My Brother Jimmy’s DNA

Jimmy is the my last brother to have his DNA tested. I cornered him on his recent trip with his wife to visit my 96-year-old mom. I had an FTDNA kit, so that is the test he took.

Is Our DNA the Same?

This is a common question that Jimmy had when testing siblings. Siblings get 50% of their DNA from each parent, but it is a different 50%. I believe that we also share 50% of the same DNA with each sibling. Here is how Jimmy compares to his five siblings in a chromosome browser:

Each color represents one of Jimmy’s five siblings. From the browser, it looks like Jimmy shares more than 50% with each sibling. That is because the browser combines our maternal and paternal DNA. We actually have two copies of each chromosome. However the DNA cannot discern between the maternal and paternal side. I have had my mom tested for DNA. If my father had been alive for DNA testing, Jimmy’s DNA would not have been as important. Even with six siblings tested, it is possible that some of my father’s DNA did not get passed down. One child gets 50% of the father’s DNA. With the second child tested, that goes up to a theoretical 75%. Third child is 87.5%. A fourth is 93.75%. A fifth is about 97% and a sixth is about 98.5%. That still leaves out about 1.5%. That may not seem like a lot. I match my mother at 3,587.0 cM. 1.5% of that amount is about 54 cM. Most of my matches are less than that amount. With a math of 50 cM, the relationship should be fairly easy to figure out. Below that amount, it may be more difficult.

The fact that Jim matches half of each sibling is shown best on the X Chromosome. The X Chromosome for a man is just on the mother’s side. Here is how Jim compares to Jon and Joel:

Jim’s match with Jon is in orange. He matches at about half of the X Chromosome but in different places until the end. There, Jim, Jon and Joel match each other near the end of the  X Chromosome. This will be more fully explained later in the Blog.

Jimmy’s Ethnicity

The map seems fairly reasonable. There is 3% Middle Eastern which is difficult to explain. My mom has a lot of German, so perhaps, some Middle Easterners made their way up to Germany at some point.

Jim’s Ethnicity at Gedmatch

Depending on which testing company or which model, Jim’s results could come out differently. Here is Jim at Gedmatch’s Eurogenes K13 Admixture Proportions:

Jim noted that Heidi had no Middle Eastern at FTDNA. Here is Heidi at Gedmatch:

Here Heidi has more East_Med than Jim and has Oeanian instead of Amerindian. Heidi also has no Red_Sea which I take to be Middle Eastern.

Jim’s Unique Frazer DNA

Emily is Jim’s second cousin once removed.

This is an old tree, so I need to add Jimmy to the lower left box.

Emily’s grandparents are in the middle of the photo. The two on the left are our common ancestors: George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. I uploaded Jimmy’s DNA to Gedmatch. Then I ran checked to see how Emily matched me and my 5 siblings. Surprisingly, on Chromosome 5, Emily matches Jimmy and none of the other 5 siblings:

This shows that Jimmy and Emily have a large math on Chromosome 5 for 57 cM between positions 109M and 166M.

For comparison, here is how Emily matches Joel, Lori, Jon and Heidi on Chromosome 20:

Emily doesn’t match Jim or Sharon here as they probably got their DNA from the Hartley rather than the Frazer side at this part of their Chromosome 20.

A Map of Chromosome 5

This map will give an explanation of how out of six siblings, it was only Jim hat matched Emily on Chromosome 5.

This map has me and my two sisters. The light red is our Frazer side and the dark red is the Hartley side. The top line shows my father’s Hartley and Frazer side. Note that there is a cross-hatched section in the lighter red in the top line. That is where there was Frazer DNA missing that was not passed down to these three siblings. However, JImmy has made up for this by having Frazer DNA in this segment of his Chromosome 5.

Mapping Jim’s X Chromosome

Men only get one X Chromosome from their mother. That means it should be fairly easy to map Jim’s X Chromosome. Here is how the three brothers compare on the X Chromosome:

The green with blue underneath is where there is a match. The red where there is no blue underneath is where there is no match. Next, I added position numbers and crossovers. Crossovers are where are DNA crosses to what we got from one grandparent to what we got from another. In this case, these are maternal grandparents, so that would be either Rathfelder or Lentz.

Jim gets the first crossover. This is because at position 12, Jim is in the first two changes. He goes from non-match to match with Jon and from match to non-mathc with Joel at position 12.

In the next step, I color in the DNA Fomr Jim, Jon, and Joel. Jon and Joel match from 100 to 140, so I’ll color that one color. Jim does not match Joel or Jon in that area, so he will get a different color.

These colors will stand for Rathfelder or Lentz, but we don’t know which is which yet. However, I’m curious, so I’ll check. I notice that Jim has an X match with Anita from Latvia. She is a Rathfelder-descended cousin that I found out about recently through DNA. Here is her match with Jim:

That means that Jim’s orange is Rathfelder. These colors can be expanded to the crossovers. Jim has a crossover one segment to the left and none to the right. So I can extand the orange.

Blue has to be Lentz, and this can also be extended.

Note that Joel had crossovers on both side, so the blue could not be extended. However, on the other side of the crossover, I have to go toi Rathfelder as that is the only other choice. In this way, the map can be filled out. Here is a quick X Chromosome map for Jim:

It is possible to check the matches and non-matches above to make sure that they and the map agree. This is quick, but it is accurate? I had someone map my X Chromosome by a different method and he got this:

Based on this, my mapping is accurate on the right side of the Chromosome, but not on the left. This shows that I have a crossover at 23. Sometimes what looks like a crossover for one sibling is actually a crossover for the other two siblings. That is what appears to have happened at position 23. The crossover was probably for Jon and Joel.

So, under the above, Jim has three X segments, Jon has four and Joel has five.

Splitting JIm’s DNA

Because I had my mom’s DNA tested, I can split JIm’s DNA into two. Gedmatch has a utility called a Phased Data Generator:

I put Jim’s kit in and Mom’s and out pops two new DNA kits. One is Jim’s maternal side and the other is Jim’s paternal side. This represents most of the half of the DNA he got from mom and the half from dad. These are useful, because now we can tell when there is a DNA match whether it is on the maternal or paternal side. The matches that are on neither side are most likely not good matches. Here is an example:

Jim’s paternal matches are in blue and the maternal in red. The ones with no color are from FTDNA, so I haven’t figured those out yet. The green matches are the matches of 15 cM or more.

Next Steps

By further DNA mapping, I would be able to tell on which grandparent side each of Jim’s matches are on. I will already know that for Jim’s X Chromosome matches. Here an example. Jim matches Richard here:

We know that Jim is mapped to Lentz in this segment from the mapping above.

I’ll also see how Jim matches those in the Frazer DNA Project I have been working on. In addition, we’ll see how he matches different paternal matches. I’m currently stuck on the Hartley and Spratt side of our genealogy, so perhaps Jim’s DNA results will help there.

 

 

The World of the Emmet Family in the 1700’s and 1800’s Around Bacup

In my last Blog, I wrote about the DNA results for my dad’s cousin Maury and some of our shared roots in the area of Bacup, Lancashire, England. That Blog focused more on the Howorth Line in Bacup. I would like to look at the Emmet Line in this Blog.

The Emmet Family

The information I have on the Emmet family goes back to the 1700’s. I have a web page on this family that I last updated in 2004. Here is a photo that a fellow researcher found. She believes this to be Ann Emmet (wife of Greenwood Hartrley) born 1829:

 

I tried to re-scan this, but it is difficult to scan it as the photo is within a leather frame. I’ll start with Ann’s parent and see where I can go from there.

Isaac Emmet born about 1798 and Esther Howorth

I’ll be bouncing around a bit. It would make more sense to start with the oldest couple and go down toward the present. However, with genealogy, there is a principal that you need to start with what you know which would be the more recent.

Here is the 1841 Census with Isaac and his family:

 

Here the writer spells Emmet as Emmett. They are in the Parish of Rochdale, the Township of Spotland, the area of Whitworth and Brandwood and the specific place they lived was called Stubby Lee.

 

Stubbylee is to the South of Bacup. Isaac was from Hey head which I assume is near Hey. Right before she married, Esther was living near Thorn on the map. It looks like the family had six children in 1841 and a 54 year old Mary Emmett was living with them. She could have been Isaac’s sister or other relative. From what I can tell Isaac and James Emmett were farm laborers. Isaac’s two oldest daughters were cotton weavers. Cotton weaving would have been a fairly new industry at the time.

Isaac and Esther in 1851

The 1851 Census was an improvement over 1841 as it gave more information:

Here Isaac and Esther were living at “Stubelee’ House. Perhaps the owners were not present. The head of the house was listed as a House Maid. Isaac was a servant at this house or hall:

Visions of Downton Abbey come to mind – perhaps on a smaller scale. Here is a photo of Stubby Lee where Isaac and Esther lived in 1851.

