Category: Hartley

It appears that one of the two new Hartley BigYs is starting to change. I noticed on 24 January 2022 that the Haplogroup designation has changed from L21 to A11132. However, the BigY does not yet show as completed:

This preliminary determination confirms that this tester is in the A111132 Hartley group:

This is the tester with the ancestor of Wiliam Hartley from 1745. The other BigY tester who ordered a little later is the one with the ancestor of Roger Hartley b. 1628 in the 4th row of named ancestors in the image above.

The new A111132 Hartley has as his closest matches my brother James and me by STRs:

The Existing Hartley Block Tree

The new tester does not show up on my block three yet which represents four existing Hartley testers (me plus three matches). I am hoping that the new tester will break up the blue block of 7 SNPs represented by R-FT225247. In this blog, Basically if this tester is positive for all 10 SNPs in the A11132 Block, and negative for the 7 SNPs in the FT225247 Block, then there will be no changes. If he is negative for one or more in the FT225247 Block, that should result in a splitting of the Block. That would also show that the new tester is more closely related to my brother James and me than he is to Steve and Michael.

I am hoping to document the changes that take place as this Hartley tester’s BigY results progress from the initial phase through hopefully a manual review. A manual review takes place if there is a change in the Block Tree.

The New Hartley Tester and a New Mawdsley Tester

I am a little surprised that the Hartley BigY tester results seem to be coming out prior to a Mawdsley tester. Mawdsley is a new YDNA tester who took the BigY test. Based on the the Mawdsley STR results, he has many matches to Hartleys. My feeling is that Mawdsley could break up the the A11132 Block. This Block is old enough that it should predate surnames.

Here is the larger picture:

The Hartley Branch is in green.

25 January and the New BigY Results Are In

Here is John’s new Block Tree:

Although the BigY results are in for John, my experience is that things could still change while the dust settles. It could take a few weeks – especially if there is a manual review.

Looking at John’s Test Results In More Detail

I had mentioned above that if John was negative for all the SNPs in the FT225247 Block, then that Block would not be split. I can try to speed up the review and look at John’s results for the 7 SNPs in the FT225247 Block.

John’s Non-Matching Variants

John’s results will either be positive, negative, not tested or inconclusive, so the real life situation may not be all or nothing. Here are the first two people on John’s Match List:

John has 12 Non-Matching Variants with Steve and 14 Non-Matching Variants with me. It appears that all 7 SNPs that are in my branch of FT225247 are in John’s list of Non-matching Variants. That makes it look like John is negative for those 7 SNPs.

FT225247

It is possible to look at John’s test results for each SNP.  One way is through his csv file. The other more detailed way is through FTDNA’s  Y-Chromosome Browsing Tool. I’ll use the Browsing Tool:

This shows as not derived. The reference value of A is the same as the Genotype. I can’t get the Chromosome Browser to work right now, so I may come back to that later.

Another New A11132 Determination

This probably should have been in a separate Blog, but I just checked on a Mawdsley BigY test and that came in as A11132. This was the test that I hoped would split the A11132 Block.  Actually, this may come in soon. I see that Mawdsley is where the Hartley tester was yesterday:

However, it is exciting that Mawdsley has been found to be A11132. That implies to me that Mawdsley will be splitting the A11132 Block.

Back to John’s BigY Results

I am seeing the results now for the Chromosome browser for FT225247:

John was clearly negative for this SNP with many reads.

Other SNPs Under FT225247

The quick way to check is by John’s csv file. I suspect that he is negative for all 7 SNPs under FT225247:

• A11129 – not derived
• A11130 – not derived
• A11131 – not derived
• A11133 – not derived
• A11136 – not derived
• FT135932 – not derived

That means that John as well as Steve and Michael all appear to stem from A11132. That means also that so far, my model of how the different Hartley lines seem to be shaking out looks like what I had shown in a previous Blog:

SNPs have been said to form every 80 or 83 years. Jared Smith estimated that this number may be closer to 70 years for the Hartley part of the YDNA tree. To me, I wonder that it appears that these four Hartley lines descended from Hartleys that were born within a 70 to 80 year period. As I recall, my best guess for a common ancestor date for these lines was around 1550. That means that these four Hartley lines could be from 1550 give or take 35-40 years. Say 1510 to 1590.

