Category: DNA General

Posted on

A Small DNA Match at AncestryDNA Leads Back to Potential Ancestor Mary Fielding Born 1739

I and some of my siblings recently had a match with Brian. That match suggested a common ancestor of Mary Fielding Born 1739. I thought that it would be interesting to try to figure out if this connection seems likely or not. Herre is the connection:

This is the connectioin with my sister Lori. She matches Brian at 9 cM. I match him at 8 cM, so these matches are quite small. Brian’s main tree is private, but he has this tree on the Hargreaves side:

This tree is consistent with the Ancestry connected genealogy above except that Brian’s tree stops with John Hargreaves. I do see this tree at Ancestry:

However, I see many other trees with different parents for John Hargreaves.

Slogging Through Some Hargreaves Genealogy

Brian’s genealogy is quite thorough. He has the wedding certificate for Elizabeth Hargreaves:

She was married in a Methodist Church in Nottingham. Her father was Alfred Hargreaves. Here is Alfred’s baptismala record from Burnley in 1880:

Alfred’s father was a mason.

I’ll move on quickly to Richard Hargreaves. The 1881 Census indicates that Richard was born in Brierfield, Lancashire.

In 1871, we see Richard is in Bacup:

Here is Brierfield:

This seems to be a good guess for a baptismal record for Richard Hargreaves:

A Collier is a coal miner. It appears that the younger Richard was a Miner in 1861:

This appears to be a likely marriage record for the elder Richard Hargreaves:

The elder Richard is listed as being from Roughlee in the 1861 Census. In the 1861 Census, he is from Pendle Forest:

Here is Roughlee and Newchurch in Pendle:

I believe that Pendle Forest or the Forest of Pendle would be to the North of Newchurch-in-Pendle.  This marriage differs a little from Brian’s as he has Richard marrying Ann Isherwood:

The problem with this is that this marriage takes place in Bolton and both parties are shown as being from Bolton which I feel is less likely than the Forest of Pendle scenario above. Also Ann would have been on the older side – about 31 at the time of her marriage – which may have been unusual.

Here are Richard and Ann in 1841:

They apparently have a son, John who was 12. That would mean that John was born in about 1829 – before the 1833 wedding of Anne Isherwood.

It is beginning to seem possible that the connection may be more from Colne than from Bacup:

The Hargreaves, from what I can tell were from the area of Brierfield which is closer to Colne than Bacup. I have ancstors from both the Bacup and Colne area.

Who Was the Younger Richard’s Wife?

I never established this:

The 1871 Census says she was from Sabden:

In 1871:

Ann has a daughter who is 4, so they may have married 1867 or before:

Here, Richard is a mason and his father a collier. This agrees with Brian’s tree.

Genealogy Before 1800 is Difficult – A Different Hargreaves Connection

Beforeee 1841, we don’t have the advantage of the Census. I have another ThruLines connection here:

I match Anne and Louise whose ancestry goes back to George Hargreaves.

My ancestry James Howorth married a Mary and had several children. Their first known child was Betty:

If we back up 9 months, that brings us into the end of April 1788 for a marriage:

Based on spelling of Howorth and date, James appears to have married either Mary Holt or Mary Eastwood. In a previous Blog, I favored Mary Holt as the mother.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I didn’t follow the genealogy as far as I could, but it seemed like neither line was leading me to the same common ancestor the way Ancestry showed it
  • It seemed like Brian’s ancestry may have been closer to my Colne ancestry than to my Bacup ancestry
  • I would like to check out other ThruLine ancestors for ancestry
  • The small the DNA match and the further away the common ancestor, the less likely it is of being accurate.
  • Even though these ThruLines may be innacurrate, there is still the effect of ‘where there’s smoke there may be fire’. That means that there may be another meaningful connection.

 

Posted on

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.

 

 

Posted on

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

 

Posted on

A New Rathfelder Side DNA Match at MyHeritage

I check my DNA matches at MyHeritage almost every week, but rarely find a match that I recognize. This week I found  a DNA match there who has Rathfelder ancestry. The match’s name is Alans. Here is how we match genealogically:

This is a view of Alan’s genealogy on MyHeritage. The person listed as Private is Alan’s paternal grandmother. The couple in the box are our common ancestors.