I would assume that Isaac would have been of good character and dependable to work at such a place. I also assume that this would have been a respectable job for Isaac – a cut above farm laborer or factory worker.

Here are the birthplaces of the people living in this house in 1851:

I assume that the first person was the head maid. She is listed as a widowed house maid. She was from Monmouthshire. This is a County in SE Wales. The next person is Julia Fraser. She is listed as the unmarried daughter of the head maid Ann Corfeld. She was born in the East Indies. Isaac was the man servant of the house again enumerated as Emmett with two tees. His birthplace is difficult to read. At first I thought is was Sou Clough, but now I’m not so sure. Esther was born at Nothill. This was discussed in my previous Blog. Esther is shown with no occupation, so apparently she was allowed to live at the house. From my understanding, this would have been an unusual arrangement. Isaac is listed as a resident and Esther as a lodger. Perhaps she payed to stay there. Below Esther is Mary Taterstall. She, like Isaac, is listed as a resident and the married wife of a Coach manufacturer. Mary was born in Greennook [hepton?]. The person in living at Lumb Hall next to Subby Lee was Jane Taterstall. She was a married dressmaker living on her own.

This picture raises a few questions. Where was Souclough and where were the Emmet children. Who took care of them? Were they considered to be old enough to be on their own?

Where is Souclough?

I Googled Souclough and got exactly one return. How often does that happen?

This is a burial record. It identifies Sou Clough as being in the area of Tunstead. That got me in the right area of Bacup. This place is actually called Sow Clough on this map:

This map represents where Isaac Emmet was in 1851 and 52 years earlier when he was born. So a Sow Clough boy married into a family from Hogshead (see previous Blog).

A look down present Sow Clough Road on Google Maps shows that it has newer residential homes on it. I did find one older looking house on Sow Clough Road reminiscent of an earlier day:

A clough is a deep ravine, so that would be a clough behind the house.

The Emmet Kids in 1851

I would like to find the children of Isaac and Esther Emmet in the 1851 Census to see what they were up to. According to Ann’s marriage record, she was living in Stubby Lee right before December 18th, 1851 when she got married. That means I need to check around the area of Stubby Lee Hall for Ann. I found her on the next page of the Census:

I have a feeling that a Hartley researcher friend found this before for me. So the children were living close to the parents. I count six households in Stubby Lee other than the Stubby Lee Hall.  Sister Mary at age 26 was holding things together for her younger siblings. The youngest Isaac was a Tea Boy. I was told by my friend that a tea boy would go around the factory giving out tea to the workers until he was old enough to do factory work. So he was a working boy at age 9.  He would have been born after the 1841 Census. This was definitely a working household with all five siblings between the ages of 9 and 26 working. Here the birthplaces were not listed as precisely as they were for Stubby Lee Hall. Only the parish name was given.

Isaac Emmet’s Baptismal Record

Here is the old St. John the Evangelist Church in Bacup where Isaac Emmet was baptized in 1798:

Isaac’s Parents: Edmund Emmet and Sarah

We know that Edmund Emmet and his wife Sarah were living at Sow Clough in 1798 when their son Isaac was born. What else do we know about this couple?

George Emmet, born 1796

The first child of Edmund and Sarah Emmet that I have a record of was George, baptized July 23rd, 1796:

The family was still clearly living at Sowclough. This baptism took place at St. Nicholas at Newchurch.

Newchurch was the next Town to the West of Sow Clough.

I took a further look at the Newchurch records and found this:

First, there were two Edmund Emmets. One was married to Sarah and one was married to Mary. Mary died in 1801. This could make it difficult to find the birth of Edmund. I assume that our Edmund was younger than the one married to Mary. It looks like our Emmet Family was larger than I knew.

When DId Edmund Die?

I found two records for the death of Edmund Emmet. They correspond to the two Edmund’s above.

The first Edmund was born about 1727. Our Edmund would have been born about 1757. So they may have been father and son. That is sad that Edmund ended up at the workhouse. My understanding was that the workhouse was intentionally made to be a pretty miserable place to make sure people didn’t want to go there.

Edmund’s Death Seems to Lead to His Birth

Sounds odd, I know.

It looks like this other Edmund could very well have been the father of our Edmund. I had said that based on Edmund’s age at death he should have been born about 1757. That is not far off from 1759 when this Edmund was born.

Here is Goodshaw where Edmund was born. I would guess on a straight line it would be about five miles from Goodshaw to Bacup.

Two Additions to the Hartley Family Tree

This couple of Edmund Emmet and Mary Omerod are now some of the furthest back ancestors of the Hartley family.

Where is Cloughbottom?

Cloughbottom is associated with the older Edmund Emmet. I found this photo online:

Clough Bottom appears to be associated with Waterfoot.

On the map, it looks like Waterroot, but I think that it is the same place. Well, that should wrap it up for now. I’m not sure I got all my names and places right, but I’m sure I got many of them right.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was able to take a little look into the life of Isaac Emmet – farm laborer turned servant.
  • I also looked at Isaac’s father and grandfather and the places that they lived.
  • Sadly, Edmund Jr. appears to have ended up in a poor house. This was usually a last chance place to go.
  • Edmund Sr. lived North of Rawtenstall near Goodshaw  where Edmund Jr was born. At a later time he moved to Clough Bottom which apparently later became a reservoir.
  • I was able to find the last name of the wife of Edmund Emmet Sr, but not the last name of the wife of Edmund Emmet Jr.

My Father’s Cousin Maury’s DNA and Hartley Ancestors

My father’s cousin Maurey recently had a DNA test at Ancestry. Then his daughter Holly uploaded those results to Gedmatch.

A Hartley DNA Tree

Here is a tree showing those in the Hartley family that have had their DNA tested. Others have tested at AncestryDNA, but Ancestry does not provide specific information on which chromosome the matches are on.

 

Maury is in the line on the left. I had previously had Jim and Joyce tested. They are both children of Annie Hartley. Here is a photo of some of the Hartleys.

Maury’s mom Grace is circled in red on the right. Jim and Joyce’s mom Annie is circled in red on the left. From my generation, there are descendants of Jim circled in yellow and Mary also circled in yellow. That represents four out of thirteen Hartleys with DNA-tested descendants. I have other second cousins that have tested at AncestryDNA, but they have not uploaded their results to gedmatch for analysis.

My DNA Match with Maury

Here is what my match with Maury looks like at gedmatch:

That is more DNA than I share with Jim, but less than I share with Joyce, so about average for my three Hartley first cousins, once removed.

Here is a photo of me in the front of the boat and Maury’s nephew Tom steering in the Mattapoisett River Race. From memory I was in 8th grade. I believe that is Maury standing on the left.

Mapping Maury

My Paternal DNA Map before Maury:

This shows that 46% of my paternal side is filled in. On my maternal side which I don’t show above, I have only 20% filled in. When I choose just the green matches which represent my Hartley/Snell DNA that I share with cousins, the DNA Painter program says that “represents about 17% of the base pairs in this profile”.

Maury actually did not add much more Hartley DNA. I already have a lot of Hartley DNA matches. However, he did bring my mapped DNA up from 32% to 33%. That means, that overall, between my mom and dad’s side one-third of my DNA is mapped. That is a bit of a milestone.

Maury’s Huge Hunk of Pilling DNA

Here is a DNA tree of the Pilling Line:

A DNA tree is just people in a tree that have had their DNA tested. That means that the actual genealogical tree would be much larger. The people in green have had their DNA tested and have uploaded to Gedmatch. One exception is Jennifer who tested at 23andme which has a chromosome browser.

Maury is in the line on the left. The line on the right is from William Wilkinson. Mary Pilling married Robert Hartley. Robert Hartley died young. Then Mary married Robert Wilkinson and had another family. Richard descends from that side. That means that any Hartley descendant that matches Richard can know that they match Richard with Pilling DNA and not Hartley DNA. That is because Richard has no known Hartley DNA.

Here is how Richard matches Maury on Chromosome 19:

The orange bar is the match between Richard and Maury. The small blue match is between Richard and my brother Jonathan. The orange match is 53 cM and takes up most of Maury’s Chromosome 19. So Maury has a pretty large hunk of DNA from his 2nd great-grandmother, Mary Pilling. That DNA made its way intact through Greenwood Hartley, James Hartley, Grace Hartley and down to Maury. Mary Pilling played a big role in the history of the Pilling, Hartley and Wilkinson families. She lived in Trawden, Bacup and finally crossed the ocean as an elderly woman with the Hartley and Wilkinson families, finally dying in New Bedford.

