A New Frazer Tests for YDNA

It is big news when a Frazer tests for YDNA. YDNA is what is passed down from father to son only. So it is the perfect test for a family surname study like we have for Frazer of Roscommon, Ireland. The other reason that it is big news is that there are not that many male Frazers around to do the testing. We previously had 2 tested for YDNA. Now with Rick’s new test, we have three.

Frazer YDNA and Genealogy

I (and others) have pieced together a Frazer genealogy. It is not perfect, perhaps. That is why DNA testing is needed to affirm the work that has been done. Autosomal DNA is good, but the effectiveness tapers off as we go back more generations. Also autosomal DNA is not specific to a surname, so it could apply to any of hundreds of ancestors the further we go back in time. YDNA on the the other hand, is specific to one male line – in this case Frazer. There are two types of YDNA. One is STRs which Rick tested for. These are good, but there are some problems in interpreting them as I will explain later in the Blog. SNPs are the most exact YDNA test. The other two Frazers, Paul and Jonathan have tested for SNPs through the BigY Test.

Rick descends from George Frazer from Martinsburg, NY. George Frazer moved his family to Canada and left many descendants. I have more on that family here. [Edit: Rick’s cousin Pat replies, “It was Richard Patterson Frazer that brought his family to Canada from Martinsburg.   George was born there but came to Canada with his family as a child.”] Many years ago, I convinced Bill, one of those descendants,  that he and I were related based on genealogy. Even though I wasn’t 100% sure myself, I argued my point with Bill and he finally agreed that we were related. Later, I convinced Bill to take an autosomal DNA test which did show that he was related to my family and many other Roscommon, Ireland Frazer Families. Since then, others have tested and confirmed the relationships. Now we have Rick who has tested his YDNA proving a more certain link on the male Frazer line. So this has been a several year journey starting with traditional genealogy, followed up with autosomal DNA and YDNA testing. Here is the tree of the three male Frazers who have tested for YDNA:

This genealogy is the best that we could do with what we have. There are some uncertainties about it. We have other’s research with names but no references. We have the Elphin Census of 1747 and this includes a widow Mary Frazer. She is presumed to be the widow of Archibald Frazer born around 1690. There are two other Frazers in that Census who represent the Archibald and James Lines. Further, I have supposed that James Frazer b. about 1804 is my ancestor. However, this requires the marriage of two first cousins. This was not that unusual apparently back in the day. Those belonging to the Church of Ireland wanted to marry other Church or Ireland people. In fact, there were laws in place requiring that. However, those from the Church of Ireland were in the minority.

According to the chart above:

  • All the testers have the top Archibald as a common ancestor. Rick and Paul also have James Frazer b. about 1804 as their common ancestor.
  • Rick is 9 generations from Archibald b. about 1690. Paul is 8 generations away and Jonathan is 7 generations away from the first Archibald.
  • Paul and Rick are third cousins once removed
  • Jonathan is a 6th cousin once removed from Paul and 6th cousin twice removed from Rick.
  • Assuming that Rick, Paul and Jonathan were born around 1950, there would be about 260 years from the first Archibald to our three YDNA testers.

Rick’s New YDNA STR Results

Based on the above tree, we would expect that Rick would be more closely related to Paul than Jonathan. That is the case. Ricks closest match is to Paul with a Genetic Difference (GD) of 2. His GD to Jonathan is 3. The GD is the difference in STR mutations between two people. Here are all of Rick’s matches by STRs. He has more matches than Paul or Jonathan:

Here is how Rick’s STR matches compare with Paul’s and Jonathan’s. The numbers are GDs. So a larger GD is a more distant YDNA match. A blank means more than 7:

  • I put the matches together that matched all three Frazers.
  • The light blue highlighted names have taken the BigY Test
  • The SNP Tree below based on BigY SNPs shows that Grant is a closer match to Frazer than Hayes. This seems clear from the STR matches above also
  • The chart points out all the Grant matches. Half of the 10 Frazer STR matches are with Grants.
  • Rick is the only Frazer matching Hayes. This backs up the SNP tree below.

These are the same names that I have been tracking by SNPs. So that is good that the SNPs and the STRs agree with each other. Here is the new SNP tree that was developed by the R1a L664 Administrator Martin:

  • Patton is the most distantly related to Frazer and doesn’t show on any Frazer’s STR match list.
  • Grant shows as the closest match, then Hayes.
  • Chisum doesn’t show on the SNP map as Chisum has not taken the BigY Test.
  • Stuart doesn’t show yet, but he is in the the process of taking the BigY Test, so he will eventually show on the SNP Tree.
  • If Rick had taken the BigY test, he would have formed a branch under the Archibald line on the lower right of the tree. Rick and Paul would likely share some of the SNPs now shown as private SNPs for Paul and both Paul and Rick would then have their own new private SNPs.
  • Rick must share all the SNPs in the yellow box above the ca 1600 A.D date. These are the five brand new SNPs YP6489 through YP6493 that are right now Frazer only SNPs.

A Simple New Frazer STR Tree

A STR Tree for the Frazer should follow the genealogical tree and the SNP tree. Here are the STRs and where Jonathan, Paul and Rick differ:

Normally, the mode would be taken as the oldest STR. However, in the case of DYS391 I believe that based on comparison with other STR tests for Grant, Chisum, Whittaker and Stewart, that the 10 value of DYS391 is the older value. Likewise for CDY which changes more quickly than other STRs, I took 35-38 to be the older value. Prior to Rick’s results, I had this tree for Jonathan and Paul:

In this simple tree, Paul had all the STR changes since the 1690 Frazer ancestor and Jonathan had none. However, there is some guesswork in drawing this out. One rule is to make the chart as simple as possible, which is what I did. This means having the least amount of changes. It is sometimes called the rule of parsimony. Ambiguities in STRs is why some people prefer the SNP trees as there is little or no ambiguity in SNPs. Now note the above chart. Paul and Rick share 391 = 11 and CDYa = 35-40. Here is the new Frazer STR Tree with Rick included:

This shows:

  • Paul has his own STR mutation of 576 = 19 which happened sometime after 1804.
  • Likewise, Rick has his own STR mutation of 444 = 13 which defines Rick’s relatively recent branch.
  • The GD of 2 noted above between Paul and Rick are for markers 576 and 444.
  • The GD of 3 between Paul and Jonathan are for markers 576, 391 and CDYa.
  • The GD of 3 between Rick and Jonathan are for markers 444, 391 and CDYa.
  • The STR tree gets more difficult to draw further back from the present time. This is because more variables come into play such as parallel mutations and back mutations.
  • It would be possible to draw a STR Tree for the Grant, Hayes, Stewart, Chisum, Whittaker Tree, but I will leave that for another time.

Summary

  • The Big Y test for Paul and Jonathan have defined shared SNPs for the Frazer line and Private SNPs for the Archibald and James Lines
  • Ricks STR test has defined shared STRs for the line of James Frazer who was born about 1804. Any future testers from this line should be able to confirm descent from this line by testing for 391 = 11 which is a slower moving STR. CDYa would be a less reliable STR as it is a STR which changes much more often than most.
  • STR mutations that are unique to Rick and Paul cannot be dated precisely as they could have happened anytime after James Frazer of 1804 was born until Rick and Paul were born. That would be roughly between 1830 and 1950.
  • At the 67 STR testing level, on average, one STR change takes place about every 140 years. Jonathan shows no STR changes the way the chart was drawn. This would be less than average for him. Paul and Jonathan should have had 2 changes each, but each had 3 changes. This means they got the extra two STR changes that Jonathan should have had since 1690. It all averages out.
  • All this DNA testing makes me feel more close to my Canadian Frazer cousins.