My Rathfelder DNA Testing Chart

I have a genealogical chart for those Rathfelder descendants who have had their DNA tested. This is part of it:

Alans descends from Nina Rathfelder who is a sister to Vera. Here is a photo of Nina:

It seems like Alans’ genealogy matches up with mine, so I won’t check what he has. Here I have added Alans to my chart:

Alans is my second cousin twice removed.

Alans’ DNA

Here is where I match Alans by DNA:

The matches are on Chromosomes 3, 5, 7 and 11. I can ‘paint’ those using DNAPainter. These are my maternal matches so far:

My mother was a Rathfelder, so that is why I am looking on the maternal side. My maternal side is 47% painted and I am 53% painted overall. Alans will add more orange Rathfelder DNA to my profile.

Here is Chromosome 3 where Alans has the biggest match:

The orange matches are on my mother’s father’s Rathfelder side. The gree and purple are on my mother’s mother’s side. Otis matches on the Gangnus side. As Alans match align’s with Otis’ match, it appears that the DNA is coming from Schweccheimer and Gangnus. Here is how I match Otis by genealogy:

Assuming I have the genealogy right, this DNA goes back to the late 1700’s. Because the match I have with Alans on Chromosome 7 is just below 7.0 cM, DNAPainter did not use the match. The default cutoff at DNAPainter is 7.0 cM and I match Alans at 6.5 cM on Chromosome 7

Painting Alans’ Match to My Mom

Alans has a slightly larger match to my mom than to me. Alans matches my mom at 68.8 cM. Here is my mother’s paternal side Chromosome 3:

 

My intention was to use a lighter color for the more recent matches. That is why I used pale yellow for my mom’s first cousins. My mom is painted at 37% overall and 44% on her paternal side, so a little less than me. Here is my mom’s current paternal side:

I changed the colors of my mom’s profile as the yellow did not show up well:

I highlighted Chromosome 3 above where Alans has the largest match.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Alans adds another piece to the genetic genealogical puzzle
  • Alans is the first DNA match relative who descends from Nina Rathfelder, daugther of Leo Rathfelder.
  • Alans does not add a lot of new DNA to my mother’s or my profile, but fills in areas on the chromosome map.

 

Posted on

Mr. Barker and His Frazer DNA Connections

I have not spent much time looking at Mr. Barker as his YDNA results have not been posted on a FTDNA YDNA Project until recently. I was informed by fellow researcher Joanna of Mr. Barker’s results in early August 2022. Mr. Barker tested 111 STRs and was a perfect match to Joanna’s Frazer brother. That would put Mr. Barker squarely in the Frazer camp, but where?

Mr. Barker’s YDNA Results

Many Frazers have taken YDNA tests, so we have a fairly good baseline. The best test is the BigY Test. Here is the chart that I have for those Frazer who have taken the BigY Test:

One more Frazier has tested, but his genealogy goes beyond what is currently known. In other words, the Frazer common ancestor could be as early as the 1400’s. I may have Dingman on the wrong side of the chart. New STR testing seems to suggest that Dingman could be on the “James Line” or right side of this chart. By STR testing, Mr. Barker has a GD of:

  • 0 to Jonathan
  • 1 to Rodney
  • 4 to Rick and Paul

This tells me that Mr Barker descends from the James Line Branch or the right side of the tree above.

Frazer STRs

Even though Mr. Barker shows as a 0 or perfect match to Jonathan, this cannot be. The reason is that that Jonathan and Rodney are second cousins. If Mr. Barker were to be a perfect match to Jonathan, that would make him a first cousin to Jonathan. This cannot be based on autosomal DNA testing and known genealogy.

Here is Barker’s STR results, now in the Fraser and Septs Project at FTDNA:

Barker is listed right below Rodney’s results. Here is my chart of the Frazer STRs listing only those STRs which vary from the Mode:

The Mode is the value that occurs most often in a group and is generally considered to be the oldest value for the group. On this chart, I have Barker above Rodney’s results. The places that they have different STR values than the Mode are at CDY, DYS710 and DYS552. It could be that Barker has parallel mutations with Rodney and Jonathan at these three locations. I would say for sure that DYS552 is a parallel mutation. That is because, Rodney appeared to have gotten it after the common ancestor that he he shares with Jonathan (Thomas Henry Frazer born 1840). As the connection between Rodney and Barker go back before that time, Mr. Barker’s mutation must have happened separately from the one that Rodney has.

