A Deeper Dive into the Review of A11134 Using BAMsAway

My Haplogroup is A11134. I share that group with 7 people of Hartley Surname (though one changed his name to Hartley, partly as a result of the testing). An 8th BigY tester in the A11134 group has Nutter heritage. His is the most recent results. Here is where Nutter is under A11134 in the lower right below. This shows he shares A11134 with two other Hartleys

My previous analysis of Nutter’s results and other Hartley results has left me with some questions that I would like to look into further. Previously, I had been working on this list of Variants:

BAMsAway

This is a Chrome Browser extension that looks into positions on the YDNA BigY test that FTDNA may not provide information on. Recently, I was looking at Nutter’s Private Variant with Position number 5672076. It appeared from my download that FTDNA had not tested that location for me. However, using BAMsAway, I see this for that position looking at my results:

This shows that clearly I was negative at this position. While I’m at it, I’ll check all my Variants that I previously thought were not covered by my test:

I’m not so concerned about the last three testers, as I know more about their genealogy back to the 1600’s. However, the first two positions that I checked were clearly negative, so that is a good sign.

6906758

This position is interesting as Nutter showed that this was one of his Private Variants at YFull based on his non-FTDNA testing. I show negative for the Variant:

Here is what Nutter’s results show:

I am not sure why Nutter’s results did not show this as a Private Variant at FTDNA. This may be something to look into further.

BAMsAway ‘No Reads Found’ at 13807922

Here is the first Variant that I looked up with no reads found:

Here is how the Browser displays:

However, the position number does not show. I suppose this would make sense if there were no reads. I showed this result in blue on my spreadsheet:

 

I had previously shown this as not tested and ‘no reads found’ is the same thing. This is the first BAMsAway result that confirms what I thought to be the case previously. Here is what Nutter shows at that position:

Here there were only 2 good reads. Many assume that 10 good reads are needed by FTDNA, so this Position has some logic to not being a Private Variant for Nutter.

My Results Adjusted by BAMsAway

Out of 10 positions I showed Not Tested, 8 of those were tested and found negative. 2 of those positions were actually no reads (or not tested). Those two Positions corresponded with Nutter’s Private Variants at YFull which were not considered Private Variants by FTDNA. When I check Nutter’s Position 19374424, I see that there were no reads at FTDNA:

I am thankful to David Vance at the L513 Facebook Page who steered me to BAMsAway.

Updating My Brother’s Results

My guess is that my brother’s BigY BAMsAway results should be similar to mine. After some copying and pasting into BAMsAway, I get these results for Jim:

For Position #13669903, BAMsAway confirms that Jim only had one read (but that was a negative for the Variant).

Updating Steve’s Results

FTDNA shows that Steve has 5 Private Variants:

The arrow points to the BAMsAway extension for the FTDNA Chromosome Browser. When I choose the extension a popup asks me to add the new SNP name or position:

When I do that, a new position is added to Steve’s list of Private Variants:

I choose the user added position to get this:

This shows that Steve is clearly negative for this Variant. He has no mutation from ‘T’. Here are Steve’s results:

This gives clarity to show that Steve is negative for other A11134 testers’ Private Variants. He gets a No Read for 19374424. This is apparently in a difficult to read portion of the Y Chromosome.

John N’s Results

So far, my chart is shaping up well. John has four Private Variants.

I gave John N a questionable for 13807922 as he had only 4 reads. However, they were all negative. I would say negative. John N also has no reads for 19374424.

Summary of Steve, John N and Nutter

These are the three who tested postive for A11134, but did not form a branch below that level. My major question is why Nutter does not have a Private Variant at 6906758. I will likely write to FTDNA to ask why. I had previously checked Nutter’s results to make sure that he was negative for the 7 SNPs in my Haplogroup. Those are the 7 SNPs at the end of the list above.

Michael, Lawrence and John R

These three BigY testers are in a separate genealogical group that I call the Quaker Line of Hartleys. The ancestor of this group escaped persecution in Lancashire, England and came to Quaker-friendly Pennsylvania around the year 1700. The genealogy of this group can be traced to some time in the 1600’s.

Because I had added NTs or Not Tested to their list based on their incomplete downloadable files, I would like to correct that information using the BAMsAway extension. That will corrrect my comparison chart of Private Variants.

Lawrence and Position 7153793

One of the first interesting results is for Lawrence in position 7153793:

Lawrence has three positive reads for this position. I could argue that this result should form a new branch of ‘Quaker’ Hartleys. YBrowse has two SNPs for this position, but the first is a G to C mutation where Lawrence has a G to A mutation:

The second SNP is listed twice for some reason, but has the G to A mutation:

My feeling is that Lawrence should be in a new Branch called MF205420. This is also consistant with the genealogy:

John and Lawrence share a branch. However, Michael would have to be negative for this Variant for this to be a true Branch separate from John and Lawrence. Michael had an older test:

His test did not cover that position. That means that it is not clear whether MF205420 would apply to all three testers or just two. So this is a case where there should be an extra SNP, but it is not clear where it belongs.

Here is the end of what I looked up for Lawrence:

I indicated in the notes that Lawrence had 3 positive reads. For 13807922, Lawrence had 2 negative reads which would be expected.

John R’s BAMsAway Results

I have five more NTs to get rid of. There were no surprises with this recent BigY test:

This is what I have so far. It was interesting to look at the results. You don’t know whwat you will find until you look. It would be interesting (but take a little work) to fill in the rest of the blanks.

More on Lawrence

Larwence has 6 Private Variants:

Here I filled in the rest of Lawrence’s blanks including the SNPs from my branch of Hartleys:

 

 

Quaker Line Michael

Michael took the older BigY500 test. I had missed one of his Private Variants last time, so I will add that in:

Michael may find more Private Variants if he updates to BigY700.

Michael had 2 negative reads for one of Lawrence’s Private Variants. He also had no reads for two of my Branch’s newer SNPs which makes sense.

John R’s Results Completes the Quaker Hartley Analysis

  • Here we see the difference between Michael’s BigY500 test and Lawrence and John R’s BigY700 test. Michael has many more ‘no reads’.
  • Where there is more than one B? in a row, my note at the end is ambiguous
  • I probably should have had different colors for the B? designation depending on whether the low read was positive or negative.
  • Some results are more important than others. For example, the results within the Hartley Quaker Group is more important than comparing the Hartley Quaker Group with the non-Quaker Group as we know that those two are not closely related by genealogy.

Filling In Nutter

I did see one unexpected result here:

Nutter had 7 positive reads for a Private Variant that John R in the Hartley Quaker Group had. I made the notation withing the cell and added that the mutation was G to A. Here is what John R shows:

That means that it looks like John R’s Private Variant is not really Private. That is why it pays to look at each of these positions.

MF205420

This Position describes MF205420 which I mentioned above. Apparently, this could be another Hartley-wide Variant. Now I want to see the results for the other Hartley BigY testers. Here it looks like I have found a new Hartley SNP:

However, to be sure, I need to go upstream one level to Mawdsley:

He has 9 negative reads for this position. What that means is that John R’s Private Variant of 7153793 should actually be SNP MF205420 in the A11134 Hartley Group:

Here I have pointed to where MF205420 should be added. Here John R had at least 10 reads, so the 10 read rule came into play:

I just need to convince FTDNA to add MF205420 to the Hartley Group. MF is apparently the designation for a Chinese Company. So far, it has paid off to look at all these positions.

Filling in John N’s Blanks

I don’t see any surprises here:

Filling in Steve’s Blanks

No surprises here.

Joel and Jim

Any difference between these two brothers should be from testing coverage.

It doesn’t look like a lot, but it took a while to get all this information. The two recommendations are noted in yellow in the Note Column. The yellow BY is the same as the Y for the last 7 SNPs in the list. The BNR is equivalent to what I thought I was getting in my previous list where I had NT for Not Tested.

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • I had tried to do an analysis of A11134 BigY testers using downloadable files. However, the results were confusing and I found out that these files are not complete.
  • I used BAMsAway and found the complete picture
  • From my analysis, Nutter needs one more Private Variant than he has.
  • Also, the A1134 should have one more SNP in it’s group for a total of three SNPs. The new SNP would be MF205420. That SNP is now a Private SNP that John R has from the Quaker Hartley group. However, 5 other testers who had reads all had positive reads for that SNP (though below what FTDNA usually finds adequate).