Maury’s X Chromosome

Here is how Maury matches some of his cousins by the X Chromosome:

Here Maury matches his first cousins Joyce and Jim. Then he matches his 1st cousins once removed Beth and Pat (numbers 3 and 4).

The matches represent either James Hartley or his wife Annie Snell. Note that Maury doesn’t match me or my 4 tested siblings. That is because the X Chromosome does not travel from father to son. My grandfather had one X Chromosome but that got passed down to his daughter, not his son.

I circled the middle area of Maury’s X Chromosome matches above. It appears in that area the DNA he got on his X Chromosome switched from Hartley to Snell or the other way around. If I were to test my paternal first cousins, then they would have Snell X Chromosome and not Hartley. That is because, they descend from my grandfather’s daughter. She would have an X Chromosome that my grandfather got from his mother who was Annie Snell. Any of the Hartley relatives that matched them would then know that match was on the Snell side and not the Hartley side.

Identifying Maury’s unknown X Chromosome matches.

Here are some of Maury’s top unknown X matches. I would like to know if they are from the Hartley side or Snell side. My guess is that most of them will be from the Snell side as there would be more people matching on the Colonial Massachusetts Snell side compared to the Lancashire, England side.

When I choose these people in a Chromosome Browser, the matches look like this:

Remember I said that I thought that most of Maury’s X matches would be on his Snell side. For Maury’s group of matches in the middle, they stop at position 83M. My guess is that is where Maury’s X Chromosome goes from Snell DNA to Hartley DNA. After position 83M, Maury’s X matches disappear.

Again, this is my guess. It has not been proven by contacting each match and checking on their ancestors.

Maury and the Howorth Family

Who are the Howorths? Greenwood Hartley married Ann Emmet in Bacup, England. Ann’s mother was Esther Howorth born in 1800.

 

Maury is on th left. There is a family on the right that matches by DNA. They also descend from the Howorth family. They descend from Abraham, the brother of Esther and live in Australia. Here is Maury’s DNA match with Anne of Australia:

Other Hartleys have matches with this family, so all the matches likely represent Abraham Howorth, born in 1768 or his wife Mary.

Who Was James Howorth’s Wife Mary?

I don’t have a name for James’ wife Mary. That would be nice to know. Looking at Ancestry trees, I don’t get a clear answer. Here are the children I have for the couple:

Hopefully, these are all from the same family. Ancestry has hints for Mary. For Betty and Abram, it could be that a child died and a subsequent child was given their name in their memory.

The hints for Mary at Ancestry.com show that Mary was Mary Hargreaves. However, it shows her marrying a John Haworth. So, unless John and James were the same person, that would not be right. This is likely the John and Mary couple that Ancestry gives as a hint:

There appeared to be Hargreaves also living in Trough.

I’ll look at a website called Lancashire Online Parish Clerks where I got the information from the previous screen shot. I would think that Abraham and Mary married about 1787. When I enter a search for James Howorth marrying a Mary, I get 311 results.

Here are some of the best candidates:

I would favor the Rochdale listings as Bury and Manchester were further away. That leaves Shepherd, Holt, or Eastwood as the last name for Mary. I’ll make the assumption that Mary was the mother of all the children above. The last child was born in 1815 when James was 47.  I’ll say that Mary was three years younger than James and was 44 when her last child was born. That would mean that she would have been about 18 when she married. That would put her birth about 1771.

Here is a Mary Shepherd:

Here dad was Richard and her mom was Ellin. I would have thought that she might name some children after her mom or dad if this was the right Mary.

There are too many Mary Holt’s in the records. Here is one guess:

I like this Mary because her dad and mom were John and Betty. Mary’s first two known children were Betty and John. As I understand it, Bacup was originally not much of a place and Spotland was more of the area. So this my be a good place for an ancestor to be born.

Here is a map of historic Spotland (before 1850) from http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LAN/Spotland/ParishMap:

This is copied from the website as the areas of Spotland:

445 – Chadwick, 446 – Clay Lane, 447 – Catley Lane, 448 – Woodhouse Lane, 449 – Wolstenholme and Cheeseden, 450 – Brandwood Lower End, 451 – Brandwood Higher End, 452 – Whitworth Higher End, 453 – Whitworth Lower End, 454 – Healey, 455 – Failworth

Two areas that I will be looking at later in the Blog are 451 and 452 to the South and East of Bacup.

Here is a possible Eastwood choice:

Again, Mary Howorth did not name any of her children Richard or Alice that I know of.

As stated above, I am leaning toward Holt for a new Hartley ancestral name.

Back to Esther Howorth

Now I’ll look some more at Esther. Esther Howorth married Isaac Emmet. They had Ann Emmet who married Greenwood Hartley.

Where was Esther Born?

There is some confusion as to where Esther was born. Here is the online record:

I’ve looked at the original record and saw no note about Nun hill. There is a Nun Hills to the west of Bacup. There is also a Knothill. The Bacup Weslyan records have reference to a Knothill:

However, my understanding is that Spotland was a ways away South near Rochdale.I also see in the Weslyan records an interesting reference to, “Knothill Nook near Shayforth”

There is a Shawforth near Trough and Hogshead, so perhaps this is the place?

Finding Knot Hill

I think I found Knot Hill. I assume that Knothill Nook is even more specific than Knothill. I appreciate the meticulousness of whoever recorded that record. This map is from http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/

Also in the process, I have found Trough which I had trouble finding previously. I had assumed that Trough Gate was close and it is pretty close to Trough. The trick is finding an old enough map with enough detail. For some reason I get a lot of joy in figuring out where my ancestors lived. So, I’ll say that in 1800 at least, the Howorth family was living at Knot HIll aka Nothill. One problem is that place names have changed over the years. I would have to say that being born at Knot Hill sounds more prestigious than being born at Hogshead or Trough.

So. the next time you are in Bacup, look for Knot Hill. Take the A671 from Bacup going South toward Rochdale. Knothill should be between Trough Gate and Shawforth. If I am ever in the area again, I would like to get out of the car there and walk around.

While I’m Visiting Bacup

Esther was listed as living in a different place in 1821:

She was living in “Fair wall”. The groom was living in Hey Head. That is where I had the Howorth family living in 1806 and 1809. I’m not sure if the family moved about a bit or if the location was reported differently (that is, with different levels of precision).

It looks like Fair Wall was indeed a place, but where?

The above publication was from 1888.

 

Here is a detailed map from 1890 to the East of Bacup:

The last two Howorth children were born in Tong and Higher Tong. Due to the proximity of the Tong Farm and Fair View, I am guessing that Fair View may be the same as Fair Way. That leaves us with Heyhead or Hey Head. Two Howorth children were born there in 1806 and 1809.

One Hey Head Or Two?

I just noticed something today:

Ann Howorth is born in Hey head, parish of Rossendale. Hannah Howorth is born in Heyhead, parish of Rochdale. All other Howorth children have been born in the parish of Rochdale (except for the last Betty which also seems to be a mistake). That leaves a few possibilities:

  1. These are different families
  2. They moved from Hey head, Rossendale Parish to Hey head, Rochdale Parish
  3. The person writing down the information for the Baptist Baptism mixed up the Hey Head in Rochdale with the one in Rochdale.

At this point I would be willing to go with what is behind door number three. I also note that Isaac Emmet was from Hey Head in the Parish of Rochdale at the time of his marriage.

I had already given up on Nun Hills in favor of Knot Hill as per above. Now I am giving up on Hey Head which is further to the West in favor of the Hey shown below.

Summarizing the Howorth Living Areas

That leaves all the Howorth family living as per below in the purple circled locations. I have managed to round them up into areas to the South and East of Bacup:

  1. From the lower right I have Trough where Betty was born in 1789.
  2. John was born 1793 in Hogshead.
  3. Sally was born in 1795 back in Trough
  4. Abram was born 1798 in Hogshead
  5. Esther gets her own named place of birth of Knot Hill in 1800.
  6. James is born in 1803 in Hogshead
  7. Ann is born in Hey head 1806
  8. Hannah is born in Heyhead 1809
  9. Abram is born in Tong in 1814
  10. Betty is born in Higher Tong in 1815
  11. Esther is living at Fair Wall (=Fair View?) at the time of her marriage in 1821. Fair Wall and Tong do not appear by name on the map, but they should be in the area of the small circle between Hey and Bacup. Again, Tong may have been the more general area and Fair Wall a specific house or row of houses.
  12. Esther’s husband Isaac Emmet lived at Hey Head prior to his wedding day. If I have their two places of residence right, they would have been living quite close to each other.
  13. If I have the right James Howarth, father of Esther, he is living in Underbank at the top circle prior to the time of his death in 1839.
  14. By 1851, Greenwood Hartley is living at Underbank and marries Esther’s daughter, Ann Emmet.