Mr. Barker’s Autosomal Results

I have a list of Frazer desdendants who have uploaded their results to Gedmatch. I can compare these to each other. I upgraded to Tier 1 at Gedmatch to do some fancy matchings.

Here is the Matching Segment Search for Mr. Barker:

By looking at this, it appears that the largest match is Barbara on Chromosone 8 . She has a 15.3 and 27.1 cM match with Mr. Barker for a total of 42.4 cM. Mr. Barker’s second largest match appears to be with Jonathan on Chromosomes 1 and 20 for a total of 31.5 cM.

Barbara and Jonathan

I have shown Jonathan’s genealogy above. He is from the James Line. Here is a portion of my autosomal DNA match/Genealogy Chart from the James Line:

Jonathan is on the third row from the bottom and four from the left. I have him descending from Archibald, born 1751, son of James Frazer. Mr. Barker’s match Barbara should be in the green area. I fit her in based mostly on DNA matching. I’ll add her in now.

Another match along with Barbara on Chromosome 8 is Sunny. Sunny also descends from the McMaster/Frazer lines in grey and green.

Here I have added in Jean aka ‘Sunny’ and circled Judith who also matched Mr. Barker on Chromosome 8. Based on this short analysis of the people in this group, it would look like Mr. Barker could best belong in the Michael Frazer group.

What About WG?

My Frazer researcher friend Joanna says that she cannot explain a 108 cM match that our Mr. Barker has with WG at AncestryDNA. I don’t have access to Mr. Barker’s results.

It may be that he has other non-Frazer matches with Mr. Barker?

WG’s Genealogy Tree

I’m interested in taking a peek at WG’s genealogical tree. Here is what WG shows:

I have no reason to doubt his tree, but the large DNA match that Barker has with WG makes me curious. It looks like WG’s maternal grandfather was a Frazer.

I already had a tree started for WG:

So things seem to check out. I also now have access to Mr. Barker’s matches. At 108 cM, his match to WG has to be considered:

WG’s tree is lacking on the Kelly side;

Here is Wappingers Falls:

Here is the family in 1920:

I wonder if this is Joseph in 1870:

Here there is a John Frazier from Scotland living in the same house. The father Edward Kelly was a railroad foreman and Frazier was a Rail Road Laborer. This seems to be a coincidental reference to Frazier. We know that Joseph was born in Ireland. Here is Pleasant Valley:

The 1900 Census has Joseph immigrating in 1868. That seems to fit in with the 1870 Census. Here I have some more of the male Kellys, but not much on their wives:

My thought was that if there is a DNA match, perhaps there is an unknown relative that connects the match. As WG has some unknown genealogy on the Kelly/Kelley side, I thought that perhaps that could be the connection to Mr. Barker.

A Frazer STR Tree

A while back, I had taken a stab at a STR tree for our Frazer Clan. These trees are difficult to build. Here is what I had:

Since that time, I have come to think that Dingman should be on the James Line side and not as shown above on the Archibald Line. We also have a tester named Gary whose genealogy is from the James Frazer side. Then there is Mr. Barker to add.

I’ll take another shot using the new Modes as the Frazer Ancestor values.

This tree appears to make more sense. Notice in the old tree, it required DIngman to have three mutations to be in the Archibald Line. Here, it takes him only two mutations to be in the James Frazer Line. There is a rule of parsimony in creating these trees. That rule states that the simpler solutions are usually the better ones. I had trouble fittling Barker in as he is believed to be a close match to Jonathan and Rodney, but the genealogy shows that their common ancestor must be before Thomas Henry Frazer. I mentioned above that DYS552 must be a parallel mutation, so the above tree reflects that.

Dingman has taken the BigY test, but because his Haplogroup was the same as Archibald Frazer born in 1690, it was difficult to place him in either of the sons’ lines. Now that we see that Dingman has a DYS570 value of 18 in common with Gary, that is a clue that he is likely in the James Frazer Line.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Further DNA testing seems to be adding clarity to the Frazer genealogical tree
  • Mr. Barker shows a perfect 111 STR match with Jonathan, which could indicate a closer relationship than Jonathan has with his second cousin Rodney. However, this cannot be due to known genealogy and autosomal DNA testing. That means that Mr. Barker must have at least one parallel mutation.
  • Dingman shows an affinity with 111 STR tester Gary. Gary is known to be in the James Frazer Line. This strongly suggests that Dingman should be in the James Line and not in the Archibal Frazer Line as previously supposed.
  • I drew up an improved STR tree for the North Roscommon Frazer descendants to reflect new testing
  • I compared Mr. Barker’s autosomal DNA at Gedmatch with other known Frazer matches whose DNA has been uploaded to Gedmatch. Based on that information, it appears that Dingman could be under the Michael Frazer Line. However, Mr. Dingman has other DNA matches with Frazers from other Lines at AncestryDNA that have not yet been explained.