 

 

A New A11134 BigY Test Results: Nutter

The long awaited Nutter BigY test results came in. As expected by previous testing, he is A1134. The tester’s name is not Nutter but changed along the way at some point. I will call the tester Nutter or Michael for privacy reasons. Here is my list of BigY Matches:

After my brother, the new tester, Michael, is my next match. This may or may not be significant. the listing is based on the number of Non-Matching Variants. I have fewer Non-Matching Variants with Michael (other than with my brother) than with other BigY testers. I will be looking at Variants in greater detail later in this Blog.

I and my brother are fifth and sixth on Michael’s match list. The first 7 testers on the list are Hartleys (other than Michael). After that, there are other surnames. This indicates to me that Michael’s ancestors were likely Hartleys at some point in history. Tester #8 on the list Mawdsley and those after likely have a common ancestor before the time of surnames. Also Mawdsley and others have an earlier Haplogroup than the first 7 testers.

Michael in the Block Tree

One way that FTDNA shows test results is in a Block Tree. Here is the Block Tree from Michael’s viewpoint:

The part that says ‘Your Branch’ actually has three people in it: Nutter plus two of his Hartley matches.

I didn’t show that part of the Block Tree that has Mawdsley. He is further to the right under A11132. This shows that:

  • Michael is the only Nutter under A11134
  • My branch of FT225247 on the left has 7 variants under A11134
  • There are 4 variants under A16717
  • Under Michael’s branch there are 3 Private Variants on average
  • The people in the bottom block represent now. That means the time back to the A11134 should be about the same for each of the three branches above.

Michael’s Private Variants

Why are these important? These represent Michael’s Line since the common ancestor of the A11134 group that he is in. Above, note that those in Michael’s group have an average of 3 Private Variants. However, right now, Michael’s results show that he has two Private Variants.

These two Private Variants show as numbers which are position numbers on the YDNA. So far, no one in the world has tested positive for these two positions. Once a match is found to one of these two Positions, they will form a new branch of mankind. This would be a branch that is likely in common with the Nutter name.

Position 15646418

This position is already in YBrowse. That is probably from when Michael tested with another company.

That SNP is named Y354187. The Y designation is from YFull.

YFull gave this SNP a name when Michael uploaded his results there last year.

5672076

I suspect the same is true for 5672076. This SNP is called Y354148:

Comparing Michaels Results with Other A11134 Testers

This part may get a bit boring, but it is necessary. There is only one way to match with another tester. However, there are different ways to not match:

  • One tests postive and one test negative for a SNP
  • One test positive and another’s test does not cover that SNP
  • One tests negative and another’s test does not cover that SNP

Then there are incomplete test results which further complicate matter. Usually there need to be about 10 reads to have a good test result. If there are less than 10 reads or some reads are positive and some are negative, you get into a grey area.

Here is what I have so far in comparing Private Variants:

This shows who tested for what:

  • Y means positive
  • N means negative
  • NT means the test did not cover that position
  • ? means inconclusive

Above, Joel and Jim are A11134 > FT225247; Steve, John N. and Nutter are A11134 and Michael, Lawrence and John R. are A11134 > A16717. I am not sure what the blanks mean.

Here I’ve added a column for Nutter’s FTDNA results as the previous column was for his other test. I was already tracking SNPs Y354148 and Y354187 which I mentioned above. I would also like to add the SNPs in my branch as there are so many.

Here I have shown that Nutter has none of the 7 SNPs in the branch of Hartleys that my brother and I share. Next I went through the Private Variants of the other BigY Testers and checked to see if Michael tested positive for any of those Private Variants:

This shows that Nutter did not test positive for any of the other testers’ Private Variants. For example here is Nutter’s results for 11071280 which was one of Steve’s Private Variants:

Because Nutter’s Genotype is the same as the Reference, that means that Nutter is ancestral or not positive for that Variant. It is confusing, because these results were found in a download called Derived Variants (which is the opposite of Ancestral Variants).

What this means is that no new branches should be formed based on Private Variants. If my analysis was correct above, it also indicates that none of the other 7 Hartley tests covered the Nutter Private Variants. Nutter should have on average 4 Private Variants, so the two that he has are probably right. That means that the Nutter line had mutations about twice as slowly as the average. On the other hand, my Harltey Branch had 7 mutations during the same time period with mutations about as twice as fast as average.

A11134 Time Tree

Nutter is not yet on the FTDNA Time Tree. That Tree estimates that A11134 formed around the year 1450:

Hartley Branches under that formed at a later date. For example, FTDNA says that A16717 formed around 1650:

This date follows closely the genealogy of this branch:

These are the YDNA testers under A16717.

 

It would stand to reason, that other Hartley Branches formed around the same time as A16717 in the 1600s:

I drew an arrow to FT225127 where my brother and I and two other Hartley Lines are. The Nutter Line will be added in that same area.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The new Nutter BigY test shows that he is in the A11134 Branch, a Branch formerly held only by Hartleys
  • Nutter has two Private Variants which defines his own private line
  • Nutter forms a fifth branch under A11134. However, three of these branches are not named yet and won’t be named until they get matches withing those branches
  • My guess is that these branches formed in the 1600’s and represent an explosion of the Hartley surname
  • My interpretation is that this Nutter tester had a Hartley ancestor probably in the 1600’s.
  • The next step is to see the Nutter BigY results added to the FTDNA Time Tree. I don’t know if those results will make a change to the date of A11134.

 

New YTree Changes at YFull for Hartley, Smith and Nutter at A11138

I was informed recently by a person with Nutter surname heritage that there were some changes at YFull in my area of the YDNA Tree. Here is the current YTree:

YF00890 is Smith. YF106096 is Nutter and the last two ID numbers are my brother and me.  When I press the live button on the tree, I get this:

This is how the YTree looked for A11132 late last year:

This just included Nutter and myself. This must have changed when I added my brother’s kit. Notice that this had a formed date and a TMRCA. Last year’s formed date of 1700 ybp seems way off as that would be roughly the year 300 AD. Here is what FTDNA has:

Changes under A11132

First, I will look at changes under my branch. It makes sense that I would be under a new branch by adding my brother. At FTDNA, that branch is called FT225247. At YFull it is called A11136. What the A11132 tree is telling me that my brother and I share all the SNPs under A11132. They are:

  • A11132
  • A11134
  • A16716
  • A11135
  • A11137
  • A11140

It also tells me that we don’t share:

  • A11133
  • A11136
  • A11129
  • A11130

This is consistant with Variants that my brother and I have under FT225247:

 

The difference is that the Mawdsley BigY tester does not have his results posted at YFull. He is the one that split the previous A11132 into A11132 and A11134. As Nutter tested positive for A11134 and A11135, he would be A11134 also.

A11138 to Y82274

Mr. Smith who was in the former A11138 group would be better positioned to do this analysis, but I’ll see what I can see from my viewpoint. Here is the present (non-Live) view of the YTree:

This shows that Mr. Smith with the low ID# shares his group now with two new memebers. One member appears to be from Australia or have ancestors from Australia. The Tree shows that A11138 has three SNPs:

  • A11138
  • FT22040
  • MF205420

This is interesting because A11138 used to be in it’s own group of one.

Here is the new designation under the ‘Live’ Tree:

Now Mr. Smith is under Y82274 (which is under A11138) and the new testers are under Y82274 at Y445810. Mr. Smith’s Y82274 appears to have 19 SNPs, so would be quite old. Y445810 is in a group of 4 SNPs, so would be younger. These new testers must have not tested at FTDNA as they do not show up there. So, as I was writing this Blog, Mr. Smith who was previously A11138, got pulled down to Y82274, then the two new testers were more closely relataed to each other. They left Mr. Smith at Y82274 and moved down to the newer Y445810. The next step is for YFull to come up with TMRCA numbers. Most people greatly appreciate having those dates. This is one case where YFull has more testers directly under this branch of A11138 than FTDNA has, so their estimates should be more acccurate.