 

A New R1a-YP5515 Tree: Patton, Hayes, Grant, and Frazer

Thanks to a Patton, Hayes, Grant and 2 Frazers that have had a BigY test, and the R1a-L664 Administrator, we now have a new SNP Tree. I was happy to hear that Martin, the L664 Administrator, fresh from a 6 week holiday in Australia, had come up with a new tree for YP5515.

First, the YP432 Tree

Technically, at FTDNA where the testing took place, Patton, Hayes, Grant and Frazer are still listed as YP432. FTDNA is a bit behind. Here is the YP432 Tree that Martin has recently updated:

I had mentioned previously that YFull, a business that analyzes these results had branching under YP431, but not under YP5515. The above tree by Martin now shows 5 branches under YP5515 vs. 6 under YP431 on the right side above. Here is YFull’s version of the tree. In their defense, they are coming out with a new YTree this month.

Dating the New Tree – Scandinavians and Scotsmen

The other good news about the new tree Martin developed is the dates. Before the new tree came out, we had YFulls date of a common YP432 ancestor of 2800 years ago. That was not very helpful. Martin’s tree has a date for YP432 which is about 1500 B.C which is even older by 700 years. I will be watching for the new YFull YTree to see if they have a date adjustment for YP432 and a new date for YP5515. Martin goes all the way up to 900-1600 A.D. for the SNPs that the two Frazers share. That is a huge difference from YP432 to the Frazers of 3100 years. Martin also points out that it was likely between 1400 B.C and 400 B.C. when our Scandinavian ancestor or ancestors decided to move to Scotland.

That means that the Frazers and their Patton, Hayes and Grant relatives are actually Scandinavian if we go back far enough. I suppose after a few hundred years of being in Scotland, no one could tell that they weren’t originally Scots. They were certainly in the area before the adoption of surnames. And when those surnames were adopted, they were Scots surnames. On the other hand, the YP431 Branch of YP432 appears to have remained in Scandinavia for the most part.

The YP5515 Tree

The YP5515 Tree is very new even though it dates back to 400-1400 B.C. And at this point there are only 5 BigY tested people on the tree, so we are part of an exclusive club:

Here I have taken out the ID’s for privacy for Patton, Hayes, Grant and Frazer. I did add the two Frazer lines: James and Archibald. This shows that Patton branched off quite early. The tree also appears to show that as late as 800 A.D. Hayes, Grant and Frazer had a common ancestor. Keep in mind that this would have been before the adoption of surnames. Roughly between 800 and 900 A.D. Grant branched off. The dating of the common ancestor of James and Archibald Frazer at 1600 is interesting as we believe the genealogy shows a common ancestor at around 1690 or so. The biggest change was in the SNPs of the two Frazers. They went from FTDNA’s official YP432 to YP432>YP5515>YP6479>YP6488>YP6489.

The above Tree should be taken as quite authoritative. However, it is possible that it could change by the addition of branches as others test for the new SNPs. It appears with all the Patton SNPs that there is quite a bit of room for additional branching. In my previous Blog, I had mentioned a Stewart and Chisolm. These matched by STRs, but had not taken the BigY or SNP tests. It would be possible for Stewart and/ór Chisolm to test and more precisely place themselves on the tree above (based on the SNPs they test positively or negatively for).

Another thing to note on Martin’s Tree is that there are now SNP names rather than just position numbers. For those SNPs that are shared most of them now have YP numbers. The private SNPs that are unshared, remain as position numbers.

Where My YP5515 Tree Went Wrong

When Martin came up with his tree, he noted that mine was mostly right. Here was my mistake:

I had a question mark by Patton as he had a bunch of missing SNPs that others had. Martin rightly had Patton descending from YP5515 on one side and Hayes, Grant and Frazer on the other being all YP6479. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. Basically it means that Hayes, Grant and Frazer do not descend from the Patton Line, but they both have a common ancestor.

The other difference I notice is that I had the James Line with 4 private SNPs and Martin had them with only 3. Martin does not show the James Line as having the Private SNP #19995371. I checked our James Line tester against Grant and see that they both share that SNP, so that cannot be a private SNP for our James Line tester.

Frazers One Step Further

There is one other male Frazer on the Archibald Line who is in the process of testing YDNA for STRs. If I were to get a test method for each of the Archibald Line Private STRs and this tester were to test for each of these, we would be able to have one more branch on the Archibald Line with a named SNP defining that branch. Those two people have the common ancestor of James Frazer b. about 1803.

What’s Next?

Next we wait for the new YFull YTree. This will give a second opinion on Martin’s Tree. However, YFull does not have all the tested people that Martin has. After that, we wait for the STR results of the other Archibald Line person.

First YFull Analysis of a Frazer BigY Test

I have written quite a bit on Frazer BigY testing. To see my Blogs on the subject, they should be categorized under Frazer YDNA. Paul and Jonathan have both tested for the BigY. BigY finds all the SNPs of the YDNA of a male. These SNPs are both known and previously unknown SNP. These SNPs change roughly every 100 years. There are terminal SNPs, private SNPs and public SNPs, so it gets a bit confusing.

Frazer of North Roscommon, Ireland Terminal SNP

First, I forgot to mention what YFull is. YFull analyzes the Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) BigY test. For Haplogroups like R1a, which is what the Frazers are, they are good at analyzing the information and coming up with new SNPs. Sometimes, they are more up to date than FTDNA which seems ironic as it is FTDNA that did the test to begin with. For example, YFull has my cousin Paul as R-YP5515. FTDNA has Paul’s terminal SNP as R-YP432 which is older. This is how I have drawn it in previous Blogs:

The bottom line is that Frazer and Grant and perhaps Patton are all R-YP5515, but FTDNA doesn’t show it yet. YP5515 is in a box with many other SNPs, but YP5515 is the representative SNP for the group. That means that a bunch of SNPs are in that block, but we don’t know which one was formed first. At any rate, it is a point at which branching occurs. That is one good thing about SNPs. As they are unambiguous, they are good at forming SNP trees, which as basically ancient family (or clan) trees.

FTDNA’s Haplotree Vs YFull’s YTree

Here is how Frazer shows up on FTDNA’s Haplotree:

FTDNA only shows YP431 branching off, but not YP5515.

Here is YFull’s YTree:

In the tree above, Paul is indicated with a red “new”. The YTree tells me a lot more than the FTDNA Haplotree:

  • The R-YP5515 branch beneath R-YP432 is a lot smaller presently than the R-YP431 branch.
  • FTDNA is missing a lot of SNPs under the YP431 branch
  • The R-YP431 branch has a lot of people that appear to have Norwegian ancestors. From my previous Blogs, I have shown that the YP5515 branch appears to be from Scotland.
  • YFull is popular for it’s dating. YP431 shows a common ancestor at 1900 years before present. I assume that once Jonathan’s results are submitted to YFull, there will be new SNPs named and a new date for YP5515.

