A family write-up at York County Historical Society implies that John’s father was Balzer Koller, although it adds there were several men of that name in early York County and it is not known which one in particular was the father. I think this is erroneous, no matter which Balzer you pick.

The family tree of David Koller, which tracks descendants of John Adam Koller, shows three sons of John Adam named Balzer (the oldest), John and Jacob -- known from Balzer’s Berks County Orphans Court petition after his father had died. Everything David Koller says about John Koller and his son Peter is in agreement with what I have from other sources. We know that men named Balzer, John and Jacob Koller all appeared in the Glen Rock/Shrewsbury area of York County well before 1790. Moreover, the ages of John and Jacob, as known from their tombstones in Fissel’s cemetery, is consistent with what we know as to the approximate ages of John and Jacob of Berks County. And from Census and property tax records, it seems clear that these three men were closely associated in York County. It all seems more than coincidental.

Add to all this the fact that the Gerberich family, who came on the same ship as John Adam Koller and settled first in Tulpehocken Township like he did, also moved to the Shrewsbury area at about the same time. I think the evidence is compelling. Our John Koller was the son of John Adam, the immigrant of 1751.

I believe John Koller came in the 1760’s, with his brothers, to York County from Tulpehocken Township, Berks County, after the death of their father and he then lived his entire adult life in the Shrewsbury area of York County.

1790. I believe he is listed in Shrewsbury Township, York County one after the other with his supposed brother Balzier. The last name for both, at first glance, would appear to be spelled Hollear. The headcount for both men is consistent with what I know about their families from the family tree of David Koller.

1800. John Koller Sr. lives in Shrewsbury next door to John Koller Jr. age 26-45. A male of Peter’s age is present in the John Sr. household.

1810. John Colar lives in Shrewsbury age 45+ and also present in Shrewsbury are two men named Jacob Colar and a younger John Colar and Peter Colar.

There is a will of John Koller of Richmond Township, Berks County dated 13 Jul 1814 proved 30 Nov 1815 which mentions wife Elizabeth and several children including Peter. This seems amazingly coincidental with the known facts about our John Koller -- but I think that’s all it is, a coincidence. I think they were two different men. A few names of the children of John of Berks County do not seem right and moreover, John of York County seems to have been well established there before 1790, and while he had previously lived as a boy in Tulpehocken Township, Berks County, I cannot think why his will would have been probated in Richmond Township.

A book I have found useful on some of our York County families is Early German Settlers of York County by Keith A Dull. He lists but one Koller family, that of Balthasar, in early York County. He lists many land transactions for Balthasar which I suspect might possibly not all pertain to the same Balthasar since I believe there were several in York about this time.

But as it relates to our family, Dull was clearly mistaken in stating that the Johannes who married Maria Elisabeth Gerberich, daughter of Peter, was Balthasar’s son and that he was born 25 Aug 1763 and baptized at Friedensaal. Indeed, a child named Johannes was born on that date to Balthasar and baptized at Friedensaal Church but he could not have been the Johannes who married Maria Elizabeth -- in 1774! The tombstone of our Johannes indicates a 1752 birth and he gave his age as 45+ in the 1800 Census, indicating a birth year prior to 1755. The dates for the correct Johannes make much more sense for a man who married in 1774 than believing he was only 11!

Not only is being really certain as to what year John was born critical to being sure I have properly identified him -- and his father -- there is an even more troubling conundrum relating to his wife’s year of birth. It is explained more fully in my discussion of her, but briefly, her birth date from her tombstone seems to pre-date her own father’s marriage. So, knowing exactly when John and Elizabeth married might shed some light on the subject.

JC Sweeny, a grandson of Peter Koller, wrote a very detailed letter in 1922 to the Historical Society of York on the Koller family, starting with John and Elizabeth Gerberich. It included exact birth dates for all of John’s children and all of Peter’s. And it included marriage dates for John and Peter (all three of his marriages) as well. Also, certain dates of death for some of these people were included. His wording in his letter was “my record shows” -- he never gave any specific source for any of his dates but it is the kind of information that you would find in a family bible. And I am taking everything JC Sweeny says as if it did come from a family bible.

JC Sweeny gives an exact date -- 11 Apr 1774 -- as the date when John Koller and Elizabeth Gerberich married. Moreover, he shows the birth of their first child -- whose name he wrote as Parkey Robten -- as 15 Apr 1775, a date that dovetails quite nicely with the 1774 marriage date for John and Elizabeth. The earliest mention of them I have ever found is that on 21 Jan 1781, at Friedensaal Church, Johann and Maria Koller baptized son Jacob born 6 Jan 1781 -- a date that agrees with JC Sweeny’s “bible.”

