Category: DNA General

Posted on

An Arthur YDNA Test with Possible Links to Hartley

A while ago (last April), a new YDNA match appeared on some peoples’ radar. I thought that I would hear back more from his family, who were interested in his results, but I have not yet heard back, so I thought that I would write a Blog on some of the possibilities concerning that match.

Arthur took the 111 STR YDNA test. Here is how I match him compared to others:

Arthur is my 4th match at 8 steps. As his match is inbetween others with known Hartley ancestry, it is possible that Mr. Arthur has some Hartley ancestry – perhaps going back many years. Another interesting thing about this list is that many have taken the BigY700 test. That would be everyone except for Arthur, Ross and Wolka.

FTDNA has a time predictor:

It comes out that our common ancestor is perhaps around the year 1450. However, the range is between 1100 and 1700. Further, I am one step away from my brother James. That means that James and Mr. Arthur are a GD of 7. That puts the date for a common ancestor aroudn around 1500 (or between 1200 and 1750).

Mr. Arthur to Hartley YDNA Project People .

I can put these STR comparisons into a spreadsheet. Here is the start:

This is just my brother and I so far. Here is the match list sorted by GD:

The closest match is with Channon. STRs are not as accurate as SNPs which the BigY test looks at, but they should give some information.

Here are Channon’s closest matches at the 111 STR level:

Of Channon’s matches, everyone who has information on Paternal Earliest Known Ancestor has that ancestor as a Hartley.

Here is Channon’s Block Tree. These are all people who have taken the BigY test:

The “Your Branch” refers to Channon. He is in A11134 with three other Hartleys. A11134 branches off of A11132. It is thought that Mawdsley is an early relative of the Hartleys, but he probably branched off before the age of surnames. Arthur does not match Mawdsley at the 111 level but he does at the 67 STR level. That means that Arthur and Mawdsley are more distant matches compared to those in my Excel spreadsheet above.

There are two other branches under the main Hartley Branch of A11134. Those are Ft225247 which my brother and I are in and A16717. That is an early branch of Quaker Hartleys who moved to Pennsylvania – probably to avoid persecution.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A person with the surname Arthur has taken the 111 STR level YDNA test.
  • Arthur has relatively close matches to Hartleys indicating at least a fairly early common ancestor with Hartleys.
  • Arthur’s closest STR match of the ones in the Hartley YDNA Surname Project is with someone with the surname Channon. However, Channon appears to also have early matches with Hartleys.
  • My theory is that Arthur has Hartleys in his ancestry – possibly going back to the year 1600 or before. The Hartley name in the area where my Hartleys came from go back to around the year 1422.

 

 

 

Posted on

A New Hartley BigY

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

A11134

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

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

Some other observations:

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

FTDNA Time Tree

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

YDNA SNP Theory

SNP Theory is simple:

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

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

Ethan’s Private Variants

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

Here is Ethan’s Match List:

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

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

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

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

Does Ethan Have Any New Matches with Existing Hartley Testers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FGC SNPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

 

Posted on

A New Hartley BigY Test

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

Here is Ethan listed at the Hartley YDNA Project:

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

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

The FTDNA Time Tree

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

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

Running Ethan through SAPP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the SAPP Tree:

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

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

I can see at least one problem right away:

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

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

SAPP Tree with SNP Data

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

I need to add SNP data for people.

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

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

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

I ran it again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible BigY Outcomes for Ethan

Here is my Block tree:

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

The Wolka Connection

Ethan’s closest match at 111 STRs is Wolka:

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Tying Up Some Loose Ends: Hirschenhof Revision Lists

I have written several Blogs lates concerning my HIrschenhof Ancestors and the Revision Lists. So far I have covered:

  • Rathfelder
  • Schwechheimer
  • Lutke
  • Fuhrmann and Biedermann

I want to do a future Blog on my Gangnus ancestors in the Revision Lists. However, I have left a few loose ends which I wanted to address in this Blog.

Biedermann Families

One of my goals in looking through these Revision Lists is to add siblings to my ancestors’ families.

Above are some of my ancestors in my Biedermann Line in 1816. The name Biedermann is abbreviated, but it was clear from the 1811 Revision Lists that this was Biedermann. I tried to add Luise to the family, but Ancestry noted that I had that Maria Margaret her mother died in 1802:

This leads me to believe that the death I have for Mother Fuhrmann was wrong. I see two trees on Ancestry. One has a later death date for Anna which seems more realistic:

This means that someone else saw something that I saw.

Maria Eva Buchenroth Born 1772

It should be possible to find this family in the 1782 Audit of Souls for Hirschenhof:

Here is Johan Peter on Farm 43 suspiciously close to some of my other ancestors’ farms. the next page is difficult to decipher:

Eva Maria must be my ancestor at age 10. That means that it appears that Johan Peter was Eva Maria’s father at age 72 and not her grandfather! It is also possible that Maria Anganesia? Schmidt could be a second wife.

This chart shows how close my ancestors’ families lived near each other.

It appeaars that Maria’s second name was more like Agnes. Here is Helmsheim, Germany:

 

This fills out the Buchenroth family. I found a record of Barbara, but with no date and no mother’s name. I assume that the mother was Maria Agnesia.