YFull’s Look At Private SNPs

Here we get into terminology. YFull calls these Novel SNPs, but when I choose them, they are listed as Private.  A simplified explanation is that a Novel SNP is an unnamed one and a Private one is one that is not shared with anyone else (at YFull). YFull gives novel SNPs a YFS number. Here is the list of Paul’s best quality Novel SNPs:

This shows that Paul has 42 Novel SNPs. What I don’t show is that there were 16 ambiguous SNPs. The other categories beyond ambiguous had no Novel SNPs. Those categories are Low Quality, One Reading and INDELs.

I can download the Novel SNPs to an Excel Sheet. Here are Paul’s SNPs that are not shared with Jonathan:

This shows that Paul has 4 Novel SNPs, what FTDNA calls Variants. In my tree above, I had that Paul had 5. When I checked Variant 28804880, I see that was a mistake, so I’ll take that one out.

This is a better result as now there is symmetry between the Archibald Line and the James Line. This shows exactly 4 new novel variants on the Archibald Line and the James Line since their common ancestor. 150 years is an average period for new SNPs, so that could mean 600 years to the common ancestor if these are all actually new SNPs. This could mean that the Frazer had more variants than average or that this R1a branch of YP5515 has more than average. The actual time to the common ancestor is about 260 years if we have done the genealogy correctly.

FTDNA VS YFull

YFull exists because FTDNA is not the best at analyzing its own BigY results. However, FTDNA has a few features that YFull does not have. With FTDNA, one can tell who the matches are. In YFull the matches are just by ID. With FTDNA, I can match by Variants which is useful. At Yfull I can only find matches by known SNPs.

Number of Novel variants

As above, YFull shows 42 Novel SNPs for Paul. This is close to what FTDNA shows. FTDNA shows that Paul shares 36 Novel Variants with Jonathan and that he has 4 unique Variants. That adds up to 40. That would give the impression that YFull is showing 2 more Novel Variants compared to FTDNA. But that is not the case. Actually, there is very little agreement at all.

This is the top of my spreadsheet that compares the Variants. Y5515 is in gold. YFull does not report any of the Variants in the YP5515 block or above. FTDNA does as it is out to date with its Variants. That is why there are so many blanks in the Paul YFull column. That is a difference of 21 SNPs to begin with. Going down the spreadsheet, the Variants that are listed as being the same in both FTDNA and YFull are shown in the Paul YFull column:

This shows that there are only 17 Variants out of 40-42 reported that are the same in both FTDNA and YFull. Below this are 25 Variants that YFull lists that FTDNA does not list. This is perhaps because FTDNA lists only the highest quality Variants. The 25 Variants that YFull lists includes Acceptable and Ambiguous Quality SNPs.

Next Steps

I have recently heard from Martin who is the L664 Administrator. He is back from a trip to Australia and working on getting these SNPs into a new tree. Hopefully Jonathan’s results will make their way to YFull also for analysis and help build out the YTree.

 

 

 

BigY Update On R1a Frazers

The Frazers originating from North Roscommon, Ireland are R1a in YDNA terms. That makes them a bit of an oddball compared to other Frazers. Most other Frazers spell their name Fraser and are R1b. Our Frazer branch is L664 under R1a. That group of people lived around the North Sea according to the L664 YDNA Project administrator.

That means that at some time our Frazer ancestors probably moved from the Netherlands or Germany up to Denmark or Norway and then over to Scotland. Or they may have gone directly to Scotland or up through the England. We don’t know. We do know that this probably happened before the time when surnames were used. Once in the area of present day Scotland, they mixed with the earlier Britains who were R1b. Perhaps this is the area where they lived when they took on the Fraser/Frazer name:

The map above shows Fraser, Chisolm, Grant and Stewart. All these names have been found to be related to Frazer by YDNA. Hayes is also related by YDNA, but I think Hayes may actually be a Grant around the year 1600 or after. Here is a closeup of the Fraser Lands in 1587, showing proximity to the Chisolm and Grant Lands:

Stewart Update

In my previous Blog on BigY, I had drawn a STR tree without Stewart. Here is the new one with him included:

Stewart/Stuart is in red above. He is important, because his STR signature is the same as the common ancestor for Grant, Hayes and Stewart. If I had room, I would draw another line to the bottom of the page with Stewart showing no STR changes. Here is Stewart added to the SNP Tree:

The Stewart on the chart has expressed interest in BigY testing, so there should be more updates to come.

Grant Update

I was pleasantly surprised to see the results of a recent Grant BigY test. In the SNP tree above, the bolded names have taken the BigY, so I will need to update Grant. In my STR tree, I had two Grants. The one that took the BigY test had his most distant ancestor as:

James GRANT “of Carron”, 1728 – 1790

Here is my STR update for Grant of Carron. All I did was make it more clear which Grant was which:

Grant of carron BigY

The Grant BigY test threw me off a bit as the results showed that he was one SNP away from Paul and Jonathan. Usually, I am looking for a zero SNP difference. Grant of Carron shows a L1012 SNP that Paul and Jonathan do not have. Unfortunately, I don’t know why that is the case. Also I don’t know much about the L1012 SNP. It could be that the L1012 SNP was tested in error, or that Paul and Jonathan should have that SNP or that the L1012 SNP is branching below the green box where I have Grant on my SNP tree. The last option does not seem likely as I don’t have named SNPs in the green box, so there shouldn’t be named SNPs below the box.

Grant matched Paul and Jonathan on Variant 23614618. However, Hayes did not match on that variant. That could lead to this tree:

This change pointed out an earlier mistake I had made. I had 23619535 in the Archibald Line and in the orange box. I should have had 23614618 in the orange box. At any rate, that variant is now moved up to the Frazer/Grant mustard colored box. Another option would have been to move 23614618  to the green box of Hayes, Grant and Stewart. This would be assuming that Hayes should have been positive for 23614618 but had a poor test result. All these trees are preliminary until I wait for the R1a Administrators to come up with a more official tree. Another option would be to wait for the YFull analysis. However, that is dependent upon testers using their service. At any rate, it is good to have fewer SNPs in the orange box as we are bumping up against a likely Frazer date of 1690. The final change in the SNP Tree has to do with Chisolm. We don’t have a BigY for this YDNA relative. That means I don’t know if Chisolm goes with the mustard box or the orange one. I’ll leave him with the orange right now as there are so many SNPs there.

Summary and What’s Next

  • I have added Stewart to my SNP Tree and STR Tree
  • A BigY Test for Grant pointed out a mistake I made earlier for one of the variants on my proposed tree
  • The Grant BigY results may result in a small node where the Grants and Frazers had a common ancestor.
  • Once the R1a and L664 administrators are done with their analysis, I would like to see three or four levels below the official level of R-YP432 for Frazer. These would include branching for Hayes and Grant also.
  • I’m a bit unsure of Patton. He tested positive for R-YP5515 but is missing some of the other variants that are seen in other BigY results. However, that would not make a difference in the overall structure of the SNP Tree.
  • I am looking forward to a BigY test for the Stewart/Stuart in the group.

More On Early Butlers In the US

In my previous Blog on the subject, I noted how two Cincinnati Butler families were connected by DNA. These were the George Butler family and the Edward Butler family. Edward Butler is an ancestor of my wife. Since then, with the help of Peter Butler, I have expanded the George Butler tree a little. Now it looks like this side by side with the Edward Butler tree.

Previously, I was hoping that Edward and George were brothers and that they would have the same fathers. However, that now does not look likely. However, it could be that George and Edward were first cousins. If that is the case, that would make Lorraine, Richard and Virginia 4th cousins to Pat and 4th cousins twice removed to Uncle Naffy.