John’s Private Variants

John has

These are the variants in John’s line that formed since about 1550. These variants are reported as position numbers until someone else matches them, then they are reported as named SNPs. These positions are given names pretty much right away, but those names are not reported until there is another match.

These variants show up in John’s list of Non-matching Variants:

Other Non-Matching Variants with My Family

So far, I have accounted for 7 SNPs from my family and 4 Private Variants from John. That leaves 3 Non-Matching Variant not accounted for.

FGC6800

John does not show this SNP:

I clearly have it:

Also my brother Jim:

It is not clear to me why this SNP is not noted in the Hartley Line that my brother and I are in. However, I do note that this SNP is listed in the I2 Haplogroup at YBrowse:

BY80068

This is a SNP that John has:

I don’t think that I tested for this SNP.  My brother clearly does not have this SNP.

FT27444

John shows as not derived for this SNP:

It turns out I have this SNP:

The results do not look the best, but they do seem to show I have this SNP.

Now I am curious as to my brother Jim’s results. If he was positive for this SNP, then it should have shown up. Jim’s results show as inconclusive:

I wonder if this SNP was from a low-quality area of the Y Chromosome. This is one of those cases where the deeper you get into the details, the more confusing it gets.

John and Steve’s Non-Matching Variants

Steve has 5 Private Variants. Those are the five starting with 7053124. The last four in the orange box are John’s Private Variants. That leaves three Non-Matching SNPs.

BY80068

I already discussed this SNP above. John has it. That must mean that Steve does not have it.

Y51250

My assumption is that Steve must have this SNP and he does:

FT35996

The same must be true that Steve has the SNP FT35996:

Finally, John and Michael

This is a little trickier as Michael only took the BigY500. This has less coverage than the BigY700 that the rest of us took:

That means that Michael is only negative for two of the four Private Variants that John does have (underlined above). Michael has two Private Variants which start with 203 and 126. That leaves 11 Non-Matching Private Variants.

BY80068

BY80068 is the third to last Non-Matching Variant. That means that Michael did not test positive for that SNP:

That leaves 11 SNP unaccounted for.

ZS1551

It seems odd that this is a Non-Matching Variant between John and Michael as it seems that they both are not positive for this SNP. However, as I look at Michael’s Chromsome Browser, he does show that he is positive for the SNP:

This is what Michael’s csv file showed as of last month:

YBrowse has this SNP in the J Tree:

Y30173

Michael is clearly positive for this SNP also:

But again, Michael’s csv file does not show positive for this SNP. I think I’ll skip the other Non-Matching SNPs between John and Michael as I don’t seem to be getting anywhere with them. It may be that Lawrence’s pending BigY700 test will clear this up. Lawrence is believed to be distantly related to Michael.

From L21 to A11132

John asked me if there was much difference between L21 where he was previously and A11132 where he is now. Here is an L21 map from 2011:

The map shows that there a lot of L21 people the further you go to the Northwest. Of course with those who have emmigrated to other countries, this would account for Millions of people. L21 has been associated with the Celtic people.

Here is what SNP Tracker shows:

A11132 is shown as a Medieval SNP and L21 shows as a Bronze Age SNP. Here are some SNP dates:

L21 dates to 2600 BCE and A11132 to 850 CE. Actually, I should add in my own Hartley Branch SNP:

My Hartley Branch dates to about 1500 CE which is the aprroximate common ancestor date between John and the rest of the BigY tested Hartleys. The date I mentioned that I had come up with was about 1550 CE.

New Results Due to the Mawdsley BigY Test

Here is the way Mawdsley’s Block Tree looks at the time of my writing:

This tree is in flux. In my last Blog, I predicted that John would become A11134 or A11135 as Mawdsley was negative. Here, Mawdsley has lost his other matches of the three former A11132 Hartleys. However, the three Hartleys are now showing as A11134 at least in their general YDNA listings (see below), so the change is in progress. John must have one of the fastest changes of a haplogroup after BigY testing:

I couldn’t get the other former A11132 Hartley Block Trees to display.

