This is one of those things that goes on and on. Changes are anticipated but if it doesn't get posted it can't get edited/corrected so this is Step #1. Please report broken links. Thanks.
Please review this with a critical eye and let us know if you have documentation that contradicts or supports any of this.
We know we have a problem with this family because there are over 5,000 Ancestry Trees that show a Damaris (husband's last name Shattuck-exact) being born in Massachusetts (usually seen as Essex County or even Nantucket) before 1600. Over 3,000 trees show her marrying in Massachusetts in 1619 (just one year before the Pilgrims arrived). Since no one could possibly have actual documentation for that information we wonder where they found it and how their tree got infected with it.
I'm taking these one by one. If you need to contact me directly please refer to the item number.
First things first.
Some people don't know that
The Millennium File;
U.S., New England Marriages Prior to 1700;
U.S. & International Marriage Records 1560 - 1900;
Passenger and Immigration Lists Index 1500s - 1900s; and
the entire Family Data Collections Series (-Individual, -Births, -Marriages, -Deaths)
are databases or compiled lists from old notes or transcribed indexes of transcribed index lists,
not historical records or documents.
Much info for these Green Leaf Hints was "extracted" by programmed computer sweeps through submittals from people who often were name collectors.
Submittals to FamilyTrees (and Find-a-Grave) are often invented. A "source" listed something like "AncestryTrees" or another IGI, AF, or PRF submittal isn't a record.
"Contributed" items on the LDS FamilySearch site include
International Genealogy Index (IGI),
Ancestral File (AF) and
Pedigree Research File (PRF).
They usually have no documentation attached.
FamilySearch trees are often just recyced discarded information because contributors are often copiers.
Some things listed as IGI are indexes (or sometimes images) of actual records or documents of the era. Make sure the tab says RECORDS and not GENEALOGIES.
We have to click on the Ancestry Green Leaf Hints to see the image of the list or the book or find the article because often when they were indexed to fit into the Ancestry format words like "before", "by", and "after" were left out. For example, sometimes when someone is shown arriving at a port or showing up in a town "by" 1641 it's indexed as if they arrived that exact year and often has the name "record" attached to the database name as if it were an actual record instead of a list make up years after the event. If someone shows married "by" the year of birth of their known 8th child they are often indexed as having married that exact year, thereby appearing as if they weren't married when their first 7 children were born and having their ages thrown off since some people "assign" made-up ages for people based on the date of birth of their first child. Men were often assigned an "average marriage age" of 21 or 22 and women were assigned to be two to four years younger if there were no records available. And the first child was assigned to be born one year after the marriage.
A real marriage record supplies
the exact location,
exact date of the event,
and the first and last name of the husband and wife.
U.S. & International Marriage Records 1560-1900 isn't a document or record from that event.
Ancestry's OneWorldTree was discontinued in 2008 because of so many errors, but by then many trees had copied the information and those trees are being recycled by others without knowing the history or methodology of the collection process.
Ancestry doesn't check
Green Leaf Hints, or
Find-a-Grave submittals for accuracy.
Here's a GREAT 2-part article on pitfalls of "indexed records" and follow-up showing even more peril:
DATES TO REMEMBER
- Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts 1620
- Salem was a fishing village in 1626 and settlers came in 1628
- Boston settled abt 1630
- Nantucket settled 1659
Damaris UNK didn't marry in Boston in 1619.
She wasn't born in Massachusetts in the 1590s as seen on thousands of trees.
Samuel Shattuck of Salem never lived on Nantucket. Richard Gardner didn't move to Nantucket until 1665-67. None of his kids were born there.
None of these people were born, married or died in those places before those dates.
DAMARIS, wife of UNK Shattuck
Maiden name unknown,
birth date/location unknown,
arrival in US unknown but first seen in 1641.
Damaris (Damaris UNK) arrived in Salem, Essex, MA out of nowhere. She is first seen as a widow joining "the church" in 1641. Eventually (no date known) she married widower Thomas Gardner. There are no known children for this couple. We know that her daughter Sarah Shattuck married his son Richard Gardner but have no solid records of any other step-children marrying each other.
She didn't die 28 Sep 1674. The person who indexed the Mass Vitals database didn't know what 28: 9m: 1674 meant. She died 28 Nov 1674. If in doubt Google "Quaker Calendar". Same problem with other MA Vitals entries shown on the database currently on Ancestry.
BEST SOURCE for Damaris
(though the death date of 2nd husband is wrong here as well as the quote from son Samuel's headstone unless the one there now was placed after Lemuel Shattuck wrote his book)http://tinyurl.com/ShattuckBook
DAMARIS'S FIRST HUSBAND
Last name was Shattuck. First name unknown but seen in undocumented trees as
Samuel, William, Samuel William, William Samuel, Daniel or John.
