His father’s will named Peter Jr. as one of the Executors. When Peter Jr. and Nicholas, his fellow Executor, sold Hans Peter’s land, at least one of the deeds said “our father’s land.”

The birth dates of most of the sons of Hans Peter are only estimates based on whatever clues I could find. I may have the order wrong. I believe Peter was the oldest son of Hans Peter. He was the first of Peter’s sons ever named on the early tax lists of Berks County and he was first named in 1765 as a single man. So I have assigned him a 1744 estimated birth. He is designated P1.

1765-1769 Berks County, Longswamp Township Tax Lists. 1765 was the first year mention was made of any single Mertz taxpayers and Peter Mertz alone was listed in that category. In 1766, John and Peter were listed as single men, in 1767, John, Peter and Philip. Then in 1769, only Philip was still listed as single, while Peter Jr. was listed among the (presumably) married men of Longswamp.

1779 Pennsylvania Septennial Census. Peter Mertz Jr. was a resident of Longswamp Township. Peter (Sr. presumably) was also listed.

Peter Jr. moved to Northumberland County in about 1789 and was thereafter Peter Sr. He was named in the first three Census:

1790. Lived in Northumberland County, listed together with David, Conrad and Jacob Sr.

1800. Lived in Northumberland County, Chillisquaque Township. Peter’s household had three younger males, one in each age bracket: under 10, 10-15 and 16-25. I only know of three sons for sure of Peter’s but Jonathan was already on his own also in Chillisquaque. For that reason, I keep an open mind to the possibility of a fourth son.

1810. Lived in the same place. His son Daniel was also listed in Chillisquaque and Jonathan was in nearby Augusta Township. But yet again, there were two sons remaining in Peter’s household but I only know of Peter Jr. who would have still been there.

He was also named on the early Northumberland County tax lists. He first was named in Augusta Township (where his brothers had settled) in 1791-1794. Then he was listed in 1793 in Shamokin Township and was also there in 1794 and 1795 and then in 1796 his name was crossed through. He then can be found in Chillisquaque Township from 1796 to 1812. The years sightly overlap due to some ambiguity as to the real date of the tax. Typically, Peter was listed as a tenant on someone else’s large property until 1812 when he was taxed on the one acre his son, Peter, had sold him from the eleven he then owned.

Administration on his estate began 27 Apr 1813 with Peter Jr. as administrator.

On 19 Jan 1816 Peter Mertz informed the Orphans Court of Northumberland County that he was the administrator of Peter Mertz deceased and that Peter died intestate and that he did not have sufficient assets to cover his personal debts of $160. (He later sold Peter’s house and lot for $201.)

As of summer 2015, Peter is not on find-a-grave.

Peter and wife Susanna baptized two daughters at Longswamp: Ester 23 Nov 1777 and Anna Maria 8 Dec 1778. I believe the Mary Mertz, daughter of Peter, who married John Douty in 1799 was Peter’s daughter Anna Maria.

There may have been other daughters. In fact, in 2021, we may have found one more. Mary Lou Clegg, a long-time correspondent of mine, descends from Catherine Mertz who was the wife of Jesse Cherry and it is known that Jesse apparently came from Shamokin Township. We have discussed off and on for many years who Catherine could possibly be.

Now, of course, DNA is giving us new insights to supplement what we can learn (or fail to learn) from traditional document-based genealogical work. Mary Lou studied the various candidates in my database and concluded tat perhaps Peer was the best candidate to be her father. So she added Peter to her tree as Catherine’s father and then let Ancestry’s (often flawed) Thru-Lines algorithms consider the possibilities. Thru-Lines came up with three cousins of Mary Lou who in fact descend from other children of Peter’s.

This doesn’t “prove” anything. But it is quite an interesting finding. I have studied extensively my own Ancestry DNA cousins and I have many dozens of cousins who descend from one or another child of Hans Peter not counting my direct ancestor Philip). And for several of his children, I have five-to-ten cousins who share that lineage but in Peter’s case, I only have one. (Detecting such a relationship is hit or miss when we are trying to finding such distant cousins — so my one cousin is not any of the three of Mary Lou’s, a not unusual event.).

But the point I think is that (in my unscientific way of thinking), Peter maybe has fewer descendants overall today that some of Hans Peter’s other children (so fewer matches) — or — Peter and his line didn’t pass Hans Peter’s DNA along as strongly as some other lines. Whatever the explanation, I find the fact that Mary Lou has three such cousins significant.

