Posts

Posted on

More Thru-Lines for Heather and JJ

In a few previous Blogs, I have looked at some of Heather and JJ’s Thru-Lines. It would be worth looking at all of them – especially the ones with hints for ancestors I don’t have in their trees.

JJ’s ThruLines

Here are a few couples to consider:

Galuszka and Zaychowska

The Thru-Lines use the same DNA matches and people that were in my previous Blog. Also the genealogy is from a tree that I used from the previous Blog. Apparently Jacek who researched these lines found some of his information from MyHeritage:

I take it that reading Polish would be helpful in this area. This couple would have also been born in the 1700’s.

Here I’ve added Sebastian and Regina to Heather and JJ’s tree:

Savage

Here is George Savage suggestion born 1765:

For a recap, Jane Savage was the grandmother of Louisa Gatley:

Louisa Gatley was the mother of John Cavanaugh. Jane Savage was from Warrington, Lancashire. One of the trees with George Savage is linked to JJ by DNA. That is the tree of DR:

DR has that George was married to Alice Brown who was born in 1765. I do see a couple with those names at a Lancashire Online Parishes website:

However, they must have been older than 12 when they married. Here is an Alice Brown born earlier than 1765 in Warrington:

So right now the Brown Line is winning the race to the right. Peter Brown is Heather and JJ’s mother’s mother’s father’s mother’s father’s mother’s father’s father or 6th great-grandfather if I got it right.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Using Ancestry suggestions under it’s Thru-Line listings, I was fairly easily able to add some ancestors on my children’s Polish and English lines
  • Ancestry suggests evaluating these suggestions. One of the suggestions conflicted with another Ancestry suggestion, so this was a good idea.
  • Part of the evaluation is evaluating the quality of other people’s research.
  • The Polish ancestor suggestions were covered by good genealogy. The English Thru-Lines ancestor suggestions did not seem to have the level of quality in the research. Apparently trees copied other trees instead of looking into the genealogy. I was able to consult a Lancashire Online Parish website to augment the research for the Ancestry Thru-Lines suggestions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

My Childrens’ Polish DNA and Genealogy

In a previous Blog, I noticed that my children’s’ Ancestry Thru-Lines had new suggested Polish ancestors.

These are the Thru-Lines for my son JJ. Thru-Lines suggests two new sets of Polish 4th great-grandparents based on DNA matches and genealogy.

The Current Polish Genealogy

JJ and Heather’s maternal grandfather was Polish. Here is his genealogy:

Looking at Polish genealogy is a bit new for me. The new Thru-Line ancestors above correspond to the potential ancestors in the tree above.

Thru-Lines for Wawrzyniec-Laurentius Ras

JJ shows 9 DNA matches in this LIne:

These matches actually go up to common ancestors with Antoni Ras who is already in JJ’s tree. However, those matches must have trees that have their ancestors going back another generation to Wawrzyniec. I hope he had a nickname. I wonder how the name was pronounced. 

When I further open up the Thru-Lines I see the common ancestor is actually with a daughter of Antoni named Marya:

This shows that JJ has 2 DNA matches on the Cecylia Jarek line and 7 DNA matches on his great-grandfather’s Francis Jarek line.

These families lived in Odrzykon, in SE Poland:

I can assume that due to war and poverty, it was a good idea for these families to move to Lowell, Massachusetts.

Evaluating Wawrzyniec-Laurentius Ras

When I click on Wawrzyniec at Thru-Lines, I get this:

This shows that rm and mc have trees with Wawrzyniec them. Rm has a DNA match to JJ:

MC doesn’t show up on JJ’s Thru-Lines, but does show as a DNA match to JJ:

My guess is that MC didn’t link his DNA results to his tree. That is confirmed here:

However, MC is on the Cecylia Jarek Line:

MC is also a generation below RM, so the DNA match is smaller.

RM’s Tree

RM has the better tree in this area:

Here is the tree I made:

The Francis in my tree is Heather and JJ’s great-grandfather and is RM’s Franciscus born 1879. RM has a Joannis born 1881. This is the John J born 1883 in my tree.