DNA Connections Between the George and Edward Butler Families

The tree above is pared down to include only those in lines that have had their DNA tested. Uncle Naffy tested at FTDNA and uploaded his results to Gedmatch. Lorraine, Richard and Virginia are also at Gedmatch, but Uncle Naffy matches only Richard and Lorraine. Here is the Uncle Naffy’s match with Richard which is the same as his match to Lorraine.

Assuming Richard and Uncle Naffy are 4th cousins twice removed, this was a fortunate match as the chance of them matching is only a little over 10%.

By comparing Lorraine, Richard and Virginia to each other and with the help of matches with Uncle Naffy and a paternal second cousin, I was able to map out the DNA for these three siblings:

Here I presumed that the Uncle Naffy match was on the Butler DNA side of my in-law’s family. That meant that the paternal cousin’s match below had to be Kerivan as that is the only other paternal grandparent my in-law’s have. Further, the paternal cousin Gaby only matched Lorraine on the left side of the pink segment, so that meant Gaby and Lorraine had to match on their Butler side DNA.

Lorraine and Virginia match Patty

Lorraine, Virginia and Patty all tested at AncestryDNA and match each other. Lorraine and Patty are predicted 4th cousins at AncestryDNA. Unfortunately, Ancestry doesn’t show on what Chromosome the match is like Gedmatch does. Virginia and Pat also show as 4th cousins. Further Pat, Lorraine and Virginia have shared matches with those on the blue line of the tree above. All of this confirms the DNA connection between the George and Edward Butler families.

Life For the Butlers in Civil War Era Cincinnati

I would not like to have lived in Cincinnati around the time of the Civil War. For one thing, there was a war going on. For another thing Cholera outbreaks were rampant. Here was a Mrs. Butler that died of cholera in 1866:

This could have been George’s first wife Mary Whitty – except the address seems off. At this time, people didn’t understand that cholera was the result of drinking contaminated water. At this time there was a George Butler, laborer listed in the Cincinnati Directories as living at 890 East Front Street. Perhaps around here:

The 17 on this 1869 map is for Ward 17 where George Butler lived in 1860 and 1870. My research friend Peter was able to obtain a copy of George Butler’s second marriage to Margaret Sinnott.

I have the greatest sympathy for the transcriber who wrote down Surwott for Margaret’s maiden name. The marriage was on November 11, 1866 at All Saints Roman Catholic Church in the Fulton area of Cincinnati. I’m not sure where Fulton is, but there is a Fulton Avenue in the map above. Apparently Fulton was a Town in the area that got incorporated into Cincinnati around the 1840’s.

Edward Butler and Family

According to the 1860 Census, Edward also lived in Ward 17. The Cincinnati Directory of 1860 lists a laborer named Edward Butler living at the c. (corner?) of Goodloe and Leatherbury. I was interested in this location because during the same year there was a listing for George who was also a laborer b. (boards?) Reed and Leatherbury. Here is the 1869 Ward 17 map again:

Here Leatherbury is spelled Litherbury for some reason. The Street above “Continued” is East Front. The Street below “Continued” may be Goodloe. For some reason, it gives me pleasure to figure out where ancestors lived. In this case, my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler and his likely cousin George Butler.

Edward: 17th Ward to the 3rd ward

For some reason, Edward Butler and family moved to the 3rd Ward where they are listed in the 1870 Census.  When I was looking at the Ward 3 map I found the All Saint’s Church. It looks like the Church also had a school.

It is near the T and L of LYTLE’S in the bottom right of the map above. The Church appears to be in Ward 1 and Whittaker’s in Ward 3. Here is how Wards 1, 3 and 17 connect:

Edward Butlers in the Cincinnati directory

There appear to be more than one Edward Butler in Cincinnati at the time. Here are some of my listings from 1859 to 1869:

The most consistent listing is for 66 Avery, but I don’t think that is our Edward. I mentioned that I liked the 1860 listing of Goodloe and Leatherbury. Then in  1862 928 R. Front looks good. After that, in 1865, Front and Whitaker looks good. That location is on the Ward 3 Map above. That listing matches up with his Civil War service that I have elsewhere. Here are some more listings from 1870 to 1876:

I had forgotten that I had ruled out Avery in the past as I have that Edward had a son George who was believed to be born in Chicago in 1873. Here the 1870 listing of e. 3rd is a possibility. The southern half of East 3rd is in Ward 3 which is consistent with Edward Butler’s 1870 Census listing. High Street in the Ward 3 map above is also 3rd.

The takeaway story could be that Edward lived near his cousin George in Ward 17 when he first moved from St. John, Nova Scotia to Cincinnati. He moved to nearby Ward 3 to work for the Navy at the end of the Civil War. He stayed in Ward 3 until moving out of Cincinnati. This move was probably around 1870 as his son George was believed to be born in Chicago in June 1873.

Edward Butler Family 1880 Census

That leads me to the 18880 Census. I had found this Census a while ago and have gone back and forth as to whether it is my wife’s Edward Butler family or not. There is a lot right and a lot wrong with the Census record.

I’ll look at each thing that appears wrong:

  • The mother is listed as Ellen rather than Mary. However, I have her as Mary E. Crowley. Mary’s mother was Ellen which is likely her middle name.
  • Ellen is listed as widowed which I don’t believe she is. She is also listed as what appears to be wife, though possibly transcribed as ‘self’.
  • Ellen is listed as being born in Illinois. However, her parents are shown as being born in Ireland which would be correct.
  • Edward Butler is not listed. Perhaps he is traveling or working away from home?
  • I have no record of Cornelius but he may have married in the area or died. He would have been born around 1871, so this agrees with the apparent early move date to Illinois for the family.
  • Henry born in 1875 could be Edward Henry
  • I have no other record of John being born in 1879, so he may have died young or stayed in the area.

This means that I am convincing myself that this is a valid document. I notice that other related Butler researchers have used this Census as a reference in their Family Trees. This does not place the family in Chicago, but at least they are in Illinois.

Milton, Illinois

Here is a Google map of Milton:

Milton is a lot closer to St. Louis than it is to Chicago. According to Wikipedia, Milton is in Pike County.

1920 Census: A nail in the coffin for Milton

On the other hand, there is the 1920 Census. This shows that we had the wrong family in Milton in 1880:

Here we have the same Ellen, Cornelius, George and John. However, this cannot be my wife’s family as the mother Mary (Ellen?) was dead by now and George and Edward Henry were living in Massachusetts. However, that is helpful as there is no need to further pursue Milton, Illinois. We still need to find the family in 1880.

where was the edward butler family in 1880?

I have been looking for census records for quite some time. I have basically lost track of the family between 1870 and 1890. I have the Cincinnati Census of 1870. I have indirect evidence that they were in Chicago for the birth of George Butler in 1873 and Edward Butler in 1875, but no direct records of the family being in Chicago. Here  is the Cincinnati Edward Butler family in 1870.

Here is Edward Butler 20 years later in Massachusetts.

This is from FamilySearch. The top says Newton. However, the bottom of the handwritten schedule says Newtonville. The transcription on the bottom says Watertown. All these places are very close.

The search continues.

