Hartley YDNA and the Time Tree

My last Blog on Hartley YDNA had to do with a Channon test. Channon has known Nutter ancestry and based on YDNA, he must have also had some Hartley ancestry in the past 400 years or so. At that time, the new YDNA Time Tree had not been updated. However, before I get to that, I will give some background.

Hartley YDNA Background

According to Mynamestats.com:

HARTLEY is ranked as the 1027th most popular family name in the United States with an estimated population of 37,550.

Accoring to Forebears.io:

Approximately 87,232 people bear this surname

That seems like a pretty exact number for an approximation.

However, not all branches of Hartleys are related in the genealogical time period. Here is my tribe of Hartleys on the YDNA tree:

Here 17 have tested for STRs or have done the BigY test. All are probably A11134 except for Mawdsley. Mawdsley is one branch upstream of Hartley which was before the genealogical time period. It is difficult to estimate the percentage of Hartleys that this branch represents. I will guess that we represent about 1/3 of the Hartleys worldwide, so roughly 30,000 Hartleys.  say this to suggest that these 16 YDNA tests represents 30,000 Hartleys or so or certainly tens of thousands.

The FTDNA YDNA Time Tree

Here is the current Hartley YDNA Time Tree:

At the top is a scale of years going from 500 to 2000 CE. The first tester is a Smith and the connection to Hartleys goes back to before the year 500 CE. The next is Mawdsley:

I assume that this time of 1170 CE is correct. However, only nobility would have had surnames at this time, so this would be considered to be before the genealogic:

al time period. The previous date given was 1174, so there has not been much of a change.

A11134

So far, it appears that A11134 and the Hartley surname are synonymous.

Prior to the Channon test, this date was 1471, so the fact that the date was pushed back 5 years is interesting but probably not significant. Hartley BigY testers Ethan, John and Steve are R-A11134. This is the general designation of the Tree that represents an estimated 25-30,000 Hartleys worldwide.

FT225247

This is the branch that my brother and I are in. It represents our father:

This has not changed which I suppose makes sense as our branch is independent of the Channon Branch. Interestingly, my father was born in 1918.

A16717

This is a branch of Hartleys who had the Quaker belief and moved from England to Pennsylvania ostensibly to get away from persecution in England.

This changed only one year from a previous 1684. I would tend to think that this SNP is actually older:

Assuming that Edward Hartley had this SNP, this SNP should be no new more recent than 1664. If his father or grandfather also had the SNP, that would move the date further back.

Channon and FTE2655

This test brought the Channon branch up from 1466 to 1905.

Here is the Block Tree:

This represents the 10 A11134 Hartley Branch BigY testers. I do not show up as the tree is from my viewpoint. For some reason my branch has 7 SNPs in it. Perhaps that will be important some day in figuring out my branch’s genealogy. The Channon Branch has two SNPs and the Quaker branch has one. A11134 has three SNPs but they will not likely be separated as they have not been separated so far.

Also the fact that my FT225247 Branch is later than the Channon Branch of FTE2655 may be because there are many more SNPs in my Branch (7) and fewer in the Channon Branch (2).

Here is the Match Time Tree:

Summary and Conclusions

  • The time tree update is the last piece of the new Channon BigY Test
  • The test gave Channon its own branch of the YDNA tree
  • FTDNA shows that there are 6 major Branches of the R-A11134 Hartley YDNA tree. Their common ancestor is still very early at an estimated date of 1466 CE.
  • It would be nice to find out what Hartley YDNA branching occurred in the 1700’s and 1800’s.

Here are some things going on in England in the 1400’s according to metmuseum.org:

At the start of the period, concurrent with the accession of Henry IV (r. 1399–1413), England’s first Lancastrian king, Great Britain and Ireland are rife with internal tensions, including Welsh revolt, a series of baronial rebellions led by the Percy family of Northumberland, and ongoing warfare among the Anglo-Irish nobility. In 1415, Henry V (r. 1413–22) renews the war with France that has continued, with interruptions, for nearly a century. His endeavors are temporarily successful, gaining large territories in France and securing his claim to the French throne. During the reign of his son Henry VI (1422–61; 1470–71), however, the English are expelled from France with the help of Joan of Arc, a French peasant girl, and political turmoil erupts at home when the king’s frequent illnesses place England in the hands of a Protector, Richard, duke of York. By the end of the fifteenth century, civil war between the Yorkists and Lancastrians seriously undermines the power of the monarchy and leaves the nobility fractured and vulnerable to the prevailing Tudor family.

 

A New Hartley/Channon YDNA Branch Confirmed

In my previous Blog on the subject, there had been a new Hartley/Channon BigY test taken and completed, but the Branch result had not yet come out. I had made some predictions for fun to see how closely FTDNA’s final results  would match what I had.

Hartley Block Tree at FTDNA

Above, I have highlighted the Hartley Haplogroups inside a red box. The umbrella Hartley Haplogroup as I have it is A11134. The original Channon tester was in that group until very recently. Now we have Ethan, John, and Steve in that group. My group is FY225247. I am in the lower left of the Block Tree with my brother Jim. Next is A16717. This is a branch of Hartleys who moved to Pennsylvania around the year 1700 ostensibly to get away from  persecution in England as they were Quakers. Finally there is the brand new Haplogroup of FTE2655.

I believe that the date of A11132 goes back before the time of common surname usage. That means that Hartley and Mawdsley had the same ancestor but both branched off with different surnames before the time of surname usage. A11138 is certainly much older than when surnames were used. Smith is in that Haplogroup.

The Next Big Thing

The next thing to look forward to is an updated Time Tree. Here is the Match Time Tree which is not yet updated:

Oddly, Channon is not on the match list – perhaps due to the recent update.

  • A11138 appears to be a little before the year 500.
  • A11132 a little before the year 1200.
  • A11134 alittle before the year 1500
  • A16717 a little after the year 1500.
  • FT225247 should represent my father who was born in 1918

Hovering over the Haplogroups gives a more exact estimate. The exact estimates are:

  • 479
  • 1174
  • 1471
  • 1684
  • 1916

I am interested in seeing how the new Channon Branch changes the current Time Tree.

R-FTE2655

Here was my prediction for the new Hartley/Channon Branch:

I had predicted three SNPs in the new Branch. However, none of my predictions were FTE2655.

Here is FTE2544 at YBrowse;

I see, YBrowse has FTE2655 at the same location as Y16496. I did have that one.

I noted in m:y previous Blog that both Channon testers were positive for Y16496. However, now their Branch is called FTE2655:

Note the difference in that FTE2655 has a mutation of G to T where Y16496 has the mutation of G to A. My guess is that FTDNA wrongly reported the Channon testers as positive for Y16496. The manual review apparently caught the error and it was corrected. Here is a screen shot for the new Channon tester from my previous Blog:

See the mutation was from G to T for Y16496. However, that should have been the mutation for FTE2655.

