"Great Migration" Posting 9-11-02 Collier and Collyer researchers, particularly those who can trace their origins to early Massachusetts, Maine or New Jersey, will be interested in looking at a recent item on Thomas and Susannah Collier of 1635 Hingham, Mass. Several Collier cousins and I are preparing the first comprehensive genealogy of these "Colliers of Massachusetts," with publication anticipated within the next two years. Thomas of Hingham was the 2d Collier to arrive in New England, the unrelated William of Plymouth and Duxbury having arrived there in 1633. (The descendants of the two men DID connect at least two points, but William and Thomas were not related.) The main early division of the family occurred when most of the Moses (2 - ca. 1625 to 1684) Collier family moved to Woodbridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey, about 1683. Several generations of the family remained in Middlesex, Somerset, Morris and Sussex counties, many if not most changing the spelling of the surname to COLLYER OR COLYER by the mid-18th Century. Most of the known descendants of Thomas (2 - ca. 1622 to 1691), in contrast, remained in South Shore Massachusetts or coastal Maine (then part of Massachusetts, of course) until the very late 18th century. This most recent formal study of the family can be seen in: The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England 1634-1635, vol. II, C-F, authors Robert Charles Anderson, George F. Sanborn, Jr., Melinde Lutz Sanborn, Great Migration Study Project, New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 2001, pages 162-164. My comments: As I had anticipated, there is little new to us in this summation, but Mr. Anderson and his co-authors do raise a few points that I want to address. Please feel free to jump in with your own comments, or to correct me. These are certainly tentative observations on my part, as the Great Migration team has seen many more original documents than I have. # 1 -- Anderson indicates that Thomas (1) removed to Hull from Hingham in 1642. I am not sure that the records substantiate that, as Thomas the immigrant certainly died in Hingham in 1647, and later in the article Anderson indicates that the grantee of land in Hull, 1642, was Thomas (2). Thomas (1) MAY have moved to Hull for a time, but the records shown do not prove it. # 2 -- The record of land holdings presented is more extensive than anything I have seen previous, including more specific locations in Hingham, a lot in "Weymouth Meadow," and a confirmation that the widow Susannah Collier in 1647 was given land in the area later known as Cohasset - first a part of Hingham. (I believe that Moses Collier, the son, served on the committee which made these allotments in 1647, but will have to confirm this. Many, if not most of the early settlers of Hingham - certainly including Lincolns, Lorings and Bakers - also had lots in "Cohasset." I will have more detail on this in the final genealogy notes. Bigelow's ... History of Cohasset covers these various grants in some detail.) The first English spelling for the area we now call Cohasset was "Quonahassit," recorded by Capt. John Smith during his voyage along the New England coast in 1614. As you see, "Conyehassett" was one form used in 1647, and there were no doubt other spellings. The boundaries of the various South Shore towns changed several times during the colonial period. Until the mid-18th Century, the area now the Town of Cohasset was the 2d Precinct of the Town of Hingham. # 3 -- The record of Thomas's will is essentially as I have transcribed it before, but Anderson says that in the earliest copy of the will the final bequest of "one goat" was to son Moses, not Thomas. Son Thomas (2) is therefore not actually mentioned in the will. Some or all of his holdings in Hull may have been his portion of the estate, as Mrs. Smith suggests in her 1988 NEHGR article. # 4 -- Anderson questions the authenticity of the stated birth year of Thomas (1) as in or about 1576. Relying on secondary sources, as I do for the most part, I was not previously aware of this problem. I had previously noted the fact that his date of death is sometimes incorrectly reported as April 6, 1646, rather than the correct April 6, 1647. # 5 -- Anderson gives the date of birth of Moses (2) as "say 1630," whereas we know from a court document of 1679 that Moses then was "aged 54: or there aboutes." He therefore was born about 1625. The death record of 1684, in New Jersey, also confirms that he was then in "in ye 59th year of his age." ( Monnette, Orra Eugene. First Settlers of Ye Plantations of Piscataway and Woodbridge Olde East New Jersey, part 5, The Leroy Carman Press. California. 1931, page 808; and Middlesex Probate, Folio 83, page inexcusably not noted by your humble scribe.) We have nothing certain about the date of birth of the daughter, Susanna (2). Probably a birthdate of between 1625 and 1632 is as good a guess as we can make. # 6 -- Anderson briefly discusses the question of the identity of the sisters Jane and Elizabeth Curtis/Jones, a question that has occupied most of us who have worked on the early Collier/Jones connection. Although Anderson recognizes the probable identity of the Curtis sisters as the step-daughters of Robert Jones of Hingham, and Jane as the wife of Thomas (2), he rightly points out that there is no certain proof that Elizabeth Jones, first wife of Moses (2), was Jane's sister. Since this Elizabeth died a few days after the birth of her only son, Benoni, and he is lost to records after about 1678, the solution to this question can wait for later enlightenment. Wade Collier Trumbull County, Ohio and Lunenburg, Mass.