Moreover, I know from tax records that Peter — who I always think of as being of Chillisquaque once in Northumberland County — was actually in Shamokin Township through 1795. Catherine was born in the late 1770’s so likely didn’t marry Jesse before 1795 but it is not too hard to imagine that Jesse knew her before she moved away and tracked her down later.

Peter had three sons that I am know of but Census tick marks suggest the possibility of one more. The ones I know were:

Jonathan was baptized in 1776 at Longswamp Reformed and is designated P1a.

Daniel was baptized in 1779 and is designated P1b.

Peter Jr.’s baptism went unrecorded. The only real clue to his age is the 1830 Census when he was age 40-49, indicating a birth in the 1780’s. But that may be wrong.

But as to the possibility of a fourth son, consider that there was an Abraham Martz who settled in Milton by 1820, the first ever Martz in Milton. I have studied everyone named Mertz or Martz in early Pennsylvania and I am unable to say who Abraham was. Moreover, there is an indication that Peter’s son Daniel was intending to move to Milton in 1825 (though he never seems to have gotten there). And there is one more link of this family to Milton. Richard J Martz says that Henry Baldi Douty (father of Peter’s son-in-law John Douty) was an early resident of Milton.

So based on the fact that I otherwise don’t know Abraham of Milton, together with the fact that Peter had an extra son in Census, together with the fact that Daniel is the only other early Martz associated with Milton — I have declared Abraham to be Peter’s son, in fact his third son, P1c. (Making Peter Jr. P1d.) But note well, this all is quite speculative on my part.

Jonathan, Daniel and Peter Jr. were definitely sons of Peter Sr. Abraham maybe was. I’ve cited the “evidence” but there is one thing that gives me a little doubt and that is that while Jonathan, Daniel and Peter Jr. were all first named on Chillisquaque tax lists, in 1801, 1803 and 1812 respectively, Abraham never was. He was though first named, and said to be single, on the 1810 tax list of Milton. What would have drawn Abraham to go off as a young man to Milton?

Peter’s sons made a faint imprint on history. Daniel disappeared after the 1820 Census, Jonathan, Abraham and Peter were present in 1830. Abraham then died shortly after that Census. Then there are a few mentions of Jonathan and Peter on tax records into the 1830’s and then they too are gone. I have identified the sons of Jonathan, Abraham and Peter Jr., though, so Peter Sr.’s line did continue.

Jonathan was a key person in my coming to the realization that all Northumberland Mertzes and Martzes were Longswamp Mertzes. For a long time, I never gave much thought to anyone pf this name in Northumberland County other than my ancestor Philip. I had figured out that people had made the error thinking my Philip of Longswamp was John Philip of Rockland. But I didn’t really question the work of J L Floyd and Joseph A Meiser which said some of the others were also of that same Rockland Township line or else gave a very vague ancestry for them and it didn’t really interest me to try to see if it could all be sorted out. Even the names Peter, David and Nicholas — pretty much Longswamp only names — didn’t really catch my attention. I just didn’t give any of them much thought.

But then a woman named Jeanie Bostian who grew up in Sunbury contacted me. Jeanie is what I call an email cousin. Even though she is from Sunbury, I have never met her. I do remember Bostians in town but did not know any of them well.

Jeanie had traced her ancestry back to Barbara Mertz daughter of Jonathan. Barbara married Jesse Bastian in Sunbury in 1820 and Jeanie, their g-g-g-g-granddaughter, was trying to figure out where Barbara fit in. At first, I didn’t even believe Jeanie because although I knew a lot of early Mertzes named Johannes, I didn’t recall ever seeing any named Jonathan. But I was wrong.

As I went back through the information that I had sitting deep in my files, it all began to come together and make sense. Peter Mertz (who I call Peter Jr.) and wife Susanna had actually baptized a son named Jonathan at Longswamp Church in 1776 and then we found that when the estate of Peter Martz (now called) Senior was sold at Public Vendue in Northumberland County on May 22, 1813 by Peter Martz Jr. (arguably III) that also present at the sale were Jonathan Martz and his mother Susannah. There it was, clear evidence that Peter of Northumberland County was Peter of Longswamp — and so that’s when I undertook to study all the pioneer Northumberland Mertzes more closely and try to match them up with the Longswamp family who I also studied more closely beginning then.

And the rest as they say is history. I am now convinced that all the Northumberland Pioneer (i.e. pre-1830) Mertzes were in fact Longswamp Mertzes. And I was able to help Jeanie determine that she was a descendant of John David Mertz and that she is my sixth cousin (twice removed). Thanks, Jeanie.

