Presently, I am waitng for two Hartley BigYs to complete. One is for John and one is for Lawrence. The BigY for John so far has resulted in an upgrade from his previous 67 STRs to 111 STRs.
Summary of A11132 Hartley YDNA Testing
One of the best places to look at YDNA testing for Hartleys is at the FTDNA Hartley Project YDNA Results Page. The Hartleys on that page that are grouped as A11132 are under blue headers:
The last two on the list are my brother James and my results. We have both taken the BigY700 test. The other two that have a green A11132 under Haplogroup have taken the BigY test. Michael has for his ancestor Samuel Edward Hartley born 1666. Michael took the older BigY 500 test. The other three testers have taken the BigY700 test.
Looking for STR Alliances or Patterns
I shuffled the STR results around a bit and then took a look at them:
When there were multiple markers, I didn’t separate them out totally. For example, for CDY, most of the differences were on the second number, so I did separate that out. Also for DYS464, only the last of the four values changed, so I made a separate column for that last value.
This image adds in some relative speeds of mutations:
Red indicates slower mutating and green indicates faster mutation STRs. I didn’t color the last columns as FTDNA doesn’t make a distinction for these STRs. I put boxes around the values where I think that there are groupings.
The Michael and Lawrence Group (Edward Hartley Born 1666)
The first group that seems to be allied consists of Lawrence and Michael. They share the same markers for 449 and 534. I have 534 as a slow marker. I have that marker of 16, but that apparently happened in my birth as my brother does not have that marker. When two not closely related people have the same STR mutation, it is called a parallel mutation. I am prejudiced a little for these two as they show a common ancestor going back to Edward or Samuel Edward Hartley born in 1666:
This also seems to show that Michael had 6 mutations in his line since Roger Hartley born 1703. That would be 6 mutations in 8 generations which is unusually high. Lawrences line only shows one mutation during his 8 generation descent from Thomas Hartley. Ross also had his STRs tested and is a close match to Lawrence. However, I don’t have his detailed results as he is not in the Hartley YDNA Project.
The Second Cluster: John, James and Joel
This cluster is of interest to me because I am in it. It seems more than coincidental that these three share the same values for four different STRs. It is obvious that my brother and I would be in the same grouping, but it seems like John should be added also.
A Possible Third Cluster: Tim and Steve
After much gazing, it appears that Tim and Steve may be in a group also:
This connection is shown in the blue values of STRs. There is also a possible connection between Tim and Steve and John, James and Joel. Perhaps the branching of Tim and Steve occurred earlier than the branching of Steve, James and Joel.
What Do the SNPs Say?
The SNPs should be much less ambiguous than the STRs. Here is the simple interpretation:
This shows that these four people are all A11132. Roger Hartley is the ancestor of Michael. Thomas Hartley is the ancestor of Steve. As shown, if I draw I STR tree, it should have the ability to show that there is some equality going back to A11132 for these three groups.
Building a A11132 Hartley STR Tree
This is what I was thinking for a Hartley STR Tree:
- It looked to me like Tim and Steve were associated with John, James and Joel, but not as closesly as John, James and Joel seemed to be associated with each other.
- Also it appeared that additional branching occurred in the John, James and Joel group after the pre-branching that Tim and Steve were in
- In order to keep what appears to be the genealogical connetion between Lawrence and Michael and to keep the grouping of the two STRs they had in common, I put these two in a separate branch
- The second blue row is meant to indicate, that it seems like we are all A11132 at this point.
- Mervyn and Gary don’t appear to have close connections with each other or the other two groups, so I have them each in their own separate lines
- I kept Tim in, even though he only tested to 37 STRs as he seemed to have a connection with Steve. I left out the two other Hartley 37 STR testers to simplify the tree.