 

 

Posted on

An Update on My Mitochondrial DNA

Previously, for my Blogs, I had no category to sort my Blogs by Mitochondrial DNA. Now I have. I have also published two of my previous Blogs on Mitochondrial DNA. Here is the link to the more recent of the two Blogs.

One interesting  comment I wrote in my first Blog on Mitochondrial DNA from 2018 was that I was getting about one zero “Genetic Distance” mitochondrial DNA match per year. This seems to still hold true:

It looks like my first ‘perfect’ match was in 2014 and I have a total of 10 matches. I had one zero genetic distance match each year from 2019 through 2022.  My 2019 match was my cousin Rusty.

The Questions I am Trying to Answer

When writing, it is a good idea to have a purpose. I have these questions:

  • How old is H5’36?
  • How old are my zero matches likely to be?
  • Where does the maternal genealogy for my matches lead me?
  • Are there new developments for H5’36?

I don’t expect that I will answer all these questions definitively, but hope to get closer to answering these questions.

How Old is H5’36?

This should be an easy question, but I have a feeling that the answer is not easy. In my previous Blog, one answer I had was that a zero match with coding region would go back about 2200 years. I also uploaded my results to YFull and get this information:

If I interpret this correctly, then H5’36 goes back to about 6,000 BC. Based on those pieces of information, here is my interpretation. First, here are my matches:

Or, perhaps these are my matches with information on where there earliest maternal ancestor is from. Perhaps I could say:

  • My genetic distance matches of three go back to 6,000 BC
  • My exact matches go back to about 200 BC
  • The other genetic distance matches would be spread out between. 8000 minus 2200 is 5800 years.  If I divide that by three I get roughly 1900 years. That means I could put the genetic distance of 1 at 2100 BC and a genetic distance of 2 at about 4,000 BC.

Having said that, here is a view of YFull’s MTree:

This indicates that H5’36 was formed 16,200 years ago and that my common ancestor 13,400 years ago. I will also hazard an explanation for this also. The way the tree shows, H5’36 is the paren Haplogroup to many, many other H5 Haplogroups. As the parent to those other groups, the age is 16,200 years old. However, where I am which is apparently under none of that branching, I am at 8,000 years old. Hey, what’s 8,000 years, give or take?

My sample is the one without the flag, so I’ll need to add England when I figure out to do that. I think that I read there is a way to do this but you have to set YFull to female. Now I’ve figured it out:

I was not seeing the tab here under My settings. I pushed the mtDNA tab and now can add my information. Hopefully I fixed that problem.

New Developments for H5’36

Seeing as I have looked at the MTree already, I’ll look at this issue next. It appears that new branching has taken place on the MTree which is maintained by YFull. YFull may be ahead of FTDNA or behing FTDNA depending on how much time FTDNA has been spending on a certain area. It appears that FTDNA has not done much with the mitochondrial DNA tree lately.

YFull’s MTree

YFull appears to be ahead of FTDNA in creating a mitochondrial DNA Tree. Here is the H5’36 Tree:

I had alluded to this earlier. Notice that my flag of England is now included. However, when I scrolled to the bottom of this tree, I see my H5’36 branches:

There is now an H5’36a, b, and c. It is difficult for me to see all this tree, so I will create a two level tree to see the structure:

This was actually quite simple. Most of the testers come in under H5. My understanding is that historically, H5’36 was discovered after H5 which is why it has a strange name.  Apparently, even though there are new branches under H5’36, I am still under the original branch.

Further, YFull’s MTree gives the mutation which identifies each of these branches:

[However, see later in the Blog for a corrected tree.]

My assumption is that I have mutation C456T and that I do not have the other four mutations. Here are my results:

Mutation C456T is in my HVR2 results. I don’t see the other mutations in my results.

