Person talk:Joseph Johnson (108)

double-dating [15 April 2015]

I think you may have erred in changing Joseph's birth to 1677/78. I believe it is 1676/77.

First, the source only says 1677 and the "[/78]" should be removed from the citation in any event because it appears to say the source says that, and it does not. If you want add a note saying it is assumed to mean 1677/78 and why, but it is important to keep facts and assumptions separate.

Second, March is a tricky month and promoting March dates to the next year is not always right. You have to see the original document to understand how it was laid out. Several documents put the whole month of March in the new year which means using the lower date interpretation is often correct. January like Nathaniel's is simpler as it is almost always promoted.

Third, the age at death, in 63rd year, so age 62, from death of 12 Nov 1739 gives a birth from 13 Nov 1676 to 12 Nov 1677 which does not include the 1677/78 date.

Fourth, the children in the family, not all entered go in a typical two year pattern. Promoting this date puts Joseph 3 years after John b. 1674 and only 1 year before Nathaniel b. late 1678/early 1679. Using 1676/77 puts him pretty squarely in the middle, with 2 years on each side. --Jrich 03:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)