John and Mawdsley Common Ancestor

I have estimated the common ancestor for John and the other Hartleys to be around 1550. That would put the common ancestor between John and Mawdsley at about the year 1400. This bumps into the time when surnames were being finalized. Based on locality, social status and other factors, surnames may or may not have been finalized or were in the process of being finalized around the year 1400. It could be that the year 1400 was very close to the beginning of our Branch of Hartleys and the beginning of the Mawdsley surname.

Summary and Conclusions

• John’s BigY Test recently came out which confirmed he was A11132 along with four other Hartley BigY testers
• Two of those testers (my brother and I) are in a group downstream of A11132
• I then looked at the results of a very recent Mawdsley test. Mawdsley tested close to Hartleys by STRs. The BigY test showed that Mawdsley was positive for 8 out of 10 of the A11132 SNPs
• The two SNPs that Mawdsley tested negative for further defined the existing five Hartley BigY testers (including John). This put those Hartleys into a new SNP group called A11134. This group is most likely a Hartley-only SNP.
• Hartley common ancestors for A11134 date to about the year 1550. The common ancestor year between Mawdsley and Hartley is around the year 1400. This year may be about the start of the (now) A11134 Hartley and A11132 Mawdsley surnames
• FTDNA is catching up with the new information and is likely in the process of a manual review.

Presently, I am waitng for two Hartley BigYs to complete. One is for John and one is for Lawrence. The BigY for John so far has resulted in an upgrade from his previous 67 STRs to 111 STRs.

Summary of A11132 Hartley YDNA Testing

One of the best places to look at YDNA testing for Hartleys is at the FTDNA Hartley Project YDNA Results Page. The Hartleys on that page that are grouped as A11132 are under blue headers:

The last two on the list are my brother James and my results. We have both taken the BigY700 test. The other two that have a green A11132 under Haplogroup have taken the BigY test. Michael has for his ancestor Samuel Edward Hartley born 1666. Michael took the older BigY 500 test. The other three testers have taken the BigY700 test.

Looking for STR Alliances or Patterns

I shuffled the STR results around a bit and then took a look at them:

When there were multiple markers, I didn’t separate them out totally. For example, for CDY, most of the differences were on the second number, so I did separate that out. Also for DYS464, only the last of the four values changed, so I made a separate column for that last value.

This image adds in some relative speeds of mutations:

Red indicates slower mutating and green indicates faster mutation STRs. I didn’t color the last columns as FTDNA doesn’t make a distinction for these STRs. I put boxes around the values where I think that there are groupings.

The Michael and Lawrence Group (Edward Hartley Born 1666)

The first group that seems to be allied consists of Lawrence and Michael. They share the same markers for 449 and 534. I have 534 as a slow marker. I have that marker of 16, but that apparently happened in my birth as my brother does not have that marker. When two not closely related people have the same STR mutation, it is called a parallel mutation. I am prejudiced a little for these two as they show a common ancestor going back to Edward or Samuel Edward Hartley born in 1666:

This also seems to show that Michael had 6 mutations in his line since Roger Hartley born 1703. That would be 6 mutations in 8 generations which is unusually high. Lawrences line only shows one mutation during his 8 generation descent from Thomas Hartley. Ross also had his STRs tested and is a close match to Lawrence. However, I don’t have his detailed results as he is not in the Hartley YDNA Project.

The Second Cluster: John, James and Joel

This cluster is of interest to me because I am in it. It seems more than coincidental that these three share the same values for four different STRs. It is obvious that my brother and I would be in the same grouping, but it seems like John should be added also.

A Possible Third Cluster: Tim and Steve

After much gazing, it appears that Tim and Steve may be in a group also:

This connection is shown in the blue values of STRs. There is also a possible connection between Tim and Steve and John, James and Joel. Perhaps the branching of Tim and Steve occurred earlier than the branching of Steve, James and Joel.