It is unclear to me whether the family moved around a lot or if the places where they lived were listed inconsistently. Hogshead is listed three times for Howorth births which is more than any other location. This is somewhat central to the other locations. This revised version of where the Howorth family lived holds together better than the version at my Howorth Web Page.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Maury got a large hunk of DNA from his second great-grandmother Mary Pilling.
  • Maury’s X Chromosome matches represent either the Hartley side or the Snell side. Maury’s unknown X matches will likely be mostly on the Snell side.
  • Maury matches Ann from Australia. This match appears to represent DNA that they both inherited from James Howorth born in 1868 or his wife Mary.
  • I tried to find more about Mary, but didn’t have much luck.
  • I did find more information on where the Howorth family lived by looking at vital records and an 1800’s map. There was a lot of confustion due to similar place names and apparent mis-reporting of parishes.

Jennifer, a Top DNA Match at 23andme

I was in touch with Jennifer at 23andme recently as I wondered how we were related. Jennifer wrote back to me and said that her grandmother was a Gurney. From there, I could tell how we were related.

 

The green boxes have people in them that have had their DNA tested. Jennifer is in the bottom right. All these people descend from James Hartley and Annie Snell who had 13 children. Colleen is Joyce’s granddaughter. She also tested at 23andme and we have been in touch recently.

Jennifer’s DNA

The DNA that Jennifer and I share is from either James Hartley or Annie Snell. We can’t tell which. In order to figure that out we would need to have a match with a Hartley that isn’t related to a Snell or a Snell that isn’t related to a Hartley.

Here is what that DNA looks like on a Chromosome Browser at 23andme:

 

My Chromosome Map

I have been mapping my Chromosomes. That means that I have been keeping track of where my DNA comes from. Here is what I have so far:

The second to the lightest blue is the DNA that I know is from James Hartley or Annie Snell. This would be from all the other people in the green boxes that have had their DNA tested. This appears on the male side of my Chromosomes shown as the top side above. About half of my paternal side DNA should be from the Hartley/Snell side. The other half is Frazer from my father’s mother.

If I superimpose my match with Jennifer with my chromosome map above, there will be places that Jenneifer matches with DNA that I have already gotten from other cousins. There are also places that I haven’t had a match yet. I think that Jennifer will add new Hartley/Snell DNA to my map on Chromosomes 3 and 10.

I have circled the new parts of Hartley/Snell DNA that Jennifer and I share.

Comparing Jennifer with Others at 23andme

The view above is how my DNA compares to:

  • Jennifer in purple
  • Colleen in orange
  • Brian in yellow

I know how I am related to Jennifer and Colleen, but I don’t know how I am related to Brian. Brian is a shared match with Jennifer. That means he probably has a common ancestor somewhere in the ancestry of James Hartley and Annie Snell. I would like to know which ancestor the yellow bar on Chromosome 10 represents but Brian has no ancestry tree.

Chromosome 10 Ancestor, Where Art Thou?

Emily at 23andme also shares DNA with Jennifer and me. She has a bit of a tree at MyHeritage:

The bottom line would be Emily’s parents. The way our DNA is matching, 23andme estimates our relationship to be at 4th cousins. Emily shows all four grandparents. However, that would be the 1st cousin level. The level we may be matching at may be three generations or so beyond that level. The Lee Line appears to be in Scotland, so I would rule that out. That leaves three grandparents at the 1st cousin level:

  • 6 great grandparents – 2nd cousins
  • 12 2nd great grandparents – 3rd cousins
  • 24 3rd great grandparents – 4th cousins

That means that I would need to build out Emily’s line to 24 3rd great grandparents before I might find a common ancestor. I’m too busy, so I’ll look at another matching person.

Shamus’ Tree

I match Shamus at about the same segment that I match Jennifer, Brian, and Emily on Chromosome 10. However, Shamus has a tree at FTDNA. Shamus’ paternal side is Irish, and my Hartley side has no known Irish ancestors. So I’ll look at Shamus’ maternal side:

The first two people are Shamus’ maternal grandparents. So that would be 1st cousin level. Assuming that I am 4th cousin with Shamus, that would be the last column of 16 ancestors. Actually, there are 15 as one is missing. This means that Shamus has done a lot of the work on his tree that I would have had to have done on Emily’s tree and that I couldn’t do on Brian’s tree because I had nowhere to start. Unfortunately, I don’t recognize any of these names as being in my tree.

FTDNA does identify these surnames that are both of our trees:

These are names that go way back to colonial times.

Any Inman Connection?

I did notice that Shamus was missing a mother for Earle Inman. According to one ancestry tree, his mother was Lydia Wheelock born 1812. That same tree has her father as Avis Handy which doesn’t make sense unless Lydia was married more than once.

I did notice that Townsend should not be on my list. For some reason my ancestry tree had Townsend as the father of the Almy family. That wasn’t right, so I changed it.

The Wing Connection

There is a connection between Shamus and me, but it goes back to the 1500’s. That is a long time ago:

John Wing born in 1584 had Daniel Wing who I descend from and Stephen Wing who Shamus descends from. John Wing is my 10th great grandfather. So that would make Shamus and me approximately 11th cousins. I wouldn’t be ready to assign the DNA to the Wing family just yet. However, the DNA seems to come from a colonial Massachusetts source.

My Shared DNA Matches with Shamus

Here are some other people that share DNA at Chromosome 10 from Gedmatch:

All that shared DNA and I can’t figure out where it comes from. The match between me and Shamus is at the top. Then other matches appear to have gotten their DNA from the same place that Shamus and I have.

The other people are:

  • Randy – no tree
  • Don – no tree found
  • Valarie – no tree found
  • Kathy – She had a good tree, but I couldn’t find good matches by both place and name
  • Jessica – no tree found
  • Michelle – can’t find tree
  • Cheyenne – She has a large tree at Ancestry, but no obvious match
  • Sean – no tree

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

More DNA Mapping

As I went back and looked at Colleen’s DNA compared to me, I see we have some DNA that I haven’t mapped on Chromosome 9. This would have had to have come from Colleen’s grandmother Joyce. That means that I must have not mapped Joyce’s DNA to my Chromosome Map:

Here is my match with Joyce:

Here is what I had:

Here is the new map:

This filled in some more Hartley/Snell DNA on my Chromosome 9 and in some other areas – most notably Chromosomes 2 and 14.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at Jennifer’s DNA. We are 2nd cousins once removed and we both tested at 23andme
  • Jennifer added new DNA from my great-grandparents that I didn’t know about before.
  • I tried to track down the common ancestors for a shared match on Chromosome 10 but had no luck.
  • I noticed from comparison with Colleen, that I had missed her grandmother Joyce when making my Chromosome map, so I added her results.

 

Lee’s Lancashire DNA and Genealogy

I have mentioned Lee a few times in my Blogs about my 2nd cousin Mike and my father’s 1st cousin Joyce. Lee is important, because he matches me and some of my Hartley relatives by DNA. He is also important because he has at least one Hartley ancestor in the area where my Hartley ancestors lived.

Lee’s Lancashire Genealogy

I am more interested in Lee’s bottom six great grandparents. Then of Lee’s 12 2nd great grandparents, I am more interested in the ones that were from Colne.

The ones boxed in yellow were from Colne. Actually Margaret Simpson was from Nelson but her parents were from Great and Little Marsden which is right next to Colne. In fact, one of the other people I am following, Cai, had Hartley ancestors from Great and Little Marsden. More about that later.

So although Margaret Hartley seems to be the obvious choice to follow, it may be better not to rule out others from the area where my Hartley ancestors came from. AncestryDNA thinks that Lee and I may be 4th cousins based on the DNA. If that is right, then our common ancestor could be at the level of Lee’s 3rd great grandparents. That is one level to the right of the above chart. 

Speaking of not ruling out, here are the birth places Lee has for his 16 2nd great grandparents:

  1. Campsea Ash, Suffolk
  2. Stourbridge, Worcestershire
  3. Brounton, Devon
  4. Old Swinford, Worcestershire
  5. Worsthorne, Lancashire
  6. Colne
  7. Colne
  8. Jersey Channel Islands
  9. Colne
  10. Colne
  11. Colne
  12. Morecambe, Lancashire
  13. Colne
  14. Nelson
  15. Bedfordshire
  16. Surrey

I will look at Lee’s 2nd great grandparents 5-7 and 9-14.

Here is a map of the area around Colne:

Great and Little Marsden is the area between Trawden and Nelson. #5 William Taylor of Worsthorne was not that far away. Here is a tree for Lee where I think my Hartley’s should match:

This goes to the 3rd great grandparent level for Lee. Lee has 32 3rd great grandparents, but I narrowed that down to 18. These 18 are based on their birth being in or around Colne, Lancashire. The top line of Lee’s ancestry is difficult to see but the births range from between 1811 on the left to 1837 on the right. That is about a generation of difference from left to right.

