Records and documents: Adam Holloway
13 record images, oldest first. Move between them with the Previous and Next buttons or the arrow keys; zoom with + and −. Escape returns to Adam Holloway.

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); concordmassachus1635conc.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. The first month is March in the old-style year, which agrees with Pierce's 'March 5. 1681'.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); concordmassachus1635conc.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. The surname is spelled Holaway on this page (Holloway on p. 24).
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); concordmassachus1635conc.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. Mary is not on this page (her birth is on p. 25). The three children are not themselves in the tree.
Image details

Source: FamilySearch, Probate records 1648-1924 (Middlesex County, Massachusetts), film 007553698, image 772.
How it is shown: Complete frame (original, unaltered); no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Transcribed (frames 766-782); a first reading was made. Likely: descriptions Likely, amounts only partly read, and the pairing of several amounts with names is not reliable. The closing allowance, balance and date were not recovered. A line read 'Nathanell & William Oke' is Likely only, and whether it means two sons is unknown. Further parties tagged on 4 Oct 2026: Adam Holloway (1655–1733) (creditor 'to Adam Holloway' in Mary Oke's account (Likely reading in the transcription; Adam Holloway, Mary's father)).
Image details

Source: Digital Commonwealth / Westborough Public Library (public domain).
How it is shown: Complete image (full-size IIIF JPEG); no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed as read at full size. The final entry is in a paler, different hand (probably added later) and is unqualified: no 'Sr.', age or parentage. The same slip records the death of a different Adam, son of William and Mary, on 27 Dec 1732, so the June 1733 Adam is the elder man only by inference from other sources. The name of the 1732 daughter reads 'Botty' or Betty. The gravestone, as copied by De Forest (1891) and Kent (1921), reads 7 June: unreconciled.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); topographicalhis00alle.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. Gives the year and age only: no month or day (it supports neither 7 nor 9 June 1733). The same footnote says Lieut. William married Mary, daughter of Simeon Howard, so that Mary is not Mary Holloway of the Oak family.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); genealogicalhist00ward.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. Ward gives Meliscent b. 15 Apr 1723 but m. 11 Jan 1727-8 (age 4): an internal oddity flagged, not resolved. The page does not mention a later marriage of Mary to John Fay.
Image details

Source: Charles Hudson, History of the Town of Marlborough (1862); Internet Archive (public-domain scan)
How it is shown: Complete page as supplied; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: What the page says: Confirmed: Adam Holloway is listed in garrison no. 23 as stated. The page carries no date; it continues the list begun on p. 109, which Hudson compiled from the committee's assignment of families, and it is a different document from the dated muster of 18 March 1691/2 printed in the Register (vol. 43, p. 372). Nathaniel Oakes is named on p. 109, not on this page. Whether this is our person: Likely, not Confirmed, that this is the tree's Adam Holloway (born about 1653-54, died June 1733 at Northborough), husband of Hannah Hayward: the name and the town fit, but the page gives no age or family. The tree also carries a later Adam Holloway at Westborough, who cannot be ruled out. Hannah Hayward Holloway and Mary Holloway are not named on this page. The Rice names on the page are not tied to anyone in the tree.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); historyofwestborm00defo.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. De Forest does not use the word 'gravestone' (it is Kent, 1921, p. 238, that prints the inscription). The date 7 June differs from the Westborough loose return (9 June); the two are unreconciled.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); forbesforbushgen00pier.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. Pierce conflates the widow Hannah (Hayward) Farrar Holloway with her daughter Hannah Holloway, who married Jonathan Forbush (Concord p. 64 gives 2 Jan 1704/5; Pierce prints 1706 and '1705-8'). The Concord record does not make that conflation. THIS COPY carries an earlier reader's pencil marginalia and ink strike-throughs on the page; they are not Pierce's text and are not evidence.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); concordmassachus1635conc.
How it is shown: Complete page as supplied; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: A printed transcription; the day-month-year digits are printed in the old style ('5. 1. 81') and were first read as 5 January 1681/2; the record prints no month name, and in the old Massachusetts calendar (first month March) the reading is 5 March 1680/81.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); oakoaksoakesfami00oakh.
How it is shown: Complete page as supplied; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: A family-written compilation. The tree has Nathaniel (2) born 1703; the register prints 7 June 1704.
Image details

Source: Internet Archive (public-domain scan); northboroughhist00inkent.
How it is shown: Complete page as scanned; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: Confirmed. Kent's transcription, not the stones themselves. Adam's 7 June differs from the Westborough loose return's 9 June (unreconciled). Adam's age ('in ye 80th year') puts his birth about 1653-54.
Image details