As there are four SNPs in Y445810, that could indicate that SNP is from around the 1600’s. However, it may be earlier if the two new testers have private variants. My guess is that there will be little difference between the date of A11138 and Y82274. YFull previously had A11138 around the 350AD and FTDNA has it at around the year 500AD.

Why So Many SNPs for Y82274?

Or, the question could be, why does Smith have so many SNPs now? My guess is that is because he took the older BigY500 test. This test covered less of the Y Chromosome compared to the newer testing. When the new testers tested, it was clear that they shared many of their SNPs with Smith. Under the older testing at FTDNA, Smith had 11 Private Variants since A11138:

Now, he is showing 20 SNPs at YFull:

In addition, Mr Smith likely has Private Variants in parallel with the 4 extra variants that the new testers have. That means that as a result of the new testing, Mr. Smith’s Variants have about doubled.

Summary and Conclusions

  • R-A11138 is under a state of flux due to two new testers
  • A11138 used to be held by Mr. Smith. He is now at one level down at Y82274.
  • The two new testers are one level below Y82274 at SNP Y445810.
  • YFull has not come out with new date estimates for A11138, Y82274 and Y445810. This will be important as the new testers are not at FTDNA.
  • My brother and I are now shown as A11138. However, FTDNA has many more teseters in this area. That means that their tree and dating should be much more accurate than what YFull has.

 

 

111 STR YDNA Results with Nutter-Hartley Connection

I wasn’t sure what to call this Blog. I have been following the YDNA test results of a Nutter descendant with interest. His YDNA results have been showing a connection to my general branch of the Hartley Family. The results of other Hartleys who have taken the BigY test show like this:

All those so far under R-A11134 are Hartleys. One tester who is A11132 is a Mawdsley. The connection between Mawdsley and Hartley could be right around the time that surnames were coming into use.

Nutter’s 111 STR results

While we are awaiting Nutter’s BigY results, I will look at his 111 STR results. STR results are much more difficult to interpret compared to the BigY SNP results. That is because STRs can mutate backwards or forwards. In other words, the mutations can increase or decrease.

Here are the STR results of those Hartleys in my general line who have taken the test and have joined the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA:

My brother and I are in the last group. The group above us are Hartleys with a Quaker ancestor who left England to move to Pennsylvania in colonial days. The top person is Mawdsley who is closely associated with the Hartleys at R-A11132. The rest are Hartleys in the R-A11134 category. The first two in the A11134 group have only tested to 12 STRs which is not very helpful. Note that many of the genealogies get stuck in the 1700’s. It is very difficult to do the genealogy in England at that point due to the number of Hartleys in the Colne, Lacnashire area. This is where many of the Hartleys came from.

I have an arrow in the column where the new Nutter results are. The person above Nutter tested to 111 STRs. The person on the list below Nutter tested to 37 STRs. Nutter and the Hartley below him have a match on this STR:

They both have a value of 20 for DYS458. Of the 12 Hartleys who have tested to this level, only these two have a value of 20 for the STR named DYS458.

Here is a comparison between Nutter and the Hartley tester listed above him:

At STR DYS710, both these two have a value of 36. This may be more difficult to interpret as two of the Quaker Hartleys and the more distantly related Mawdsley tester have this value.

Building a STR Tree

These trees are difficult to build and interpret, but I will give it a shot. These trees are easier to build when the BigY SNP results are in, because those results are so much easier to interpret. Previously I have considered two models to intepret the STR results. Here is the first:

This tree only has six people in it, so I think that some are missing. I count 9 Hartleys who at the FTDNA Hartley YDNA Project who have tested to 111 STRs. I see also that other changes will be needed as I don’t see DYS710 listed in the tree. Also I don’t see DYS458 listed.

Here was my second model:

It looks like a major overhaul of this tree is needed. It looks like I only did the tree for those who took the BigY test.

111 STR YDNA Hartley Tree Overhaul

This appears to be the raw data involved:

I had trouble matching the STR names to the columns. Previously, I had used a program called SAPP to try to analyze these STRs. I’ll try that again. I downloaded the information for all testers in my Hartley group except for the two that tested for only 12 markers. This goes into a text file where the first line is /STRDATA.

Here is what pops out:

The program comes up with four main branches. Here is some further identification:

It seems like the results are generally accurate. Nutter is near the middle of the chart. He is with the other Hartley I mentioned earlier with a DYS458 value of 20 (red arrow). My brother and I are on the bottom row. I would say that the depiction is generally correct. Between Nutter and his closest match on the tree, the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor is 1750. Here is what FTDNA shows for the GD of 2 between Nutter and his closest Hartley 37-tested STR match:

The third line indicates a GD of 2. FTDNA estimates a aTMRCA of 1650 for that GD. However, whether this is more or less accurate than the SAPP tool, I don’t know.

For the Quaker Hartley group, the TMRCA is 1550 according to SAPP. The known common ancestor is from 1666. However, it is within the SAPP Tree range of 1350-1700. There are more than the usual mutations for this line which make the TMRCA seem older.

The TMCRA for this group of Hartleys is shown by SAPP to be 1550. This does not seem unreasonable to me. I did not include the Mawdsley STRs in this analysis as he is from an earlier SNP group of A11132.

One other point is that there are other adjustments that can be made on the SAPP Tree. One would be to add SNP values where known. Another interesting feature is the thickness of the lines on the tree are meant to indicate confidence of relationship. For example, the thickest line is between me and my brother. The program does not know that we are brothers, but it does know that we both tested to 111 STRs and have a close match.

SAPP Tree with SNP Data

For the kits, I have added this insformation:

This reflects the BigY testing. Here is how the SAPP interprets my input:

Here is the tree that it produces:

Notice that many of the lines are now in darker blue showing more certainty. One somewhat surprising result is that it projects that two of the Hartley kits are outside of A11134. Those are the two yellow kits on the second row above. I had assumed that all Hartleys that were in this group were A11134. Based on SAPP these two kits may not be A11134.

Here is some further output from SAPP:

I watched a video explaining the program. The red numbers in the second chart show the adjusted genetic distance due to parallel STR mutations. So for example, it shows me at kit 275990 as being a GD of 12 from Quaker descendant 617805 instead of the GD of 9 that FTDNA shows. That is because the Quaker descendant had some of the same mutations that I had but they happened in a parallel manner on different branches.

Once Nutter’s BigY results are in, the SAPP Tree could change also as we will have more SNP information. The only further modification would be to add Mawdsley to the tree.

SAPP Tree with A11132 Mawdsley Added

  • Now the Quaker Hartleys are on the bottom left. Oddly, the tree now shows the correct sub-branching for the three Quaker Hartley descendants.
  • Now there are four Hartley testers showing outside the A11134 realm on the third row from the top. These four are in groups of two each.
  • I did not add any genealogical information for the chart. I could have added some for the Quaker Branch, but the program sorted that out before I did that.
  • This seems to be as good as I can get the SAPP Tree with the information that I now have.

Actually, I do have a refinement I could make to the chart as the Nutter descendant is A11134. This is from previous testing at another company. Here is the results:

This pulls Nutter with the ‘B’ kit back into the A11134 realm (both circled). This should be now the best SAPP Tree I can come up with given the information I have.

Nutter Genealogy

I have covered Nutter Genealogy in past Blogs. It appears from the STRs, that Nutter’s closest STR match has Hartley genealogy:

The SAPP tree predicts a common ancestor around the year 1750 which is interesting. That means that either the Nutter genealogy or the SAPP Tree prediction for a TMRCA could be wrong. The Hartley tester who has James Hartley as his ancestor has not posted a further Hartley Ancestry Tree at FTDNA.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The Nutter 111 STR results add important information to a part of the YDNA tree of mankind
  • If correct, the STR results link Nutter with a kit who traces his genealogy back to James hartley born 1788.
  • Running the SAPP Tree with different inputs gave interesting results. One result was that it showed a possibility that not all tested Hartleys are neccesarily A11134 as I had previously supposed.
  • I await Mr. Nutter’s further BigY testing results

 

Some Nutter Genealogy

I have been in touch with Michael who has ordered a BigY test. He has Nutter genealogy, but he appears to have a male YDNA Haplogroup that only Hartleys have held so far. I am interested how closely he is related to the Hartleys.