A few other observations:

  • Margaret Hartley would be a top choice to look into. However, her parents are not known right now. However, she is not the only candidate to consider.
  • The Hartleys have Howorth ancestors in Bacup. Could there be a link to Lee’s Haworth ancestors in Colne? Not likely, but possible.
  • Lee has a Baldwin ancestor born 1836. The top candidate for the mother of my Robert Hartley ancestor is Betty Baldwin born 1780 However, if the match is on that line, it would have to go back to Betty’s father who would have been born in the mid 1700’s. That would mean going back two or more likely three more generations in Lee’s family tree.
  • At the level of Lee’s 3rd great grandparents where we may match up, Lee is missing 6 out of 18 ancestors or 1/3 of his ancestors. In addition, the Taylor wife is missing a surname.

My Trawden Genealogy

My Lancashire genealogy geographically narrows down a bit more than Lee’s:

My ancestor that was born in Trawden was Greenwood Hartley. After that, the family moved to Bacup. I don’t believe that Lee has ancestors from the Bacup area. That means that we could start with Greenwood and go back.

Greenwood is my 2nd great grandfather. The level of 4th cousin would be out one more generation to Robert and Mary Pilling. Lee is younger than me, so he may have to go back another generation to his 4th great grandfather depending on the line. For example, Robert Horsfield in Lee’s tree was born in 1833, but Margaret Simpson who is the same generation from Lee was born in 1865.

Lee’s Lancashire DNA

Here is how Lee matches me and some of my closer Hartley relatives:

  1. Sharon – my sister
  2. Lori – my sister
  3. Joel – me
  4. Heidi – my sister
  5. Jon – my brother
  6. Joyce – my father’s first cousin
  7. Jim – Joyce’s brother
  8. Mike – my second cousin
  9. Holly – Mikes sister

My Chromosome 13 Mapped

Here blue is the Hartley grandfather’s DNA that my siblings I and each received. My siblings and I match Lee from 87-109M. Lori’s Hartley segment starts around 85M. It is rare that all 5 siblings would have DNA from the same grandparent on the same segment. That means that after aboiut 85M we got no DNA from our paternal grandmother (Frazer).

My Hartley Triangulation Group (TG)

For Mike, Holly, my family, Joyce and Jim, there is a Triangulation Group (TG). A Triangulation Group means that the people in the TG share the DNA from a common ancestor.

Normally if these people were in a TG, we wouldn’t know if the ancestor represented was James Hartley b. 1862 or his wife Annie Snell. However, Annie Snell was from Massachusetts and her ancestors went back to Colonial times. This TG also includes Lee, so the match must go back from James Hartley and back to his father who was born in Trawden which was part of the Parish of Colne where Lee had ancestors. Before Greenwood are other ancestors where Lee and the rest of my family may match.

The Hartley Triangulation Group with Lee

Schematically, the TG between Lee and the Hartley’s looks like this:

However, the scenario below is more likely, especially if the connection is on Lee’s maternal side. This shows the Hartley side up a generation as compared to Lee.

At this level of connection, I would be a 5th cousin once removed to Lee. Jim and Joyce would be 4th cousins twice removed. There is even a third possibility. Under the third scenario, Mary Pilling would be the mother of one of Lee’s descendants. This is theoretically possible, but I don’t see this as likely as I believe I have accounted for all her children. She had a child before marrying Robert Hartley. He moved to the US and married. He had another daughter by Robert. This was Ann Hartley. She married a Cockrill. Mary remarried a Wilkinson, but I think I have accounted for all of those children also.

One aspect of the last likely scenario image above is that the common ancestor could be the grandparent of many that are listed as a question mark. That means that there would be a lot of genealogy to be done to make the connection between Lee’s family and my family.

The Common Matches of Joyce and Lee

When I run the utility at Gedmatch to find common matches of Joyce and Lee, I get this on Chromosome 13:

These are Joyces’ matches. #8 is how Lee matches Joyce by DNA. Numbers 1-7 are my closer Hartley family and relatives. Numbers 9-48 are people that I do not know. Perhaps one or more of these people have genealogies that would help narrow down the search for the Hartley/Lee common ancestor.

I did notice one person on the list – Cathye. I had written to her in 2016 and she just got back to me this week. I think there was some mix-up as she gave me some information on her husband’s genealogy. This may be due to the fact that she is listed at Gedmatch under her married name.

A Varley Connection

The matches in the previous chromosme browser are worthy of further research. Most of the matches there are difficult to find at Ancestry – if they tested there or do not seem to have a family tree listed. The last match has the surname of Varley and appears to be from England. This is interesting as the Census shows a Varley from Colne living with in the houselhold of my ancestor Greenwood Hartley family in Bacup in 1861. The Varley DNA match above (#48) has a very good tree. Some ancestors are from Halifax. Getting back to Lee, his ancestor William Taylor had a mother named Elizabeth born in 1816 in Halifax. So many clues, so few answers!

Summary and Conclusions

  • Lee’s DNA match to me and many closer Hartley relatives appears to indicate a Lancashire (or nearby Yorkshire) ancestral connection.
  • Mapping out the trees is helpful in trying to see where the connection may be.
  • I found many common DNA matches, but not many with good family trees. Further research may reveal more.
  • One Varley DNA match had a tree that was very compete and had many ancestors in West Yorkshire.
  • There was already a Varley connection to the Hartleys in 1861. It is not clear whether that connection was coincidental or a relative.
  • Connecting families by common locations where relatives lived can narrow down some of the daunting genealogical work needed to connect the DNA to the family history.

An Update on Skot’s Colonial DNA

Last year I wrote a Blog about Skot and a small match we had of DNA. We showed up as a Shared Ancestor Hint at AncestryDNA. I had known Skot in high school and remember him playing drums in the band and going to some get-togethers that I was at with mutual friends. So we were both surprised that we were distantly related.

Skot in Review

I have 49 Shared Ancestor Hints (SAHs). Ancestry has a computer program that compares your ancestral trees. If you have a shared ancestor within a certain range and a DNA match, then you get an SAH. Here is my match with Skot at AncestryDNA:

Here we show as 7th cousins. Ancestry goes as far back as 10 generations for these SAHs.

Skot also matches my father’s first cousin Joyce that I had tested since I wrote the last Blog. Here Joyce is a 6th cousin once removed to Skot which makes sense as she is one generation to the common ancestors:

However, note that Joyce has a second Hint:

Joyce is also 8th cousin to Skot. Perhaps that is where Ancestry’s 10 generations come in if you count yourself as the first generation.  This match would go back to the 1650’s. We are talking old. However, it isn’t quite that old. Note that Joyce and Skot both share a common ancestor of Arthur Hathaway, so they should be 7th cousins. Actually, Simon and Thomas Hathaway had different mothers, so that means that Joyce and Skot are half 7th cousins on this line.

Joyce and Skot at Gedmatch – Chromosome 10

Here is how Joyce and Skot match at Gedmatch on Chromosome 10:

Here is how Skot matches my brother and me and Joyce on Chromosome 10:

More Matches on Chromosome 15

It is not advised to go below 7 cM with matches, but I made an exception in this case:

Below 7 cM, there is a large likelihood that a match could be false. My reasoning here is how could all these matches be false? These are from three different families. Jim is Joyce’s brother, Heidi is my sister. Pat is a second cousin. Then there is me. Next I’ll do something tricky. Thanks to Martin MacNeill, I have a synthetic file of my grandfather’s reconstructed DNA. I will run this against Skot and other relatives:

This is how my grandfather matches:

  1. Me
  2. My sister Lori
  3. My second cousin Beth
  4. My second cousin Patricia
  5. Joyce’s brother James, my 1st cousin once removed
  6. My sister Heidi
  7. My brother Jon
  8. Skot

Scanning up from Skot, you can see he will match me, my sister Lori, my second cousin Patricia, Jim and my sister Heidi. It looks like I missed Lori in my previous figure.

A Hathaway Tree

This is the Hathaway Tree with the matches from Chromosome 10:

 

This looks like a Triangulation Group (TG).

Here are the Chromosome 15 matches:

 

Here the matches were smaller, but there were more people in the match group or TG. I have other Hartley cousins that did not match Skot from the Grace Hartley Line.

These TGs shows in the images above are very tall. It would be better to have people part way up the tree to verify these. Here is another SAH that Joyce has:

This person has an ancestor not quite as far out. He would be Joyce’s 5th cousin, once removed. If this person uploaded his results to Gedmatch, we may have more confirmation of the Hathway match.