SNP Tracker

SNP Tracker looks at both location and dates, so perhaps this online program will be helpful:

Based on SNP tracker, the location for H5’36 is around present day NW Germany. However, the date for this Haplogroup is very old:

However, this seems to be somewhat consistent with YFull – but YFull’s more recent date. Note that between England and Ireland, England barely edges out Ireland by 10 to 9. I am interested in the skull icon in the bottom row. So I click on that and get:

I then chose the United Kingdom sample from 3500 years ago and get this location:

This is possible a female ancestor or certainly a relative of a female ancestor. A sample of one is difficult to make assumptions from, but my feeling prior to this blog was that my mother’s maternal ancestors came from Scotland and that descendant went to both England and Ireland. This sample of one would appear to support my previous assumption.

FTDNA Haplotree

After much searching, I was able to find the FTDNA Haplotree:

Here is a slightly expanded view:

I don’t understand the difference between the light blue and the dark blue and I don’t understand the significance of the numbers. Also notice that the structure is somewhat different than YFull’s MTree. On the MTree, H36 is under H5’36-b:

This tells me that technically my depiction of the MTree is not corrrect. The MTree has a H5’36b and an H5’36-b:

Here I added H36 to reconcile YFull’s MTree with FTDNA’s Haplotree.

Where does the maternal genealogy for my matches lead me?

This is the final question and I have already touched upon it. SNP Tracker appears to take all the H5’36 results and averages out a location which is NW Germany. I believe that FTDNA is more precise in that it takes into account the Coding Region which is more specific.

Here is the Matches Map from FTDNA:

Of interest to me is that all matches are from the British Isles. The map is based on those who have reported an earliest maternal ancestor. There are 6 locations. Of these matches, the most interesting to me are the two red balloons in County Donegal. I wonder if these two are related to each other. Here are these two matches from my Match List:

Russell is my cousin Rusty. His ancestors are the same as my maternally and go back to the area North of Sheffield, York, England. Including my self, that accounts for four out of the 11 tests.

In addition, there is a tree icon in the above list. Steve, Russell, and Ann have family trees in addtion to the two perfect matches from the Matches Map.

Here is a spreadsheet that I would like to fill out:

Steve and His Maternal Genealogy

As Steve is the newest match, I would like to look at his genealogy. Here is how Steve reports his maternal ancestry at FTDNA:

Here are the details for Mary Chickey:

This would be more in general area of the British Isles that my maternal ancestry goes back to. It should be easy for me to recreate Steve’s tree:

Here is Florence in 1911:

Here is Hunslet outside of Leeds:

Florence was 2 in 1881. Her father was from Ireland, but I am tracing the mother’s side:

Florence’s mother Theresa was from Leeds. Here is where she was buried:

According to the 1861 Census, Theresa’s mother was born in Ireland:

Also of interest, Theresa’s younger sister was born in Birminham:

More on Maria

This appears to be Maria’s marriage in 1857 in Birmingham:

The transcription is Lamler, but I see the name as Lawler. Aslo this is a Church of England marriage, but I had thought that the family was Roman Catholic. Here is Maria in 1851:

This corroborates her birth in Ireland and her father as Martin as per the Marriage record above. So Steve’s maternal tree does lead to Ireland:

I would guess that the Lawler family moved from Ireland to England around 1841. In fact, here is the family in 1841 living in Leeds – though the last name is a bit mangled:

Who Was Fanny Lawler?

The hints on Ancestry lead me to believe that she was Frances Elina Green and that she was buried in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Let’s see if that seems reasonable. Here is the family in 1861:

Mary (or Maria) had left the home by now as she married in 1857. Here is the 1870 Census for Sumner, Wisconsin:

It appears that Dennis would be the son of Martin and Frances. At any rate, Dennis would have been born around 1824. The story is holding together as Dennis shows up in the 1841 as being 15. This would have him born around 1826. However ages over 15 were rounded.

The 1880 Census gives a middle name:

She is Frances Elina.

Here is a marriage record from Rathfarnham, South of Dublin, that appears to apply:

One issue with this marriage is that Frances would have been about 15 when she married if she was born in 1807. However, Frances was probably born before 1807:

One tree at Ancestry shows this:

Frances’ mother’s name is give as Mary Kenny. It would make sense for Frances’ father to be Richard as it would be traditional for Frances to name her second son after her father (and her first daughter after her mother).  Suffice it to say that Steve’s maternal line was in Ireland probably before the year 1800.