Y364187 and FGC7804

I had predicted Y364187 which agrees with FTDNA. But I also predicted FGC7804. Here is FGC7804 at YBrowse:

This SNP was found by Full Genomes Corp in 2013. I also mentioned this SNP in a previous Blog I wrote for the first Channon’s BigY results. I cannot explain why FGC7804 is not one of Channon’s listed SNPs. I could write FTDNA and may get an answer. My guess is that the SNP is in some sort of ambiguous region.

Summary and Conclusions

  • At first at looked like my predictions for the new Channon/Hartley Branch were off. However, at second look it was based on an incorrect initial classification by FTDNA. This was apparently corrected in a subsequent manual review.
  • A second SNP I had predicted agreed with the FTDNA desidgnation
  • A third SNP that I had predicted did not appear on the FTDNA Channon Branch. I would have to write to FTDNA to find out why that was not included.
  • I am happy to see the new Branch of Hartleys and would be interested to see if the results make any changes to the existing Time Tree for the Harltey SNPs.

A New Channon/Hartley BigY Test

It is always exciting when a new BigY test shows up on your branch of the tree of mankind. Here is the new Channon test (from the viewpoint of my test):

This new Channon test is a brother of a previous test. He has done what I did with my brother in the first column. I had my brother tested, so we could get our own branch. Notice a few things above:

  • Smith is from a much earlier branch before. Smith and Hartley broke off before surnames were commonly used.
  • Mawdsley is also separate and likely split before or at about the time that surnames came into common use.
  • Channon is surrounded by other Hartleys. Channon can trace their genealogy to the Nutter surname, but must have been Hartley at some point.
  • It seems to me that Channon will have to have their own branch, but it does not show yet. Both Channon testers are shown initially in R-A11134.

The New Tester and Non-Matching Variants

Here is how the new tester matches some of the previous testers:

There are really three categories here. I show up later on the list as my branch has a lot of variants in it. So that means that there are more non-matching variants and my brother and I are further down on the list. First on the list is the previous Channon tester. These two have one non-matching variant. After that are the two other Hartleys who share A11134. The next three testers are in the R-A16717 Branch. These are a branch of Hartleys that emmigrated to Pennsylvania around the year 1700 or so.

Non-Matching Variant 5672076

One might wonder why the two brothers have a non-matching variant. There are a few reasons. One may be that one of the brothers has formed a new branch of the YDNA tree. Another reason could be that there was no or incomplete coverage for one of the two tests at location 5672076.

Here is the result for the new Channon Tester:

Here is the older Channon results:

That is interesting as the original Channon should form a new branch. However, FTDNA does not name a branch until another tests positive for this Branch. This would be a Private Variant for the original tester. However, it is possible to find this location’s SNP name at YBrowse:

The original tester should eventually be a part of this branch: Y354158.

Y16496

The first non-matching variant the new Channon tester has with the first Hartley on the non-matching list is Y16496. The new Channon tester has that SNP:

The first Hartley on the non-matching list does not have that SNP:

My guess is that this would be a new Channon Branch. The original Channon BigY tester is also positive for this SNP:

A Proposed Tree

It would be interesting to try to create a proposed tree. I have an old tree that I used previously:

This was probably accurate at the time.

I had also created this colorful tree to predict what would happen at FTDNA previously:

This was more in the format of the Block Tree that FTDNA uses. The above tree also accounts for Lawrence and Michael who are in what I call the Pennsylvania Branch of Hartleys. I like this format better. Here I have updated that tree to show what FTDNA has now (except for the private variants):

I am not sure how the new Block Tree should look, but this is how a simplified tree would look:

Unfortunately, I do not believe that FTDNA will put Channon ‘Old Test’ on his own branch. They will likely just give him one Private Variant if I understand the process correctly.

15646418

Here is part of the New Channon Tester’s match list:

Here is that position for the new Channon tester:

He is clearly positive at this position.

Next, I check the new Channon tester for his closest Hartley match Ethan:

Ethan is clearly not positive for that Variant. Here is what YBrowse shows:

That modifies my SNP tree like this:

FGC7804

Using the same reasoning, It could be that FGC7804 is in the new Channon Branch. If this branching is so obvious, I don’t know why it doesn’t show up yet in the Block Tree at FTDNA. Perhaps they are waiting for a manual review.

New Channon Tester:

It is interesting that the new tester has two variants quite close to each other. However, the one I am interested in has the arrow on top of it.

Ethan:

Another reason the Block Tree may not have changed is that usually if a SNP is named, that means that it is already in a tree somewhere. So far, two of these SNPs have already been named for some reason.

This is my best bet at how the tree will look for Channon.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I am glad to see the results for the new Hartley BigY test. The test is from a Channon who has Nutter ancestry, but the testing shows that the family most certainly was a Hartley at some point in time – perhaps in the 1600’s.
  • The new tester did not match his brother in one of the variants. That means in this case that the older tester has formed a new branch and has a variant that his brother does not have.
  • It appears that the new Channon Branch should include three SNPs.
  • I will be interested to see the new branch come out at FTDNA and to see how this plays out in the FTDNA Time Trees.

 

 

Downloading Hartley DNA Segment Match Data from FTDNA

I had heard that it is possible to download segment match data from FTDNA now, so I thought that I might try it. I had downloaded this data previously into a spreadsheet that looked like this:

Actually, this is my brother’s match sheet. First I chose Chromosome Browser under my autosomal matches section. Then I choose download all segments:

There should be a lot of segment data there. However, when I check my downlike file, the file is not as large as expected:

There are about 10,000 lines and my old file has 86,000 lines. However, a lot of these may be from Gedmatch and a few other sources. I also have this file:

I need to merge the two files somehow. This file is helpful because it has the match date. This is the format I want:

If I can remember how to use MS Access, that would be helpful. FTNDA no longer downloads the kit number. Also, Access likes Excel Files, so I needed to convert the csv file to an excel file:

I stuck the first two tables into a database I already have. Next I need to perform a query on the two tables. Here is my query:

Next, I need to add fields. I tried to get them in the order of my master spreadsheet. I ran the query and got this:

I have two columns for Match Date. I will have to fix that. Also, the Match Dates are off. I was trying to get the match dates only past a certain date in January 2022. That means that I imported the wrong match list file from FTDNA. I re-checked and made a new file and then imported the right one:

The dates look better now. I notice that there is no email which is OK as I can always look that up at FTDNA. The Matching Bucket field could be useful. One more correction is that I do not see the end location:

This is a bit of trial and error. Next, I need to incorporate this information into my master segment list. Here I line up everything with my master spreadsheet:

Turned out I had the wrong master spreadsheet, so I had to do this again with the real master spreadsheet. The end result looks like this:

This is a random shot from my list. The arrows point to two matches that FTDNA think are maternal. Where I have another maternal match in this section as Rathfelder, the match could be on the Rathfelder side.

What is the Use of Segments?

Segments can be helpful in finding the side that your match is on, or in the ancestral line where your match should appear. For example, I have an unknown match from Ancestry named Lee. Lee has a Hartley Line that is from the same area that my Hartleys are from:

Lee’s match is shon in a shade of blue on my DNA Painter Profile:

This is on Chromosome 13:

Our match is between position 88 and 110 million. Here is my match list for Chromosome 13:

 

Any of the paternal matches in blue could be along the same line as Lee. I don’t have lee on the list, so I need to add him from Gedmatch.