Adding the STR Values
For simplicity, I’ll leave out the multi-value markers of DYS464 and CDY:
Here I have just added what appear to be the ancestral Hartley STR values. I didn’t indicate those ancestral or modal values for the multi-marker STRs:
A Problem with DYS455
In my scheme, I saw Tim and Steve being ancestral to my line and the Samuel Edward Hartleys as being parallel with TIm and Steve. However, for this to happen would mean thatLawrence had a parralel mutation and that John would have a back mutation from 11 to 12. This could have happened, but it would not be the simplest of scenarios. One method in creating STR trees is to try to come up with the most direct solution. However, that is with all else being equal and not knowing other information such as genealogy and SNPs.
Here is the STR Tree I have:
I have bolded the 445 STR. Michael would have a parallel mutation with the Tim and Steve Group. Then John would have a back mutation to 12. This seems to be asking a lot of this slow mutating STR. Under this scenario, John and Michael have a lot of STR mutations. If the genealogical connection between Michael and Lawrence is correct, then I think that what I have is a good solution to the STR tree – at least for Michael and Lawrence.
New 111 STR Results Just in for Lawrence
While I am pondering the above tree, I notice that Lawrence’s 111 STR results are just in. Here are Lawrence’s new results:
I don’t see anything earth shattering here. If Michael had his 111 STR results, this may have made more sense. Lawrence has new STR mutations at the point of the arrow that others don’t have (DYS504). He also shares a STR of 36 with John, James and Joel at DYS710.
I won’t bother updating my SNP tree based on these new results. It will be more important to see how the SNP results come in before refining the STR tree. Unfortunately, the STR results come in first, but it would make more sense if the SNPs came in first as far as interpreting the STR results.
Another Look at STRs with Mawdsley Added
This may be in slightly different order than before. I also used conditional formatting which should be more accurate. Mawdsley is a new BigY tester awaiting results. Mawdsley believes that the connection to the Hartleys is before the time of surnames. That appears to me to be correct. Another thought is that I had linked Steve with Tim based on an 11-26 combination. That is a sort of flimsy connection as Tim has only tested with 37 STRs. I also see a possible connection of 35-21 with Mervyn and Steve. I have a lighter box around this pair as not many of the other STRs seem to match between Mervyn and Steve.
Another interesting thing is that with the addition of Lawrence and Mawdsley, the mode for DYS710 has changed from 35 to 36. This would be an improvement as more testers will improve the modal values.
GDs
The GDs are the STR differences from the Hartley Mode:
All the GDs are fairly distant from the Hartley Mode. This means to me that this Hartley tree is ancient. Mawdsley has the highest 111 STR GD from the Hartley Mode which would be expected as they don’t believe that they descend from the Hartleys. Michael has a high 8 out of 67 GD. This either indicates that he and Lawrence are not related as believed on the Samuel Edward Line or that Michael has had more than the average mutations in the 1 to 67 STR test.
Summary and Conclusions
- While awaiting John’s BigY results, I took a look at a revised STR using his upgreaded 111 STR results, genealogy and existing SNP results
- I looked at a possible STR tree which included a Tim and Steve group. The problem with this grouping is that TIm only tested to 37 STRs, so all the information is not there.
- Steve also has a possible connection with Mervyn, though they also have many differences. I didn’t make a tree for that possibility
- The tree also included a Samuel Edward Hartley branch based on what appears to be a genealogical connection. There was justification for the connection also based on the same values that Lawrence and Michael had for two STRs. The connection is confusing as it appears that Michael has had more than the average number of STR mutations.
- While I was writing the Blog, Lawrence’s STRs were upgraded from 67 to 111 markers. This made no difference in the analysis other than a change in the mode of Hartley ancestral value from 36 to 35 for DYS710. If Michael had tested to 111 STRs, I may have been able to see more connections between the two.
- I added in the 111 STR results for Mawdsley as he has many Hartley STR matches. The results appear to confirm that Mawdsley does not descend from Hartley, but the families may be closely related prior to the time of surnames.