Apparetly RM found some information on a trip to Poland. He has a christening date for Antoni Ras:

That must be where he got the names of Antoni’s parents:

Ancestry gives me a different suggestion for the parents of Antoni, but I better go with what RM has. I also added in Cecylia Jarek to the Tree. This gets out to Heather and JJ’s first  Polish fourth great-grandparents:

Gryzbala – Galuska Ancestors

Now Ras and Dulezanka are not in green as I added them in. Next are Grzybala and Galuska. I notice that the l’s in their names look different, but I kept the English l’s. Here is JJ’s Thru-Line for Tomasz:

JJ has one DNA match through Maciej and the rest of the matches are more recent matches. When I choose the evaluate button above, one of the trees goes back to RM:

This tree shows Regina but not Maciej Grzybala. However, when I click on Maciej, I get three trees. This is from the first tree:

This seems like enough evaluation, so I’ll add in Tomasz and Anna:

More on Grzybala DNA

It turns out that the person from whose tree I borrowed above (Jacek) has also tested their DNA and posted his results at Gedmatch. Here is how JJ and Jacek match at Gedmatch:

It turns out that Jacek also posted his tree at Gedmatch. I’ll try to rewrite the connection:

 

John is the match at Ancestry and Jacek is the match at Gedmatch.

John is from Ancestry. He is JJ and Heather’s 4th cousin once removed and matches JJ at 20 cM. Jacek matches JJ at 32.4 cM which is on the high side for a 5th cousin once removed. Here are some posted statistics:

Based on the above, I should be adding in the next generation of ancestors:

Painting Polish DNA

Based on JJ’s Gedmatch match with Jacek, I can paint in some Grzybala/Szarek DNA. So far, I have only two pairs of maternal ancestors identified for JJ:

Here I chose yellow for the new match:

I thought this new match would get JJ above 15% painted on his maternal side, but it didn’t.

Heather only maches Jacek on Chromosome 5. Heather’s match on Chromosome 5 overlaps with existing DNA matches from RM’s family as does JJ.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was able to bring Heather and JJ’s Polish ancestry back another generation or two on two different lines.
  • This genealogy was supported by DNA matches.
  • One line got as far back as the 1700’s in Poland.
  • I was able to do this with the help of other researchers who have also taken DNA tests.
  • While I brought the Ras and Grzybala lines back, more work is still needed on the Wozniak and Letkowicz Lines.
  • I have names and dates, but it would be nice to learn some more about the places where these ancestors lived in Poland.
  • I was able to paint the DNA of one match who had posted his DNA at Gedmatch and posted his family tree there also.

Continue reading “My Childrens’ Polish DNA and Genealogy”

Posted on

Tessier/Tacy DNA, DNA Painter and Thru-Lines for My Children

In previous Blogs, I have been able to take my children’s Tacy ancestry back to Tessier in Canada. Recently, I have been noticing DNA matches at Ancestry that are likely from the Tessier Line.

Looking at Heather’s DNA Matches

First, I go to my daughter’s DNA matches. I saw her on the list first. Then I do a search for her DNA matches who have a Canadian Tessier in their ancestry.

Actually the match is with Tessier and Boudria, but in this view, only Joseph Tessier appears at the top. Ancestry wants me to evaluate this. Well, there is 20 years between Salomon and Pierre. Also, the tree above shows that the Pierre born 1825 had his son Pierre when he was two. That doesn’t sound right either. My guess is that Pierre, the brother of Salomon was actually born before 1825.

Here is a tree that has an earlier Pierre:

That Marie Boudrias could really crank out the kids. It looks like she had two Salomon’s.

Ancestry Thru-Lines

Here are the Thru-Lines at Ancestry. These show where there are genealogical and DNA matches:

Probably most all those children born from 1786 to 1814 had children. It would be fun to see if any of these tested descendants are listed at Gedmatch or with another company that shows more detailed DNA information.

DNA Painter

Here is how I have Heather ‘painted’ so far on her maternal side:

The yellow is Heather’s maternal grandfather’s side and the blue is her maternal grandmother’s side. Tessier would be under the blue side.