Filling in a Schwechheimer Blank

Unfortunately, Anna Schwechheimer was born in 1784. That means that she missed the 1782 Audit of Souls. And by the time that the 1816 Audit came around, she had been married for a while. However, I have a hint from the 1811 Revision Lists.

Only men were listed, but here is Simon Fuhrmann living on Farm 11 with Joahnn Schweigheimer. The note at Ancestry says:

I do not see the word ‘schwester’ in the record, but let’s assume that Ancestry is correct. Simon is obviously not Johann Schwegheimer’s sister. However, I think that Simon married Johann’s sister. The good news is that Johann was born before 1782. I skipped transcribing this family into my spreadsheet previoiusy (not a good idea), but will do that now:

What I gather from this is that Macus Schweigheimer had a large family. Likely he had three sons in law living on his farm in 1811 after he passed away. I further surmise that Anne E Schwechheimr was the daughter of Marcus Schweigheimer born in 1874 when her father was about 55 and her mother Anna Maria Schmidt was about 38.

Here I have added two people as Anna’s parents who were already in my Ancestry Tree. What this all means is that I must descend from this couple twice:

This shows my Rathfelder descent on the top left through Johann G Scwechheimer. The Gangnus descent is on the right through Anna Schwechheimer. Bottom line is that there were only so many Colonists in Hirschenhof to marry. This fills in Maria Gangnus’ Tree:

I am not able to see others who have made this connection at Ancestry. I see that a DNA connection at MyHeritage, Wolf has made this connection in his tree:

Thank you, Wolf, for your research.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Without the connections noted in the Revision Lists, it would be difficult to assemble some of my Hirschenhof ancestral families
  • In a closed society it should be assumed that one will descend from a person or couple more than once.
  • After researching US, English and Irish records, it appears that these Revision Lists are some of the best records for the time that they covered.
  • French Canadian records are also good, but they do not have the family relationships. These relationships have been developed from birith, marriage and death records for French Canadians.
  • There will always be loose ends, but this solves some of the looser ends
  • There are some loose ends on my Rathfelder side which I will look at later.

 

Posted on

More Hirschenhof Latvia Revision Lists: Furhmann and Biedermann

I have been working on a series of my Hirschenhof, Latvia ancestors using the Revision Lists. So far, I have looked at Rathfelder, Lutke and Schwechheimer. In this Blog, I will look at my Furhmann and Biedermann ancestors.

Note that Furhmann pops up in two branches. Also, as my last Blog was on the Schwechheimer family, I want to find Anna E Schwechheimer at the bottom of the tree above.

The 1782 Audit of Souls

The Revision LIst is also called the Audit of Souls. I will peruse through that list to see if I can find where the Furhmanns lived then. Here is the listing I want at the Raduraksti web site:

Confusingly, the listings for this Audit were under the Estate name. I see a Furhmann on Farm 40 (or possibly Family 40, but I think it is the Farm number):

Jacob is 45, so he was born about 1737. This could perhaps be the Heinrich Jacob in my Tree:

Ancestry has him as my 5th great-grandfather. If I have it right, I should have places for 128 5th great-grandparents. Here is the next page:

Whoever wrote this had a flair for handwriting. Here I also see that Anna Catharena Muller must be a second wife. That makes sense as I have Anna Magdalena Meng as my ancestor. The death of the first wife apparently happened betwee 12 and 5 years from 1782 based on the gap between children.

Here is my transcription:

Interestingly, Jacob’s new wife was 8 years older that Jacob’s daughter. Also there seems to be a discrepancy from the first daughter in my tree and Elisabeth Margare… in the Audit above. It is possible that the Maria Magdalena in my tree is wrong.

The 1811 Revision List (No Women Allowed)

This List is interesting, though only males are listed:

Now it is 29 years later. The elder Jacob has passed away in 1797. His son Jacob also passed in 1806. Anna Margaretha has married Johann Adam Biedermann and moved from Farm 42 to 43. However, Johann Adam has moved to Farm 33.

One confusing thing is that there is 16 years between the old and new ages. That means that this must refer to a Revision that was performed in 1795 rather than 1782.

Biedermann in 1782

That leads me to look for Biedermann in 1782. Here they are on Farm 41 next to the Furhmanns:

This leads me to believe that the Farm numbering changed a little between 1782 and 1811:

It is unclear why Sannewald took over Farm 41/43 by 1811, but there were still Biedermanns living there.

To fill out the picture, we need to look at Farm 30 in 1811:

Farm 30 is run by Philip Jacob Gangnus another one of my ancestors. Makes sense. Anna Biedermann who is Adam’s daughter will marry Johann Jacob Gangnus, but not until after 1811. I will likely do a Blog on the Gangnus family in the Revision Lists at some point.

Looks like Johann Jacob is about 35 years older than Anna. In 1811, he is listed as moving to Farm 33. The 1816 Listing for Farm 33 has him moving to Farm 43:

 

This was back where the Biedermann Family was before. The Farm is run by Siemon (Simon?)

1816

Let’s try to figure out what is going on for Adam Biedermann:

Adam is living on the Sannewald Farm again. We can now see his wife as women are listed in the 1816 Revision.

the good news is that this couple had a relatively long marriage for their time. The association between Biedermann and Farm 33 is still not totally clear.

The 1834 Revision Lists

My first inclination is to look at Farm #43:

My question is whether Adam was a subtenant meaning that he lived below the average income level of the Colony or whether there was some other reason for him living under Sannewald.