It is known that Peter’s wife was indeed named Susanna, J L Floyd said her name was Susanna Brown and it is known, from his will, that Frederick Braun, who had married first Maria Eve Mertz, daughter of Nicholas, Sr., had a daughter Susanna. Some people have put 2 and 2 together this way and concluded that the wife of Peter Mertz was Susanna, daughter of Frederick Braun. For a long time, that’s exactly the way I had things in my database. But I have changed my mind.

Over the years, I have been in touch with several persons with some interest in the Braun family. I believe the most thorough of these researchers is Curt Bajak and he has convinced me that, while we can’t be 100% positive of much of anything, nonetheless:

1. The only evidence that Susanna was even a Braun is the mention by Floyd and from my experience, the J L Floyd book is so unreliable in so many ways that it can hardly be given much weight.

2. There were two men named Frederick Braun living in Berks County in the 1760 and later period. A close study of the two Frederick Brauns of Berks County indicates some geographic separation of the two (within Berks County). The older one worshipped at Zion Moselem Lutheran and lived and was taxed in Richmond Township. The younger one was taxed as a single man in Maxatawny Township possibly as late as 1759 or 1760.

3. Curt believes it was the younger one who married Maria Eva Mertz and that their marriage took place no earlier than about 1760 or 1761.

4. I don’t really know when Maria Eva was born or for that matter when any of the children of Nicholas, Sr. were born (with the possible exception that I think Henry was born in 1743) but we get a hint from the petition of Jacob Mertz, eldest son of Nicholas, filed in 1762 after his father had died. Jacob listed Nicholas’ children as himself, Margaretta and Maria Eve as the only three “of age” (and later indicated that his sister Catherine was deceased leaving an heir, meaning she likely also would have been of age).

5. Since we know Nicholas was single and age about 18 when he arrived America in 1733, and if we give him a couple of years to find his way to Longswamp, get settled, mature a little and marry and then have four children who were born before, say, 1742 and given that Maria Eve would appear, from the order Jacob named Nicholas’ children, to be the youngest of the “of age” children, my conclusion is Maria Eve was born not too much earlier than, say 1742.

6. Add to all this that Susanna was listed third (and last) among his daughters by Frederick Braun in his will and the inescapable conclusion is Susanna could not have been old enough to be having children starting in 1776.

7. Let’s say Maria Eva was born in 1741, married in 1760 and Susanna was not her oldest child — how could she have her own child in 1776?  In fact, Susanna might well have been born herself in the 1770’s.  Even if you want to believe Frederick and Maria Eve married in 1759 and had Susanna that same year, that still makes her only about 16 when she married and 17 when she bore her son Jonathan.  It's all of course theoretically possible but the evidence just seems to suggest a later marriage for Maria Eve and a much later birth for Susanna.

8. As a final point, we have always known that Frederick’s daughter Susanna was the first cousin of Peter Mertz. This didn’t trouble me too much as I am aware of a fair number of other such marriages and of even more involving 2nd or 3rd cousins but Curt has raised the question in my mind that it really would have been a very rare occurrence for those old Germans of Colonial Pennsylvania.

Curt and I have also studied tax records extensively hoping to draw conclusions about things from especially that there would always be a separate list of single (age 21+) freemen taxpayers. So the idea is if we know when a person was first listed as a single taxpayer, that gives us a good indication of his birth. And if we know when he moved to the other, main list, that would give us an indication of when he married.

Our conclusion though is:

1. The exact date of these tax lists ma be off by a year or so from what it appears. You think you are looking at the 1776 list but it might really represent 1775 or 1777.

2. It seems to us that to be listed as single, you had to be 21 and, yes, single, but that if you owned property or livestock or perhaps even had a trade, maybe you instead were listed on the main list — so it can not necessarily be concluded from one’s presence on the main list that he was married.

Peter was first listed as a single freeman in 1765. He then seems to move to the other, main list in 1768 or 1769. And yet is first mention in Longswamp Church records as a married man was the 1776 baptism of son Jonathan by Peter and wife Susanna. So, there are several possibilities:

• Maybe it is erroneous to think just because Peter Jr. was listed with the presumed married men in 1769, that he was, in fact, married. Maybe it is only that he was over the age of 25. Or maybe he owned property or livestock or had an occupation (weaver he often was) and maybe single meant single and none of those other things.
• Maybe Peter Jr. had a first wife prior to Susanna.
• Maybe he did marry Susanna in about 1769 and they simply were just never named in Longswamp records before 1776.