary record than is the statement of his age at death.--jaques1724 07:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- Not entirely sure what conclusion to draw, but assume this is in support of Anderson's estimate. I agree with everything said, though I still believe the 1658 estimate is the better one unless more evidence is brought forward. I only mention Cutter in that it hints at a possibility of something that could be found... but until it is found, it is a myth only. However the about 1658 is based on a recorded age at death, which, as flaky as those can be, is more evidence than Anderson's estimate is based on. Unfortunately Anderson didn't explain himself and I can't reconstruct his reasoning, since as I pointed out, I think the evidence strongly suggests he doesn't even have the birth order right. (There is also the 1689 petition that lists Joseph last of the brothers, i.e., younger than Nathaniel.) Since he didn't discuss it, I can't tell whether he was unaware of the age at death, or whether he saw it and rejected it. I tend to think the first else he probably would have discussed it.
- It must be remembered that Anderson's focus is on the father. He rarely bothers to track down deaths of the children in these sketches, and does marriages I believe, mostly to identify the children unambiguously. In this case where there is no recorded birth for any of the children, he probably should have done more so he could anchor his estimates on something. Incidentally, the Essex County Probate docs give James a double share, which to me, resolves the debate whether James or John was the oldest. Debate aside, though, it also illustrates how his focus is on the father and having to draw the line somewhere, perhaps he doesn't sweat the details quite so much on the children. Because if he did, he'd end up studying the grandchildren. --Jrich 09:15, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- Anderson was uncharacteristically sloppy with this sketch. In addition to questions on birth order, there is no indication as to where Joseph's marriage date came from, but it certainly was not from the published Ipswich VR. We know that the wife's name was Mary from the the birth records in the VR, but only have the last four letters of her maiden name. The Mary Wood, b. 1653, suggested in Fuller's genealogy was born way too soon to be the mother of all his children (last one born 1710/11). I'd like to have seen more about the Mary Jackson who married son Nathaniel Fuller. Checking Blodgette and Jewett, it looks like the daughter of Jonathan Jackson born 1688 is the only identifiable candidate even though she was almost (or more than - you pick) 25 years his junior. On the other hand, sorting through this family has been interesting to me since it ties the Ipswich Emersons to the Suffield Kings; and also leads us to Fuller descendants who went to Norwich, but then married, in at least one instance, with the Suffield Kings. I would also say, from my experience with the later volumes in the series, that if the surname had begun with an S or T instead of an F, the sketch would have been more thoroughly sourced.--jaques1724 11:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)
|
|