 

Comparing Frazer Big Y Tree With STR Trees

Recently, I have written some Blogs on Frazer BigY results. Here is the most recent BigY Blog. My cousin Paul’s results are in and Jonathan’s results are in. These two people represent the major Frazer lines from North Roscommon, Ireland in the early 1700’s. Maurice Gleeson was one of the first people to compare BigY results and STR results. His video on the subject is here:

Building a Family Tree with SNPs, STRs, & Named People (Maurice Gleeson)

BigY Frazer Results: Looking Into the Future

I have built a tree based on the initial two Frazer BigY results. I call this looking into the future as the variants shown as just numbers below, will be the future SNPs which people will test to find out what branch of the YDNA tree they are in. Here is the SNP tree I have so far:

This is a compressed zig zag tree to save space. The tree is with the reference of the Frazers as those are the tests I’m familiar with. This doesn’t mean that Frazer descended from Hayes who descended from Patton. Patton and Hayes should have their own branches descending down also. This tree means that at the Hayes level, Frazer and Hayes shared the same ancestor (and variants). Likewise, at the R-YP5515 level, Patton, Hayes and Frazer all shared the same common ancestor in the quite distant past.

STR Trees: What About the Grants?

My distant cousin on the James Line of the Frazers wondered what happened to the Grants after we did the BigY test. She wondered because the Grant name was the one that came up quite consistently as a Frazer STR match. Well, I don’t think that the Grants that matched Jonathan have taken the BigY test, so they didn’t show up there. However, the closest non-Frazer match in the BigY test was a Hayes. Here is a first shot at a Frazer/Grant/Hayes STR Tree with dates:

The idea behind making a STR Tree is to find the common STR values. These become the ancestral STRs at the top of the tree. Then find the fewest changes going down to create a tree. Finally, make a guess as to the dates. At the 67 STR level, I think there is a chance of a new STR every 150 years or so. However, this varies. Also, as in the SNP tree above, I know that the common ancestor between Paul and Jonathan is about 260 years ago. This STR tree should correspond roughly with the SNP Tree up to where the Hayes come into the picture. That means the 700 year guess for my STR tree corresponds with the SNP tree of 260-760 years plus 348-900 years or 608-1660 years. What the second tree does is to help calibrate the dates. As the SNPs are more set in stone than the STRs, the SNP tree also sets the structure for the STR tree. The STR tree has to follow the SNP tree.

The STR tree also points out that Paul and Jonathan should be equally related to Grant1, Hayes and Grant2. That is because, if the tree is drawn correctly, they all have the same Frazer/Grant/Hayes ancestor. This is despite the fact that Grant1, Hayes and Grant2 have different genetic distances to Paul and Jonathan. This is also assuming that they all have about the same number of generations to the common ancestor.

The other thing that the STR tree shows is that Hayes should be more closely related to Grant than the Frazer family.

On the Chisolm Trail

Now that I see that the SNP tree supported the Frazer/Grant/Hayes STR tree, I will add Chisolm to the STR Tree. Two names that are on Paul and Jonathan’s STR match list are Chisolm and Stuart. I had looked at Stuart before and the Stuart STRs seem to fall in line with Grant and Hayes. However, after my first look at the Chisolm STRs, it appears that Chisolm is more aligned with the Frazers.

Chisolm STRs

Here are some of the Chisolm STRs at the Chisolm YDNA Project page:

The first line is the Chisolm mode. The mode is the most commonly occurring STR value. The next four lines are R1a Chisolms. The Chisolm that matches the Frazers is on the bottom line. Note that any of the highlighted STRs indicate a variation from the mode. That means that this Chisolm is not a very good match to the other Chisolms. Here are some of the Chisum/Chisolm STRs on the bottom row compared to Frazers, Grants and a Stuart:

Most notably, Chisum is aligning with Frazer at position 389b = 30 and 534 = 14 rather than with Grant, Hayes or Stuart. This appears to be leaving 447 – 24 as a signature Frazer STR.

New STR Tree with chisolm

This is a bit of odds and sods tree with four different surnames.

Paul/Chisolm Parallel mutation

Paul and Chisolm have a parrallel mutation at 576=19. This has the effect of the STR test making it look like Paul is a closer match to Chisolm than he really is. Chisolm shows up as Paul’s closest STR match after Paul’s match with his cousin Jonathan. FTDNA show that both Paul and Chisolm have a value of 19 for STR 576. However, assuming the STR Tree is correct, Paul and Chisolm both developed that STR mutation independently. Regardless, if my STR tree is correct, then Chisolm is a closer match to Frazer than to either Grant or Hayes. I had not expected this result.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Ideally, a BigY test for Grant and Chisolm would sort things out.

Based on the STR tree, I have put in where I think Grant and Chisolm would be on the SNP tree. If Chisolm were to take the BigY test, then it would be clear which of the orange variants are Frazer variants and not Chisolm and which new variants are Chisolm and not Frazer. A BigY test by one of the Grants would also sort out the Grants and Hayes variants. By the way, a Stuart match STR match should be included with Hayes and Grant on the above SNP Tree.

Summary and Observations

  • In broad strokes a SNP change should happen about at the same rate that a 67 STR marker would happen. This means that a SNP tree should mimic a STR tree in both shape and the rough number of mutations of both STRs and SNPs.
  • A SNP tree should be the undisputed tree when comparing SNP trees and STR trees. This is because a SNP is a one-time event. A STR mutation may be a one time event, a back mutation or a parallel mutation.
  • Comparing SNP trees and STR trees can be helpful in calibrating dates of trees. A known common ancestor date is certainly helpful also.
  • When considering dates, it is important to know when the use of surnames became common practice. One reference I read for Scotland was that the date was the 16th century. That date is interesting as my STR tree guesses at a common ancestor for Chisolm and Frazer at about 1400 A.D.
  • The same reference says that in the Highlands and northern isles of Scotland surnames did not fully take root until the year 1800. If Hayes and Grant were from the Highlands, this could explain the different surnames.
  • This late date of adoption of surnames could explain why the surnames are not matching well with the YDNA testing. A late-adopted surname would not have time to build up a head of steam or a large amount of descendants.
  • I will be looking forward to FTDNA adopting the R-YP5515 SNP. FTDNA also needs at least two more levels of SNPs. One at the Hayes/Frazer level and one at the Frazer level.

Frazer Big Y Results: Archibald Line and James Line

I have previously written Blogs on my cousin Paul’s Big Y results here and here. Paul is my 2nd cousin once removed. He is from the Archibald Line. Archibald and James are believed to be two Frazer brothers living in North Roscommon in the early 1700’s. Just yesterday, Jonathan’s Big Y results came in. Jonathan is from the James line.

Paul is two steps below Hubert on the left and Jonathan is one step below Walter on the right hand side.

What is a Big Y?

The Big Y is an expensive YDNA test that looks at SNPs. SNPs are stable locations where mutation occur on the male Y Chromosome. These mutation happen around every 150 years. The could happen more quickly or more slowly, but 150 years would be an average. Like a laser beam, these SNP mutations make a map straight down the Frazer male line heading toward the distant past. The special feature of the Big Y is that it discovers new SNPs that have not been previously discovered. These newly discovered SNPs are helpful in verifying genealogical trees – especially when taken in tandem like we did with Paul and Jonathan.