In my last Blog on the subject, I found people that triangulated on Chromosome 10 with other ancestors and not this Hathaway couple. For that reason, I could not be sure that my match with Skot was actually a Hathaway match. Now I do have a triangulations on Chromosomes 10 and 15 that shows Hathaway as a common ancestor. That could mean one or more of several things:

  • One or more of the genealogies could be wrong
  • There is a common TG to a common ancestors, but we haven’t figured out who that is yet
  • Some of the matches in the TG may not be real matches as they are small
  • The TGs may be going back in time to a common pattern for a shared common type of group ancestor – say pilgrim ancestors in general.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Looking at the test results for Joyce has given more certainty that some of the smallish matches with Skot could indicate colonial Hathaway DNA
  • Results from closer Hathaway matches would help confirm that.
  • Triangulation is a good tool, but when it gets down to small matches and distant relationships, it can be difficult to interpret.
  • Triangulation is also difficult when there are different lines of ancestry that are possible. For example, the early prigrims had a small gene pool to choose from so there were many cousin marriages in the colonial days.

 

Two Person Hartley Visual Phasing

I’ve had a FTDNA kit hanging around for my father’s elderly cousin. I’ve had it since last Summer, but haven’t gotten in touch with my second cousin Lisa to see if I could get her uncle tested. This would be important, because I have test results for Lisa’s dad Jim and her Aunt Joyce. The third sibling Ralph would make it easier to perform Visual Phasing.

Visual Phasing

Visual Phasing is comparing siblings’ DNA results in a Chromosome Browser. By looking at changes and comparisons in the Browser as well as matches to known cousins, it is possible to find out what portions of the siblings’ DNA came from which grandparent. For me, this is important as I am interested in separating out matches between my great grandparents Hartley and Snell. Jim and Joyce’s maternal grandparents were James Hartley and Annie Snell. Annie’s ancestors went back to SE Massachusetts Colonial times. James ancestors were from NE Lancashire. I’m stuck on Hartley genealogy in Trawden, Lancashire around 1800. This is due to the fact that there were too many Hartleys in the area at the time to tell one from another based on vital records. Finding Lancashire Hartley ancestor DNA matches may help me break down my Hartley genealogical brick wall.

Joyce and Jim’s Genealogy

The goal of visual phasing is to figure out what parts of Gurney, Rounesville, Harltey and Snell contributed to Jim and Joyce’s DNA. In doing this, it would help to have matches from fairly close (but not too close) relatives on all four lines.

Comparing Jim to Joyce on Chromosome 11

I’ll just jump in and start with Chromosome 11. This is midway between 1 and 22. Here is the comparison between Jim and Joyce:

  • The blue line is where Jim and Joyce match each other
  • Within the blue line there are two types of matches
  • The yellow area is a single match. This is also called a Half Identical Region (HIR). This means that Joyce and Jim get their DNA from one shared grandparent A, but don’t match on grandparent B, C or D. We don’t know now if granparent A is on the maternal or paternal side.
  • The green is a double match. That is called a Fully Identifal Region or FIR. In that area they got the same DNA on their maternal and paternal side of Chromosome 11. That also means that they share the DNA from the same maternal grandparent and the same paternal grandparent
  • The grey, non-blue area (below) and the red area above is where Joyce and Jim do not match. That means that Joyce gets DNA from Maternal grandparent A and Paternal grandparent C while Jim gets his DNA in that area from Maternal grandparent B and Paternal grandparent D
  • At each vertical line above, there is a crossover where Jim or Joyce’s DNA goes from one grandparent to another.

Let’s Start Two Person Visual Phasing

Here is a start. In about the middle of the Chromosome there is a green FIR. That means that Jim and Joyce got their DNA from the same maternal and paternal grandparents. Those grandparents are represented by blue and orange segments. There are crossovers on the right and left of these segments, but we don’t know if the crossovers are for Jim or Joyce (or one for Joyce and one for Jim).

It would be nice to know where the changes take place, so I go to gedmatch.com for that. At gedmatch I compare Joyce to Jim in the chromosome browser at full resolution.

The pink area is the centromere of Chromosome 11. Every ^ is one million places. The start of the green HIR counting back from 60M is 57M.

Here I added the 57 before ‘Chromosome 11’ above. I also added some other crossover locations.

Cousin Matches

I am stuck already in my analysis, so I need some cousin matches. These would ideally be at the level of second cousin matches. At the level of second cousin, you match on only one grandparent. Most known matches matches share Hartley and Snell grandparents, so that is a problem.

Shared Ancestor Hints (SAHs) at AncestryDNA

Joyce’s results are at AncestryDNA. There, she has Shared Ancestor Hints. Those Hints are where Joyce has a family tree match and a tree match. Here is an SAH that Joyce has with Chuck:

Chuck is at the perfect level as he is a 2nd cousin. However, he has not uploaded his DNA to gedmatch for comparison. Ancestry does not show on what Chromosomes you match, so that is a problem. We need chromosome match information for DNA mapping.

Back to Gedmatch

Because many at AncestryDNA don’t upload to Gedmatch, I’ll go back to Gedmatch and look for matches there.

Here is a very interesting match that Sumner and Heather have with Joyce at Gedmatch. This shows that Joyce has an estimated by DNA common ancestor between 3.7 and 3.9 generations away. They also share autosomal DNA and X Chromosome DNA. These two are also at Ancestry and show up on Joyce’s Shared Ancestor Hints.

Here, Joyce and Sumner are 4th cousins by shared trees. However, note that this is only hint 1 of 3. HInt two also goes back to Joyce’s Rounseville grandparent at firth cousin twice removed. Here is Hint 3:

This Snell connection is at 7th cousin once removed. There has to be a very low chance of a DNA match that far out – especially compared to a 4th cousin match . However, this is interesting as it shows that Joyce has two paternal matches with this person and one more distant maternal match.

Here are the important details of the match between Joyce and Sumner:

This shows that Joyce and Sumner match on four different chromosomes, but not Chromosome 11. OK, back to the drawing board. I’ll start over with Chromosome 7. Sumner and Joyce have a pretty good match there.

Chromosome 7 Visual Phase Two Person Map

Note that Joyce’s Chromosome 7 match is from 149 to 158M. That is at the right side of Chromosome 7. It is possible that the 149M could mark Joyce’s paternal crossover. I am going to start from the right of the Chromosome and give Jim and Joyce four different colors there. This will represent all four of their grandparents. I can do that because Jim and Joyce don’t match each other at all in that segment.

Here I have put Joyce in for a possible to likely crossover at 149. Remember that Joyce and Jim don’t match each other at all after 149M. That means that Jim won’t match Sumner either. I checked gedmatch and he doesn’t as expected. Next, I’ll assign Sumner’s match to Joyce on either her green or brown side. I’ll randomly choose green. That puts the paternal side on the top for Jim and Joyce:

Becuase Joyce’s green paternal segment is Rounesville, that means that Jim’s orange segment must be the paternal husband, Gurney.

Next, I would like to check the paternal crossover for Joyce. The recommendation at the Facebook Visual Phasing side is to look for ‘stranger matches’.

Stranger Matches

If I see that Jim has a match or matches that go across the 149 crossover line, then I can assume that he has no crossover there. The hitch is that the match going over the 149 line needs to be on Jim’s paternal side on the top of his Chromosome 7.

Here is a spreadsheet of Jim’s matches on Chromosome 7. Jim’s match with Tim goes clearly from 138-155M. That meets one requirement. Is this a paternal or maternal match for Jim? My thought was that if this match was maternal, then Tim should match my sister Heidi at the top and me at the bottom of the list in blue. I checked and Tim only matched Jim. That means that the crossover belongs to Joyce and is likely on her paternal side. The only thing I didn’t rule out is that the crossover could possibly be on Joyce’s maternal side.

Here I went with my original guess that Joyce’s crossover was on her paternal Gurney/Rounesville side. Because I gave the crossover to Joyce’s paternal side, that meant that there was no other crossover at 149 and I moved the maternal segments to the left. I still have figured out whether Hartley or Snell is blue or brown. Next note that the segment from 110 to 126M is a no-match segment. That means that there must be a maternal crossover next. The reason for that is that no-match means four different colors. Jim and Joyce already have different colors on the maternal side. If we change one of those colors with a maternal crossover, there will be a match between 110 and 126M.

In order to get a no-match from 110-126M, Jim or Joyce’s DNA must be Rounseville from 110 to 126M.

Stranger Match or More Cousin Matches?

I really should go with both, but I’ll start with the stranger match. Jim has matches between 105 and 134 showing no crossover there. When I look at one of those matches and run those that are in common, I get this:

#1 is Jim’s sister Joyce. 2-6 are the strangers and #7 is actually a 2nd cousi of mine, but it could be from a match on another line. So Jim is matching the strangers in that 105 to 134M area. However, he is matching Joyce starting at 126. That gives me the impression that it is Joyce that has the crossover. On the other hand, I don’t see any of Joyce’s matches on her match list that go through 126M.

i am moving slowly from right to left on Chromosome 7. The segments that I am really interested in, I have no information on – except that one is Snell and one is Hartley and they appear to be relatively large segments, so far.