So half of the blue Cavanaugh/Morrow DNA belongs to Morrow and then another half of that half belongs to Tacy which was really Tessier in Canada. Unfortunately, I don’t remember where I got the blue match. It appears to be a pretty close match. After a search in my emails, I see it is someone with whom I exchanged genealogical information. It looks like this is Marti at FTDNA.

Here is the simple chart for Marti and my two children:

That makes them 1st cousins once removed. Marti also shares an X Chromosome match with Heather and JJ. You can only have an X Chromosome match with someone when there are not two male ancestors in a row between you and your common ancestors. That is the case above. This information can come in handy when doing DNA analysis.

AutoCluster for Heather

I have done an autocluster for Heather at FTDNA where Marti tested. That is a representation of who matches who and is meant to imply common ancestors:

Here I have an arrow pointing to Marti. She is the top match in a 4 X 4 autocluster. I included AutoCluster 5-29 out of Heather’s 37 FTDNA AutoClusters. Marti is in AutoCluster 17. Out at Cluster 29, Marti matches one of her paternal relatives, so we don’t need that information. At the top, Marti matches someone in Cluster 5. More importantly, Marti matches three out of four people in the orange Cluster 21. These matches are indicated by the gray boxes outside the clusters:

I have a green box around a group that appears to be loosely related. This is possibly a French Canadian connection.

JJ’s Thru-Lines

JJ’s Tessier DNA should be similar to Heather’s. I was hoping that I could paint some Tessier (or other) DNA onto Heather’s DNA profile, but I couldn’t find an easy way to do that. When I go right to JJ’s Thru-Lines, I see this:

Ancestry is suggesting some additional Polish ancestors based on genealogy and DNA. This would be best discussed in a separate Blog.

Summary and Conclusions

I had previously discovered that Heather and JJ’s Tacy ancestors were originally French CanadianTessier. This lead to me adding many other ancestors to their trees. Ancestry caught up with this fact and found DNA matches to other Tessier descendants. These DNA matches seem to confirm the genealogical work I did on the Tessier Line. It is possible that in the future, other Tacy descendants could find their Tessier heritage through Ancestry making similar connections through Ancestry’s Thru-Line system.

 

 

Posted on

Some More A11132 Hartley Genealogy

In a previous Blog, I looked at some A11132 Hartley Genealogy. That Blog was prompted by an email from Michelle whose husband had tested positive for the YDNA SNP of A11132. As far as I know, all A11132 men have male Hartley ancestry. I didn’t include Michelle’s husband’s genealogy in my previous Blog as his YDNA testing had been minimal as far as STRs, so it would be difficult to tell which Hartley genealogy he would be closest to. Also Michelle’s husband’s genealogy goes back, so far, only to the US. However, in this Blog, I decided to take a shot at looking at this branch’s genealogy.

This is the tree Michelle sent:

Here is a close-up of William Hartley:

All we need to do is to connection William Hartley in Kentucky with the other A11132 Hartley’s in the area of Lancashire, England:

 

We know that is where William’s ancestors belong, but how do we get them back there? Another question we may ask is, “Why did William’s ancestors want to leave in the first place?” A typical answer could be for religious or economic reasons.

The A11132 Hartley Genealogy Summary to Date

Here I have given the Hartley’s in the Hartley YDNA Project numbers. Michelle’s husband is 4.11. 4.11 shows an earliest Hartley ancestor Richard Hartley born 1720. My understanding is that there could be some questions on the genealogy between William of 1814 and Richard of 1720. I’m no expert on genealogy, but I can offer a second set of eyes. Plus, it’s fun doing Hartley genealogy that is not my own.

William Burton Hartley Born 1857

I found William at findagrave.com:

It looks like he got around a bit from a birth in Missouri to a death in Nebraska. According to findagrave.com, William had quite a few children:

William B married in Iowa. This Iowa marriage record gives a lot of information:

William was a farmer living in Kansas. He was born in Missouri to Willam Hartley and Margaret Muse (according to the transcription).

Here is young William B in 1860 in Kansas Territory:

William Hartley Born 1814 Kentucky

Back to findagrave.com:

In 1840, there was a William Hartley in Nicholas, Kentucky:

This could not have been the same William as the above William would have been 26 in 1840:

The ages in this house go from the 40’s down to the teens. Perhaps a relative?