Ann and Her Maternal Genealogy

Here is my updated spreadsheet:

I have that Ann has a maternal ancestor of Helen McLaughlin, but where did she live? Ann has a three person tree at FTDNA and shows this person as her mother:

It turns out that I had already built out this tree:

I had gotten back to Ann Campbell born 1867 in County Tyrone, Ireland. A name like Campbell suggests a Scottish background. However, her mother may not have been Scottish.

At this point, at least in the early 1800’s mitochondrial matches’ DNA lead back to Ireland.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I continue to get about one zero step mitochondrial DNA match per year.
  • When I trace my closest matches, their genealogy goes back to Ireland – at least in the early 1800’s.
  • However, I trace my own maternal line to 1795 or before in Thorne, Yorkshire County, England.
  • One early archaelogical sample of H5’36 was found in Edinburgh. Perhaps descendants set out from there to Ireland and England.
  • The dating of H5’36 was confusing. It appears to go back to 6,000 BC or before, but my matches with zero genetic distance may be around 2,000 BC or sooner.
  • YFull’s MTree seems to be more precise under H5’36 compared to FTDNA’s Haplotree.

 

Posted on

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.

 

Posted on

Some of My Bradford DNA Connections

My autosomal DNA connections to my Bradford side are intersting as they lead back to the Mayflower in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Here are my ThruLines at Ancestry going back to Harvey Bradford:

Harvey was the most recent male Bradford in my ancestry. Patricia on the left is also my 2nd cousin through the Hartleys. Here is how that tree looks on my own family tree at Ancestry:

This shows that Harvey and his wife had two children: Henry and Hannah. I descend from Hannah and my other matches above descend from Henry. That is, except for Patricia who also descends from Hannah.

Henry Clay Bradford

I’m descended from Henry’s sister Hannah. Let’s see what the Henry Line was up to. Here is Henry in 1850:

Henry was a ‘Nailor’. I believe that he made nails. One famous nail company in Wareham was Tremont Nail. I believe that there could have been others. It is possible that Harvey worked at the same location as his son Henry. Here are some possible places where Henry worked from an 1830 map:

Confusingly, a nailor could have also worked at a cotton carding works. Perhaps Henry worked at the factory on the bottom right which was near the old Horseshoe pond.  However, there are other possibilities.The family was living on High Street in Rochester which was approximately to the left of the ‘T’ in Rochester in the map above. Walter was born apparently in East Taunton, so the family was apparently there for a little while.

In 1860, Henry was living in Acushnet, MA:

It is not clear why his wife Rhoda appears to be living next door with her parents. Perhaps these were two houses side by side or one house with two units. Walter is the one shown in my ThruLines above.

In 1870, the family was also living in Acushntet, though the Post Office is Mattapoisett, so apparently close to that Town.

Here is something I did not know about:

The couple divorces in 1876. Rhoda comes back to Massachusetts and remarries. .Henry C also remarries and dies in Maine.

Here is a summary from one tree at Ancestry:

In 1910, Henry’s second wife has died and he is living with his son in Norway, Maine:

Walter B Bradford Born 1857

Walter marries Olive A Collins in Acushnet in 1882:

The family appears to be living with Olive’s brother in 1900:

In 1910, the family moved to Rochester:

Walter was a “Teamer”. He presumably drove a team of horses which carried heavy loads. Walter’s burial stone is in the Sherman Cemetery in Rochester, MA.

Flora Bradford

My ThruLines would have me evaluate Flora Bradford’s children:

I have two DNA matches from two of her children. Ancestry has this photo:

Flora married in Marion in 1920:

Olive was born the same year:

I am also related to the Hathway family. However, I assume  that the connection is not with this line of Hathaway. So Olive was the mother of one of my matches. I assume that the match knew who his mother was.

My guess is that my other match Terry knew who her father was (John below):

Olive Bradford Born 1893

Here is a photo of Olive from Ancestry:

Olive marries Charles Henry Savaria in Rochester in 1909. Here is the family in 1910 in Rochester:

Charles was listed as doing odd jobs. Henry was listed as a teamster in the 1920 Rochester Census:

My DNA match and otherwise 2nd cousin had as her father Charles H Savaria Jr. Here is the family in 1950:

They lived on Rounesville Road in Rochester where Charles was a sawmill winch operator.