I need to write this out on my Excel spreadsheet to make sense of it all:

Now, another 18 years have gone by. Johann Adam Biedmann passes away in 1832. There is no mention of his wife who likely also passed away.

We think that Elisabeth Juliana has married old man Gangnus. Hopefully, I will find her when I do my Gangnus Blog.

Eva Fuhrmann

I had found Eva previously on my Blog on the Lutke family. Here she is in 1858 on the Female side of the Revision List:

She was on Farm #2 at the time.

I think that the best strategy would be to look for Eva’s father in the 1811 Revision List. It looks like Friedrich Simon Fuhrmann was born in 1782, so probably missed the 1782 Audit. Friedrich Simon should be 29 at the 1811 Audit. The 1811 Revision List referred to an earlier Revision which was 16 years earlier, so that age should be about 13 years old.

This could possibly be Friedrich Simon in 1811:

The birth seems to be two years off, but this seems to be the right name. He is said to be associated with Farm 11. I was able to find a Simon Fuhrmann on Farm 11 in 1811 with the help of Ancestry:

Simon is listed with son Gustav Woldemar who was 3 in 1811 so born in 1808. Now, I have two issues. One is that I did not have a father for Simon Furhmann and I do not have parents for his wife who is Anna Elisabeth Schwechheimer. My theory is that Anna Elisabeth was perhaps the sister of Johann Schwechheimer and that Simon Furhman who was Anna’s husband was the son of Jacob Fuhrmamm. Here is the hint that got me to the above image:

This is either a typo or poor transcription or perhaps be a hint that Simon was married to the sister of the head of the farm.

I then found more Furhmanns in the 1816 Revision Lists:

Simon Furhmann is at Farm 42. Here is my attempt at a transcription:

I added Jacob as Simon’s father:

However, my conclusion is that Jacob is the same as Heinrich Jacob, the father of Anna Maria M Fuhrmann above. However, when I add in Simon:

I see that Friedrich Simon was born after the death of Anna Magdalena Meng. The answer is in the 1782 Audit of Souls:

Jacob married Catharina Muller and had Anna Charlotta, Eva Christina and Friedrich Simon.

There, I think that is right now.

I added these children in for the family of Simon Furhmann and Anna Elisabeth Schwechheimer:

 

I think that Woldemar died young as I did not see him in the 1816 Revision List.

I think this shows that Johann Gangnus and Anna Jacobine Lutke were half second cousins to each other.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was perhaps ambitious to look at the Biedermann and Fuhrmann Families together in the Revision Lists, but it was helpful to do it that way due to the interrelationships between the two families
  • The Revision Lists are a wealth of information when it comes to the structure of family units. It would be extremely difficult to put thes families together without these family lists.
  • I was able to add additional family members to my ancestors families.
  • I was able to see how my two Fuhrmann branches were related to each other and added Anna Catharina Muller as an ancestor.
  • I will likely try to wrap up some loose ends in an upcoming Blog before I delve into my Gangnus ancestors families in the Revision Lists.

 

Posted on

More Hirschenhof Latvia Revision Lists: Schwechheimer

In my last Blog, I looked at my Lutke ancestors through the eyes of the Revision Lists. The 1850 and 1858 Lists have been posted on Ancestry for easy access and earlier lists can be found at the Raduraksti web site.

Schwechheimer Genealogy

I avoided looking at Schwechheimer in my previous Blog as I have two different Schweccheimer Lines in my genealogy:

One goes back from 1823 and another is two generations earlier. Schwechheimer is a name that goes back to the early days of the Hirschenhof Colony in Latvia. Before that, the Schwechheimer family lived in Germany in a town named Altlußheim on the Rhine River:

By the way, I was wondering what Schwechheimer meant. I was having trouble finding an answer, but then found a blogger who supposed it meant ‘one from Schwechheim as that is apparently a Town in Germany. Unfortunately, I have not found a town with that name and spelling.

I found Rosine already when I looked at my Rathfelder ancestors in the Revision Lists:

In 1850, Rosine was living in Hirschenhof on Farm 3 with her husband and young children.

Johann Gottfried Schwechheimer in 1834

This looks like Gottfried:

I was a little surprised to find this record at Ancestry, as I did not know that they covered the 1834 Revision Lists. Here, Gottfried was living at farm XI:

This is my attempt at transcribing the 1834 Revision List for the Schweccheimer family:

Green is meant to indicate my direct ancestor. I count that Johann’s wife had 16 children. That is a lot:

I must have this information from a Gangnus book that I bought.

Schwechheimer in the 1818 Revision Lists

It looks like the farm number is where the family number used to be.

It looks like some extended family was living on the farm. Probably explained in German notes that I didn’t look up. I have that Johann’s mother lived until 1822, but I do not see her in this Revision:

She should have been about 66 years old in 1816.

1811 Male Revision List

We will not see Anna Maria in the 1811 List as it contained men only:

I am getting lazy, so I will not transcribe this Revision. I assume that Johann and Johann George were brothers. It looks like the sons of Johann George made their way to other Farms within Hirschenhof if I am reading it correctly.

1782 Audit of Souls

Here we see the family is on Farm 8. However, I wonder if the numbering was different in 1782 from what it was to be in 1811 as there always seems to be a change.