Lee and Gedmatch

Gedmatch has a utility that will show me common matches between Lee and myself:

This is near the bottom of my list and the projected match is out to 5 generations. That means that they are potentially fourth cousins or further out. The first three columns of numbers are how these people match me. The fourth through sixth colums are how the matches match Lee. The last column is interesting to me as it includes genealogical information. In one tree, I saw the Clarke name. I also have Clarke ancestors, but they were from Ireland and this family was from England. Another tree had a Clarke from 1835 in England. So, the connection from genealogy is not clear. Lee also has Clark in his tree, so coincidence? I think that Clark is a common name. I would rule out Clark based on the fact that two of my father’s cousins are on the shared match list. Those cousins are on my paternal grandfather’s side and my Clarke ancestors are on my paternal grandmother’s side. However, I cannot rule out a second Clark line on my paternal grandfather’s side.

Unfortunately, I did not see any easy connections to Colne through this exercise.

Richard: A Match on My Frazer Side

I match Richard here:

The smaller match on Chromosome 17 is Richard’s brother. Here is the likely connection at MyHeritage:

Here, I just added Richard to my spreadsheet:

These are some matches that could overlap with Richard.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was able to download about two and a half years worth of FTDNA autosomal matches
  • These matches I added to my spreadsheet with the help of MS Access
  • I was able to add some key matches from other sources to my master match spreadsheet
  • I could do this for my siblings, but it would make more sense to download the matches from my father’s first cousins and my mother’s matches. In other words, the matches from those who are a generation older than me.
  • The exercise did not result in any new revelations, but may be helpful in the future.

 

 

 

 

My Father’s Cousin Joyce’s Shared Matches

I have been recently looking at my enhanced shared matches at Ancestry. It occurs to me that it would make sense to look at Joyce’s enhanced matches. Joyce matches me on her maternal side, so I chose that:

 

Gary has a private tree.

According to Ancestry, Warren is Gary’s father:

Here is Warren on my tree:

For some reason, I have him in yellow. The problem now is whether Gary is Ahsa’s father or not. I think that Asha tested at 23andMe. I’ll just add Gary in the box with Asha’s dad.

Suzanne

Joyce’s top maternal match is Suzanne:

Suzanne has an unlinked tree:

The connection must be through Suzanne’s maternal grandfather, Alan Hartley. I have Alan in my tree:

Adding Suzanne, adds another Hartley Line to my tree:

Diana

Diana is next on the list:

Diana has a tree that looks like Suzanne. From other information, I see that Suzanne and Diane are sisters. I’m sure that the shared matches would show that also.

Will

Will is difficult to figure out by shared matches. However, by process of elimiation, I can place him:

On second thought, Will should be the Bill I used to play ball with as a kid. The DNA match should be Bill’s son Will.

This shows Joyce and Will as 1st cousins once removed.

Liffers

Liffers should be easy to place as there are many Liffers matches. The trick is that the tree is set to the spouse:

If I choose ‘Spouse’, I get this tree:

The maternal side of this male Liffers is clear a match. Unfortunately, I don’t have the work I did on my other computer as I am on my laptop, so I will add Suzanne back in:

Shared matches show Suzanne and Liffers as siblings.

M.F.

I am going down Joyce’s match list and looking at the matches without a listed common ancestor:

I know where M.F. fits in, but I want to put her on my chart. It looks like I can do that from M.F.’s tree:

Ma

Her maternal grandmother was my grandfather’s sister.

Marsha, Nicole, and Samantha

These are more fairly close relatives. They will be easily added to my James Hartley DNA/Genealogy Tree:

This is turning into an impressively large tree.

N.M, Aimee, and Riley

More easy adds:

Unfortunately, I did not add nm as she is my sister Heidi’s daughter. I would have had to split my box out to 6 people, making a large chart much larger.

m.a.

I’m finding m.a. difficult to place precisely.

Here is my guess:

Ancestry thinks that Gary is m.a.’s half uncle which is still an uncle. Also Ancestry thinks that ME (who I just added) is m.a.’s grandaunt.

Camie on the Snell Side

Camie matches Joyce by 129 cM. From shared matches, Charles is Camie’s father:

 

Further, C.W. is Camie’s son:

Here I have added Camie and C.W.:

It appears that there are two C.W.’s, but I have added only one. Here we have four generations of a tested family. Those that match this family should not have Hartley ancestry if they are far enough back as they descend from the Snell side only.

Kristen: A Link to Lancashire?

Kristen’s Hartley link to Joyce goes back another generation compared to her many Hartley matches:

Greenwood was born in Trawden, Lancashire. Due to the industrial revolution putting hand loom weavers out of business, he moved to Bacup, Lancashire where he married Ann Emmet.

Joyce and Kristen’s Shared Matches

I have wondered to Jennifer is:

There are some close shared matches matches to Jennifer on the list, but those matches do not have much other information about themselves.

Joyce and Sheryl

Sheryl is one of Joyce and Kristen’s shared matches:

Sheryl shows a potential set of common ancestors:

Bracewell is a name that comes up often in Lancashire matches. I also have that John Hartley, common ancestor married Ann Bracewell who would be another common ancestor if this representation is correct.

I also like Sheryl’s family tree:

The reason that I like it is that all the people in the last full column are from the United States except for John Bracewell. That means that there is less of a chance that other confusing Lanchashire people married into this family.

Unfortunately, I have tried to extend Sheryl’s tree and come up with this likely scenario:

That means that either I did the genealogy wrong, or I am related to Sheryl on her Bracewell side and not the Hartley side.

Joyce and Kristen’s Shared Match Paul

I have looked at Paul’s genealogy before and gotten him back to John Hartley and Ann Bracewell:

I had to go back quite a way from Paul’s posted tree which just went back to his two parents. This tree is from Paul’s maternal side. Here is a tree that I have:

By this, Joyce is Paul’s 5th cousin once removed. I do notice some discrepancy between the Sheryl’s line in the tree above and the tree I had created earlier. However, I do note this connection:

Sheryl and Paul have a 20 cM DNA match with each other. That seems to add more evidence that my tree above may be correct.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was helpful looking at my father’s cousin’s shared matchese at Ancestry
  • Using that, I could place some of the closer cousins into my Hartley DNA/Genealogy chart even though the matches had no usable family trees
  • I looked at some shared matches with Kristen. Kristen is a helpful match as her connection goes back a generation on the Hartley line compared to most of my Hartley relatives.
  • There is some confusion as to whether my ancestors are John Hartley born 1730 and Ann Bracewell. However, shared matches Paul and Sheryl have genealogies that suggest that these could be the right ancestors. In addition, Paul and Sheryl show a match with each other.
  • It would be helpful to do more analysis in this area to try to confirm or disprove the genealogy and whether the DNA evidence supports what the genealogy shows or suggests.