What Do the SNPs Say?

The SNPs should be much less ambiguous than the STRs.  Here is the simple interpretation:

This shows that these four people are all A11132. Roger Hartley is the ancestor of Michael. Thomas Hartley is the ancestor of Steve. As shown, if I draw I STR tree, it should have the ability to show that there is some equality going back to A11132 for these three groups.

Building a A11132 Hartley STR Tree

This is what I was thinking for a Hartley STR Tree:

• It looked to me like Tim and Steve were associated with John, James and Joel, but not as closesly as John, James and Joel seemed to be associated with each other.
• Also it appeared that additional branching occurred in the John, James and Joel group after the pre-branching that Tim and Steve were in
• In order to keep what appears to be the genealogical connetion between Lawrence and Michael and to keep the grouping of the two STRs they had in common, I put these two in a separate branch
• The second blue row is meant to indicate, that it seems like we are all A11132 at this point.
• Mervyn and Gary don’t appear to have close connections with each other or the other two groups, so I have them each in their own separate lines
• I kept Tim in, even though he only tested to 37 STRs as he seemed to have a connection with Steve. I left out the two other Hartley 37 STR testers to simplify the tree.

Adding the STR Values

For simplicity, I’ll leave out the multi-value markers of DYS464 and CDY:

Here I have just added what appear to be the ancestral Hartley STR values. I didn’t indicate those ancestral or modal values for the multi-marker STRs:

A Problem with DYS455

In my scheme, I saw Tim and Steve being ancestral to my line and the Samuel Edward Hartleys as being parallel with TIm and Steve. However, for this to happen would mean thatLawrence had a parralel mutation and that John would have a back mutation from 11 to 12. This could have happened, but it would not be the simplest of scenarios. One method in creating STR trees is to try to come up with the most direct solution. However, that is with all else being equal and not knowing other information such as genealogy and SNPs.

Here is the STR Tree I have:

I have bolded the 445 STR. Michael would have a parallel mutation with the Tim and Steve Group. Then John would have a back mutation to 12. This seems to be asking a lot of this slow mutating STR. Under this scenario, John and Michael have a lot of STR mutations. If the genealogical connection between Michael and Lawrence is correct, then I think that what I have is a good solution to the STR tree – at least for Michael and Lawrence.

New 111 STR Results Just in for Lawrence

While I am pondering the above tree, I notice that Lawrence’s 111 STR results are just in.  Here are Lawrence’s new results:

I don’t see anything earth shattering here. If Michael had his 111 STR results, this may have made more sense. Lawrence has new STR mutations at the point of the arrow that others don’t have (DYS504). He also shares a STR of 36 with John, James and Joel at DYS710.

I won’t bother updating my SNP tree based on these new results. It will be more important to see how the SNP results come in before refining the STR tree. Unfortunately, the STR results come in first, but it would make more sense if the SNPs came in first as far as interpreting the STR results.

Another Look at STRs with Mawdsley Added

This may be in slightly different order than before. I also used conditional formatting which should be more accurate. Mawdsley is a new BigY tester awaiting results. Mawdsley believes that the connection to the Hartleys is before the time of surnames. That appears to me to be correct. Another thought is that I had linked Steve with Tim based on an 11-26 combination. That is a sort of flimsy connection as Tim has only tested with 37 STRs. I also see a possible connection of 35-21 with Mervyn and Steve. I have a lighter box around this pair as not many of the other STRs seem to match between Mervyn and Steve.

Another interesting thing is that with the addition of Lawrence and Mawdsley, the mode for DYS710 has changed from 35 to 36. This would be an improvement as more testers will improve the modal values.

GDs

The GDs are the STR differences from the Hartley Mode:

All the GDs are fairly distant from the Hartley Mode. This means to me that this Hartley tree is ancient. Mawdsley has the highest 111 STR GD from the Hartley Mode which would be expected as they don’t believe that they descend from the Hartleys. Michael has a high 8 out of 67 GD. This either indicates that he and Lawrence are not related as believed on the Samuel Edward Line or that Michael has had more than the average mutations in the 1 to 67 STR test.