A wonderful (from a genealogist’s point of view) petition was filed by John Koller, oldest son of John Koller deceased in 1815 seeking to have John’s 280 acre tract partitioned among the heirs who were: Marilis (Maria Elizabeth, I assume) the widow, sons John, Jacob, Peter, Samuel and Isaac and daughters Margaret (wife of Frederick Sumwalt), Elizabeth (widow of Joseph Matthews deceased), Eve (wife of John Kunkle), Catherine (wife of John Ludwig), Christina, Mary (wife of John Fries) and Susanna.

It is quite informative to compare this list of (surviving) children to the Sweeny list. The sons are listed in the birth order as given by Sweeny -- the absence of son Michael must mean he died young. And the daughters, from Elizabeth to Susanna, are also listed in birth order as given by Sweeny assuming in this case that Christina on the land deed was named Jane in the “bible”, which I think was the case. The absence of daughter Maria Barbara must mean that she also died prior to the land petition.

But who was Margaret? Sweeny made no mention of Margaret, who I assume was the oldest daughter. The oldest child he listed was “Parkey Robten”, what kind of name is that? I can convince myself (with just a little imagination) that poor penmanship could have resulted in someone mis-reading what was written Margaret as Parkey Robten when transcribing that bible. In fact, that error strengthens my argument that J C Sweeny’s information really did come from a bible -- one that at least in this case was hard to read.

As to the land, the decision was that the land could not be divided into so many pieces and in the end third son Peter bought the property and assumed an obligation to pay off all the other heirs.

There is little doubt that Maria Elizabeth belongs to the Gerberich family of Tulpehocken Township, but saying with certainty whose daughter she was is more problematic. Her presence in York County, though, most certainly rules out the branches that moved to Dauphin or Lebanon County.

All transcriptions of her tombstone say she was born 29 Sep 1754. I have seen it myself and I am certain that is what it says. Sometimes dates on old tombstones are hard to read, but in this case, I just can’t see any room for ambiguity.

So who was her father? The obvious choice is Peter. For the simple reason that, from his will, there is no doubt that Peter had a daughter named Maria Elizabeth. Normally that would be case closed, but the discordant note here is that Peter didn’t marry until 9 Feb 1755.

So as I see it, there are several possibilities:

Peter had a first wife previous to Anna Margaretha Rudolph. The most likely scenario in this case would be that he married, say, in 1753 or so. He would have been 23, a very typical age for German males of that time to marry. I would guess Maria Elizabeth was his first and only child by that first wife and that she died soon after the birth of Maria Elizabeth. Peter then married again just over four months later. That may be the rub.

Peter was not her father. If not, the second most obvious candidate to be her father would be Michael, the only other adult Gerberich to come to York County. Michael’s 1752 marriage would dovetail quite nicely with the proposition that he had a daughter in 1754. The problem is that there is no evidence Michael had a daughter named Maria Elizabeth. True, unlike Peter, no complete list of Michael’s children is available. So the possibility exists but how can it be justified?

Her father was Peter’s own father Johannes, the immigrant. He did have a daughter of that name but she died, according to the Gerberich book, before he left Germany. In any event that daughter was born well before 1754. But what if he had another daughter after his arrival in America? There is no evidence he did, but if he did, he might have named her after his deceased daughter. Johannes died when Elizabeth was about one so perhaps she was raised by Peter. But there simply is no evidence that any of that happened.

One or the other of the key dates is wrong. Sometimes that happens when one specific fact is transcribed from some original record. But Peter’s marriage appears chronologically in a full list and I doubt that date is wrong. And I don’t think it is a problem of mis-reading Maria Elizabeth’s tombstone. But where did her supposed birth date come from? A bible? Maybe, but I’ve seen no other evidence one existed. But it is certainly possible she mis-remembered the year of her own birth or someone else in the family did when it was time to inscribe her tombstone. Maybe she was born 29 Sep 1755 or even 1756. She married in 1774 so any and all dates are in the realm of the possible.

She was illegitimate. I really don’t think this possibility should even be considered. It did happen in those days, maybe even more than we think, but in many cases, the infant was then raised by her mother, not her father. Maybe the mother died. Anything is possible but all of this is just total speculation.

But here’s the puzzling thing. No one else interested in this family has ever raised or discussed this conundrum, yet it is so obvious a problem.

1830. Elizabeth Koller lives in Schrewsberry Twp and is 70-80, which fits with her age which I believe is 76 at the time. She lives with 2 younger females 20-30 and 1 young male also 20-30, perhaps a married daughter, her husband and sister.

The Gerberichs attended Fissel’s Church in Glen Rock after their arrival in York County and it is where Elizabeth’s future husband and his family attended and she and John Koller then attended after her marriage to him.

I have studied the baptisms of York churches looking for the Gerberich or Koller name and there are several that I find significant and perhaps compelling.

1781 Friedensaal. Jacob Kohler (b.6 Jan 1781 bp.21 Jan 1781) s/o Johann and Maria. Sponsor: Baltzer Kohler.

1782 Friedensaal. John Kleinfelder (b.21 Oct 1782 bp.10 Nov 1782) s/o Peter and Elisabeth. Sponsors: Johann Kohler and wife Maria Elisabeth.