This is an interesting snapshot as it adds another generation to my Schwechheimer ancestry. Also I finally found Anna Maria Schmidt.

My Ancestry Tree reveals some discrepancies:

  • I am missing Johan George born about 1770
  • I am not sure if Silvester is the same as Georg Michal Schwechheimer
  • I am missing Maria Magaretha born 1767

Some Genealogy for Johann Markus Schwechheimer

I found this Ancestry Tree interesting:

However, why is Anna Maria now Conrad instead of Schmidt? The reference for this tree has different surnames:

Here we have Schmidt which I have and Krieger. The Geneanet page makes more sense:

Here he marries Anna Maria Krieger who dies and then he marries Anna Maria Schmidt who was 25 years younger than his first wife and she has the other children.

It turns out that I found Anna Margaretha in the 1782 Audit on Farm 26 in Hirschenhof:

She is 27, so born in 1755. It all seems to check out. Here is more from the Geneanet Tree:

This follows the Hauk Line.

Schwechheimer DNA

In an 2018 Blog, I had this connection:

Wolf has other connections. However, Wolf never got added to this Schwechheimer DNA/Genealogy Chart:

George Michael was noted in the 1811 Revision List above as going to Farm #28. Here is Wolf’s Line added:

Wolf’s tree carries the Schweccheimer Line back to the 1500’s:

Wolf has the family in Atussheim, Germany the whole time. However, there is some confusion in his tree:

Wolf has Anna Maria Schmidt married to Johann Markus Schwechheimer. She dies and then has all her children which cannot be right. The mistake must be due to what Geneanet shows – that Markus married two women with the same name: Anna Maria. Based on the 1782 Audit above, it is clear that Anna Maria Schmidt was alive at the time and born about 1746.

At Ancestry, Markus is in 18 trees. None of them look quite right, but the combination of these two trees looks good to me:

Anna Elisabeth Schwechheimer Born about 1784

Anna is from my Gangnus to Lutke to Furhmann side of my tree:

This appears to be one record of their marriage:

I will look more for Anna Elisabeth when I look at the Furhmann Family in the Revision Lists in a subsequent Blog.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Looking at my Schwechheimer ancestors in the Revision Lists helps me to focus on that family
  • These lists show relationships to other families and where famiily members moved to
  • By following a MyHeritage Tree I could see where the Schwechheimers lived in Altusheim, Germany going back as far as the 1500’s.
  • I was able to clear up a complicated issue where one early Schweccheimer (Johann Markus born 1727) appeared to have two wives both with the same first and second names. He was an important ancestor as he was the one who made the jump from Germany to Hirschenhof, Latvia.

 

Posted on

More Hirschenhof Latvia Revision Lists: Lütke

In my previous Blog, I went over many of my Rathfelder ancestors who were listed in Hirchenhof, Latvia in documents called revision lists. It occurred to me that many of my other Latvian ancestors should be listed there. Here is the Latvian part of my family tree:

My choices are Schweccheimer, Gangnus, or Lutke as my grandfather’s grandparents other than Rathfelder. I have a book on Gangnus and there are two lines there, but I would like to try Lutke as I do not know much about that Line.

I see that I have very few DNA matches on the Lutke Line:

Lutke in the Revision Lists

Anna Jacobine was my 2nd great-grandmother born on Wirt 2 according to my records. It would be perhaps easier to track her down by her husband first.

Jacobine in 1858

Here is Jacobine with her husband in 1858:

As a bonus, I see my great grandmother Maria Elisabeth Gangnus:

Of course, she was just a baby in 1858.

Here I just wrote down the bare minimum as I was interested in Jacobine. My interpretation is that this family went from #10 to #8, but I am not sure.

Friederick in 1858

Here, I think I would do better in finding her father.

This is interesting as Friederick lived on Farm 2 and was family 3. From my last Blog, I had that my Rathfelder side was from Farm 3 and Family 4. I guess there was a next-door marriage.

This is the picture I see for 1858:

  • Jacobine Lutke moves from Farm 30 to marry Philip Gangnus some time before 1858 and has Maria Elisabeth.
  • Friedrick Lutke lives at Farm 2 in Hirschenhof which is presumably where Jacobine was born.
  • Other children of Friedrick need to be added to my family tree.

This is what I have now for Friedrich. He has more children than Jacobine:

Next, I will look at the Raduraksti Revision Lists. Here is the Link:

I mention this because it is not obvioius when looking for Hirschenhof. I found what I was looking for on page 318 of 620:

Interestingly, the surname shows as Lutchen rather than Lutke. This is either a variation or the name has changed in 8 years.

Next, I can start to add family members to these two Lutke families. This is a little complicated for Carl Heinrich Lutchen as Anna Charlotte Maertz appears to be a second wife. Here is a marriage record for Johann Heinrich:

Going back another Revision may clear this up. I also found this tree at Ancestry which clears things up:

It appears that the 1850 Revision mixed up Jacobine and Friedricke and that this tree is correct above.

Lutkes in 1834

This is on page 88 at the Raduraksti Web Site:

Right side of Page:

This is what I need to check as I have that Carl Heinrich Lutke was married to Maria Eva Buchenroth. Here Jacobine is back as the elder sister to Friederike. Here is my transcription showing three generations of my Lutke ancestors:

The 1816 Revision

Here is where my Buchenroth ancestor  comes in.