Summary and Conclusions

• While awaiting John’s BigY results, I took a look at a revised STR using his upgreaded 111 STR results, genealogy and existing SNP results
• I looked at a possible STR tree which included a Tim and Steve group. The problem with this grouping is that TIm only tested to 37 STRs, so all the information is not there.
• Steve also has a possible connection with Mervyn, though they also have many differences. I didn’t make a tree for that possibility
• The tree also included a Samuel Edward Hartley branch based on what appears to be a genealogical connection. There was justification for the connection also based on the same values that Lawrence and Michael had for two STRs. The connection is confusing as it appears that Michael has had more than the average number of STR mutations.
• While I was writing the Blog, Lawrence’s STRs were upgraded from 67 to 111 markers. This made no difference in the analysis other than a change in the mode of Hartley ancestral value from 36 to 35 for DYS710. If Michael had tested to 111 STRs, I may have been able to see more connections between the two.
• I added in the 111 STR results for Mawdsley as he has many Hartley STR matches. The results appear to confirm that Mawdsley does not descend from Hartley, but the families may be closely related prior to the time of surnames.

Not too long ago, I got in touch with Lawrence to ask him if he would be willing to complete a BigY test. I was interested in Lawrence because I match two other Hartleys (other than my brother) who have done the BigY. One of the intersting matches was Michael who believes that his ancestry goes back to Samuel Hartley born in 1666. In doing BigY or other DNA testing, it is important if one of those testers has genealogy that goes back many years.

A Possible Genealogy for Lawrence and Michael

Here is the connection that seemed to be right between Lawrence and Michael:

Michael has taken the BigY 500 test which is 50% less comprehensive compared to the newer BigY 700 test. My brother, Steve and I have all taken the BigY 700 test. Because some areas of Michael’s test were missing, I thought that Lawrence would fill in the missing SNPs.

Based on the Current YDNA Testing, Is the Genealogy Right?

After looking a lot a the YDNA matches, I am wondering if the connection above is correctly displayed. Right now, Ross has tested to 111 STRs. Michael has tested to 67 STRs – even though he has taken the BigY test. Lawrence has tested to 67 STRs, but his pending BigY test will upgrade him to 111 STRs and more.

Here is Lawrence’s match with Ross by 67 STRs:

This shows that Lawrence and Ross have a perfect match of 67 STRs. This seems to validate the tree above between Lawrence and Ross up to Elisha Hartley. That would make me believe that Lawrence should have a close match also with Michael. However, Lawrence matches Michael at 7 steps. In addition, if the tree above was right, I would think that Lawrence’s next match by STRs would be Michael. However, there are four people more closely matched to Lawrence than Michael. Ronald, at 5 steps is not a Hartley. The other matches are Hartleys

Here is the TiP report between Lawrence and Michael:

I generally use the 90% results which would imply a connection between Lawrence and Michael 19 generations ago. By this chart, the connection should be 8 generations ago:

Here is the TiP Report between Lawrence and Ross:

Using the 90% range, I get the common ancestor should be 4 generations away. In this case, Elisha Hartley born 1801 is 4 genrations back from Lawrence and Ross.

This does not prove that the above genealogy is wrong. It just suggests that it may be wrong. I can look at this tree the lazy way by looking at trees that other people have made.

The Edward Hartley 1666 Tree at Geni

This tree does not have mention on Michael’s line of Thomas Hartley son of Norton Daniel Hartley:

However, it is possible that the person creating this tree was not interested in this branch and didn’t include all the details. A Findagrave.com record seems to fill in the blanks:

I did find this interesting Quaker record for Roger, son of Roger on Michael’s side:

After searching around, I don’t see any obvious holes in the tree connecting Lawrence, Ross, and Michael.