In my previous Blog, I had looked at these SNPs for my cousin Paul and came up with a tree that looked like this:

FTDNA that does the Big Y testing has Paul as R-YP432. They don’t yet have listed YP5515 which YFull has. YFull is a service that looks a Big Y and similar results for a fee. Using that information, they create YDNA trees, date the connections, and do other things. Just yesterday I sent Paul’s Big Y results to YFull for analysis.

All the numbers in the green boxes above are SNPs. The numbers with no letters are SNP positions that haven’t been named yet. The bottom green box is for Paul. He has more unique SNPs that I didn’t include in the bottom box. I would expect that out of these SNPs, Paul will share some with Jonathan and that Jonathan and Paul would have their own unique SNPs that happened since the two branches split in the early 1700’s.

Let’s Compare Paul and Jonathan’s SNPs

According to FTDNA Paul and Jonathan share 36 Novel Variants. However, many of those shared between Paul and Jonathan are not uniquely shared. In other words they would be shared with Patton or especially Hayes above the Frazers. First, I’ll add in the SNPs that were only Paul’s before Jonathan’s results came in:

I compressed the tree above to save space. There is still a Patton block of SNPs and under that a Hayes block of SNPs. The orange SNPs under Hayes were Paul’s unique SNPs before Jonathan had his Big Y results. When I compare the 36 SNPs that Paul and Jonathan share, only six of those are in the orange block above. When I separate out Paul’s newly unique SNPs, I get the Archibald Line:

The brown box labelled Archibald Line is Paul’s version of the Archibald Line. If others were to do this test in the Archibald line, there would be some shared and some unique SNPs again. Those SNPs would represent the different branches in the Archibald Line. The orange box shows all the SNPs that are shared by the Frazers in the DNA Project. These SNPs represent the father of the Archibald and James Lines who was probably another Archibald. Note that Paul has 5 mutations since the lines split. That would be more than expected. If we use the average of 150 years, that would put the common Frazer ancestor at 750 years ago. As we believe that the common ancestor lived about 300 years ago, then there must have been a mutation in Paul’s line about every 52 years or every other generation. I am guessing that there will be fewer mutation on Jonathan’s James Line side.

Jonathan’s SNPs

I’m curious to see how these come out. Jonathan has 28 Novel Variants (the same number that Paul now has). From what I can tell, FTDNA calls the unnamed SNPs Novel Variants. Here is my spreadsheet showing the overlaps and unique SNPs between Jonathan and Paul:

Paul’s 5 unique SNPs are shown in blue. Jonathan’s 5 unique SNPs from Paul are shown in yellow. However, I have a note. The note is that Hayes shares 9510807 with Jonathan. Hayes is upstream from the Frazers SNPs. That means that Paul should have also had 9510807. That means that Jonathan has 4 unique SNPs compared to Paul.

Now For the Complete Frazer Y SNP Tree

I put the SNP that Jonathan had in common with Hayes up in the Hayes Block with an asterisk. That is the SNP that Paul should have had but didn’t test positive for.

A Problem With Dating the Frazer Common Ancestor

Let’s assume that the common Frazer Ancestor, the parent of Archibald and James was born in 1690. Let’s further assume that Paul and Jonathan were born in 1950. That leaves 260 years. I will double that for the two lines and divide by the total number of unique SNP which is 9. That gives me roughly 58 years per mutation. That seems to push down the rough estimate of 150 years per mutation quite a bit.

I do get a little consolation in the fact that if our genealogy is right, Paul is 8 generations from the Frazer common ancestor and Jonathan is 7 generations away. That means that Paul’s line had one more generation to form an extra SNP compared to Jonathan – which he apparently did.

Let’s assume that 150 years per mutation is correct. That would mean that the common Frazer ancestor would be 6-700 years ago. To me, this seems unlikely. We have two male Frazers living in North Roscommon in the early 1700’s. We also have a documented Frazer widow, believed to be the mother. Family tradition has the father of Archibald and James as an Archibald born around 1690. Also we have autosomal DNA matches between the Archibald and James Lines. These have not been proven to be linked to the Frazer common ancestor, but seem likely.

It figures that this Big Y test created additional questions! We will have to await more analysis from YFull and the R1a YDNA Project Administrators. Here is one more try at adding dates using the 58 years per mutation versus the 150 years per mutation:

Oddly enough, this makes me feel better. The reason is, that even with 150 years per SNP, I am getting up to 4200 years ago up at the YP432 Level. This is more than the 2800 years what YFull currently has for a most likely time to a common ancestor at YP432.

Summary

  • The Big Y test for Paul and Jonathan resulted in more unique Variants than expected for both Paul and Jonathan
  • Using average years per SNP mutation, this would push back the common ancestor for the James and Archibald lines quite a way into the past.
  • Future analysis may resolve this issue. YFull will be one company analyzing the Frazer Big Y test. I will also ask for advice from others.
  • There is one other Frazer from Canada who is expecting YDNA STR results. These results may also help
  • Once the James Line and Archibald Line SNPs are named and tests developed for those SNPs, male line Frazer descendants will be able to determine their Line by testing the new SNPs. Certain SNPs could also define sub-branches below the Archibald and James Lines.

 

Two Cincinnati Butler Families

One of my Butler genealogy breakthroughs happened with a DNA match between my father in law and someone I called Uncle Naffy. I wrote a Blog on that in 2015.

Prior to that breakthrough, I had trouble tracking my wife’s immigrant ancestor Edward Butler. Uncle Naffy was from St. John, New Brunswick and told me his great great grandmother was Mary A Butler. She was living in Cincinnati and moved to St. John. There she married. Armed with that information, I was able to find the marriage record between my wife’s ancestors, Edward Butler and Mary Crowley in St. John. The record was found in scrawly handwriting on a microfilm that was in the New England Historical and Genealogical Society Library in Boston.

This St. John/Cincinnati connection confirmed the research that I had done that had located Edward Butler and family in Cincinnati in the 1860 and 1870 censuses.

Uncle Naffy’s Great Great Grandmother Mary A Butler

Recently it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to create a tree for Mary A Butler to see if we could match up the two Cincinnati Butler families (George and Edward).

This was my first attempt. As I show later, the older children of George Butler would be from a second wife. My hope was that I would find that the George Butler above was the brother of my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler. One good thing is that I have that George Butler above, married Mary Whitty. Whitty is a less common name than Butler. A search for George Butler at Ancestry turned up this as a clue:

Here is a George Butler and Mary Whitty that gave birth to an Anne Butler on March 31st 1850 in the Parish of Ferns, Wexford. The good news is that the George Butler Family in 1860 in Cincinnati also had a daughter named Ann born about 1850 in Ireland. This is a good match.

A little more searching revealed a marriage between George “Butta” and Mary Whitty:

The transcriber saw Butta, but I can also see Butler there. I doubt that Butta is a very common name! As in the birth of Anne above, there is a Whitty and Hendricks as witness. The additional information is that they lived in Mountain Gate. I was curious as to where Mountain Gate is and was able to find a Mountaingate:

I have panned the map out a bit to show the relationship between Mountaingate and Mooncoin. They appear to be about 25 miles from each other. In one of my previous Blogs, I pointed out the my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler is listed as being from Wexford on one of his son’s death certificate.

Another Wife for George Butler?

There is also a tree at Ancestry that has Margaret Sinnett as George Butler’s wife. It appears to me that Mary Whitty died sometime between 1860 and 1870 and that George remarried.