I see that Michael has this genealogy posted. I hope he doesn’t mind me taking a look at it.

I’ll start a Nutter tree at Anestry, to see if we come to the same conclusions.

Here is Albert or James A in the 1901 Census:

He lived in Hindley but was born in Tyldesley.

James Nutter 1847

Here is a tree from Ancestry:

Here is Abram – a village in Wigan:

James had two wives and James Albert was from the second wife. Here is a young James in the 1851 Census:

John Nutter 1817

James father John was a Boat Builder in Bedford in 1851. While snooping around Ancestry, I found a better Nutter tree from Michael – the one taking the BigY 700 test:

Interestingly for me, there is a Hartley Line there from 1749.

Here is John Nutter and family in 1861:

All these places were close to each other:

This appears to be the transcription for John’s marriage:

He was a ship carpenter which fits in to the Census records. Here is Haigh to the NE of Wigan:

This appears to be John’s baptismal record:

Here is some more local geography:

Richard Nutter

Here are a few choices for Richard Nutter:

Assuming these are the two best choices, let’s see which is the best choice.

Richard number one is a husbandman from Brindle. I think a husbandman is someone who takes care of animals. I looked it up and a quick result said farmer. I’m not sure of the difference between a yeoman and a husbandman. I looked yeoman up also and got:

a man holding and cultivating a small landed estate; a freeholder.

Here is Brindle:

Richard Nutter #2

This Richard was a house carpenter. This would seem more in line with his son John’s occupation of ship carpenter – though at the time of John’s birth, Richard was apparently a weaver.

This appears to be the Parish of Burton in Kendal:

By location, it appears that Richard #1 is better. Let’s see where they married:

 

This is what I get for Warton (above) though Lancaster seems further north. That makes the decision more difficult. Do we go by occupation or location?

I need to find Richard in the Census if possible. My thinking is that the Richard Nutter who had John Nutter in 1816 in Chanock hung around the area. His Census should have where he was born. Unfortunately, I could not find Richard easily in this area.

Taking a Look at Michael’s Tree

I see that Michael has this information for Richard Nutter:

If this is right, then Richard and Jane should appear in the Rivington Census of 1841 and Richard should appear in the 1851 Rivington Census. I also see that Michael has this Bishop’s Transcript marriage record:

Here Richard is a Servant rather than a husbandman.

This appears to be a record for Richard’s death:

Here is the burial record for Jane:

Here are some other records from Rivington:

Assuming this is the same couple (and they appear to be), this would represent perhaps moving out of the area for a while? Here is Adlington:

Actually Adlington is near Rivington. Here is Oswaldtwistle:

So not too far away if right.

Nutter Baptisms at Rivington Church

I don’t see a corresponding birth record for Jane Nutter who died in 1826. I see one record for ‘Margrit’s’ baptism as Jennett as the mother.

When James was born, Richard was a farmer:

Here is an early baptism at Rivington Church:

Here is another Nutter Burial:

If this Coln is Colne, then here is a connection to the area where my Hartleys came from. Here is a guess for the baptism of Mary:

I couldn’t easily find a marriage record for Henry Nutter around this time.  Here are three marriages with the last being in Colne witnessed by a Hartley:

Also I see this baptismal record with a Henry and a Richard:

Here is a better connection:

Notice that even the abode of Coln is the same spelling as the abode of Coln in the burial record for Mary Nutter in Rivington, daughter of Henry Nutter. It would seem od for there to be two misspellings of Colne in twon different records relating to Nutter.

Here is one more record with that spelling:

If I put the three ‘Colns’ together, it looks like perhaps Henry and Sally Nutter had John Nutter in 1782 in Colne, Richard Nutter in 1787, then moved to Rivington at some point where they buried daughter Mary in 1802.

An Interesting Record for Richard Nutter

Here is the reference for the above document:

To me, it would be a coincidence if this is not the same Richard Nutter. Basically, Margaret Eccles had a male “bastard” child which had to be supported by the government. She calls out Richard Nutter who is required to give some support for the raising of the child.

Here is Yate and Pickup Bank:

So, I am learning a bit about local geography through this exercise.

Here is a baptism for a daughter of Peggy Eccles:

Here is another legal document concerning Richard:

Actually, I am not sure this is the same Richard as here is the location referred to in the 1830 document:

I’m spending a lot of time on Richard because he seems to be a crucial link to going further back in time in Nutter genealogy.

Richard Nutter in the Census

This appears to be the wrong Richard in 1841 Preston:

This appears to be the house carpenter who married Jane Nuttal. Here is the same family in 1851:

This Richard was born in Wennington.

I found this Jane in the 1841 Census, but I don’t know if she is the right person:

This Jane shows that she was not born in Lancashire.

Richard’s Father was Henry, John or Richard?

Ancestry suggests Richard as  the father of Henry as their ‘hint’. Michael has John Nutter as the father of Richard:

As mentioned above, I am leaning toward Henry being the father of Richard. I’ll try putting Henry in the Private Ancestry Tree that I have made.

This appears to put me in the minority. I found three trees for Richard Nutter at Ancestry and they all show Richard for the father. Here is the couple I am going with:

I am guessing that this Henry could have been born around 1760. Here are some Baptisms from around that time:

My best guess for Henry is the last one. He was born in 1754, so would have been 27 when he married. The other two Henrys are from Burnley or Barrowford. Barrowford is outside of current Colne. Here is Colne Edge:

Apparently, I am in the minority with this Henry also. I looked at three trees for Henry and they show him having a son Richard, but the son who was born in Wennington. So, I am going in circles a bit. Even though I am going against other Ancestry trees, I think my logic in my connection between Rivington and Colne is sound.

Why Not Richard as the father of Richard?

I had mentioned above that there was a Richard Nutter in the Rivington Parish who lived in Rivington. He had a daughter Mary baptized there in 1768:

Could he have been the father of the Richard who lived in the Rivington area? It would seem possible, however, under that scenario, this Richard would have had Mary in Rivington and then gone back to Colne to have Richard and then somehow Richard would have made his way back to Rivington Parish. Plus, this birth was in 1768. I believe that Michael’s ancestor Richard was born in 1787 which was 20 years later.

Here is one Richard born to a Richard, but he appears to have died soon after his birth:

Here is the best guess for the Richard son of Richard scenario:

Unfortunately, the Rivington baptismal record for Mary did not mention the name of the mother.

Here are some marriages for Richard Nutter and Mary:

The first marriage would have been too early to have Richard in 1788. The second marriage would probably be too early to have Richard in 1788. Assuming this Mary was 20 at the time of marriage, 29 years later she would be 49 having Richard. I suppose this is a possible scenario, but not likely. Finally, the last Richard Nutter would be a good candidate to have the Richard Nutter born at Lawn in 1788, but not as likely to have Mary baptized in 1768 in Rivington.

Richard Nutter Born 1719

Ancestry has three trees which all look somewhat like this one:

As there were three Richard Nutters baptized in Colne in 1719, I wonder how they knew they had the right one?

The 24 January 1719/20 from Greater Marsden above is probably the one mentioned in the Ancestry Trees – though Ancestry has the birth in Trawden.

Here are a few more Richard Nutters in Lancashire:

If I had to guess I would probably go with the one from ‘Coln’ based on the spelling mentioned earlier. However, that is a guess. The name is spelled differently, but I’m sure there were spelling variations in the early 1700’s. I was hoping that there would be fewer Richard Nutters the further back I went, but there were more. So this would seem to be a good time to end this Blog. This is my best guess based on my limited research:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I am interested in Michael’s ancestry because he has ordered a BigY Test which indentifies the male line. Michael’s past YDNA testing has put him in a branch of the male tree  of mankind that has been reserved for Hartleys up to this point. Michael’s male only line ancestry is Nutter.
  • The Nutter genealogy gets more difficult at the point of Richard Nutter. This is because it is difficult to find this Richard in the Census. According to the Quarter Sessions, this Richard appears to have fathered a boy with Margaret Eccles and was required to come up with support for the boy. There was also a Richard and Margaret Nutter mentioned in the Quarter Sessions. But I don’t know if this is Margaret Eccles above.
  • Based on connections that Henry Nutter and his wife Sally had between Colne and Rivington Parish, it seemed like Henry would be a likely candidate to be the father of Richard. I went on that assumption which lead me to another Richard as Henry’s father. However, there were too many Richard’s born in the early 1700’s to identify which Richard he was.