I assume that Maria Eva Buchenroth passed away between 1818 and 1834 and Carl Heinrich Lutke married Anna Charlotte Merz.

Lutke in 1811

I like the title page:

This was the ‘not women allowed’ Revision:

This is easy to write down:

This yields an extra generation of Lutke: my ancestor Friedrich born around 1756.

The 1782 Audit of Souls

Here the Lutken family is at Farm 13, or they are family 13.

If I read this right, Anna Elisabeth had Adam Johann when she was 47?

Here is a baptism for Carl Heinrich:

It looks like he was born on 25 January 1770. This is a bit confusing as I have that he was born in 1772 and that his mother was a Stolts. This mother appears to be a Dannewald. Or perhaps Dannewald was a sponsor or Godparent.

Here is an entry for 1773:

I wonder if this child died young. This Ancestry tree confirms that:

This 1771 record seems to contradict the 1773 record – though there could have been two children with the same name.

One goal from this exercise is to fill in the Lutke families on my Ancestry Tree:

 

Here are the three Trees at Ancestry give to me as hints for Ernst Friedrick Lutke:

From the 1782 Audit, I have 4 of the possible 6 children. We know that Johann Friedrick Wilhelm died young, so that accounts for 5 of the possibel 6 children from Ancestry trees. That leaves Magdalena Dorothea (without dates) as being unaccounted for. I would be satisfied to add the children as per the last Tree.

I now have this vertical fuller view of the Lutke family in Hirschenhof:

The families got larger in each generation. So this is three generations of the Lutke family with the fourth generation being Jacobine Lutke who married a Gangnus.

Here is a photo from Hirschenhof of one of the farm dwellings:

Summary and Conclusions

  • The Audit of Souls and Revision Lists give a peek into the family makeup of many of my Lutke ancestors
  • They also give an idea of where these famlilies lived and who they lived near.
  • These Census substitutes were quite advanced for their time giving a lot of information not normally found elsewhere.
  • I was able to add a lot of sibling information, fiilling out my Lutke familiy trees.
  • I was also able to confirm the following Lutke wives’ surnames of Furhmann, Buchenroth and Stoltz.
Posted on

More ThruLines through Abraham McMaster born about 1764

In my previous Blog, I had some success in documenting some descendants of Abraham McMaster born about 1764 in Kilmactranny Parish, County Sligo, Ireland. Here is my descent from Abraham:

The relationships are a bit confusing as James McMaster married Fanny McMaster. Also, in one of my trees, I have another Abraham between Abraham and James McMaster. However, I have that they were both married to Margery, so they may be the same people.

My Sister Lori and Daniel

My sister Lori has some good McMaster matches:

Daniel matches Lori on the Robert McMaster Line. Unfortunately, it looks like Daniel’s tree is private and he is not taking messages. Here is how Ancestry shows the connection between Lori and Daniel:

I’ll assume that Ancestry got Daniel’s grandfather right and go from there. First, I’ll create a floating tree for Daniel. That is a tree that is not connected to my Hartley Tree, but one that I hope will connect.

This appears to be Joseph and family in 1940 in Hopkinton, Massachusetts:

It looks like Gertrude had previously been divorced:

Gertrude’s mother matches what Ancestry has so far:

Next, I would like to look for Annie Stafford’s mother:

Here is Annie or Mary Ann’s birth record:

Here is the family in 1880:

Catherine’s death record gives her father as Robert McMasters and her mother as unknown.

My McMaster Web Page has a Catherine born in 1851:

That is interesting, but no proof for the ThruLines.

The couple was married in Boyle Registration District:

That was followed by a trip to the US in 1872:

Catherine should have been about 20 at this time. Interestingly enough, I have their marriage record in my records:

The marriage was at the Kilmactranny Parish Church. I feel that this information puts Daniel’s McMaster ancestors back at Kilmactranny Parish in Sligo.

Updating the McMaster DNA/Genealogy Chart

Here is the connection:

This is an interesting part of the family. Ron in green is related to me also, but more closely on my Clarke side. The chart also brings up the question as to why I don’t have Edward on my web page under Robert. It is clear that Edward was not born in 1851. There was a period in the Kilmactranny records where there were no entries. This was roughly between 1830 and 1841. My guess is that Edward was born at the later end of that period.

I notice this record at Ancestry:

This 1924 record has Edward almost 78 years old which puts his birth back to about 1846. I am guessing that he was born 1841 or before. The 1851 birth date was from Edward’s Naturalization Papers.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was able to make a connection between my sister Lori and Daniel. They are 5th cousins once removed
  • I would be interested in finding other McMaster relatives who have had their DNA tested where the results are shown in a chromosome browser
  • Daniel’s match has enhanced the information of the Robert McMaster family of Kilmactranny Parish, County Sligo.

 

 

Posted on

My Cousin Paul’s Theories of Relativity

MyHeritage does Theories of Relativity. They are like Ancestry’s ThruLines. MyHeritage compares ancestral trees and matches them with DNA matches. This can be very helpful. I have looked at Paul’s Theories in the past, but they need updating.