Here is it clear that Mary must be from the first marriage as she was born before 1860 when Mary Whitty was still around. I could guess that Henry would be the son of Mary Whitty as there are 7-1/2 years between him and Rebecca. However, I cannot be sure just from the Censuses. So my basic take is like this:

I’m missing some children from George’s second marriage to Margaret Sinnett. I was having a hard time making this family come out right on the Ancestry Tree.

One last point about Margaret is that Pat has her mother Catherine as being from Killaspy, County Kilkenny. Here is a map showing an arrow where Killaspy is:

This was interesting to me because with the help of a Butler researcher in England, my wife’s Butler family has been located near Mooncoin on the top left of the map above. Mooncoin appears to be about 5 miles away from Killaspy.

Another Cincinnati Butler DNA Match

The previous image brings up another interesting point. My wife’s two Aunts have had their DNA tested at Ancestry. They both match Pat who descends from Rebecca Butler b. 1869 above. My father in law matches Uncle Naffy at Gedmatch. That makes a good case that George Butler is related to Edward Butler, my wife’s ancestor who also lived in Cincinnati.

Here is Rebecca Butler’s Certificate of Death showing her two parents.

This could be a case where the death record is not the best source of a birth date as Rebecca was shown as being 6 months old in the 1870 Census and born in October. So the day and month only are probably right in the death certificate.

Here is how my wife’s Aunt Lorraine matches Pat:

Pat matches my wife’s Aunt Virginia a little less: 29.9 cM across two segments.

Another Shared DNA Match At Ancestry

Pat and my wife’s two Aunts also have two shared DNA matches. These matches have this tree:

I’m not sure if it was Donna that took the AncestryDNA test. It appears that more than one in the family did. At any rate, the match is much higher. It is now at 183 cM across 9 segments. The average amount of DNA shared between a 2nd cousin once removed is 129 cM.

In comparison, here is Lorraine and Virginia’s tree next to the previous tree:

In the above scenario, Lorraine, Richard and Virginia would be 2nd cousins once removed to Donna and family. I’m not sure if Cornelias and John in Donna’s tree are right. Also, Donna’s tree has Henry, where I have Edward Henry. They are apparently the same person.

So Where Does That Leave the Butlers?

Here is a partially combined tree:

I say partially combined, because I haven’t connected the orange with the green side by genealogical research. I slimmed the tree down to just include the direct lines of those who have had their DNA tested. Uncle Naffy matches Richard at Gedmatch. Pat and Donna’s lines have not uploaded their results to Gedmatch. Pat and Donna’s line have shared DNA matches at AncestryDNA where they tested. Pat also matches Lorraine and Virginia at AncestryDNA. In addition, Donna matches Lorraine and Virginia. Richard and Uncle Naffy have tested at FTDNA, so unless Donna’s line and Pat upload to Gedmatch, those matches won’t be made known.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The George and Edward Butler families are linked by new and old world locations and DNA
  • More work is needed to link the George and Edward Butler families by paper research.

 

Chasing Down Some Massachusetts Colonial DNA

Recently I was contacted by someone I knew in high school who said, “Who knew we were related? Skot had tested his DNA at Ancestry and had found me as a Shared Ancestor Hint. Ancestry compares your trees and if there is a match in ancestors and a match in DNA you are put on a list.

Shared Hathaway Ancestors

Skot’s and my genealogy research both lead to Simon Hathaway and Hannah Clifton.

I have the above chart to my grandfather and Skot’s grandmother. The chart says that Skot and I are seventh cousins. Simon and Hannah were born in the early 1700’s and married in Rochester, Massachusetts. This is interesting as Skot and I both grew up in Rochester.

Does Skot and My Shared  DNA Point to Hathaway and Clifton?

AncestryDNA doesn’t show that the DNA you share is the same DNA of your shared ancestor. It sort of implies that but doesn’t prove that. To prove that, we need to use triangulation and have chromosome browser. I asked Skot to upload his DNA results to Gedmatch where we could compare the DNA results. Here is what my match with Skot looks like at Gedmatch.com:

This shows that we match on Chromosome 10. I have a paternal phased kit at Gedmatch, and Skot also matched me there. That match shows that we match on my father’s side who had the Hathaway ancestors, so that is good.

Further, I have mapped my Chromosome 10 and it shows we match in an area where I got my DNA from my Hartley grandparent and not my Frazer grandparent whose parents were from Ireland. That is also a good sign:

This map shows me as J on the fourth bar. The Hartley is in orange and for me it goes from position 32M to 114M. According to Gedmatch, I match Skot from 68M to 77M, so that is well within my orange Hartley grandfather DNA area.

Triangulation of DNA

Triangulation of DNA is when A matches B, B matches C and A matches C. This is fairly easy to do. Once this triangulation occurs, it indicates a common ancestor. It is more difficult to find the common ancestor of that triangulation for various reasons. The next thing I look at is my sister Lori’s spreadsheet of matches. These matches have tested at various places and uploaded their results to Gedmatch.com. I’m looking at Lori’s matches because she matches Skot also, and because her test is more recent, so I have more matches for her.

Lori’s biggest match is 54, but that is with me. Lori matches Skot from about 68 to 77M, so these all start before that point. A few end before then. Lori has other matches in this region. Lori’s matches tested at AncestryDNA, 23andme and FTDNA. I tend to prefer AncestryDNA matches as the family trees are easier for me to read.

Lori’s first match of 22 cM is with Cheryl. Skot and Cheryl match at about the same spot and about the same cM as Lori and Skot match. That means the three triangulate.

Now the Hard Part – Finding the Common Ancestor

Cheryl has over 25,000 people in her tree. Does she have Hathaways or Cliftons? At Ancestry, Cheryl and Lori are not Shared Ancestor Hints to each other. According to AncestryDNA, the common surnames between Lori and Cheryl are:

However, Baker and Schmidt appear to me on my mom’s side, so I won’t look at those. Phillips and Warren didn’t show anything obviously helpful. When I click on Cheryl’s White, I get this:

This is interesting as I have ancestors in Dighton on my Snell Line and also White and Hathaway ancestors. With a little trial and error, I see that Elizabeth Hathaway’s mother is Elizabeth Talbot. That is one of my ancestral names also. Elizabeth’s parents according to Cheryls were Jared Talbot and Sarah Andrews. I have a match in that couple. Here is my tree:

This is what I meant when I said that finding common ancestors among triangulated matches was not easy. I’m not happy that Lori and Cheryl’s common ancestor is from the 1600’s, but at least we found a match. Perhaps we will come back to Cheryl. Right now, a tie-breaker would help. Hathaway/Clifton or Talbot/Andrews?

Skot’s Genealogy

Here is the spot of Skot’s genealogy where Ancestry has us matching:

Note that Ancestry simplified the situation a bit. We are matching on Simon Hathaway and Hannah Clifton. However, we also match on Arthur Hathaway. It is even more confusing than that because Arthur Hathaway was also the father of Simon Hathaway by his first wife Maria Luce. Wow. Then Skot has more than one Clifton in there.

Shamus Match

One of my good matches at Chromsome 10 in this area of interest is Shamus. He matches me closely at 43.8 cM by FTDNA and 39.4 by Gedmatch.com. According to FTDNA, we share the following surnames:

Barstow Cook Swift Samson Talbot Taylor Townsend White Wing Ward

I looked through these names, but saw no obvious connection before the 1700’s.