 

A Nutter-Hartley Connection by YDNA

In a previous Blog, I wrote about Michael who has Nutter ancestry and tested his YDNA with a non-FTDNA company. Those results were uploaded to YFull which showed that he was A11134 on the male YDNA Tree. I also noted that so far, all the FTDNA BigY testers who are at the A11134 level have been Hartleys.

I have also noticed that there are two other people who have had 37 STRs tests taken at FTDNA. They have matches to some of the Hartleys in the Hartley project. They have that their ancestry goes back to Ireland.

Here is the list of people in the Hartley FTDNA YDNA Project that are grouped together:

The last two on the list are my brother and me.  The first person has Mawdsely ancestry and is in the slightly more distant Haplogroup of A11132. The next two who have Richard and Roger Hartley as ancestors only tested to 12 STRs, so that information is not very useful.

The estermated Yorkshire tester matches the two Nutter testers. When I use the FTDNA TiP Report, there is a 90% chance that this Hartley and the two Nutters are related within 15 generations. If I take a generation to be 30 years for a male, then that would be about 450 years ago. If we take that to be from 1950, then that would be around the year 1500.

It would be interesting if one of these Nutter testers upgraded to the BigY 700 test. Due to the way the Nutter testers match the Hartleys, it appears that they could be close relatives to each other.

Nutter Genealogy

One of the two Nutter 37 STR testers has genealogy going back to Ireland. Here is his tree:

Here I am just interested in the father to father Nutter line. I can try to build a Nutter tree myself, to see if there are other connections to England. The more recent family was from Lowell, Massachusetts, so that is easy to trace as I live in Massachusetts.

I am interested in finding out more about Robert J Nutter as he immigrated to Lowell, MA. The 1910 Census has Robert arriving around 1860:

If my caculations are right, then he would have been about 10 years old when he moved from Ireland to the US. Robert’s wedding record shows that his parents were James and Mary:

I suspect that James P could be James R. I also believe that Robert’s real first name was James:

This also gives a place of birth for James Robert in Ireland:

This place is in County Kildare:

Here is the family in 1870:

It would take a lot of research to try to get this family back to England. The next step would be to try to find a marriage record for James Nutter and Mary.

The Census records give more clues. Here the family in 1880:

The family was living on Water Street in Lowell. Youngest son was Elias. Here is the Baptismal record for Elias from St Peter Roman Catholic Church in Lowell:

This gives his mother’s name as Mary Jordan. Mary died in a railroad accident. Her parents were John and Mary. The couple appear to have married in Dublin:

Unfortunately, the marriage and death records for for James gives no parents:

That puts this line of Nutter genealogy at a dead end for now.

More Nutter YDNA STR matches to Hartleys

The person who has David Hartley as an ancestor also matches Nutters with a genealogical difference (GD) of 3.

My recollection of this David is that he was from Yorkshire. The TiP Report between the David Hartley descendant and Nutter is also 15 generations at a 90% confidence, so also probably in the early 1500’s.

Descendant of William Shephard Hartley

The descendant of William Shephard Hartley also matches the two Nutter testers but with a GD of 4. Here is the TiP Report between these two:

Interestingly, even though the GD is greater, the number of generations at the 90% confidence level is fewer at 12 generations. Assuming 30 years per generation, this comes out to 360 years. For an easy calculation, I’ll subtract that from 1960 to get around the year 1600.

Comparing STR Matches in a Spreadsheet

Here is what I have so far:

Here is an interesting thing in that the GD of 3 results in a predicted 15 generation commona ancestor. That is compared to a GD of 2 and 4 with 12 generations to a common ancestor. That is no doubt due to the variance in the mutability of the different STRs. Some STRs change very slowly while others change relatively more quickly.

Here is the finished table:

The first tester is a Mawdsley and an earlier Haplogroup than the other Hartleys, so probably the connection to him goes back before the time that surnames were used. #2 and #3 on the list only tested for 12 STRs, so I wouldn’t include them either right now. Out of the other 11 testers, 7 had a GD of 4 or less to the two Nutter testers.

Based just on the 37 STR test (which is difficult to interpret and a low level of STR testing), I would say that there is a connection between Nutter and Hartley. The three possibilities being:

  • There is an early Nutter line that descended from a Hartley line and branched out
  • There is a Nutter line separate from the Hartley line and the connection between Hartley and Nutter is before the time of surnames
  • Our branch of Hartleys descended from an earlier branch of Nutters. Based on the number of Hartleys compared to Nutters, I would find this to be the least likely scenario.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Michael who has Nutter ancestry has recently sent out for a BigY700 test
  • He has an existing Haplogroup from previous testing of A11134. Previously, only Hartleys have tested positive for A11134.
  • There are two Nutters who have taken the 37 STR YDNA test at FTDNA. They appear to be closely related.
  • I have looked at the genealoyg of of one of the 37 STR Nutter testers. I got stuck in Dublin, Ireland for the earliest known ancestor. However, the YDNA strongly suggests ancestry in the Lancashire/Yorkshire area of England.
  • 7 of 11 Hartleys in my group of Hartleys at the FTDNA Hartley YDNA Project match these two Nutter STR testers
  • It would be helpful if one of the Nutter 37 STR testers were to take the BigY700 test to compare with Michael’s upcomng results.

 

 

 

A New A11134 Tester

I recently realized that there was a new A11134 tester. I had been in touch with a person named Michael who had tested. He had tested at Nebula Genomics. I am not familiar with that company as I have had tested with FTDNA. Michael uploaded his results to YFull where he is on the YFull Tree as A11132.

A11132 at YFull

Here is how Michael matches me at YFull:

YFull has Michael and me as A11132, but FTDNA has me as A11134 which is one level below A11132. Why is that?

Here is a what my Block Tree looked like in March 2021:

My brother and I are on the left. Then there were two other Hartley testers. So, at that time all Hartley testers were under A11132. In January 2022, there were two new BigY Testers. One was a Hartley and one was a Mawdsley. Mawdsley tested positive for A11132 as well as the other SNPs under the current A11132, but did not test positive for  A11134 and A11135. That resulted in the breaking up of othe old A11132 block into A11132 and A11134. This resulted in the way the tree is today:

Michael is planning on doing the BigY test at FTDNA. That means that he will be A11134 when he takes that test. Mawdsley did not post at YFull, so their tree structure is more like FTNDA’s tree prior to 2022.

Michael on FTDNA’s Time Tree

FTDNA has a new Time Tree. I was glad that I realized that Michael was actually under A11134:

That makes a difference, because as shown, A11132 would probably before the time when surnames were in general use and A11134 would be more in the time frame when surnames were coming into general use. In fact up until the time of Michael’s testing, all A11134 testers were Hartleys.

Checking Private Variants

The first place to check for possible new branches is with private variants. Michael sent me this information:

The Y designation is for YFull where Michael posted his results.

Here is a comparison I had been working on for Hartley Private Variants:

I hadn’t added John R and John N previously, so I did so now. I don’t have the full list for ‘Nutter’ above. That means that Michael cannot currently access the full list of all the SNPs that he tested for. I was surprised that none of the Hartleys that I looked at had tested for Michael’s Private Variants. That means that there may be a connection between the Hartley lines, but that connection is not known if the same locations are not sampled.

The fact that Michael’s Private Variants are likely newly discovered is shown by the date on the right. According to YBrowse, these are newly found variations as of 2022. I did not check with the Quaker Hartleys as these left Lancashire, England around the year 1700.

When I checked John N’s Private Variants, I found that Jim, Joel and Steve were not tested at those locations. That could mean that John N could have a closer connection to Jim, Joel and/or Steve. It’s a little frustrating to not know the results, because a position was not tested. One exception was with location 20674535. My brother Jim and I were not tested at this location but Steve was and tested negative.