We have no baptism record for him,
no marriage record for them,
no baptism records for any of their known children (or the invented ones that have no documentation anywhere)
no death/burial/inventory/probate record for him for any location or date.
There is no Samuel or William Shattuck with dates 1594-1698 who lived to 104 though 6,000 trees have it. That copied man is often seen as the husband of Damaris "Sibley" -- but Damaris UNK was a widow in 1641 so that didn't work out. 1698 is a typo for Damaris's son's (not her husband's) death date of 1689.
Check wikitree to see what progress the researchers are making on his first name.http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/246835/proposal-remove-first-fro...
It was extremely rare for commoners to have middle names back then.
You'll have to really search to find them.
None of the Pilgrims from 1620 is recorded with a middle name. See their list.http://mayflowerhistory.com/mayflower-passenger-list/
Only 3 men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 used one. See their list.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.htm...
If you see someone in a family tree with a middle name don't assume that either of the names is correct.
There doesn't appear to be a record anywhere anytime of a Samuel William or a William Samuel Shattuck. It looks like someone long ago grabbed the first names of two Shattuck men in Massachusetts and decided one or (even better) both was a name of the unknown Shattuck father.
5. THE SIBLEY GUESS
Damaris UNK is not the daughter of the Richard Sibley who died early 1676 in Salem, Essex, Massachusetts.
He and his wife, Hannah UNK,
were the parents of a Damaris Sibley
who was born there 26 Aug 1666,
married as 2nd wife to William Worth who lived on Nantucket.
Salem, Essex, MA Vital Records to the End of the year 1849. (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1916-1925), 2:286.
"Sibly (see also Sibley), Damarice, d. Richard and Hanna, 26 : 6 m : 1666. CT.R. "
[In 1666, the 6th month was August.]
Savage, James. A Genealogical Dictionary . . . 4:94.
"Sibley, Sebley, or Sybley, RICHARD, Salem 1656, by w. Hannah had Samuel, b. 10 Mar. 1659; Hannah, 20 Sept. 1661; Sarah, 20 Dec. 1663; Damaris, 26 Aug. 1666; John, Apr. 1669; Mary, 25 Jan. 1672; and *Eliz. He was a traymaker, and d. early in 1676, his inv. being of 30 June, when all the ch. and wid. were liv."
Hannah, Richard's wife,
-- couldn't have been born in the 1570s or 1597 and have kids in the 1660s and early 1670s.
-- couldn't have married in Salem in 1597.
-- couldn't have been bapt 1577 in Bedfordshire.
-- wasn't 50 years older than her husband.
-- didn't die in New Jersey (that was the wife William Shattuck, the shoemaker. She is often seen in trees as as Hannah Prince but there is no documentation to support a maiden name. See below for William the shoemaker.)
-- isn't daughter of Littlefield Sibley and Sarah Lambert who married in 1765 in Salem.
-- probably didn't have the maiden name Sibley
About 3,000 trees have one or more of those statements with no supporting evidence.
Date of the first mention I find on a post with the name Damaris SIBLEY.
The poster mentions an old LDS IGI submittal and then the poster warns about it!http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/QUAKER-ROOTS/1...
There are posts, trees and submittals to the present that apparently used the old LDS info as sources and believed they were actual historical documents or records.
There are no records that she was a Sibley. I've seen posts from people who say they know she was related to Richard Sibley of Salem, but when I asked them they said because they saw it on someone's tree or "just KNOW it" and their cousin agrees with them.
SAMUEL SHATTUCK 1620-1689
Son of Damaris UNK
His will was written "in ye sixty ninth year of my dyye . . . ye six day of the month called April one thousand six hundred eighty nine . . . ."
(Thanks for the image from the record book of the will sent by Philip Shattock of the link below)
The only death date we have was transcribed from his headstone but we don't know who wrote the inscription or when it was placed.
His headstone is spelled SAMUELL SHATTOCK
as it is on his children's birth records from Essex Countyhttp://tinyurl.com/Shattock-Samuell-kids
Samuel stated in court records on 27 Jul 1678 when he was Administrator of Estate of Edward Wharton in 1678 that he was about 58 years old (Essex County, Massachusetts Depositions, 1645-1686 -- Vol 7, p 60), backing up the birth year around 1620 as he mentioned in his will. Click herehttp://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=5342
and fill in the volume and page because it's INDEX only and won't work to fill in the name.
POPE wrote it was 1674 in the listing for Shattuck but that's a typo because Pope has the deposition date under the Wharton listing as 1678.https://archive.org/stream/pioneersofmassac00pope#page/489/m...
See bio of Samuel starting on page 361 of Lemuel Shattuck's book.http://tinyurl.com/ShattuckBook
He is the one who went to England and talked to the King on behalf of the Quakers.