1788 Fissels. John Koller and his wife Maria Elizabeth baptize son Johan Peter and Peter Gerberich and wife “Cretha” stand as sponsors.

1791 Fissels. Peter Gerberich and wife Margaret baptize son Joseph (b.2 Feb 1791, bp.27 Feb 1791) and Johannes Kleinfelder and wife were sponsors.

1791 Fissels. John Gerberich (Peter’s son) and wife Margaretha baptize their son Peter (born Feb 1791) and John Koller and wife Maria Elizabeth stand as sponsors.

1792 Fissels. Maria Wehr (b.25 May 792) d/o Joh. Peter and Anna Catharina. Sponsors: Joh Koller and Maria Eisabeth.

1792 Fissels. John Koller and his wife Maria Elizabeth baptize daughter Magdalena (b.Oct 1791, bp.20 Nov 1792) and John Gerberich and wife Margaretha stand as sponsors.

There is also a Michael Gerberich actively baptizing children at Fissel’s in this period. He is too old to be Peter’s son Michael and too young to be Peter’s Uncle Michael. Some sources says he was another son of Johnannes -- not acknowledged by the book. However, Uncle Michael had a son named Michael and I sort of think it might be him.

But it doesn’t matter whose father Michael was, what matters to me is that Maria Elizabeth was tight with Peter and his son John and not tight with either of the Michael’s.

The will of Elizabeth Koller leaves everything to her daughter Jane who has taken care of her for the last several years.

In York County, the Gerberichs settled in Shrewsbury Township. An early map shows they were neighbors of the Hendrix family and, like the Hilbish-Hummel-Mertz connection in Snyder County, these Shrewsbury families would intermarry and so Maria Elizabeth (Gerbrick) Koller's son Peter was destined to marry Adam Hendrix' daughter Ruth.

It is not proved from actual documents who Maria Elizabeth’s father was, though her ties to this family seem certain. Of the choices I outlined as to whether her father was Peter, Michael or Johannes, I could make the case for any of the three. To review:

The case for Michael is that the date problem is solved but there is no evidence he had a daughter of that name nor any known close association between her and his side of the family.

The case for Johannes is also totally speculative. This theory solves the date problem and if we assume she was then raised by Peter, would also explain the later closeness between she, Peter and his son John. But there simply is no evidence that any of that was the case.

Which brings me back to Peter. It is my conclusion that Maria Elizabeth was most likely the daughter of Peter.

The most obvious justification for this is that, from his will, we know he had a daughter of that name. He alone meets that criteria. It would be nice if more clues about Maria Elizabeth could be gleaned from his will.

I believe Peter named his sons chronologically in his will, starting with John born in 1761. If he also named his daughters chronologically, then Margaret was the oldest and Maria Elizabeth next oldest but it is possible he moved Margaret to the head of the list since she alone was deceased.

I believe that by 1805, most of Peter’s daughters were already married but unfortunately he listed his daughters by just their given name. Again other than Margaret, deceased.

In the final analysis, his will could have been far more helpful but only serves to leave things up in the air. We can’t say Maria Elizabeth was married, we can’t say she wasn’t. We can’t say Maria Elizabeth was his oldest child, we can’t say she wasn’t. I think we can say she wasn’t one of the younger ones.

The record of church baptisms at Fissel’s in York County may tell us more than Peter’s will. Clearly Maria Elizabeth was closely associated with Peter and his son Johannes. Each of those men were sponsors at baptisms of Elizabeth’s children and she was a sponsor at a baptism of a child of Johannes. So she was tight with Peter and his oldest son John. (Yes, the scenario that she was Johannes’ daughter raised by Peter might also explain this closeness but I think arguing the more convoluted case is never a good idea.)

But another strong argument in favor of Peter I believe is the proximity of the tombstones closest to Peter’s. I have visited the Fissel’s Cemetery in Glen Rock and I think the positions of the various tombstones support the theory that Peter was Maria Elizabeth’s father. There is a line of stones that starts with Peter’s and continues with several of his children, then John Koller and one or two of his children who died young. I think John Koller’s presence in this line indicates he was Peter’s son-in-law. John died in 1815 but Maria Elizabeth survived until 1846. Her stone is in the next row and she is beside her son Samuel. I think they were out of room in Peter’s row.

It could be argued that another piece of evidence is that she named a son Peter. However, this is actually a weak argument since the son previous to Peter was named Michael, according to JC Sweeney. Michael apparently died young.

All of which brings us now back to the date problem. I think the case for Peter is strong enough that the only real issue is to explain away the date problem.

Either Peter had a first wife no one knows about or Maria’s tombstone which says she was born in 1754 is in error. I’m not sure which of those two explanations I prefer. I’ll just leave it unexplained.