Summary and Conclusions

• My assumption had been that Lawrence’s BigY 700 test would augment some of the missing SNPs in Michael’s BigY 500 test.
• My further assumption was that Lawrence and Michael had the common ancestor of Edward or Samuel Edward Hartley born 1666
• Some of the STR matches make it look like Michael and Lawrence may not have a common ancestor in 1666.
• A quick review of the genealogies didn’t show any glaring errors.
• I will want to keep my mind open concerning Lawrence’s BigY results when they come in.

I recenly saw an interesting post from Tiger Walsh. Tiger is an expert in the YDNA line that my Hartleys are on and posted two interesting images at the R1b-L21 Facebook site. Here is the first:

This image is meant to show that BigY testing is no longer just for pre-surname branches of mankind and that it is useful for genealogy. Here is the second image:

It took me a while to find the larger list of surnames. I was disappointed to see that the Hartley name was not on the list. The reason is stated in the middle of the image above. The Hartleys need three subclades and we only have two. Here is my BigY block tree at FTDNA:

This view is taken from my perspective. James is my brother, so the R-FT225247 brach has as many SNPs as we are likely to find right now. Steve and Michael are R-A11132. They only show an average of 2 Private Variants below the line of the common ancestor of the four testers. This could be partially because Michael took the older BigY 500 test which did not cover as many SNP as the new test. That seems to be the case, as when I look in my old emails, I have that Steve has 5 Private Variants. That must mean that Michael has zero and that they averaged the 5 Variants down to 2 between Steve and Michael.

John the New BigY Tester

After seeing the Surname Hall of Fame, I decided to get over my aversion of asking people things and ask John if he would take a BigY test. John is a good candidate for at least three reasons:

1. John has already taken the 67 STR test (where he matches me at a GD of 4), so he can upgrade to the BigY test for less money.
2. John is from England, unlike the other four testers who are from the US
3. because there are two testers under R-FT225247 and two under A11132, John should break one of these ties and create at least one new Hartley descendant subclades (using the Hall of Fame terminology above).

Lots of Hartleys in the World

I’m looking forward to John’s results. His ordering the BigY test is big news among the A11132 Hartleys. According to forebears.io there are over 87,000 Hartleys worldwide:

I don’t know how many Hartleys are represented by A11132. I see that the Hartley YDNA Project webiste shows 9 branches of Hartleys, so it is possible that there are 10,000 A11132 Hartleys. My bias is that A11132 is one of the larger Hartley groups, so 10,000 A111132 Hartleys could be on the low side. On the Hartley Family Tree Genealogy Facebook Page, Administrator Wiliam Hartley says that the two main Hartley groups are A11132 and A21269.

Breaking the Tie

There are four possiblel outcomes that I would expect from John’s BigY testing:

First, I should say something about the position of #4. It is controlled by the genealogy of Michael at this time. He has the oldest known genealogy. His ancestor Edward Hartley was born in 1666. He came to the US around 1700 or before. That means that Edward cannot be the common ancestor between me and Michael. That is because my Hartley ancestor was in England up until about 1869. The earliest common ancestor that I should have with Michael (assuming Edward left no children in England) would be with Edward’s father Roger John Hartley:

He was born in 1628. Therefore, I would put the number four in the block tree at 1628 at the latest.

The Four Choices on the Block Tree

1. If John tests and ends up in this area, it means that his connection to the other BigY tested Hartleys is really old. By really old, I would say some time around the 1400’s
2. If John tests in this area that means that he is more closely related to my Hartley line than to Steve and Michael.
3. If John tests in this area, then he is more closely related to Steve and/or Michael than to me.
4. If John’s BigY test puts him here, it could mean that there are three equal lines that descend from a common or near common Hartley ancestor

We will know more when John’s results come in.

Hartley BigY Geneaology and Triangulation

My own genealogy is the simplest as it doesn’t go back very far. I’ll start with my great-grandfather:

James Hartley, Greenwood Hartley and Mary Pilling all came to the US from Lancashire, England. I am certain of Robert Hartley born about 1803. However, I am not so sure about James Hartley. Someone added another ancestor of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell. I seem to get a lot of DNA matches with people who have Bracewell ancestors, but that may be coincidence.