Here are Paul’s Theories:

These Theories will be from the Frazer and McMaster families as that is where Paul and I match. Here is an update of my chart:

This is my attempt to be more comprehensive in my look at Paul’s Theories. For example, I don’t have Melanie on Paul’s DNA Painter profile, but I don’t need her there as her mother is already there. I have one of the John’s on my McMaster DNA/Genealogy Chart, but I forgot to put him on Paul’s DNA Painter profile. The blanks are ones that I appear to not have looked at yet.

John on the Robert Line and DNA Painter

Here is John on the Robert Line:

Paul and John should be 4th cousins and MyHeritage’s Theory of Relativity agrees. Here is where Paul and John match:

The Chromosome 8 match looks large, but it is only 6 cM which is below the standard amount that DNA Painter will add.

On Chromosome 14, John adds some new mappimg area. On Chromosome 18, John shows that matches with Emily, Raymond, and Faye are actually on the McMaster side and not on the Frazer side. Further, it explains on which McMaster line this DNA comes from:

My second great-grandmother Margaret McMaster had two McMaster parents. This DNA was from the James McMaster side.

Painting John to My Sister Heidi

Heidi and John match on the first two chromosomes:

Heidi’s match on Chromosome 1 was too small to paint. Here is Chromosome 2;

The blue matches are on my Hartley side. Here, John’s DNA identifies the match with Susan as being on the McMaster and not the Frazer side. I didn’t have other DNA painted from Abraham McMaster and his wife, so I added that for Heidi.

Painting John to my Sister Sharon’s DNA Painter Profile

Sharon and John:

Sharon’s Chromosome match with John is large enough to paint.

Again John paints a new area for Sharon on Chromosome 1 and identifies other Frazer/McMaster matches on Chromosome 2.

Paul and Brian

MyHeritage shows:

I will create a floating tree for Brian. Here is an obituary for Ethel:

In 1900, James McMaster was a farm laborer in Hinsdale, Massachusetts:

Here is Hinsdale:

Here is the tree I have so far:

This tree is following the Theory.

Here is some more information on James McMaster (which my tree shows as McMasters):

According to the 1880 Census, Charles McMaster must have been born in Ireland:

Unfortunately, Charles had apparently died as Rachel shows as a widow. I notice that Brian has this interesting note on his family tree at Ancestry:

I would tend to agree with Brian. The William I descend from had children who were etiher in Ontario or stayed in Ireland.

I see that this is likely the same family in 1870 in Berlin, New York:

Ancestry has the surname as McMartus, though I can also see where this could be McMasters. The transcriber has Mary Blowers which makes sense as Brian has Rachel as Rachel Blowers.

I also see that Berlin is not far from Massachusetts and Vermont:

Here is where Brian matches my cousin Paul:

Here I have put Brian under Abraham McMaster, on Paul’s DNA Painter profile though there were some doubts as expressed above:

That tells me that Paul matches his Frazer relatives on the McMaster side on Chromosome 2 where those matches over lap with Brian.

Paul and Berenice

Paul and Berenice show as 4th cousins at MyHeritage. I’m going to shortcut and not evaluate Berenice. Besides, she shows as a 1st cousin to the John I already have on this line.

Paul and Brad

I don’t recall this match:

Unfortunately, Brad’s tree is missing some information:

It appears that Brad would have his mother a Long rather than a McMaster. Brad does show his paternal grandmother as a McMaster:

It looks like I can fill in some blanks. John had Andrew who married Evelyn:

That should be enough to go on for now. This stone is from the West Bothwell Cemetery in Ontario:

However, something still does not add up. MyHeritage has that Brad is in his 70’s. That means that he was born in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s. If Evelyn was mother this would make more sense as she would be in her 20’s at that time. The person who manages Brad’s DNA is clearly the daughter of Evelyn McMaster. I will assume that Bev is Brad’s sister.

It looks like Evelyn would have been about 32 when Bev was born. Here is Evelyn in 1931:

Below is Evelyn potential great-grandfather William at age 98. I think that it will be difficult to place this family with certainty.

Here is where Brad matches Paul by DNA:

The 1891 Census appears to show an extended McMaster family group:

William J is living with siblings and parents: William and Sarah McMaster. An elder Eliza McMaster is also living with them. She is perhaps the grandmother bron about 1810.

William’s parents names are given on his death certificate:

This says that William’s parents were Abraham McMaster and Bessie Johnston. I have this already on my McMaster DNA/Genealogy Tree:

I had added in the past to the Abraham McMaster/Bessie Johnston Line but did not save it. I’ll add Brad now.

We think that Eliza made it to Ontario and perhaps her husband. Also I see that brothers William and Mark McMaster both married Crundwells.

Next, I add Brad to Paul’s DNA Painter Profile:

These are new sections painted to Paul’s chromosomes and the first from the Abraham McMaster/Bessie Johnston Line. This raised Paul’s overall painted DNA from 12 to 13%. That doesn’t seem like much, but I am only looking at Paul’s paternal side, so he is painted 26% on his paternal side.

While I’m at it, I’ll add Christina’s match to Paul on his profile:

I also mention Christina in my previous Blog.

Paul and Justin

Here is a progress update. Hopefully it is accurate:

Se that there are twice as many identified McMaster Theories compared to Frazer Theories. Justin shows in the Frazer camp:

I am initially skeptical of this connection. Here is the full Theory:

Many on the connections have low probabilities of being correct. I’ll move on to the next Theory.