A Different Way of Showing Results at FTDNA

I used to be able to download a ‘csv’ file from FTDNA with all the results. Those Those results have now been split up to these files:

I will cover those changes in an upcoming Blog. Here is the summary of Hartley (and Nutter) Private Variants:

John R’s results are in the new format, so I didn’t check his results agaings the other tests. Also, John R is in the Quaker Hartley group. I don’t think that there is overlap with the other groups, but it is possible. In the above chart, I took out my former Private Variants which are now named under FT225247.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was pleased to find out by checking YFull, that a non-FTDNA tester with Nutter genealogy tested positive for A11134
  • Previously, all A11134 BigY testers have had Hartley genealogy. That means that this test is a departure or that the tester could have Hartley ancestry at some point.
  • I checked Michael’s test against some of the other Hartleys BigY tests and saw that there was no overlap between his results and Hartley results. In other words, Michael’s Private Variants were not tested in other Hartleys as far as I looked.
  • Hopefully, more will be learned as Michael has agreed to take the BigY test.
  • FTDNA now reports its results in its csv file as four csv files. This is likely because the files were so large. I will look at that in an upcoming Blog.

 

 

 

A New Hartley BigY Test

A New Hartley BigY test results are in:

John R is the 7th BigY Hartley tester in the group of Hartleys that I am related to. There are other Hartley branches in the world, but they are not at all closely related by YDNA. I did an initial analysis of John Roberts STR results last week  here.

The A16717 Branch of Hartleys

So far all the Hartleys that are related to me by YDNA are under the branch A11134. John R is further under the A16717 branch. This is an important branch of Hartleys as the genealogy is well known:

Ross has not taken the BigY test, but John R, Lawrence and Michael have. Michael has taken the older BigY 500 test. Before Lawrence tested for BigY, Michael was designated as A11134. Lawrence further designated the branch as A16717. John Robert and Lawrence could potentially form a new branch separate from Michael.

Comparing BigY Matches

I have compared John R, Lawrence and Michael to my results:

Here are the first two on my list of Non-Matching Variants. This list can be confusing because it could be a non-match because I have the variant and John R does not, for example. Or, it could be that John R has the Variant and I do not. I put those variants that do not match my results into a table:

Here I have color coded the non-matching variants.

The Yellow Variants

These are the variants that are in my brother’s and my Branch (FT225247) . These are the SNPs in my Branch:

There are 7 SNPs in this group. The yellow SNPs above account for 6 of the 7 SNPs. But where is FT135932? When I check John R’s results I see that he is not positive for this SNP:

I’m guessing that my brother had this SNP and I didn’t or didn’t have really good results for this tested SNP. Here is my brother Jim’s comparison with John Robert:

 

This implies that my brother James tested positive for FT135932.

Blue and Orange Variants

We know about the blue variants. This is the SNP label used to define the Quaker Hartley Line. The orange SNP is BY26739. This SNP is more difficult to explain. For one reason, a comparison between my brother and me show that is also a non-matching Variant.

BY26739

If I have BY26739 and Jim and John R do not, that would explain things. Here are my results for that SNP:

It looks like the reads were not great, but the  best reads they did have showed that I was positive for BY26739 two out of three times. I see from a previous blog that this was Jim’s results:

This was considered to be not derived, probably because there were 6 good reads which were all negative for this SNP. Here are John R’s results:

These results are even worse than my brother Jim’s. I see that the 4 best reads show no mutation at that location for John R.

The Green Non-Matching Variants

These are SNPs that my brother and/or I have. Here is an expanded view:

I don’t have a good explanation why these SNPs are not in my Block tree. One guess is that they may be from regions which are considered unreliable.

Private Variants

The Private Variants for the Quaker Hartleys should be the numbered variants shown in the chart above. These variants formed in the Thomas Line in the generations following Thomas Hartley born 1700. John R has three, Lawrence has 6 and Michael has two. That should mean an average of about 4 under the Quaker Hartley group of A16717. I’m not sure why the current Block Tree shows an average of three Private Variants. I notice that the old Block Tree before John R tested had an average of two Private Variants:

If these private variants matched between John R and Lawrence, then there would be a new Quaker Hartley Branch of SNPs. However, for that to have happened, Thomas Hartley born 1700 would have had to have had a new mutation that his brother Roger did not have:

Summary and Conclusions

  • The recent BigY testing for John Robert put him solidly in the Hartley Quaker Line and confirms common ancestry as shown in the chart above.
  • Differentiation between the two lines: Thomas Hartley and Roger Hartley were difficult as Thomas would have had to have had a SNP mutation to show up between John Robert and Lawerence.
  • Differentiation was made in my previous Blog based on STRs which was useful.
  • The BigY may undergo a manual review, but I don’t see any obvious changes that would be made.
  • The Quaker Hartleys now have the largest group of BigY tested Hartleys in the A11134 Hartley group.

 

New 111 STR Hartley YDNA Test Results and the SAPP Tree

New results are in for a Hartley YDNA 111 STR test. These STR tests were in included in a BigY test. The BigY test results are not in yet. There are different Hartley YDNA lines, but this is the line that my Hartleys are on (and several other Hartleys). Here are the new results:

This image is from the Hartley YDNA Project page at FTDNA. The new tester is the one at the top. The tester has ancestry in common with Roger Hartley born 1628 and died 1714. This is an important line as it represents the oldest verifiable Hartley line in this group of Hartleys. This group of Hartleys were originally Quakers. They were persecuted, so they left Lancashire County England for Pennsylvania where Quakers were welcome. That doesn’t mean that the other lines descended from this line, but that this line is closer to a Hartley common ancestor. The two tests on the bottom are for myself and my brother, so R-FT225247 represents a newer YDNA Branch.

Some Hartley Genealogy

Here is a tree I worked out for the Quaker Branch of the Hartley family:

John Robert is the new tester. Assuming I have the tree right, he shows as 6th cousin to Lawrence and Ross and 7th cousin to Michael. At the 111 STR level, John’s two closest matches are with Lawrence and Ross. John shows as a three step difference to these two. Michael does not show up. He took the older BigY 500 test which did not include the 111 STR test at the time. Lawrence took the newer BigY 700 test. Ross took the 111 STR test without the BigY test. The above tree shows Lawrence and Ross to be third cousins to each other.

John’s YDNA STR Matches at the 111 Level

Here are John’s matches of those Hartleys who have tested to the 111 STR Level:

Lawrence and Ross are at the top of the list. Interstingly, I am on the list but my brother Jimmy is not. He must have one more difference which put him over the top of what is reported. All the above have the Hartley surname except for Wolka. This likely means that this Wolka line was at one time a Hartley line.

A 111 STR Tree for Hartleys

Again, these are for the Hartleys in my group. These are the 9 people that are in the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA. Ross and Wolka are not in that project, so they are not represented below. When I look at the STRs that have changed within the Hartley group, they are these:

When creating a tree, the easiest way is to assume that the mode is the oldest value of the STR. When I color the outliers, they look like this:

This chart represents 8 Hartleys and one Mawdsley. The bottom two lines are myself and my brother. I moved John Robert next to Lawrence. These two are above my brother and me. They descend from the older Quaker Hartley Line.

Looking at just the Quaker Line of Hartleys, I see this:

These are the three differences between John and Lawrence in that line. John has a DYS390 value of 24 and a DYS549 value of 12. Lawrence has a DYS641 value of 11. As these are unique to the Quaker Line, they are most likely mutations within that line:

This image is meant to show that somewhere along the Anthony Hartley line, these two STRs appeared which are unique to that line. Likewise, sometime along the Joseph Hartley line a unique value for one STR occurred which describes that line. Unfortunately, I don’t have Ross’ results as he is not in the Hartey FTDNA YDNA Project.

STR Structure within SNP Structure

There are two aspects to YDNA testing. One is STRs and the other is SNP testing. The SNP testing is less subject to interpretation. This is because STR values can go up and/or down whereas a SNP mutation is a single mutation. As such, the SNP is more useful for creating trees.

Here is the reliable SNP tree from my perspective:

John Robert’s BigY results have not yet completed, but his results should be within R-A16717 based on genealogy. So far all Hartleys in this Line are under A11134. The connection for Mawdsley goes further back in time – probably before the time when surnames were finalized.