 

 

 

More on Hartley YDNA and STRs

So far, there have been 9 Hartley BigY tests taken by men in my branch of the YDNA Tree. Here is the FTDNA Time Tree:

All these Hartleys fall under A11134. Here is a new tree that FTDNA has called the Classic Tree:

This shows the same information in a different way. The date I am interested in here is 1500. This is the estimated date that our Hartleys descend from based on currrent BigY testing. Four of the BigY testers are A11134. The next group which is FT225247 also descends from 1500 but with seven SNPs.

Finally, there is what I call the Quaker Hartleys. Their ancestor was from NE Lancashire and left for Pennsylvania ostenibly to avoid religious persecution. This group also harks back to 1500. That means that there are four individuals and two subgroups that descend from an ancestor who was born around the year 1500.

Before I tested my brother, I was in the A11134 Group.

How Do STRs Fit In?

At this point, I am interested in my group of FT225247 and the A11134 Group. I am not as interested in the A16717 Group as they already have an older defined subgroup and we know about their genealogy. It is possible by an analysis of the STRs to try to determine which line is closer or further from the other non-Quaker Hartleys.

SAPP

I have used a program called SAPP to analyze STRs in the past. This time, I will try plugging in just the 6 BigY tests that I am interested in to see how the branching looks. I had previously run Ethan through SAPP in this Blog. Ethan is the latest BigY Tester in my Hartley Group.

Here is an initial screen when I run SAPP:

As expected, I (275990) am close by Genetic Distance to my brother (757486), but not to the others as we go back to roughly 1500 in our Hartley Lines. Here is the tree that SAPP comes up with for these 6 Hartleys:

 

 

So here where the SNP Tree has 5 Branches coming done from 1500 (not counting the Quaker Hartleys), the SAPP Tree has 3 branches coming down from 1600. Some observations:

  • Group MRCA is also A11134
  • TMRCA is 1600 versus the SNP Tree’s 1500. However, these are within the ranges we might expect
  • The Genetic Distance (GD) between John and me is the least at 6, but the SAPP Tree has John in a different branch (Node #8)
  • Node #8 is one of the most interesting aspects of this tree as it suggests that Nutter and Ethan are most closely related to each other (after my brother and me) and that John, Nutter and Ethan are in a group together.
  • Confusingly, the TMCRA for the Group MRCA, Node #9 and Node #7 are the same. By the configuration, it would appear that these should be at least a generation away from each other.

Adding Two More 111 STR Testers

The two who have tested to 111 STRs but have not yet taken the BigY Test are Mervin and Gary. I will add them in:

Mervin and Gary are at the end of the list. Gary is closest by GD to Nutter and Ethan. Let’s run the SAPP Tree:

 

I think that this is the best 111 Hartley Tree which does not include the Quaker Hartleys. Notice that by adding two more 111 STR Hartley tested men, the tree is now more complicated. Some observations and thoughts:

  • Group MRCA is now at the year 1500 which compares well with the STR Tree. This suggests to me a more accurate STR Tree.
  • Now Mervin and Nutter are in their own old branches
  • This suggests that Ethan and Gary would have a common ancestor around the year 1600, if the tree is right. That suggests that it may be helpful for Gary to take the BigY test
  • Further, the tree suggests that Steve and my branch have a common ancestor around the year 1650. I question whether that is right because my branch of FT225247 has 7 SNPs in it. There are 450 years between 1500 and 1950. When I divide 450 years by 7 SNPs, that means that my branch has a new SNP every 64 years. That being the case, there should have been a new SNP between the year 1500 and 1650 where my family should have matched Steve if this STR tree above was right.

Finally, Add in Two More 111 STR Quaker Hartleys

Of the three BigY Quaker Hartleys, only two have STRs tested to the 111 level. That means that I need to add in John Robert and Lawrence. Here are the GDs:

The Quaker Hartleys start with 693 and 117.

Here is the latest (and greatest?) STR SAPP Tree:

I like this tree better as it is wider and seems to mirror the STR Tree more.

Notes:

  • The STR Tree sorted out the Quaker Branch on the right (Node #13). I did not tell SAPP that they had their own SNP Branch.
  • I question Node #12 that has my branch in the same group as John Nicholas. My reasoning is the same as above. It would mean that there were no SNPs between 1550 and 1700 where my branch would mach John. However, if the STR tree is right, it would mean that the mutations in my line were even more frequent perhaps averaging a mutation per generation.
  • Group MRCA is now 1550 which suggests a more streamlined tree. Because of my objection to Node #12, it may be that the tree is too streamlined.
  • This tree seems more accurate that my attempt in a previous Blog which looked at tested Hartleys at levels below 111 STRs.

Next Steps

Here is the A11134 Block Tree:

Including myself, there are 9 BigY tested Hartleys. There are 15 Hartleys in our Branch of the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA:

Perhaps the other 6 would consider taking the BigY test to see if we could get any further branching in our group. I have been in touch with a second cousin of mine to take the BigY, but that would only help on my own narrow Hartley Line.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The most recent BigY tester was Ethan. I was hoping that Ethan’s BigY results would give us more branching in the YDNA Hartley SNP Tree.
  • It didn’t, so I thought that I would look again at the Hartley 111 STR results.
  • The most accurate results appear to be when I looked at the 10 Hartleys who tested for 111 STRs. 8 of those 10 had taken the BigY test. An additional Quaker Hartley Line tester had the older BigY test which did not include the 111 STRs. However, he is from his Branch is fairly well defined as to genealogy and has its own SNP Branch of A16717.
  • The last STR SAPP tree above suggests that Steve and Ethan have a more recent common ancestor from about the year 1650
  • The same STR tree produced from SAPP suggests that my brother and I may be more closely related to John Nicholas with a common ancestor from around the year 1700.
  • Due to the vagaries of STRs, these interpretations are up in the air. However, they do suggest possibilities which may be looked into.
  • As always more BigY testing should result in more clarity in this Hartley Branch of mankind.

 

 

 

 

 

A New Hartley BigY

Every so often a new Hartley BigY comes out. One just came out which is in my Tribe of Hartleys. What I mean by that is that in the YDNA tree of man there is more than one branch of Hartleys. These YDNA branches are distantly related.

A11134

My Branch of Hartley YDNA is called A11134. It is shown on the FTDNA Block Tree here:

This tree is from my perspective. I am in an offshoot of A11134 called FT225247. John R., Michael, and Lawrence are in another off-shoot called A16717. This was a branch of Hartley Quakers from the 1600’s that emigrated to Pennsylvania. Ethan is curently in the main Branch of Hartleys under A11134 along with Channon, John N., and Steve. I believe that Channon may have Hartley in his ancestry going back. Mawdsley is related to the Hartleys, but the branches probably split prior to the common use of surnames and his surname would have developed independently. So we don’t think that Mawdsley ever had Hartley in their ancestry. Smith is a separate branch that is very old.

Some other observations:

  • My branch has the most SNPs for some reason – 7
  • A11134 is actually a block of three different SNPs
  • As there are 7 SNPs in my Branch and an average of three Private Variants under A16717 and A11134 and other branches, there is more room for further branching.