Dorothy Bradford Born 1904

I have a small DNA Match to Phillip who descends from Dorothy Bradford:

Dorothy married Ernest Gosson and lived on Main Street, Acushnet, MA in 1940:

Ernest was a truck driver for an interstate commerce. Here is 155 Main Street:

So far these ThruLines seem to check out.

Looking at Joyce’s ThruLines

Joyce is my father’s first cousin, so she is a generation closer to the Bradfords. Here are her ThruLines via Henry Bradford:

Common to my ThruLines are Patricia and Terry. Then Joyce additionally matches Shane and Cynthia under Olive Bradford thorugh Olive’s daughters Ariel and Agnes.

Ariel Savaria Born 1918

In 1940, Ariel lived on New Bedford Road, Rochester, MA with her family:

George was a highway and construction surveyor. In 1950, the family was living in Little Compton, RI:

Agnes Savaria Born 1922

Agnes also married a Lawrence. The couple was living on Marion Road, Rochester in 1950:

They were the 8th house on the left proceding West. I remember a Ray Lawrence in elementary school. Perhaps he was the son of this Raymond. Apparently he was a distant Bradford relative.

My Brother Jon’s Bradford ThruLines Adds Alice Bradford Born 1891

These are all ThruLines via Harvey Bradford and his son Henry. Jon adds offspring from Alice Bradford:

Based on the ThruLines, Alice married a Morse. This tree at Ancestry fills in some more information:

I see Evelyn and Hazel on the list above. In 1940, Alice and her family lived on East Central Avenue, Wareham:

So these must be my Onset Bradford cousins.

My sister Lori has a match to another grandchild of Alice:

In 1950, Hazel lived at Brown Street, Wareham:

Hazel’s husband worked in the cranberry business.

That covers the DNA matches that Ancestry identifies as going back to Harvey Bradford through his son Henry. I have many other Bradford relatives.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on Ancestry ThruLines, I have many relatives around the 4th cousin level who descend from Harvey Bradford.
  • Many of these cousins seem to have stayed in the SE Massachusetts area – or at least their parents or grandparents have.
  • I have been able to fill in some of the details for some of the descendants of Henry Bradford. He was the only sibling of my ancestor Hannah Bradford.

 

 

 

Posted on

Another McMaster Connection at Ancestry

Morgan is a DNA match to me at Ancestry. We match at 20 cM. Here is what Morgan has for a tree at Ancestry:

The connection to my tree is likely through Francis McMaster. Here is the tree that I have for Francis (or Frances):

Frances descends from at least 5 McMaster lines. Plus, the hint for Mary Johnston has as her mother Esther McMaster. This is truly a complicated genealogy. However, the closest place that Morgan and I connect are through James McMaster and Fanny McMaster.

A Partial DNA/Genealogy McMaster Tree

Here is part of one of the trees that I have of McMasters that match by DNA:

Note that I have a space for Jane who Married Archie McMaster. I believe that Morgan would fill in under this line:

This shows that Morgan is my 4th cousin. However, I suspect that we are related as 5th cousins also or more distantly on other McMaster lines.

My Shared DNA Matches with Morgan

Matthew is a DNA match that Morgan and I share:

I did not put Matthew on my McMaster tree to keep it simpler. Matthew must be on my Frazer DNA/genealogy tree.

Trudy with Johnston/McMaster Ancestry

Trudy is also a share match with Morgan and me. Here is the maternal side of Trudy’s tree:

This must be the Esther McMaster that I mentioned above as a hint in my tree. I’ll assume that the hint is correct, and add it in to my tree as an ancestor to Frances McMaster:

I think that Esther may be a daughter of Abraham McMaster.

Tammy – Another Shared Match

Tammy matches Morgan and me. She also has a Johnston in her ancestry which suggests a connection on the McMaster side. Here is Tammy’s tree on her paternal side:

Someone else’s tree at Ancestry has this person for John Johnston’s father:

This suggests that Thomas could be a son of Robert Johnston and Esther McMaster.

Summary and Conclusions:

  • The McMaster tree is often complicated with McMasters marrying into other McMaster lines.
  • My Match with Morgan is defined at the 4th cousin level, but there are other McMaster connections at a more distant level
  • Shared DNA matches help confirm that the genealogy is on the right track.
  • Two shared DNA matches between Morgan and me seem to confirm a  connection with Eshter McMaster born in or around 1793

 

Posted on

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