The triangulating part comes in with the YDNA testing and with locations. The location of my Hartley ancestor was Trawden, Lancashire.

Trawden would be about where I have the red arrow in the 1577 map above. Trawden was part of the Parish of Colne.

Steve’s Genealogy

I’ll look at Steve next in order of most recent to most distant Hartley ancestor. I’ll start with Steve’s great-grandfather who was born in Todmorden, England> Todmorden appears in the lower right hand part of othe old map above.

If Steve and I have the genealogy right, then Thomas Hartley was also born in Todmorden:

Steve and I have that Thomas’ wife was Betty Barker. This couple lived in this place at the time of the birth of their son Barker in 1805:

It looks something like Rodmillend in Stang. I’m not sure where this is. This is probably Thomas in 1841:

However, Birtall is about 16 miles from where he was supposed to have died in the Todmorden area:

Steve has this burial record from Christ Church in Todmorden:

Steve has John and Ann as the parents of Thomas. That information is from this record:

That record is from 17 Mar 1766 from St. Chad in Rochdale. We further see that John was a weaver and that they were of Weurdle. If I have the right place, it seems possible:

This does not seem very far from the area of Todmorden. I”m not sure if I’m ready to accept these parents for Thomas. I don’t see any of Thomas’ children having the names of John or Ann and it would have been normal practice to name your children after your parents.

In summary, here is where my ancestors lived around 1800 and where Steve’s ancestor’s lived around 1766 as far as we can tell:

John’s Genealogy

John is in the process of having his YDNA tested with the BigY 700 test. Based on that, we may be able to find out more about our Hartley shared genealogy.

This is the tree I have built for John. John tells me he is confident of the tree up to William Hartley who was born in 1745. Ancestry want me to pick William’s parents.

William Hartley Born 1745

I have William Hartley as being from Tadcaster in North Yorkshire:

Here is the hint that Ancestry wants me to take for the father of William Hartley:

Gisburn fits in with my assumption that our earliest Hartley ancestors were from the Colne area:

However, I cannot accept the hint based on a location that I like. One of the best documented trees at Ancestry shows Thomas Hartley marrying Grace Lee in 1741:

Here is Healaugh near Tadcaster:

That same tree has that Thomas Hartley was born in Healaugh (but without reference) and has this Thomas Hartley will from October 1766:

I’m not seeing right now that Thomas was necessarily born in Gisburn. I wonder who arrived at that conclusion and why?

Michael’s Genealogy

Of the four Hartley families I am looking at, Michael has the oldest genealogy. Michael’s ancestor Edward or Samuel Edward Hartley emigrated at an early date to Pennsylvania. One account from the Geni website has this:

Edward and his brother Henry emigrated to Pennsylvania sometime between 1693 when Edward married in Yorkshire, or perhaps after the birth of a first child in England, and 1700 when he purchased land in Solebury. John M. Freund wrote that Edward was “said to have come to Solebury from Maryland” but neither of us have any documentation for this. Edward was apparently not a Friend at the time, although two of his sons later joined, and his mother was a Vipont, a family that became well-known in British Quaker circles. One source claims, without any primary source justification, that Edward was a Friends’ minister.

Roger Hartley from Trawden or Marsden?

The connection from Roger Hartley to Edward Hartley is based on history more than records. Although Edward Hartley did not appear to be active in the Quaker movement in Pennsylvania, he does appear to be one of the early Quakers in this record:

Geoge Fox who began the Quaker faith had a vision on Pendle Hill in 1652, so this was only 11 years after Fox’s vision. This record is from the Monthly Meeting of Marsden:

Here Roger at the time of his death was said to be of the Forest of Trawden. That is interesting as the Quaker Meeting was at Marsden. If Roger was from Marsden, I think that would have been recorded at the time of his death. From what I understand, Marsden is not included within Trawden. Trawden may just refer to the area of Trawden or it may include Winewall and Wycoller, but I don’t believe that it includes Marsden.

I found three trees for Roger Hartley at Ancestry. They all show a birth date of 1628. I am not sure why that Roger was chosen as there are many other Roger Hartleys in the area at the time:

I also don’t know where Chamber is.