FTDNA Time Tree

This time tree shows that Smith has been alone in his Branch of A11138 since about the year 500 AD (or CE). Mawdsley’s Line split off around the year 1200. The rest of the Hartleys are quite old – going back to the 1500’s or possibly even earlier.

YDNA SNP Theory

SNP Theory is simple:

  1. If you have a SNP that no one else has, it is a Private SNP or Variant
  2. If you match someone else with a SNP that puts you in a group with them
  3. If you do not have SNPs that others have in a lower branch, that puts you in a higher branch. For example, in the Hartley example above, Ethan, Channon, John N. and Steve do not have FT225247 or A16717, so they are currently in the higher or earlier Hartley Branch of A11134

In practice, interpreting these principles is difficult. All BigY tests are different. If the test has poor coverage for a SNP, or no coverage, it will be difficult to interpret the results.

Ethan’s Private Variants

FTDNA shows that Ethan has one private variant at position 17071491. However, I do not understand the results as the Reference is G and the Genotype is T. However, the test results give a ‘C’. Now if Ethan has only one private variant, that seems to indicate a relatively short time to common ancestors or that he has very few mutations compared to the average amount of mutations.

Here is Ethan’s Match List:

Ethan’s closest matches are John R and Channon. He has 5 non-matching variants with these two. Note that Private Variant 17071491 shows up in these list. That means that each of these testers could have tested negatvie for this Variant. However, we have to check to make sure.

This gets confusing as there are two John R’s. The one who took the BigY descends from the Quaker Hartleys:

John has a ton of reads, most of which are negative. That means that he is not positive for the Variant that Ethan has.

Channon’s results for Ethan’s Private Varinat position are similar:

Does Ethan Have Any New Matches with Existing Hartley Testers?

This seems to be the big question as that would put Ethan in a new group. Another corollary is: Does Ethan have non-matches which would put other Hartleys in a new group.

I see from a previous Blog I wrote, that I have this colorful spreadsheet:

I used an add-on called BAMsAway to look up variant results that FTDNA normally does not show. The colors give the various gradations that are possible with the results. This shows how one SNP was added to the Hartley Tree – namely MF 205420. I think that I used this chart to get FTDNA to put Michael, Lawrence and John into their own Branch.

Here I have added Ethan and his own Private Variant. All I have to do is to fill in the new row and column. Here is the column:

I had forgotten how I had the light green codes. For example B?4+ means that there were 4 positive reads. Usually 10 are needed. B?5- means that there were 5 negative reads. So the shortcoming of the designation is that a plus is a likely SNP and a minus is a likely ancestral value (no mutation).

I didn’t bother checkign each SNP in my own Hartley Branch as Ethan is likely not positive for those SNPs. I should also note that Michael has a lot of ‘no reads’. This is likely because he took th eolder BigY 500 which tested fewer locations on the YDNA.

The outcome of the exercise is that Ethan clearly does not share any of the Private Variants of the other testers. If Ethan had a no read for one of these positions, then perhaps we could say he matched one of the other Hartleys, but that was not the case.

Checking the Other BigY Tested Hartleys for Ethan’s Private Variant

As Ethan only shows one Private Variant, it is not likely that this Variant would be shared with anyone else, but I will check. Here is my result:

I see that there was a mutation in one read only, but the overall effect is that I am not positive for this mutation. It turns out that all the results were negative for Ethan’s SNP:

The bottom line is that my Hartley Branch has an unusually large number of SNPs since these Hartley Branches split and Ethan has an unusually small amount of Private Variants – one.

FGC SNPs

Earlier in the Blog, I looked at Ethan’s BigY Match List:

Here are a few non-matching variants in his list starting with FGC. I have looked at FGC6800 before. This is already a named SNP in the I branch of the YDNA and I am in the R branch. I have a feeling that FTDNA cannot handle two SNPs that are the same in different branches. I do not believe that I have looked at FGC7804 before. I’ll just add them to my spreadsheet:

I found that Nutter aka Channon has the SNP (or Private Variant) of FGC7804

According to YBrowse, the Branch for this SNP is unknown:

However, it was discovered in 2013 which is before Channon tested. I would tend to look at FGC7804 as a Private Variant for Channon.

Here, I didn’t check the Hartley Quaker descendants for the two FGC SNPs as they were in a different Branch.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My Hartley Branch has 7 SNPs, or 8 if FGC6800 is counted. That is a new SNP about ever 63 years or close to every other generation.ItSteve has 5 Private Variants (PVs), John has 4 PVs, Nutter has 3-5 PVs depending on the testing company, and Ethan has one PV
  • Ethan has only one PV in about the last 500 years. That seems very unusual.
  • The Quaker Line is about 200 years newer than the general Hartley Haplogroup. In that group, Michael has 2 PVs, but he took the older BigY 500 test. Lawrence has 5 PVs and John R has 4 PVs.
  • It does not appear that a manual review will be required by FTDNA
  • I don’t know if Ethan’s results will change the dating of the FTDNA Time Tree.
  • It appears that there were many Hartleys around the year 1500 or before. We have now 5 lines descending from that time – My branch with my brother, Steve, John N, Channon or Nutter and now Ethan. However, between 1500 and now there were no closer relatives beween those 5 lines or branches. That means that even with all the testing that has been done, there needs to be more to establish more Hartley Branches between the year 1500 or so and now. The would establish more lines like the Hartley Quaker Branch that we know was from around the year 1600 and connected by genealogy.

 

 

 

A New Hartley BigY Test

I have been in touch with Michelle who is a co-adminitrator of the Hartley YDNA Project (as am I). She has interest in the Hartley surname and had a test taken for Ethan. So far Ethan’s STR results are out. We are still awaiting the more important SNP results.

Here is Ethan listed at the Hartley YDNA Project:

Ethan is listed at the top. I show his first STR result, but there are 110 more to the right of that that I do not show. There are more Hartleys who have done YDNA testing. A few notes:

  • There are other Hartleys in the Hartley Project, but many Hartleys are not closesly related to each other by DNA.
  • The bright blue above is one group of Hartleys that are related to each other by YDNA
  • The first group has a Mawdsley in it. This is the oldest group called A11132. It was unclear previously whether Mawdsley was origingally a Hartley or whether the names split off before the time of surnames. I have assumed the latter. Now Ethan has been placed in this group.
  • The second group is the second oldest group. These are all people who are sure they are related to each other by the Hartley surnames. However, the Hartley connections are quite old. The connections could go back to the 1400’s or earlier.
  • Finally, there are the next two branches off of A11134. The first branch is a group who descend from an early Quaker Hartley who moved from England to Pennsylvania ostensibly to get away from persecution in NE Lancashire England.
  • The last two testers are my brother and myself. We would have the newest branch. Our ancestors were from Trawden, Lancashire.

The FTDNA Time Tree

I have taken the FTDNA Time Tree and added a few notes:

First, I do not think that Ethan will end up as A11132. It is more likely that he will be in the A11134 group with the rest of the Hartleys.