Pamela and Paul on the McMaster Side

For some reason, two generations show as ‘Deleted profile’. First, I will try to recreate Pamela’s tree but putting Pamela in my tree as a floating tree. It appears that Elsie’s father should be Archibald:

Here is Steiglitz, near Melbourne:

I borrowed from an Ancestry tree to see that Archibald is actually Archibald McPherson III.

In my own tree, I have this information:

This is from an email I received in 2009.

So my tree for Pamela should have a McMaster by now, but has a Tait:

Here we have possibilities:

  1. Archibald had two different wives
  2. One tree is right and one is wrong.
  3. There was more than one Archibald born around 1860

Here is a gravestone from Meredith, AUS:

Meredith appears to be in the right part of the World:

I am not sure where the confusion is, but I am going with the Archibald from the gravestone above. My tree has an Archibald born 1860 and another Ancestry tree has this Archibald McPherson born 1867. I am not sure if this is the discrepancy:

So between the DNA match, my old email and other Ancestry Trees, I will add this Line in to my tree. This appears to be the other McPherson, buried in Gisorne:

I’ll add Pamela to my McMaster DNA/Genealogy Chart:

Here is Pamela on Paul’s DNA Painter profile:

This is confusing as this shows overlapping DNA from the McMaster and Frazer side on Chromosome 12. This suggests that Suzzanne could be related on the McMaster side.

Finally, Paul and Josephine

Josephine is Paul’s last Theory at this time:

 

Based on other Archibald McMaster/Elizabeth Meehan descendants, this connection seems likely. Paul and Josephine match on Chromosome 14 in this area:

This is the John that I mention earlier in the Blog who descends from Robert McMaster.

Based on the share matches between Paul and Josephine, the connection seems pretty certain. Here is Lalbert where Elizabeth McMaster Meehan was buried:

Here is a birth record for Margaret Mary Meehan borrowed from an Ancestry Tree:

This record is helpful:

Again, I will borrow this record from another Ancestry Tree:

That seems to close the circle. I will now add Josephine to my McMaster DNA/Genealogy Tree:

All that is left to do is to add the DNA match to Paul’s DNA Painter Profile:

Here is a summary:

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was helpful to look at Paul’s Theories at MyHeritage as Paul is one generation closer to common ancestors than me or my siblings.
  • The McMaster tree is quite large. This is just the tree I go back on on my James McMaster side. I have another tree for Fanny McMaster who married James McMaster.
  • The McMaster families that I tracked were in the US, Canada and Australia.
  • There was some confusion on some of the Frazer Theories. The connection for Justin was unclear. I already know the connection for Joanna, but MyHeritage did not show the right connection. This is understandable as the connection is a bit convoluted. I already had the connection to Suzzanne, but when mapped on Paul’s DNA Painter Profile, it appears that Suzzanne’s connection could be on the McMaster side.
  • I agreed with Brian that his McMaster connection was through Archiabald McMaster, but based on naming conventions, I could also see the possibility that he could be connected on the William McMaster side.

 

Posted on

Playing with Gedmatch Tier 1 2024 Finding Common Ancestors

I have one of my many colds this winter, so I’ll take some time and sign up for Tier 1 of Gedmatch.

MRCA Search Tool

I don’t remember using this tool before. Before I used it, I had to make sure my Kit# was associated with my family tree. My famiy tree was uploaded in 2014, so it is quite old. I suppose that I should update my tree at Ancestry. I’ll look at what I got, and then update my gedcom at Gedmatch.

This is the first part of my list:

What I first noted was that the path to the primary kit (mine) was very long. I am seeing 6-13 genertaions. After watching a video on this utility, I see that the last column is important. It gives a score of how accurate it thinks the matching is out of 10. So the first on my list, Hannah Bartlett has a match of 2 out of 10 which is not good. John Spooner, further down, gets a 7 out of 10.

Our Path to John Spooner

Here is the path column:

I have not checked this Wilhelm Line, but it does not look unreasonable. I would like to see what the DNA match looks like, but I do not see a link to find this on this utility. I ran a one-to-one match between myself and my match with Spooner ancestry:

The match shows on Chromosome 11. To make sure this was a paternal match, I ran my paternal phased kit against this match and got the same results. Here is my Chromosome 5 mapped by DNA Painter:

I have an arrow where the possible Spooner DNA would be. I say possible because at 9 generations away, a lot could have happened. I think that SImone tested at 23andMe.  I am tempted to add this match just for fun. All the green matches are my second cousins. A few are first cousins once removed. Here is what I have for John Spooner on my tree:

Here I added in Spence on DNA Painter under SImone:

James Hartley was born in 1862, so the gap between him and John Spooner is over 200 years.

Updating My Tree at Gedmatch

First, I need to download my tree from Ancestry:

Before I got here, I had to choose Export Tree. When I chose download your Gedcom file, I ended up with two files as the Export already created one. First, I deleted my old Gedcom at Gedmatch. I’m not sure if this was the right way to do it.

When I uploaded the Gedcom, I got some errors based on not putting down the sex of the person:

There were other errors, but I just let the software do what it did.

Running a New MRCA Report from Gedmatch

This time I will use a minimum match score of 3 as recommended in a video I saw. This report is taking a while to run – perhaps because the gedcom I have now is larger. The report gave me 84 potential MRCA’s:

Here is a name on my list that catches my eye:

William Bradford gets a score of 8 which is very good.