Sarah Match

Sarah matches Lori at 18 cM. She is at FTDNA. Her surnames that match are:

Clark Hatch Jewett Johnson Lutzelburger Lutzelberger Lombard Richmond Spooner Smith White Wing

At least between Shamus and Sarah are the common White and Wing names. By the way, Sarah has a different last name at Gedmatch and FTDNA, but I assume that she is the same person. Actually there is a way to prove it, because FTDNA has a chromosome browser. Here is how Sarah matches me using FTDNA’s chromosome browser:

Again, the DNA part is easy. It is the genealogy that is a bear.

Here is Sarah’s White and Wing connection:

Here is how I connect:

Again it is not a very satisfying connection. We connect only on Daniel Wing at the top. Our ancestors appear to be from two different mothers and Daniel who was born in 1617. I wasn’t able to place Sarah’s Hannah White.

I didn’t find out much about Joanne or Joanna Hatch. I did read an account of a family tradition that said that Joanna and Bachelor Wing were cousins.

At this point, I’m ready to call it quits.

Summary of Genealogy Linked to DNA

So far I match:

  • Skot on Hathaway/Clifton – early 1700’s Rochester, MA
  • Cheryl – Talbot/Andrews 1640’s Dighton, MA
  • Shamus and Sarah – Wing 1617 Sandwich, MA

I’m sure there are other connections.

Continuing to Work Down My Sister Lori’s Match List

There are some 23andme matches, but I have no idea how to find their ancestry without contacting them. Next I see Michelle. I am able to find her using a Chrome add-on to AncestryDNA which I think is called DNA Helper. She matches at 22 cM at Gedmatch. Oddly, she matches at 27.6 cM at AncestryDNA where the matches are usually less than at Gedmatch. Unfortunately, her tree is private. I have been in touch with her by email and she says she is related to the Hatch family somehow. The next match is Sean at FTDNA, but he has no family tree.

Summary and Conclusion

  • The DNA shows that there is a common ancestor between the paternal matches that I have on a particular segment of Chromosome 10
  • Finding the one common ancestor of a triangulated group is difficult
  • It is likely that there are holes in the ancestry trees of these Chromosome 10 matches. If all those holes were filled in, then the common ancestor may become apparent.
  • While I was doing this exercise I filled in some missing ancestors on my Jewett line. One ancestor was a Reverend up in Rowley which I found interesting. So this exercise wasn’t a total waste of time.
  • Skot and I still likely match on Hathaway and Clifton. However, the DNA tests we both took don’t necessarily point to those two ancestors.
  • At this point, the only triangulated ancestors I found in this Chromosome 10 group was Daniel Wing from Sandwich b., 1617.
  • In summary, the DNA is saying that there is some kind of colonial Massachusetts ancestry passed down. However, whether that ancestry is from Dighton, Rochester or Sandwich, MA or even somewhere else is not clear.

 

 

 

 

First Frazer Big Y Results in a YP4415 SNP

In my last Blog, I wrote about my cousin Paul’s BigY results. The BigY takes a look at a large region of YDNA looking for existing SNPs and new SNPs. SNPs are what define the Y tree going back to genetic Adam. As a refresher, YDNA looks at the father’s father’s father’s line only. So if you are a Frazer, your father is a Frazer. At some point two different Frazer lines merge into one. That merging point is the two lines’ TMRCA or Most Recent Common Ancestor. (I don’t know what the T stands for – the?) Then at some point all the Frazers tested bump into a common ancestor. For Paul and Jonathan who took the BigY test, that bumped-into Frazer would be the father of the Archibald and James Lines. However, the YDNA doesn’t stop there, it keeps going back and back and back.

Paul’s YDNA Matches

In my last Blog, I had mentioned that Paul had been designated as YP432 by FTDNA. That SNP has common ancestors, but they go back to 2800 years ago. As such, others that are YP432 will be from diverse background. I had mentioned some Norwegian and Swedish names. This makes sense as the L664 SNP which YP432 comes from is Germanic. These Germanic people moved into Scandinavia, England and apparently Scotland at some point.

FTDNA R1a Projects: L664, YP432, YP431 and YP5515

In my previous Blog, I had looked at matches at the R1a and all Subclades Project. However, FTDNA has another YDNA Project called simply the R1a Project. I find it a bit confusing that there are two R1a projects, but here is what the R1a Project has under YP432:

This shows some of the people that have tested positive for YP432. There are two branches shown here. The larger branch looks to mostly have ancestors from Norway and Sweden and is the YP431 Branch of YP432. The Frazers are on the YP5515 Branch. The Grants are also listed under YP5515. This is likely due to STR similarities as the Grants have not had their SNPs tested – just the STRs. In my previous Blogs, I had mentioned similarities between the Grants and the Frazers in the YDNA.

This doesn’t mean that the Frazers came from Norway or Sweden. Perhaps one branch of YP432 went to Norway and Sweden (YP431) and our branch of YP5515 went to Scotland and/or England.

The Hayes that I mentioned in my previous Blog is also listed, but in a separate group. Our Frazers are called YP5515 – x and Hayes is plain YP5515. I’m not sure why.

another YP5515 Match – Patton

The YP5515 SNP Group is a very select group so far. There is Hayes and Patton. Assuming that these were the first two YP5519, then Frazer is the third. Patton shares YP5515 according to Paul’s BigY Match List:

I highlighted in gold the SNPs that Paul shares with Hayes and Patton and not the other YP432 matches. I haven’t seen Patton in the R1a Project, so he probably never joined it. Two of those SNPs have no name yet – just a position number. As far as I know, all YP5515 people share these 7 gold SNPs.

What Are the SNPs Unique to Frazer?

We will know that better when Jonathan’s BigY results come in. However, for now, I can guess. The BigY tells me the SNPs that Paul has that Hayes doesn’t have. There are 11 of these SNPs. The SNPs that Paul has that Patton doesn’t have are quite a bit more. Paul has 20 SNPs that Patton doesn’t have. What does this mean?

First, here are the 11 SNPs that Paul has that neither Hayes nor Patton has:

These would be the SNPs unique to Paul. I would expect to see some of these in Jonathan’s results.

Additional Shared SNPs With Hayes – A New Branch?

Recall that I said that Paul had additional SNPs not shared with Patton. There were 20 altogether. Here are the SNPs Paul doesn’t share with Patton that are different than the ones he doesn’t share with Hayes. I know, there are a lot of negatives here.

I have marked those 9 SNPs in blue. It turns out that those SNPs Paul doesn’t share with Patton, he does share with Hayes. To me, that means that Paul and Hayes should be in a new branch together.

In my new tree, I’ve simplified the YP431 Branch. In YP5515 there are 7 SNPs shared by Patton, Hayes and Frazer. Below that are the 9 SNPs shared by Hayes and Frazer. Below that are the 11 SNPs that Frazer has that appear to be unique. I say appear because there could be others that share at least some of these SNPs. All these SNPs together add up to 27 SNPs. I’m not sure how to date the SNPs. If these 27 SNPs were since 2800 years ago, that would be about 100 years per SNP on average. If I’m right, then that would mean around 1100 years up to the Frazer/Hayes common ancestor. That should be 900 A.D or before the time of surnames. It will be interesting to see if all my guesses are right.

Another interesting point is that Paul and Jonathan’s TMRCA was around 300 years ago. That means that there should be a few SNPs different between Paul and Jonathan. They will each have their own branch off the Frazer Tree.