While the new marker at the foot of this stone reads:

JAMES
CLAYPOOL
1701 - 1789

This is NOT James '01. He is buried further up the hill. His stone is fragmented but readily readable. (See the page for that stone.)

Back in 2004, Imade the same mistake. When we arrived at the cemetery with a list of 5 Claypools buried in the graveyard, and found a row of 5 stones, three that matched the more recent folk on the list and two heavily weatherd stones. Assuming that the unreadble stones were the two missing older Claypools, and the big one was James and the small one his wife, Jane, made lots of sense. Sadly, we were wrong.

So, the question remains, who is this?