However, I see an issue as there are two William Bradfords born 11 Mar 1654. I show to be 9th cousin once removed to this match. However, it appears that these two William Bradfords are the same which would move our connection closer by one generation. However, there is a disconnect. The death date of my William Bradford is very clear as he died in a carting accident in 1687. That means that he could not have had a daughter named Bethia born in 1692. Perhaps the Gedmatch scoring system is not the best.

Hiller MRCA?

Fifth on my list of 83 ancestors is a Hiller:

I recognize the match name (not shown here) from Ancestry. Here is the path:

I am a mere 7th cousin to this Hadaway on paper – and a DNA match. Here is where I match Hadaway:

My family seems to be related to other Hillers at Ancestry, so I think that this is a good match for me. I’ll add this person to DNA Painter:

My belief is that Hadaway (shown in purple) shares Hiller DNA on my Chromosome 2 with myself and my father’s first cousin Maury. This is likely shared with some of my other siblings.

Elizabeth Warren

The second match on my list is Elizabeth Warren:

This match is different as only the wife is mentioned in the match.

I assume that it came out this way as she descended from one of the Mayflower Pilgrims. To keep this consistent, I’ll enter this in DNA Painter under the husband who was Josiah Finney:

This is a fairly large match at Gedmatch:

Here as in other of my Hartley areas, this has connected my 1860’s common ancestor 2nd cousins, shown in green above, with my 1660’s cousin (seen in a bronze color).

So far, I have added to my colonial side on Chromosomes 2, 5 and 10:

The genealogy is fairly easy for these colonial matches. These matches are also helpful as it tell where my Hartley DNA from Lancashire, England is not.

Edward Richmond – Out 11 or 12 Generations

All this DNA has to come from somewhere. This is my first MRCA match:

I do show an Abigail Richmond in my tree. I also show that Edward Richmond married Abilgail Davis. I’m am liking Gedmatch’s MRCA utility as it is so easy to use. Next, I’ll map this match with Audrey:

However, this match with Audrey is showing a problem as there is an overlap with one of my Frazer relatives, Brenda. Further, when I have mapped my Chromosome 22, it has come out as being all Frazer, so this Hartley match cannot be right here. Let’s try to figure out what went wrong here.

When I look at Audrey’s tree, she has matches from County Sligo. My guess is that her match is on my Clarke side that I have not found many ancestors for. Or it could be on the Frazer side where I have some missing wives. Some of these names and places in Audrey’s tree have come up before, but I have not been able to place them within the genealogy:

 

In addition, some of my McMaster ancestors were from Dromore, County Sligo. That could be the best explanation for the connection. I have deleted Audrey from my Chromosome 22 as a Colonial American match, but she likely matches my McMaster ancestry. Interestingly, my fourth potential MRCA is with Dave. He matches on Chromosome 22 also. He must be related to Audrey.

An Almy Connection?

Matches 6 and 7 on my list have this connection:

 

I don’t have the inclination to check out the genealogy here. The DNA match is here:

I already have Debra in that spot. I had our conection on the Hatch side. From a Blog I wrote, I see that there was also a Palmer connection in Rhode Island. This connection is certainly on the Rhode Island side. Actually Debra is match #7, so is the same person. Match #6 must be her son.

I’ll just change the ancestors to Almy at DNA Painter. At 1601, that would likely be my oldest painted DNA and perhaps the most suspect for that reason!

Resolved White 1615

This match goes back to the Pilgrims.

First, I’ll check the DNA:

This is Chromosome 19 which is Frazer territory for me:

My Frazer ancestry is Irish, so clearly not Pilgrim material. It is possible that I have this Pilgrim connection, but not based on the shared DNA.

Benjamin Bartlett with a Score of 6

I’ll be sure to check the DNA match:

The match is out on the right side of the paternal copy of my Chromosome 7:

I have a lot of Frazer DNA on that Chromosome, but room for some Hartley on the right side.

I don’t show Ichabod Bartlett in my tree, but my tree may be incomplete. A book I have shows that Benjamin Bartlett had three wives and 6 children. The first three children were born from Sarah Brewster (including Rebecca Bartlett). The first wife apparently had no children. The last three children including Ichabod may have been from a third wife named Sisilla.

I’ll add Blair and Bartlett in pink to my DNA Painter profile:

It is not a large match and I could not put two ancestors down as I am only sure of the Bartlett ancestry.

One More? Joseph Sylvester

Joseph gets a rating of 5, but that is just on the genealogy match. I have checked the DNA to confirm that the match is on my Hartley side.

Joseph is on the Pilgrim side, born in Plymouth Colony. I do see an Amos on my genealogy tree, so that is good. I’ll add this match into DNA Painter.

Here i have added a small clump of DNA to my profile which I have said is either from Joseph Sylvester or Mary Barstow.

Summary and Conclusions

  • This is an easy tool to use
  • I needed to check my DNA matches to make sure that they were in the right area and right side – in this case paternal side.
  • I have a lot of colonial genealogy. Many others likely do too, so the bias is to match on those genealogies.
  • I did not go through the whole list, but I would guess that at least half of the matches would not pan out due to genealogy, DNA matches in the wrong area or other problems.
  • It is easier to disprove that a DNA match could not go with the shared genealogy than to prove that it does.