Running Ethan through SAPP

SAPP is a program that automatically makes a tree using STR data. This program was develped by David Vance. First the STR data goes into a text file:

This is just part of the data from the tribe of DNA Hartleys that I belong to. Ethan’s data is first. The third kit (Time) must be for 37 STRs as there are fewer STRs. I omitted a few kits that were less than 37 STRs. That left 14 Hartleys in the group.

When I run SAPP, I get a lot of information:

In my first email back from Michelle, she noted that Ethan had a value of 11 for STR 511. This is shown in the top right of the image above.

The last chart on the first page of the SAPP analysis has this:

This chart gives genetic distance corrected for differences in the level of STR testing. To find Ethan’s Genetic Distance one could look etiher at the second column or second row. Looking down the secon column , we see in the note that results with different colors are different level of tests. I believe that green is 37 STRs and brown is 67 STRs. What I see is that Ethan is not closely related to any of the 37 or above STR testers in our Hartley group. This is consistant with what I have seen in the past. What this says to me is that there were a lot of Hartleys a long time ago and they all had separate lines that were not closely related to each other.

Here is the SAPP Tree:

This is small and difficult to read. Here are a few initial observations:

  • Testers are indicated in yellow. So, for example, the yeloow tester at the top left of the tree is current day as are all the other yellow testers.
  • This tree was created withouth knowledge of SNPs and the solid branching that they create. So, in cases where the STR tree conflicts with the SNP tree, the SNP tree is the right answer
  • There is a way to add SNP infomration to this tree, but I have not done that here
  • The tree shows four major branches. The person in his own branch is Mervin

I can see at least one problem right away:

There are three in the Quaker Hartleys of Pennsylvania. The kit starting with 617 belongs with the other two Hartleys with Quaker roots in Pennsylvania. This problem would have been solved had I added the YDNA Branch name to SAPP.

Also, in this initial run, Ethat is in Node #19 with Mawdsley. This is interesting as this is where Ethan was placed on the Hartley YDNA Project. (See the first image in the Blog.)

SAPP Tree with SNP Data

I look at a David Vance video to figure out how to do this:

I need to add SNP data for people.

Here if there was a hartley that did not test for SNPs, I gave a question mark which says perhaps they are A11134.

The first page of analysis gives a new chart which points out a mistake I made:

I put in the Mawdsley kit number twice. I’ll just fix that.

I ran it again:

Now the results are correct for Mawdsley, but wrong for Ethan. I don’t want to show Ethan positive for A11134 as I do not yet know that. My Blogs would be shorter is I took out my mistakes. However, I am hoping that my mistakes are instructive:

Now that this chart looks the way I want it to, I will push the SAPP Tree button:

This tree looks quite different. There are now three branches. A few comments:

  • This does not take into account that the Hartley YDNA Administrator believes that most of the Hartleys who have not done the BigY are A11134.term
  • This also does not take into account the fact of the common Hartley surname for most testers.
  • The program still wants to put Ethan with Mawdsley. I would tend to disagree with this, but we will see when the BigY results come out.
  • Mervin shows in his own branch. I would tend to disagree with that also.

I see one additional thing that could help. In one of my previous Blogs on Hartley SAPP trees, I used an asterix after the SNP to indicate the current  terminal SNP:

This gives some clarity for the three BigY testers who tested as A11134. Unfortunately, that did not change the results. In my previous Blog on the subject, I kept in the two Hartleys that only tested 12 SNPs. Perhaps I should add them back in, as I got better reults last time.

I tried adding them back, but that had no effect on the tree.

Possible BigY Outcomes for Ethan

Here is my Block tree:

  • If Ethan is truly related to Mawdsley, he may form a new branch under A11132
  • Ethan my show as A11134 and result in no change to the Hartley YDNA Tree. That would mean that he would form another parallel branch with Channon, John N., an Steve
  • Ethan may have a SNP in common with one of the testers in A11134 and form a new branch under that SNP.

The Wolka Connection

Ethan’s closest match at 111 STRs is Wolka:

The Genetic Distance [GD] between Ethan and Wolka is 3. This is by far Ethan’s closest 111 STR match. Ethan’s next closest match is with Steve at a GD of 7. Wolka has many other Hartley matches. The assumption is that this particular Wolka male line goes back to a Hartley Line at some point. Unfortunately, not much is known about this tester’s genealogy. It may be assumed that that the terminal SNP that Ethan tests positive for will likely apply to Wolka also.

As a side note, Ethan is Mawdsley’s closest STR match at a GD of 8. Mawdsley’s next match is Wolka at a GD of 9.

Here is FTDNA’s time predictor for a GD of 3 at 111 STRs:

This means that the likely date for the common ancestor between Ethan and Wolka is around 1750.

Summary and Conclusions

  • There is a new Hartley BigY tester However, so far, only his STR results are in
  • The Hartley YDNA Project administrtor has grouped Ethan with Mawdsley
  • My previous understanding was that the connection between Mawdsley and Hartley go back before the time of surnames.
  • I tried using the SAPP Program on Ethan’s STR results, but I was not satisfied with the results compared to my understanding of Hartley YDNA at this point
  • STRs are very difficult to analyze and interpret. In constrast, SNPs tend to give more straightforward answers
  • It will be interesting to see if Ethan’s BigY test creates a change in the YDNA tree of man and specifically in the Hartley part of the YDNA tree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Luther DNA/Genealogy Tree and ThruLines

I have been building DNA/Genealogy Trees for my ancestors that have ThruLines that i have verified. On my Hartley side, I have looked at:

  • Hartley
  • Hathaway
  • Snell
  • Parker
  • Hatch
  • Howorth
  • Churchill
  • Cowen

I do not think that I have looked at Luther.

My Luther Genealogy

My great-grandmother Annie Snell was the daughter of a Bradford and a Snell. Luther is on the Snell side. Benjamin Luther and Rebecca Trafton were my 5th great-grandparents. They lived in Dighton, Massachusetts.

Luther ThruLines

I’ll start with my own:

ThurLines think that I match up with Lynn via Lynn’s ancestor Polly Luther. Polly is in white which means that she is already in my Tree. However, it seems as Polly may have married a Simmons:

A few of my siblings have the same ThruLine with Lynn.

Joyce’s Luther ThruLines

Because my father’s cousin Joyce is a generation back, she should have more Luther ThruLines and she does:

Joyce even has a ThruLine going back a generation:

I checked on my father’s other 1st cousin Maury’s ThruLines, but he doesn’t show any on the Luther side.

Joyce and DVanderzell

I’ll start on the oldest ThruLine. DVanderzell’s Tree matches the ThruLine conclusions:

The tree above has Susannah and the ThruLine has Sukey which I take to be the same person.

I’ll start a quick tree to check DVanderzell’s Tree. Winston was born in Taunton, MA. From Winston’s birth record, his father was from Dighton, MA:

The family soon moved to Montclair, NJ:

Here is the previous generation in Dighton, MA:

So far, the tree is checking out:

I am now looking for Jonathan Hathaway:

The family was in Dighton in 1850:

Jonathan to Susannah Sukey Talbot

From Jonathan’s death record, we see his mother is Susan:

At this point, I may want to attack the question from both ends. By that, I mean from the Jonathan end as well as the Sarah Luther side. I do have that Sarah married in 1773. I could go out on a limb and guess that she may have been born around 1753.