Here is William in 1850:

I don’t see Eliza and John. They were in the 1860 Census above. Here is William’s 1839 Fleming County, Kentucky marriage record:

In 1837 or 1839, William Hartley purchased some sheep and hogs from the estate of William Kirk:

Who Was the Father of William Hartley Born 1814?

So far the only name for William’s father is from findagrave.com. That name is Benjamin John Wesley Hartley born 1781. There were 10 trees for William Hartley. 7 gave Benjamin John Wesley Hartley as the father, one gave Benjamin Hartley as the father and the remaining two had no father. Assuming the name is right, I would take this family to be Wesleyan Methodist.

According to findagrave, this stone is in the Hartley Cemetery:

Looks like a peaceful place:

Here is the stone for Mary Hartley:

According to findagrave.com, the Cemetery is:

Located abt 1 Mile off Ky 32 on Routt Rd in Goddard, Ky. Across from Goddard Covered Bridge.

Here is Goddard:

Remember William Hartley married Margaret Muse, so Muses Mills could be a good hint. Here is the covered bridge:

There is a Church to the right and cemetery. Here is Routt Road. One mile from Route 32 would be near “Our Tiny Nut House”:

Assuming this was a family cemetery, this could be the location of the old Hartley homestead. However, going through the Cemetery list, the only Hartley’s listed are Benjamin and Mary:

A lot of Gardner’s and Hurst’s are listed, so perhaps they married into the family, or bought the farm?

Finally, some Kirk’s are buried here:

Recall above that William Hartley (assumed son of Benjamin Hartley) bought some livestock from the estate of William Kirk in 1837 or 1839. So we have circumstantial evidence of a connection between a William Hartley and a Benjamin Hartley.

Here is the marriage transcription:

Married by a Holmes:

Here is a Benjamin Hartley in Elizaville in 1820:

If Benjamin was born in 1781, he would have been about 39 in 1820. This could have been Benjamin, his wife and five children at the time.

This is likely the family in 1830:

I don’t know where the Eastern Division was:

I think that Goddard was around the word Plains above.

Benjamin Hartley – Making the Leap (Backwards) From Kentucky

Good research goes from the known to the unknown or from the more recent to the less recent. The overall goal is to get this Hartley family back to England, but before that we need to get Benjamin out of Kentucky. The prevailing Ancestry hints have Benjamin back in North Carolina, so let’s look at that.

Benjamin in 1810 North Carolina

In 1810, Benjamin would be 29. This household has 3 Males 16-25. However, I got Benjamin’s birth date from findagrave.com. They list him there as born in 1781. However, his grave stone shows that he died in 1838 at age 59. That would put his birth at about 1779 and would mean that he would have been 21 in 1810. This house had 3 males of the age of 16 thru 25. I’ll just change Benjamin’s birth year to 1779 until a better date comes along.

However, I see a fly in the ointment. If Benjamin was part of the Hartley household and not the head, he would not have been listed in 1810 in Rowan County. The Benjamin mentioned in that Census was likely 45 or older. Possibly Benjamin’s Uncle if we have the right location?

Here is Rowan County:

We can walk there in about 112 hours. Of course, it probably took a lot longer back then. Based on this scenario, Benjamin was 21 on August 6, 1810 when the Census was taken. He makes his way to Kentucky. Say it took a month to get there. He finds Mary Gilbert and marries her on Septermber 11, 1811.

Was Benjamin’s Father Thomas (1762-1842)?

I get a hint at Ancestry that Benjamin’s father should be Thomas Hartley. Having nothing better to go on right now, I’ll try that:

It turns out Thomas has an impressive stone:

I like the Heartley spelling. This stone is from Davidson, North Carolina, not far from Rowan County. findagrave.com narrows this down to Tyro, NC:

According to findagrave, this is Sandy Creek or St Luke’s Lutheran Cemetery. There are other early Hartley’s buried at this Cemetery.

Here is a transcript of the marriage bond for Thomas in Rowan County, NC:

Moore was the bondsman and Macay the witness.

So far, I feel pretty good about Benjamin being the father of William Hartley. I suppose one argument against this is that William didn’t appear to name any of his children after his father. However, now I am looking for more proof that Benjamin was the son of Thomas from North Carolina.