Two Models for Hartley STRs

In a Blog I wrote earlier this year, I considered two different models to explain the STRs:

and,

In these depictions, I didn’t mean to show that Steve and John have a more recent common ancestor. They should have their own separate lines from the early Hartley ancestor. The boxes were added place them on an equal footing with the other Hartleys. Here is a better representation:

It also appears that what I had as DYS572 should actually be DYS534:

It is easy to get confused with 111 STRs. Here is a corrected version of the first tree:

FTDNA’s New Time Tree

FTDNA has a new representation for those who have taken the BigY test:

The person at the top right is a Smith. The common ancestor between Smith and our Hartleys was around the year 500. This was certainly before the time of surnames in England. The next person going down the column is Mawdsley. The common ancestor between Mawdsely and the Hartleys was some time around the year 1100, though the dashed line gives a larger range. Assuming the year of 1100 is correct, I would say that common ancestor lived before the age of surnames also.

The next 6 are Hartleys who have taken the BigY test. From the Time Tree above, we see that all Hartleys are R-A11134. These Hartleys had a common ancestor who lived probably in the 1400’s. Actually, it looks like these had a common ancestor, but they really had a common SNP. This SNP could have occurred within, say three generations on average. However, there was a Hartley who originally developed this particular mutation which was carried down all other Hartleys.

The two that are still R-A11134 are John and Steve. They have not had other matches yet which further define their lines. Chronologically, the next group is R-A16717. These are the Quaker Hartleys shown in my genealogical chart above. R-A16717 dates from the Time Tree from around 1550. By genealogy, the common ancestor from the group was born in 1666. That means that either the Time Tree is a bit early, or an ancestor of Edward Hartley born 1666 first had the mutation of R-A16717 (or a combination of both). Finally, I tested my brother and myself, so R-FT225247 represents my father who born in 1918.

Using SAPP to Generate a Hartley Tree

David Vance developed a software to analyze STRs. I’ll use this for the Hartleys in my group who are also in the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA:

This is the first time that I have used this tool. It uses STR testing of any length which is interesting. Also I did not put in information about SNPs. That would have been helpful to refine the tool. Here is the top box of the chart:

This is in line with the start of the Hartley surname. Here the year 1350 is given. The Time Tree based on SNPs gave a date about 75 years later. This method is a lot easier than trying to create a tree by hand. Next, I’ll look at my section:

I am on the right side of the tree. My brother and I are in the last two boxes on the bottom of the tree. Our common ancestor (our father) has a date of 1900 which is close to his birth year of 1918. The next one up on our branch is John Nicholas. He took the BigY test. I had thought that he would have formed a new Hartley SNP branch, but that did not happen.

The two other boxes are for Tim and Steve. Steve has also taken the BigY test. My guess is that Tim is Steve’s brother as the common ancestor date given is around 1950.

A Second Run of SAPP

My first run showed that I had 112 STRs for some testers, so I ran the program again using the Notepad software for the results as suggested in the instructional video. This time I came out with 111 STRs:

Above, the number of STRs are shown in bold blue on the diagonal.

Here is the corrected SAPP Tree:

This tree now shows five brances from the top instead of four and now the STR names are correct:

This now shows that the difference between my brother and me is STR 534. The program interprets that it was I that had the mutation to 16 from the ancestral value of 15. This new tree also has my brother and I having a common ancestor with John Nicholas in the year 1700.

The Quaker Hartley STR Testers and One Other Hartley Tester

These four are on the left side of the newer tree:

 

Here the bottom middle person is John Robert. That means that this is the Quaker Line of Hartleys. An older date of 1450 AD is given for the common ancestor. Michael, John Robert and Lawrence are in the bottom row. Because Michael has so many mutations, I believe that they set the common ancestor date back to 1450.

Confusingly, the person in the top left is another John Robert (not the subject of this Blog). He only tested for 37 STRs and is shown in a branch by himself.

Mawdsley

I cut the first number off of Mawdsley’s ID by mistake. He was grouped with Gary. This probably should not be so as I presume that Gary is A11134 and Mawdsley is A11132

A Hartley SAPP Tree with SNPs Added

Before I go too far with the current SAPP tree, I would like to add some SNP information to the current tree, to see if that refines the tree at all. I added these SNPs:

473291 A11132*
372104 A11134*
293533 A11134*
117349 A16717*
617805 A16717*
757486 FT225247*
275990 FT225247*

The astierix indicates that the named SNP is the current terminal SNP for the tester.

Here is how SAPP interpreted my input:

This looks correct to me. Here is the new SAPP Tree:

Here we are back to four branches. However, the second branch is quite large and includes all those known to be in A11134. The first branch is the John Robert who is not in the Quaker Line. The box at the top represents A11132 which includes Mawdsley. This tree assumes that for the non-BigY tested Hartleys, we don’t know whether or not they are A11134.

The Quaker Line

I like the branching better with the new configuration:

This puts John Robert and Lawrence in one branch and Michael in another which parallels what we have for the genealogy:

This puts Thomas Hartley born 1700 at Node #19 and Edward Hartley born 1666 at Node #20.

My Hartley Group

This SAPP Tree puts me in a new group:

Again, my closest match by the SAPP Tree is with John Nicholas. Based on the Tree, we have a common ancestor born around 1700. If that is correct, then there is a chance we could find a common ancestor using genealogical research. Also on this branch are Steve and Tim. According to this tree, our common ancestor would be further back (around the year 1600). I tend to think that a common ancestor with John Nicholas and myself in 1700 is unlikely.

This is because my SNP which is FT225247 includes a total of 7 SNPs and the beginning of that SNP group should start about the same time as A16717. The SAPP Tree has A16717 starting around the year 1550.

An Unlikely Node #23

Here Node #23 is dated at 1950. However, there are 6 STR changes beneath it for Mervin. Normally one person would only have one STR change. Beneath Node #15 are Joseph and Robert. These two appear to be brothers, but they have only tested to 12 STRs. That means that they could actually be dsitantly related.

The Mawdsley Group

As before, Mawdsley and Gary are grouped together for some reason.

One More SAPP Tree without Mawdsley

I’ll take out Mawdsley as he is from a SNP group which is further back in time:

This gives a slightly different variation.

Comparisons with a 2021 Analysis

At the end of last year, Robert Casey did an analysis of Z16343. This is the parent SNP group of the Hartleys:

I added arrows to where the Hartleys are. Here is a closeup:

Casey uses a designation of A11132>. I assume that means he believes that all Hartleys should be A11132 at the top of their tree. He also has a designation of <FT225247. This is my terminal Haplogroup. I assume that designiation means that these should be upstream of FT225247. Finally, my brother and I are at FT225247 which I assume means our terminal Haplogroup. Note that this analysis was done before the Haplogroup of A16717 came out for the Quaker Hartleys of Lancashire and Pennsylvania.

Michael is in the branch at the top left. That is now A16717. Several Hartleys are missing from the analysis. Under Node #91 is John Nicholas. Under Node #85 are Gary and Lawrence. That is probably not right as I have that Gary is not part of the Quaker Hartley group. Steve is under Node #94. Then my brother Jim and I are bottom right.

Summary and  Conclusions

  • While waiting for the BigY results of John Robert of the Hartley Quaker Line, I looked at his 111 STR results
  • Ross from the Quaker Line and a Wolka are not in the Hartley FTDNA YDNA project, so I didn’t include them in the anlysis
  • On the Quaker Line, it is farily easy to see which STR mutations go with which branch of that Line
  • I looked at the SAPP Program which analyzes STRs
  • When I added SNP information, the program gave a more accurate rendering of the Hartley Quaker Line for some reason
  • There were some parts of the program which didn’t make sense, so even though the SAPP Program is very easy to use, there is still a need for manual construction of STR Trees
  • SNPs are much more accurate than STRs. However, not all Hartleys have taken the BigY test
  • Further BigY testing of Mervyn, Gary, John Robert and Wolka would be helpful in understanding the history of this branch of the Hartley family

 

 

FTDNA’s Time Tree for YDNA BigY Testers

FTDNA has a new Time Tree which is interesting. I have three trees that I am interested: Frazer from my father’s mother’s side, Hartley from my side and Butler from my wife’s side

Frazer Time Tree

The Time Tree is under Discover More:

Then there is a menu on the left:

Here is the Frazer Time Tree:

I didn’t take the tree all the way back. I thought that back to the time of Christ was probably far enough.