One reference to Susannah had this:

Here is the record for Sukey Talbot:

So there are two Jonathan Hathaways.

Sukey Talbot to Sarah Luther

The female connections are more difficult due to the name changes. I have this record from Dighton:

That means that all I am missing is a birth record for Susannah or Sukey Talbot. Here is the missing link:

A First Luther DNA/Genealogy Tree

Here Joyce and DVanerzell show as 6th cousins which agrees with the Ancestry ThruLines.

Joyce and Pat (Sally Luther Line)

Pat has a good tree, but the line diverges at Polly Sartwell:

Pat has her mother as Martha Goodenough. In addition, in my own tree, I have that Sally Luther married James Spooner. I am tempted to pull the plug on Pat for now.

Joyce and RWU12 (Gardner Luther)

RW’s tree diverges before Gardner Luther II:

Here are the Dighton records:

I am trying to figure out how to interpret this. It appears that Gardner Luther in my tree married a Nancy Horton in 1803. He then dies in 1825. Then there is a second Gardner Luther in Dighton. He dies in 1809. I am guessing that he is the son of the other Gardner and that this Gardner was born in 1807 and died in 1809. Then there appears to be a question as to whether the first Gardner Luther married a Nancy Horton or a Nancy Kelton.

I am now cutting corners to save time:

This Gardner is interesting because his parents were Gardner and Nancy Luther. He dies in 1875 on November 6, so would be born around 1809. Also this:

All this leads to the possibility that the ThruLine could be right.

I’ll start a quick tree for RW:

RW’s mother’s birth record was amended, so is not yet available. I’ll have to assume that RW knew who his grandparents were. Here is RW’s 15 year old grandfather in 1900 in Swansea:

At this point, I am checking into Elizabeth from the above Census.

Here is a 1907 North Attleborough Marriage record for William giving his mother’s name as Elizabeth Willmarth:

Here is a good hint. In 1880, Elizabeth was listed as the granddaughter of a Luther:

I got this 1906 Swansea marriage from RW’s tree:

I’ll just take it on face value. My tree is following RW’s so far:

Here is Mary’s marriage record:

Turns out Clement was quite a bit older than Mary and this was her second marriage.

Here two Luthers married.

Here is the family in 1850 in Swansea:

This could be Mary’s first marriage:

Here is the family in 1855:

This proves that the marriage between Mary Luther and Josiah Tucker above was correct.

Gardner dies in 1886 in Swansea and gives the names of Gardner and Mary Luther for his parents who are both said to have been born in Swansea:

Now we have come full circle, however, I had Gardner Sr. marrying a Nancy, so the death record could be wrong?

I have shown a connection from this Gardner to the elder Gardner and that the younger Gardner lived in Swansea most of his life.

Updating the Luther Tree

I gave the chart some color so it wouldn’t just be boring gray. RWU shows as a 5th cousin once removed to Joyce. This is also what the ThruLine suggested, so it checks out. The only thing I didn’t check into was who was the Charlotte Luther who married Gardner Luther?

Joyce and Lynn (Polly Luther Line)

Now we are back to Lynn:

The maternal side of Lynn’s tree agrees with the ThruLine – going back to our common ancestors:

All I need to do now is to build a parallel tree to Lynn’s to see if it checks out. This tree is starting out in Arkansas. I am having a little trouble finding Leatrice. I would think that she would be easy to find, but sometimes with a different name, the name is miss-spelled. Here is the 1930 Census:

I found this in the hints on the ThruLines. Leatrice is here transcribed as Leatrei. In addition, the last name is transcribed as Tolbert. The father was a school instructor and his family was from Mississippi.

Here is Marcus in 1900 in Mississippi:

Marcus’ father was a farmer (I don’t show but he was on the previous page). His father was from Massachusetts. Bingo.

 

The transcriber gives the father’s first name as Allen which I can now see. The mother is Telisia or something similar. I have seen that name before.

The Census records help me quickly build a parallel tree for Lynn:

Here is Allen with his family in 1850:

I don’t know much about Mississippi, but Marshall County where they lived is not too far from Memphis:

I am guessing Ephraim moved South before marrying as his wife was from Tennessee.

Talbot to Luther?

We are trying to figure out if Ephraim’s mother was Polly Luther. This record from Dighton is helpful:

Next, I just have to figure out if Marcy is the same as Polly. She is:

I assume that I got the name Polly from a genealogy book. It is confusing and I should put her name back to Mary. My understandiing is that Molly is a nickname for Mary which sometimes was changed to Polly.

Last Tree Update – for Now

Here is the new and improved Luther Tree:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Out of the 4 Luther Lines I looked into, I was able to make connections on three
  • The Luther Line has a rich heritage and history in the part of Massachusetts around Swansea and Dighton.
  • This is my first Luther DNA/Genealogy Tree and verifies the Ancestry ThruLines
  • Using DNA plus genealogy is a powerful tool in creating surname trees.

 

 

My Churchill ThruLines

I have been going through my ThruLines and updating or creating DNA/Genealogy Charts for them. In this Blog, I’ll look at my Churchill ThruLines. The people who have tested in my family are:

  • my three sisters, one brother and me
  • my father’s cousin Joyce
  • my father’s cousin Maury

My Churchill Genealogy

The Churchills are related to my Pilgrim Bradford genealogy:

My great-grandmother Annie Snell had the Pilgrim ancestry on her mother’s side. Lucy Churchill married Samuel Bradford who was a descendant of Governor Bradford of the Mayflower. Lucy lived in Plymouth, MA. Her parents were Stephen Churchill and Lucy Burbank. As I recall, Stephen Churchill was a cooper by trade or a barrel maker in the Colonial Town of Plymouth. According to Wikipedia:

 Churchill ThruLines

My sister Lori has the most Churchill ThruLines with two, though the level of DNA matches are low:

The names Peleg and Heman are in white which means they are already in my tree.

Stephen had a big family which is good for producing descendants and ThruLines.

Lori and Herb

Ancestry wants me to evaluae Herb’s connection. Here is what Herb shows for his paternal side tree:

Herb shows the father being from Plymouth, so hopefully that will be easy to track. There appears to be some confusion in herb’s father already. The ThruLines have Elmer C P Chandler and herb’s tree has Elmer Carlton Paul. I did find this record from WWII:

The 1930 Census for Kingston, MA could give an explanation:

Elmer is living with his grandparents and their last name is Paul.

The Social Security record is helpful:

It appears that Eva may have married a Gomes based on the 1945 record above. Of the trees that I have found, this one seems to make the most sense to me:

Here we have the three generations of Elmes Chandlers.

In support of the genealogy, I notice that my father’s 1st cousin Joyce also has a small match with herb:

With that in mind, I continue. This is the Tree I have so far that I would like to get up to Peleg Churchill:

James Chandler to Eliza Churchill

James Chandler was living in Duxbury, MA as a shoemaker in 1860:

Here is Eliza in 1850 in Duxbury, MA:

Her husband appears to be a Hatter.