Thomas H(e)artley Will and Probate

There is a lot of paperwork involving Zilpha H(e)artley wife of Thomas. She felt she didn’t get her fair share after Thomas died on the 10th of October 1842. In one document, she mentions the following:

However, I see no mention of Benjamin Hartley. However, that makes sense as Benjamin died before his father.

Ancestry Trees for Thomas Hartley

I found 10 Ancestry Trees for Thomas Hartley. Eight of those trees included Benjamin. Seven of those trees gave a second wife of Zilpha or equivalent. All of the trees had Jefferson and Richmond as sons. Most of them had a John as a son and most of those John’s were listed as John Wesley. Here is the first tree listed:

This tree doesn’t have Benjamin, but has an extra wife:

I’m not sure about this Emilie.

Here is Zilpha or Zelpha:

Thomas to Benjamin – the Weak Link

Right now I see the Thomas to Benjamin Hartley as the weak link. I have not yet seen strong evidence to support it. This is where DNA testing could come in handy. Here is the tree so far:

 

We know from legal proceedings that John, Jefferson and Richmond are sons of the Thomas of Tyro, North Carolina. By finding male descendants of these sons, and testing for YDNA we could show if this tree is possible. Another possibility is testing for autosomal DNA. We could add in the descendants of Jane Hartley for this test.

Note that in the tree above, Benjamin would have been born when Thomas was 17.

Another option is to look to see if any other Hartley’s went to Kentucky with Benjamin. And if so, were they siblings of Benjamin?

The Other Benjamin Hartley

I had mentioned another Benjamin Hartley above in the 1810 Census. I find this at WikiTree:

Benjamin Heartley, b c1760 in MD d 1829 in Davidson Co. He married Joannah (?). A planter, he amassed 850 acres before his death. By 1820 two of his sons moved to Ind and IL. By 1837 the widow and the remainder of the family moved to Pike Co IN, excepting one son. Laban, who stayed in NC.

Benjamin had a rather large plantation in the Jersey Settlement in Davidson County, North Carolina in an area now called Tyro.

If our Benjamin was the son of Thomas, then the Benjamin above could be Thomas’ brother.

An Ancestry Message Board Post

I found this 2011 message at Ancestry:

My husband is Benjamin and Mary Hartley’s great great grandson thru their son, Reuben and his son, Joseph and his daughter, Gladys Hartley Raider. From my records, I have Benjamin’s parents as Thomas Hartley 1762-1842 and Mildred “Milly” Burgess Hartley 1764-1838. I have Thomas Hartley’s parents as John Richard Hartley 1730 – 1781 and Mary E Beckett Hartley 1735-1837. Then John Richard Harley’s parents are Waighstill Hartley 1709 – 1765 and Mary Margaret Hodges with no dates. Mary Beckett’s parents are John Beckett 1709 – 1760 and Ann Jones – b 1710. Hope this helps!

My daughter and I go genealogy together. We can connect the dots but we also like to know WHERE they are so this has started us looking for burial sites. We have found stones that are unreadable, broken or just not there anymore. We take pics of the stones and mark where in the cemetery they are buried so that future generations will know. We feel that we are not only perserving our heritage but we spend quality time together. Would you happen to know where Benjamin and Mary are buried?

Any help that you might be able to give would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you have any photos that you would like to share would be terrific!

I think that Michelle mentioned someone who brought her husband’s genealogy back to Waightstill Hartley.

Waightstill Hartley and YDNA

Waightstill Hartley opens up a can of worms. Apparently more than one line claims this ancestor. This is where the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA comes in handy. Here is someone in the I1 Haplogroup that claims Waightstill as an ancestor:

Keep in mind that I1 is separated by R1b (where A11132 is) by tens of thousands of years.