Phasing by Geography

I had mentioned that Snell’s ancestors were from SE Massachusetts going way back. The Hartleys came to the US from Lancashire in the last half of the 1800’s. As far as I know, the Gurneys and Rounesvilles have been around SE Massachusetts for several hundreds of years also. When I look at Joyce’s matches at Chromosome 7, I see some interesting emails. Between 155M and the end of Chromosome 7, Joyce has three small matches with people three people that have nz, au or uk in their email addresses. That gives me the opinion that at least from 154M to the Joyce could have Hartley DNA. That also brings up the question as to whether Joyce has a maternal or paternal crossover at 149M. If I go with what we had already, I would get this:

Starting to Visually Phase Chromosome 8

I can come back to Chromosome 7 at some time. I’m looking at Chromosome 8 as I wrote a Blog about a Lancashire matcher here. Here is how Anne matched Joyce and two of my second cousins:

The important part is that Anne matches Joyce from about 17 to 59M. That is a pretty good match. Here is the common ancestor:

The other important thing is that even though the match points back to Howorth, this is on Joyce and Jim’s Hartley grandparent line.

Here is how Jim and Joyce match each other:

Here I did something different. I started by mapping a HIR or Half Identical Region. That means that one grandparent matched and the other two did not. We know that Joyce matched on the Hartley segment and Jim did not.

That means that the maternal Hartley/Snell side is on the bottom of their Chromosome 8. From here, we can logic a few more segments. Going from HIR to the no-match left, that means the top part will have to change for there to be no match at the beginning of Chromosome 8. Using similar logic, for all to match (in the HIR region), the crossover will have to be on the bottom of Chromosome 8.

Next, on Joyce’s match list, I picked someone who she matched that went through the 70.7M crossover.

I picked the 18 cM match. Then I picked people that matched both Joyce and the stranger’s 18 cM match.

#1 is Jocye’s match to her brother Jim. The next three matches go up to 74, so they go through the crossover. #5 is our stranger, Sheila with the 18 cM match. There is another interesting thing about Match #2. That is Jo who is on Ancestry with a private tree. However, when I click on her name, it says she is from Lancashire, England. Someone with a tree at Ancestry and DNA at gedmatch is good news to me, so I wrote an email to her.

Here is another piece of the puzzle:

I don’t know what the orange represents, but I don’t match Joyce and Jim on that side, so it isn’t as important to me. I was interested in separating the green DNA from the blue – or the Snell from the Harltey DNA. I was able to do that thanks to visual phasing and a match with Anne.

Wrapping It Up

  • It is possible to do some visual phasing with only two siblings. However, cousin matches, and stranger matches are needed.
  • Geographical phasing is also important. I like the use of email extensions to identify non-US matches.
  • Mapping my father’s two cousins is important in separating my Lanchashire ancestors from my colonial Massachusetts ancestors.
  • Work is needed to get AncestryDNA testers to upload their results to gedmatch.com
  • More matches could be found by checking FTDNA
  • More work is needed in tracking down genealogies of gedmatch mathes. This would help identify segmens of visually mapped chromosomes.
  • Attention to mapped segments of interest (in this case Hartley) can lead to matches to follow-up with.

Some Lancashire DNA and Genealogy on My Hartley Line

It’s been a while since I’ve written on my Hartley autosomal DNA and Lancashire connections. Part of the reason is that there haven’t been any or many clear DNA connections on the Hartley side. Perhaps my Hartley lines were not that prolific or the descendants that were there haven’t taken DNA tests. I have found at least one documented Howarth/Howorth connection that I wrote about here.

My Hartley Lancashire Genealogy

My great grandfather James Hartley was born in Bacup, Lancashire. His father lived in Trawden, Lancashire.

James had about as many children as I have identified ancestors for him. All his and his wife’s descendants of my generation are my 2nd cousins. The problem is separating their DNA from his wife’s Snell side. I am stuck at James’ grandfather’s level. I have James’ grandparents as Robert Hartley and Mary Pilling. Before that, on the Harltey side, I have an educated guess for the parents.

Finding an Old EMail of a Hartley DNA Match

While I was looking for an email, I came upon an email from Cai. Hehad his grandmother Jane tested and I was a match with his grandmother Susan.

The part of Jane’s genealogy that Cai and I focused in on was the Hartley part:

Notice that the first male Hartley in Jane’s line was Peter Hartley, born quite a while ago in 1698. However, the name and the place Trawden, Colne were hopeful. Peter is Jane’s mother’s mother’s father’s father’s father’s father’s mother’s father if I have it right. Put another way, Peter Hartley is Jane’s 6th great grandfather. Assuming that Jane and I both descend from Peter (a big assumption as we have no documentation) and that we are both at the same generation from Peter, that would make us 7th cousins. Note that at Gedmatch, the estimated number of generations to a common ancestor between Jane and me is 4.6. That appears to be wildly optimistic or Jane and I just share more than the average DNA given our distant relationship. Peter Hartley is 8 generations from Jane. This seems to be some DNA that has stayed around for a while. There are studies that show that if you are going to match someone distantly, that DNA may hang around for quite a while.

More on Jane and Chromosome 15

I have some other known Hartley descendants and I checked to see if they matched Jane.

Here is Jane’s match to my 2nd cousin Beth, me, my brother Jon and another 2nd cousin Patricia. Actually, my sister Lori should be in there also.

Mapping Chromosome 15 for Joel, Jon and Lori

By knowing how Jon and Lori compare to me and each other, I can map out the DNA that we got from our four grandparents For Chromosome 15, it looks like this:

This shows the DNA we each got from our four grandparents in relative colors. I don’t know which color represents which grandparent or whether the top of the Chromosme is maternal or paternal. To figure that out, I have to look for matches with a known person. In this case, I will look at how my father’s cousin Jim matches the three of us:

On Chromosome 15, Jim matches Lori and me but not Jon from 80 to 95M.

The only place between 80 and 95M where the colors are the same are blue. That means that Hartley is blue as Jim matches us on our Hartley side. That also means that the top of the Chromosome (orange and green) is maternal. Here is where Jane matches Jon, Lori and Joel on the blue Hartley segment near the beginnig of Chromosome 15:

Theoretically, the match could represent the DNA from James Hartley wife Annie Snell. However, all of Annie’s ancestors were from around SE Massachusetts back to colonial times. As I am not aware that Jane has any Massachusetts ancestors, we can assume that the connection is in Lancashire.

More on Jane’s Hartleys in Lancashire

Cai kindly sent me some ideas to go on. He showed me who he had for the children of Peter Hartley b. 1698:

Here are six children of the Peter born in 1698. If we assume that the relation was on Peter’s male Hartley children, that narrows the possibilities down to four. It looks like I had started my own tree based on Cai’s:

I had also found another apparent brother of Peter. Here is what I wrote to Cai in 2016:

I assume that these are the first Peters you mention. However, I note that they lived in Trawden. My guess is that at some time they moved from Trawden to Great Marsden. It looks like Peter had a brother John:

Baptism: 24 Jan 1694/5 St Bartholomew, Colne, Lancashire, England
Johannes Hartley – fil Petri Hartley
Abode: Trawden

    Register: Baptisms 1679 – 1697, Page B37, Entry 9
    Source: LDS Film 1471023

Baptism: 14 Mar 1695/6 St Bartholomew, Colne, Lancashire, England
Joannes Hartley – fil Petri Hartley
Abode: Trawden

    Register: Baptisms 1679 – 1697, Page B39, Entry 17
    Source: LDS Film 1471023

I’m not sure why this is in twice. Perhaps a baby died and they named another son for him, or it was recorded twice or there were 2 different families!

At any rate, this is the difficult part of genetic genealogy. To do this right, I would need to build down all the trees. This is much more difficult without a census to show you where the family units were.

Back to the DNA on Chromosome 15

Above I showed how Jane matched me, my brother and sister and two 2nd cousins on the same segment of Chromosome 15. As my 2nd cousins and my siblings all match each other, that would be a Triangulation Group or TG. A TG indicates a common ancestor or ancestral couple.