He is not the "witch accuser". That was his son, Samuel.
GOOD SOURCES AND CONNECTIONS FOR SHATTUCKS AND OTHER LOCALES by PHILIP SHATTOCKhttp://www.shaddock.ca/family-tree/somerset-shattockes/shatt...
The first page is mostly about Wm of Watertown but there are embedded links there to the Salem and New Jersey families. Interesting reads.
Here's another example of reading the full text instead of just stopping after we see the first thing that agrees with that we want it to say. Please note that the link shows a page of Banks' notes that says Samuel & William are from Somerstshire. You have to keep reading to see that there is no proof they were from Somerset or that they were on the ship and registered under those names since they would have been aged 10 and 8 in 1630. No record that they are related. No record of any Shattuck on the ship. Check to see if your Shattuck has a page of his own on that link.
** If you are a male Shattock/Shattuck descendant Philip is looking for YDNA volunteers. Ask him.
THE HERTSFORDSHIRE GUESS
It wasn't until after about 2008 that a Damaris Siblie/Sibley from Hertsfordshire appeared on trees--and now there are 150 trees for her sometimes with different birth dates and of course different parents. That means that name and place weren't on anyone's radar until someone found a name on Ancestry or an LDS record that was close and they decided it must be her and put it in a tree or submitted it and it got onto IGI, AF or PRF and it was copied by others. Since no one else had a real birth/baptism date it caught on because some people like to have all the boxes filled in.
That Damaris Siblie was bapt 22 Feb 1595 (1595 as shown in the index of the parish records -- NOT 1597 as seen in some trees) at
St Pauls Walden, Hertfordshire, Eng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Paul%27s_Walden
(not King's Walden, Hertfordshire) as shown on the transcription as the DAUGHTER OF HENRY (not an imagined Richard). If a tree has that date and location but no father's name (or the wrong one) you know they haven't done any research.
There's a marriage of Darmaris Sybly to a Thomas Wheatly in 7 Jul 1628 in Walkern, abt 10 miles from St Paul's Walden
If you have an Ancestry World Subscription seehttp://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?viewrecord=1&...
. . . AND . . .
a will of a spinster Damaris Sibley in 1669 in the record book at "Paul's Walden, Hertfordshire" that mentions a nephew Henry.
Obviously neither of these Damarises is Mrs. Shattuck.
As of the original date of this post on FamilySearch there are 3 IGIs and 15 PRFs (all submitted since 2009 or so) that have some strange combination of the above (and one seen with a son shown as Daniel).
THE HOPKINS/MAYFLOWER ERROR
There are currently 2,500 trees that have a Damaris Hopkins married to a Shattuck. Sometimes it's Damaris's imaginary mother and sometimes it's her, usually seen born around 1574, shown as daughter (sometimes the sister) of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower. He was probably baptized in April 1581. Often Damaris "the mother" is seen dying 28 Sep 1674 and Damaris (Mrs. Gardner) is seen dying 28 Nov 1674. We already know how those dates got mixed together.
Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower and his 2nd wife, Elizabeth, had two (2) daughters named Damaris --
one around 1618 (on Mayflower) who died early in Plymouth, and
the 2nd around 1627 after the first one died.
But for people who don't write dates in their notes any Damaris will do, especially born 5 to 7 years before her "father."
The error usually shows Stephen's wife as Constance Dudley (who he never married) and with his make-believe parents Nicholas Hopkins & Mary Poole who were invented in the 1870s and mentioned in a book in the 1890s with no documentation. The Mary Poole that that book identifies (sister of Giles Poole) actually died childless before 1536.
For Hopkins of the Mayflower from the man responsible for finding the Hampshire records from 1613 http://tinyurl.com/Johnson-Book http://tinyurl.com/WIKIPEDIA-Stephen-Hopkins
Updates aft 2007 about 1st wife, Mary.
The real Damaris Hopkins who was on the Mayflower was 2 years old. One tree has her born in 1618, marrying a man born in 1574 and having a son in 1594. Not one of the 20 green leaf "sources" attached to that tree is for the right person.
LDS is recycling the errors in the "new" IGIs and PRFs on FamilySeach that are apparently using the old data verbatim as their source. One grouping that apparently copied off each other has Damaris born in Hertfordshire in 1597 and having a son named Daniel in 1610.
The ones that have Damaris' name copied as Damarius have Daniel born in Dorset and father's name John.
The ones that have Damaris shown as Demaris Hopkins (born 6 years before the "father" shown as Stephen of the Mayflower son of imaginary parents) have the father as William Shattuck and Daniel's death as 1641. It was necessary to kill him off since he never showed up on Salem. Aside from the fact that we have nothing from Dorset.