Summary of the Genealogy and Geography

Obviously, in order to have a common ancestor of the Hartley Line, the genealogies have to come together in one person and in one place. We have:

1. From Michael’s Line – Roger Hartley 1628-1715 – Marsden or Trawden
2. from John’s Line William Hartley born 1745 – Healaugh near Tadcaster, Yorkshire
3. from Steve’s Line  – Thomas Hartley born 1774 – Todmorden
4. from my line – Robert Hartley born 1806 – Hollin Hall, Trawden

This shows that Michael has by far the best Hartley genealogy as he goes back to over 100 years before and of the other Hartley genealogies.

Next I gave Roger Hartley a score of 4 as his is the oldest genealogy and Robert a score of one. I added these two together as they are pretty much from the same area. I gave William Hartley a 3 and Thomas Hartley a 2:

Obviously Trawden/Marsden gets the highest score. John’s genealogy (of the BigY testers) is the outlier at this point.

Back to the YDNA

Here is another way to show the Block Tree:

I wasn’t consistent in my chart above. For it to be consistent, I should have had Robert Hartley 1803 in the first box. However, it is accurate as Robert Hartley may not have had this SNP. It may have formed after his time. Earlier in the Blog, I mentioned 4 different possible outcomes for John’s BigY testing. Option 4 would be the easiest to represent. In that scenario, John’s ancestor would be another equal branch coming down from A11132. I would be a little surprised if that happened. That would mean that there could be four 500 year old branches of Hartleys with no common ancestors more recent than 500 years ago.

The question is, what is the date of the line between all the testers and A11132 based on the BigY testing? I’m thinking of a rough number of about 500 years ago:

It seems like I come up with a different number each time I do this. The outlier is Michael’s test. I believe that Michael has no Private Variants.  I feel like his BigY 500 test may not have covered some of the SNPs or variants that the other BigY 700 tests covered. Assuming 500 years is correct, it would be unusual for Michael to have no Private Variants in that time. For BigY500 testers, 144 years has been used for the formation of a Private Variant or SNP. That means that Michael should have had 3 or 4 Private Variants during that time.

I just looked at the BigY 700 testers. Jim and I had 7 SNPs. I believe Steve had 5 Private Variants. That averages to 6 Private Variants or SNPs. A number of 83 years per BigY 700 SNP has been used. 83 X 6 = 498 or about 500 years. The YDNA is suggesting that the three lines shown in my simplified view have not had a common ancestor in less or more than 500 years or since the year 1500. While that seems like a long time ago, the interesting thing is, if that number holds up, is how many Hartley Lines have remained intact for that period of time and longer. Interesting.

Summary and Conclusions

• I took a skeptical look at the genealogy of three current branches of A11132 Hartley BigY testers. I am not an expert on these lines, but I did the best I could with the time that I had.
• The oldest genealogy is for Michael who I believe took the BigY 500 test. His ancestors were early Quakers who emmigrated to Pennsylvania around the year 1700 or before.
• The date for the common ancestor of the three Hartley families by genealogy cannot any more recent than 1628. The place of that Hartley ancestor was likely in Trawden. Many genealogies have Roger Hartley from Marsden. I found one record showing that he was in the “Forest of Trawden” at the time of his death. These two places are close but different.
• The date for the common ancestor by YDNA could go back to 1500
• John is a new BigY tester who is awaiting his BigY 700 results. These results will further clarify relationships between the three existing Harltey BigY branches. In addition, they will put John’s genealogy into context of those three Hartley branches
• John’s genealogy could use further clarification. One suggestion is that his genealogy goes back to Gisburn which would be closer to Trawden, Lancashire where my genealogy and Michael’s genealogy starts. However, another suggestion is that one generation back from where John has researched could be in the same area which is Healaugh to the North of Tadcaster, Yorkshire.
• I estimated that there could be about 10,000 A11132 Hartleys in the World today.
• I will be eagerly awaiting John’s BigY 700 results.