Here is the match with my family and my two second cousins:

Triangulation really isn’t needed here as we know that James Hartley is our shared common ancestor. However, normally I wouldn’t know if the common ancestor would be James or his wife Annie. As I mention above, in this case it does appear to be James and not Annie based on Jane’s matches at Chromosome 15 to my family and 2nd cousins. We know that Jane descends from some Hartleys in the area where my Hartley were from, but her Hartleys were from about 100 years earlier. This is the situation I have drawn out schematically below:

I have a line going from James Hartley to Peter Hartley, but really, it is just pointing in the general direction of Peter. That seems to be as accurate as I can get with the DNA right now. I do have other DNA matches, but it is not likely that their trees are as complete as Jane’s tree. One good thing about the combined trees that I drew above is that the dates seem to match up. Greenwood Hartley was born in 1831 and Jane’s Richard Alston was born 1822. Robert Harrtley was born 1803 and Robert Alstead was born 1791. All I have to do is fill in the gaps between the ? Line.

People That Match Jane and Me

At Gedmatch, I plugged in my kit number and Jane’s to see who our common matches are. I went down to a match of 20 cM and got this group that matched my and Jane on Chromosome 15:

It is likely that these people also have ancestors in Lancashire. Nunber 1-4 are Lori, Jon, Beth and Patricia already discussed above. Jane is #7. Lori matches me on the whole Chromosome. Remeber in my chromosome map above, Lori and I both had a full Hartley Chromsome on #15.The others matches are difficult to track down.

#6 is Shannon from Australia and has a tree at FTDNA. Hargreaves in Shannon’s tree sounded familiar. I checked him out on her tree. Shannon has a John Hargreaves born 1826 in Lancashire. Turns out that was the best lead of the bunch above (other than Jane).

Summary and Conclusions

I am basically stuck genealogically going back on my Hartley Line. Due to where the Hartleys lived, there is a jungle of similar names which makes the Hartley genealogy difficult. Jane’s DNA results gave some possibility of going down from her Peter Hartley Line of 1698 to see if there is a match-up with my line. That seems to be my best bet right now.

Mapping James Frazer born 1804 and Violet Frazer born 1803

In my last Blog, I wrote about Doreen’s results. Doreen and I have the common ancestors of likely first cousins, James Frazer b. 1804 and Violet Frazer born 1803. For some reason, I don’t believe that I have ever mapped this couple out using Kitty Munson’s Chromosome Mapper.

Descendants of James and Violet Frazer

The people in bold have all taken autosomal DNA tests. That is, except for Rick who took the YDNA test. If I compare myself to Susan, Doreen, Pat, Gladys and Bill, the DNA that we share would represent either James or Violet Frazer.

Kitty Munson’s Utility requires the information be put into a CSV File like this:

I share the first and last segments with Doreen. The second I share with Pat. I share rows 3, 5, and 9 with Susan. I share rows 4 and 8 with Gladys. I share rows 6 and 7 with Bill. However, they are the same segment. One is as reported at FTDNA and one is as reported at Gedmatch.

Here is my map of just these two ancestors:

This is just my map. The map for each of my siblings and my cousin Paul would look different. Also The map for each of the people in the yellow part of the James/Violet Tree would also look different.

Here is the blue James/Violet segments  (now showing as navy blue or black) with other segments I have identified:

Next, I would like to put the ancestors in a better order. They appear randomly, but I am guessing that the first chromosome gets the first color, etc. as I have my table sorted by chromosome. My four grandparents are Hartley, Frazer, Rathfelder and Lentz. So I would like to sort them by these four grandparents. Then I would like the older ancestors in each line first. That is, except for Annie Snell. I have her listed separately as I must have figured out some of my DNA was from her. However, her dark green is overshadowed by the blue Hartley/Snell segments.

My new order will be:

Hartley:

  • Esther Howorth
  • Otis Snell
  • Annie Louisa Snell
  • Hartley/SNell

Frazer:

  • Richard Frazer
  • James/Violet Frazer
  • George Frazer/Margaret McMaster

Rathfelder

  • Hans Jerg Rathfelder/Juliane Bietenbinder
  • Rathfelder/Gangnus
  • Rathfelder/Lentz

Lentz

  • Nicholson/Stanisforth
  • Nicholson/Ellis
  • Lentz/Nicholson

That configuration gives me this:

I like the colors better. However, Annie at the first part of Chromosome 16 is still subsumed in Hartley/Snell in dark green. Also Otis Snell is a tiny segment at about 4cM. I think I’ll take out Otis and Annie:

I like this version the best. I have a lot of Hartley/Snell as this couple had 13 surviving children. As a result, I have a lot of 2nd cousins with matches. Hartley/Snell is now light blue. James/Violet Frazer is now dark green. My goal is to split up the light blue into Hartley and Snell.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I added some important James Frazer/Violet Frazer segments to my Chromosome Map
  • This couple was born in 1803/4.
  • Mapping points out where you have cousin matches and where those matches are missing
  • I hope I haven’t missed any other important ancestor segments on my map

Tracking Some Howorth/Howarth DNA from Bacup, Lancashire

My Hartley ancestors came from Trawden, Lancashire. They were hand loom weavers. Due to the industrialization of weaving, hand loom weaving became obsolete. At that point, the family moved to Bacup, Lancashire where there were weaving mills. There, my ancestor Greenwood Hartley married a local Bacup girl named Ann Emmet. Ann Emmet was the daughter of Esther Howorth b. 1800 and Isaac Emmet. My web page on the Howorth family mentions that she was born either at Nun Hills, Bacup which I identified on a map or Nothill, Bacup. So there is some confusion with names within Bacup.

Anne from Australia: DNA Match and Howarth Descendant

Anne is about the perfect DNA match. She has a tree at Ancestry. She has uploaded her results to Gedmatch.com and she is from Australia. Being from Australia is important. That is because, as I live in Massachusetts, it is not likely that the match is on one of my colonial Massachusetts lines. She has her ancestor as Howarth rather than my Howorth, but I don’t think that is a big deal as these names are so close.

Anne’s Genealogy

Anne’s Howarth Line is on her paternal grandmother’s side:

Anne’s Howarth line goes out as far as James Howarth, born 1768. That would be Anne’s 4th great grandfather. This matches up well with my tree:

This is my grandfather’s tree and I also have a James Howorth born 1768. If Anne and I have our trees right, that would make us 5th cousins.

There were a bunch of Howorths born around the time that Esther and Abram or Abraham were baptized. Here is what Ebenezer Particular Baptist Church looked like around the time they were baptized:

For DNA comparisons, I like to draw top-down trees:

Anne is thinking like me and has had a DNA test for her 1st cousin once removed. Those results should be in in about a month. I have other 2nd cousins that have tested for DNA, but have just put Beth in this tree for now as I believe she has a match to Anne. Let’s assume that the tree is right. That would mean that Esther and Abraham were siblings. Ann Emmet and Elizabeth Howarth were first cousins and should have known each other. James Hartley b. 1862 should not have known Fred Taylor as James moved to Massachusetts with his family in 1869 before Fred was born.

Anne’s DNA

Anne matches me and my three sisters on Chromosome 4:

The first three matches are of 15.8 cM. In my view, any match of 15 cM or more is almost certain to be a genuine match. My brother Jonathan doesn’t match there as he is matching on his paternal grandmother’s side (Frazer) at that location.

Mapping Anne’s DNA Match to My Chromosome Map

That means that I can map that Chromosome 4 segment to either Abraham Howorth or his wife Mary. As I don’t know from which ancestor it came from, I can say one of those parents gave that DNA to their daughter, Esther Howorth b. 1800 for sure. So I will map that Chromosome 4 segment to her:

This is not a big segment that is added in lighter blue, but it about doubles what I had already on Chromosome 4. Also it goes back in time three generations from what I had belonging to either James Hartley or Annie Snell shown in darker blue.

Anne’s Chromosome 8 – We Have Triangulation

Here is how Anne matches some of my relatives on Chromosome 8:

These matches are with Joyce (1), Beth (2) and Patricia (3). I already mentioned Joyce and Beth above. Patricia is Beth’s first cousin and my 2nd cousin. For this to be a Triangulation, Joyce has to match Beth and Patricia and Patricia has to match Beth on this same segment. That is quite likely.  Here is how Joyce matches Beth and Patricia on Chromosome 8:

This is definitely a Triangulation Group. That Group can be visualized this way:

I should note that there a few other of my second cousins that did not match Anne. The point is that it takes a few people testing to get these triangulating results when the common ancestors are born in the 1700’s.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Anne’s combination of where she lived, her DNA matches at Gedmatch.com and Ancestry and her good family tree all helped in this analysis
  • My match with Anne gave me a new mapping area on the paternal side of my Chromosome 4.
  • Anne’s matches would also supply some good mapping for Joyce, Beth, Patricia and my sisters as well as for Anne herself.
  • My conclusion is that the DNA triangulation shown above gives pretty convincing evidence that Esther Howorth b. 1800 and Abraham Howorth b. 1814 were siblings.
  • Now all we have to do is to figure out who Mary is that was married to James Howarth.