LEMUEL SHATTUCK'S BOOK ON WILLIAM SHATTUCK OF WATERTOWN
(and current confusion with William Shattuck, the shoemaker).
All serious research discussions of almost any of the possibly related or UNrelated Shattuck families in early Massachusetts end up referring to the excellent book written by Lemuel Shattuck about the William Shattuck who settled in Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts by 1642.
Memorials of the Descendants of William Shattuck: . . . . published in 1855.
Damaris and her family in Salem are included in the - APPENDIX - of that book because there is no proof that she is related to William of Watertown.
See the Salem group starting on page 361http://tinyurl.com/ShattuckBook
A different William Shattuck, the shoemaker, who is seen in Boston 1650-1658, ended up in New Jersey. He was not born in 1628 in Boston as seen in over 1600 Ancestry Trees. No confirmed connection between him and any other Shattuck in MA. Read his sad story starting on page 366 at the link above.
Hannah Shattuck Lippincott and Exercise Shattuck Corlies belong to William Shattuck, the shoemaker who went to New Jersey, but are often seen as children of William of Watertown.....like on his current F.A.G. athttp://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=20...
Remember Find-a-Grave has a submittal format and the submitter can copy and post anything they want to.
Geni.com, WikiTree.com, Find-a-Grave, MyHeritage and Familypedia are not historical documents or records. They might have information there based on factual information but unless we check out the actual sources we don't know where any of it came from.
People can write whatever they want and often go unchallenged. Finding information on those types of places can be very risky unless someone has provided sources that are actual records.
"Family Trees", GEDCOM, and books that sound like "The History of the XYZ Family--all the Royals and Presidents I can Force-fit into my Tree" can be problematic because often they don't provide anything but names and sometimes dates (both often incorrect).
Sometimes obituaries posted on FAG have the wrong birth date and place. An obituary is not a primary source of birth information. They probably have the death date and place correct though if the name of the person hasn't been confused with another person with the same name.
It appears as if it is not confirmed that Damaris had a daughter named Gertrude who married Joseph Pope. Some websites have Mrs. Pope dying the exact same day as her husband yet the real Mrs. Pope was living as late as 10 years later.
Joseph Pope and Gertrude's son Benjamin married a daughter of Samuel Shattuck. Did the Quakers allow marriages between first cousins? If not then does that rule out Gertrude having married Joseph Pope?
Damaris UNK had a daughter named Hannah but it isn't confirmed that she married George Gardner even though it appears in Lemuel Shattuck's book. Further discussion can be found on line. There's a reason for "no" for all of them. The reasons for "yes" appear to be name matches without knowing who the parents are or what the definition of "brother" and "cousin" was back in those days as seen in wills. I have not researched Hannah or George Gardner.
(page two of two)
Thomas Gardner Society NO LESS says Samuel Shattuck is son of . . . . . Daniel Shattuck. Daniel is a relatively recent invention. (one LDS PRF submitted recently shows he was married to Damaris "Hospkins?" But they her dying 28 Sep 1674 so we know that's wrong.)
If anyone is a member of the Thomas Gardner Society it might be interesting to ask who submitted that story for publication in winter 2013/14--or if they've provided any documentation or a retraction?
Volume III, No. 4 is listed as being sourced from
The American Genealogist, TAG 26:108, TAG 30:158/168
Hinchman L. S. (1901) The Early Settlers of Nantucket (Samuel Shattuck) https://archive.org/stream/earlysettlersofn00hinch#page/86/m...
But there is no mention of anyone named Daniel Shattuck in the chapter on Samuel Shattuck starting on page 86 (or in the index on page 342)
Does anyone have access to
to see what it says about a possible Daniel?
I tracked down the woman who appears to have been the first person to put Daniel in her Ancestry tree and post about him. She checked her research notes and that name doesn't appear. It appears that in her haste she misread Damaris for Daniel when she was filling in boxes. She has removed it. So if no one has any data on Daniel and copied it off someone else's tree it's probably an error -- especially if Daniel is seen dying in 1642 (remember Damaris was a widow when she joined the church in 1641 in Salem).
Much has been written about Thomas Gardner so I won't go into detail here, but the "Margaret Frier" issue looked promising at http://thomasgardnerofsalem.blogspot.com/2014/09/thomas-and-...
until you read the comment at the bottom about there being two Thomas Gardners who married a year apart. But where is that record? I haven't researched Thomas Gardner.
Here's something to think about while trying to connect Wiliam of Watertown to Damaris of Salem:
There is no William seen in the Salem family for at least 3 generations and (I haven't looked past that).
There is no Damaris in the Watertown family (I haven't looked past 3 generations).
We're always looking for documentation that gives a clue as to where the much-copied maiden name SIBLEY might have come from.
Thanks for your input.
Shirley SSBOSCO AOL.COM