A Closer View

Here we can related more and focus in on the genealogical timeframe. I assume that between the years 1200 and 1400, the clans were forming as the top 6 BigY testers are five Frazers and on Frazier/Frasher. The Frazier tester has an American Flag as the genealogy is colonial and cannot be traced back – though it likely goes back to Ireland or Scotland. This branch of Frazers is called R-YP6489. Down from Frazier on Time Tree above is Dingman. Then there are Rick and my by cousin Paul. Then there are Rodney and Jonathan.

Here is how I have the North Roscommon Branch of BigY-tested Frazers:

Dingman on the left has the generic North Roscommon Frazer Haplogroup of R-FT421618 because no one else on his branch has tested.

This is how the ‘Block Tree” at FTDNA looks like:

Here I have Frazier also in the image. By comparing the two previous images, there are some interesting things:

  • Jonathan and Rodney share an average of 5 private branches. That would seem to indicate the potential for some branching below R-Y151390 which is the branch for Thomas Henry Frazer born 1836. There is also a spare SNP which is FT421607. This is available for branching between James Frazer born about 1720 and Archibald Frazer born about 1792.
  • Rick and Paul show an average of three Private Variants. These would be for branches below James Frazer born 1804. The Private Variants in this case and for Rodney and Jonathan are not as important as the genealogy is better known in these two lines where these Variants would be applicable.
  • Perhaps what seem unexplainable at this time is why R-Y85652 has two additional equivalents. That would imply that, if my tree is right, that Philip Frazer would have had two mutations. I don’t think that is very likely. As these are equivalent SNPs, the other potential, given the above tree would be that Philip had one mutation and James had two mutations. I posed the question to the BigY Facebook Page as to whether one man could have two variants or SNPs. Some thought that two mutations in one person was possible.
  • Dingman’s line has four Private Variants. They would have ocurred in the seven generations since Archibald Frazer born about 1743.

Hartley Time Tree

This is from my own family.

The man in red represents my father as he is the one my brother and I have as a common ancestor. The man with the blue cross is a Smith. We have a common ancestor around 500. It is not clear as to whether our ancestors were from Scotland or if his branch moved North. Going up a branch, it would seem that most of the people from this line were in the area of England. A few testers in the branch above had ancestors from Wales:

For reference, the blue circle three from the bottom of the above image is Smith.

Hartley and Mawdsley

The top tester above is a Mawdsley. There had been some question as to whether this person should have been a Hartley. If we go with this timing with a common ancestor between Hartley and Mawdsley of around 1100 AD/CE, then there would be no need to group the two as surnames were not common at that time for the average person. I like to quote FamilySearch on this topic:

The custom of applying a man’s by-name to all his children began in the late 12th century and spread slowly, with the manorial classes and the south of England leading the way. The first legal recognition of an hereditary surname is found in 1267; it was de Cantebrigg meaning ‘of Canterbury.’ By 1400 three-quarters of the population are reckoned to have borne hereditary family names, and the process was complete by about 1450 in England. Wales is an exception, in that although they had surnames they were patronymics (derived from the father’s first name) and thus changed each generation.

The Hartleys seem to fit this general statement as the first Hartley common ancestor (if FTDNA’s estimate is correct) is shown to be:

In general terms, the Hartley “Time Tree” shows two major branches of Hartleys. The first group branches off from R-A11134 and the second group branches off from R-A16717:

This branch is about 140 years more recent than R-A11134. The common ancestor of this branch was born, according to the tree in 1572. This date is about 90 years off from the to the actual genealogy. However, it could be that A16717 first ocurred in the grandfather or great-grandfather of Edward Hartley:

I call this the Quaker Branch of Hartleys. Edward Hartley from Little Marsden came to Pennslyvania and started the US branch of this Hartley family. There is another YDNA tester who is considering the BigY test who descends from the Thomas Line above. This is the line from the Hartley researcher I have corresponded with:

>Edward Hartley born 16 May 1666 married? Sarah Midgley
>Thomas Hartley b. 29 Dec. 1700 Solebury, Bucks County Pa. married Elizabeth Paxon
>Anthony Hartley b. 3 Dec. 1730 married Elizabeth Smith
>Jonathan Hartley b. 221 Octoner 1761 married Elizabeth Bunting
>David Bunting Hartley b. 28 Sep. 1786 married Phoebe Park
>Hiram J. Hartley b. 27 March 1824 NJ married Rebecca Church Lee
>Harry Lee Hartley b. 9 June 1864 married Emma Bell Leach
>Robert Hartley b. 17 June 1896 married Grace Maloney Roberts
>John Robert Hartley b. 4 August 1922 married Alice Buren Wrighy

One way to look at it, is if the Quaker Line is about 90 years too old on the tree, then perhaps we could move the other branches ahead 90 years. That wouldn’t work for my father’s branch as the timing on that is so close. Here is my tree with the John Robert line added:

Butler Time Tree

My wife is a Butler and there are a few Butlers who have taken the BigY test:

On this line, it doesn’t take much to get back to over 3,000 years ago. The Frazer lines were R1a, The Hartley lines were R1b. This line is in the I Haplogroup. Let’s start with the red Haplogroup I-FT241245. The two testers are my brother-in-law and father-in-law. In this case, my father-in-law is the common ancestor who has FY241245. The estimated date for that Haplogroup is 1907 or close enough to 1932 when my father-in-law was born.

The next person up on the tree is Butler researcher Peter:

This tree is showing that Peter and my in-law’s have a common ancestor born around 1557. In a Blog I wrote on 1 March 2021, I came up with these dates:

That’s a difference of about 125 years.

Next Branch Up

The next Branch going back in time includes a Whitson and a Batt.

The date that FTDNA gives for the common ancestor at I-BY50783 is 1449. This is interesting as it seems like only one SNP separates these two ancestors. That comes up with 108 years per SNP in this case. That is about what I was using in my guess – 100 years per SNP.  But I came up with a different result somehow.

Comparing the Three Time Trees

I am impressed with the regular branching on the Time Tree that the Frazers are on:

This is true especially starting after 900 CE with some sort of branching in every 200 year period following. This may be a result of the fact that many people with Scottish origins tend to have their YDNA tested. Another explanation would be lines that were successful and prospered.

The Hartley Time Tree does not have the same regularity in its branching:

Here we see no branching between around the years of 500 and 1100 CE. This could be due to fewer testers and/or lines that were not doing as well. Intermediary lines may have died out. This could be due to wars, famine, disease or simply famiilies have no males born.

The Butler Time Tree has even less branching:

There are two main branches that ocurred before 1,000 BCE. After that there was no addition branching until almost 1500 CE. That is about 2,500 years without branching. This line is probably severely undertested and/or went through very tough times. This is picked up somewhat at the SNP Tracker Website:

Notice that whole eras are skipped. Medieval and Iron Ages are missing.

Summary and Conclusions

  • FTDNA has a new helpful representation of a timeline for BigY testers. This is not the final say, but a helpful tool to compare with other estimates and with genealogy where available.
  • I looked at the trees that I have looked into. Those are Frazer, Hartley and Butler
  • I compared the three trees to each other. I noted that the Frazer Time Tree has the most consistent and regular branching going back in time. The Butler Time Tree has the sparsesest branching going back before the time of Christ.
  • As a result, I would ten to have the most faith in the Frazer timelines. There is good branching and somewhat of a check as we believe that common Rocscommon Frazer ancestor represented by R-FT521618 was born around 1690. I feel the Hartley Time Tree is slightly less reliable due to fewer branches but we have the genealogy for the common ancestor for the ‘Quaker Line’ born in 1666. In my opinion, the Butler Time Tree could be the least reliable of the three due to no ancient genealogy to check and the fact that branching in the line is sparse – especially before the genealogical timefrane.
  • FTDNA is continuing to calibrate its age estimates. One good example of how FTDNA’s Time Tree can be calibrated is with Edward Hartley born 1666. If this person is reported to FTDNA, they will be able to use that information to correct their current estimate of a common ancestor of 1572.