Eliza Churchill to Peleg Churchill

I am having trouble finding a record to connect these two people. I did find this under a Mayflower Application:

This application was approved in 1921. That genealogy check did not go as smoothly as I had hoped.

My First Churchill DNA/Genealogy Tree

Churchill gets overshadowed due to the Bradford connection. I have tended to focus in more on the Bradford Lines in the past.

Lori and Butterflies on the Heman Churchill Line

That is an interesting heading name. My goal is to prove or disprove this connection:

This is the extent of butterflies’ maternal line in the direction I an interested in:

I will likely be looking for the wife of William Evans on the top right of her tree. I’ll start my own tree for butterflies to see if I can verify the 200 years of genealogy back to our common ancestors.

Beverly’s father Roger was a printer in New London, CT:

It is helpful to now have the 1950 Census to look at.

Roger’s father William was born in New York and was a caretaker at New London Parks:

I next want to follow Ruby or Ruba:

Based on this, I’m willing to accept the Ancestry hints:

Evans to Churchill

Here is someone’s transcription of a newpaper article:

Here Theodore is said to be the son of Jane A Churchill. However, my Ancestry hint has this:

However, the 1850 Census has Theodore’s father from Wales:

I accepted the Ancestry hint for William Evans and Jane Churchill.

Jane to Heman Churchill

This connection is mentioned in many genealogies, but what is the evidence? In Heman’s will, he only mentions two daughters, but not Jane:

That did not mean that he did not have other children. It turns out that Heman who was also a cooper owed a lot of people a lot of money and was also insolvent like his brother Peleg.

It appears that Haman had a lot of deaths in the family:

This was from:

Massachusetts: Vital Records, 1620-1850 (Online Database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001-2016).

https://www.americanancestors.org/DB190/i/14012/503/253533102

Heman apparently belonged to the Baptist Church. I don’t know if that makes finding the records more difficult.

This Ancestry Tree has this summary for Heman Churchill:

Unfortunately, at this point, I am stuck. Jane Churchill Evans has that she was born in New York. The Jane Churchill I am looking for should have been born in Massachusetts as that is where Heman Churchill lived to my knowledge. So I have not proved or disproved the connection.

Joyce and Patricia

I’ll take a look at this ThruLine:

Joyce and Patricia share a pretty good DNA match for 5th cousins. I will try to prove or disprove Patricia’s connection to my family via Jocye:

Here is what Patricia shows on her paternal side:

The ThruLines want me to head toward Ellen Augusta Leach. I see from the 1920 Census that John’s mother’s parents were born in Massachusetts:

Also the name Earle comes up in that Census.

Here is the family in 1880 in San Francisco:

I’m cutting corners a little, but I feel like Patricia’s tree is right and plus Slade above was born in Massachusetts. However, it is really his wife Ellen that I am interested in.

Now my tree looks a little more like Patricia’s:

I need to see if the Churchill connection is right. Slade and Ellen married in 1864 in Lynn, MA:

Ellen was from Plymouth originally and her mother was also an Ellen. Here is a summary of the Leach family in 1850:

Here is the marriage from 1830:

At this point, I am on track with the ThruLines:

Fortunately, Ellen’s father left a will where he clearly states that Eleanor was his daughter:

This Daniel was also a cooper.

I already have Daniel in my family tree, so I’ll add him to my Churchill DNA/Genealogy Chart:

So now I have gone up the genealogy and back down again. Patricia matches Joyce and I don’t have her on my chart. Also I need to fix my side of the chart:

Joyce and Laura

Joyce and Ashley have a large match, because the major match is on Joyce’s paternal side. That is the side that she is not related to me. So I’ll go with Laura. Laura has a large tree:

Unfortunately, her tree diverges at the point of her paternal grandmother. That could make the connection difficult as I would think that Laura would know her grandmother.

Here is the family in 1920 in Penobsctot, ME:

It looks like there was anothegenr Joseph Fernald Leach born in Abington, MA. That appears to be the confusion in the trees, so I will not bother to pursue this further.

Other Churchill ThruLinMes

Maury is my father’s 1st cousin (like Joyce). As such, his Churchill ThruLines go back an additional generation. However, my second cousin manages his DNA and does not have the Churchills in his ancestry. So he doesn’t show any Churchill ThruLines.

I’ll show Joyce’s ThruLines going back one generation:

This family did not hold back on the obscure names. How many people can say they have a Zadock in their ancestry?

Joyce and L.B

I’ll give this a shot. James shows a possible 6th cousin to Joyce on Joyce’s paternal side also – the side I am not related on.

LB’s tree is mostly filled out in the direction of Bathsheba Churchill. As usual, I will build out a tree, to see if I can get to Bathsheba and Zadock Churchill.

I found a birth record for Florence:

Her mom checks out as Annie L. Nelson.

Here is the marriage record for Annie:

Here is the family in 1880 in Androscoggin, ME:

That Census also gave me an approximate birthdate for Sally or Sarah:

Sarah’s death record gives her father’s name:

Here is the family in 1850 in Buckfield, ME:

There is also a Thankful on the next page. Miles was born in Massachusetts which is a good sign. Miles was born in Middleborough, MA:

This Thomas ended up in Buckfield, ME:

I see they have a Zadoc and a Bathsheba Churchilll Bearce in the family which is a good sign.

From Colonial Families of the USA, 1607-1775:

Bathsheba to Zadock

Here is an approved Mayflower application from 1929:

This seems to tie the loose ends together.

Here is the amended and corrected Churchill DNA/Genealogy Tree:

I previously had Stephen Churchill born 1743 married to Hannah Barnes, so I corrected that mistake.

Do Joyce and Diana Have Churchill Common Ancestors?

ThruLines has Diana going back to a Polly Churchill. I do not appear to have Polly in my tree. Diana shows her paternal grandfather being from Plymouth County, Massachusetts:

I’ll create my own tree to see if the ThruLines make sense.

Here is Edwin’s birth record in Middleborough, MA:

His mother is recorded as Mary Dixon, born in Plymouth. Here is the family in Plymouth:

Jacob’s marriage record gives his father’s name:

In 1850 Plymouth, Samuel was a cooper:

According to Samuel’s death record, his mother was Mary Churchill:

Here is part of Stephen Churchill’s will from 1821:

In it, he names Stephen Jr., Lucy, Hannah, Meriah, Nancy, Sally, Polly and Betsy, Heman and Daniel. I have that Peleg died in 1810 which would be why I don’t see him here.

Finishing the Churchill DNA/Genealogy Tree (for Now)

Here my Churchill Tree is filling out nicely:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was able to add three lines under Stephen Churchill born 1743
  • I previously did not have the Line of Polly Churchill born 1786
  • I tried to connect a proposed descendant of Heman Churchill, but that proved tooo difficult
  • I add one Zadock Line. Zadock was the son of an earlier Stephen Churchill born 1717 in Plymouth.
  • My father’s cousin Joyce was helpful in most of these matches