Scroll down to Hartley 7.1

I assume that these two testers are both referring to the Waightstill Hartley born in 1709. At least they have the power of numbers here. Here is R-PH165 according to YFull’s YTree:

I find Hartley 7.1 to be confusing as the people on YFull’s YTree are from Turkey, Bahrain and Albania. It would help if Hartley’s from the 7.1 Group uploaded their results to YFull. At any rate, according to YFull, R-PH155 formed a little over 20,000 years ago. We are talking old again. That means that there are people who claim the ancestor of Waightstill Hartley that are in YDNA groups that are both tens of thousands of years separated from A11132. If I were to accept that Waightstill is the ancestor of Hartley 4.11 also, that would make it a three-way tie. YDNA cannot always prove a common ancestor. However, it is very good at disproving common ancestors. There is no way that Hartley 1.2, 4.1 and 7.2 can have common ancestors any later than cave man times. All this to say that it is possible that Waightstill is the ancestor of Hartley 4.11, but not likely. The only thing that is sure is that Waightstill  Hartley cannot be in more than one Hartley YDNA group. Another way to look at it is that if the Waightstill ancestry was to be disproved for the other three YDNA testers, then the Waightstill ancestry would be more likely for Hartley 4.11.

Any Other Leads?

At this point I’m not doing a lot of my own genealogy. I’m looking at work that has already been done and seeing if it makes sense. My feeling is that a lot of rocks have already been turned over looking at the genealogy. It makes more sense to me to track down male Hartley descendants and have them take a YDNA test. These are the new stones that have not yet been turned over.

Richard Hartley From WikiTree

This appears to be the Richard mentioned on Michelle’s husband’s test at the Hartley YDNA Project Site:

Here Richard is the father of Benjamin Hartley. That would be the Benjamin in the 1810 Census, not the later Benjamin. It would make sense if he was also the father of Thomas Hartley.

I get this hint at Ancestry for the father of Thomas Hartley:

It appears that there is a lot of unravelling that is needed. Here is a land record hint from Ancestry:

This is apparently a summary. It is vague on details though I assume N.C. is North Carolina. This appears to indicate that John Hartley fought in the Revolutionary War and received a War Bounty Land Grant. According to the information above, John Richard died in 1783, so the land went to his heir Thomas Hartley. Now the second record is confusing as the land amount is the same and the John Hartley is the same, but this time the land is going to heirs. The WikiTree biography above mentions Richard willing land to sons Laban and Benjamin. Assuming that there was one John Hartley, then both could be true. Again, YDNA testing of descendants could help.

That leaves me wondering if John and Richard are the same person reconciled as John Richard above.

John Richard Hartley 1721-1784

I’m just plugging on, because my feeling is that this Hartley Tree should be resolved with YDNA. One source says that Richard was born in 1721 in Worchester Maryland and one says he was born in 1735 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England. That is quite a difference. I see Michelle has Richard as possibly from England.

This brings up a few questions:

  • If Richard was from England, how long after coming to the Colonies did he fight against the British?
  • Was this normal for recent British arrivals to fight against the British?
  • What was his reason for coming to the Colonies?

Summary and Conclusions

Well, my review of this line of genealogy has somewhat petered out. The hope was to try to get back to England with the genealogy. However, that has proved to be difficult.

  • I hadn’t realized that there are YDNA testers in two different YDNA groups claiming Waitlstill Hartley as an ancestor. The 4.11 Hartley, the subject of this Blog, had also considered Waitstill as an ancestor in the past. The YDNA does not disprove that Hartley 4.11 does not descend from Waitstill Hartley. The YDNA does prove that all three groups cannot descend from Waitstill. One group is likely right and the other two wrong. I’m not sure if any group has a solid genealogical link to Waitstill Hartley.
  • The genealogy for Hartley back to John or John Richard Hartley born 1835 seems to be as about as good as it can get. It could be strengthened (or perhaps disproved) by targeted testing of the YDNA of descendents of known children of Thomas or John Richard Hartley.
  • I thought I might find clues as to this Hartley Line’s religious background as that may have been a reason for leaving England. I found one ancestor that seemed to favor the name John Wesley and another that was buried in a Lutheran Cemetery. So, I see no clear indication in my limited look at this family as to religious affiliation.

 

Posted on

My Children’s Morrow Ancestry

In this Blog, I had gotten stuck on my children’s Morrow ancestry. Here is the sticking point:

Here Leona is my children’s maternal great-grandmother or their mother’s mother’s mother. Up until last night the Mary A was only a Mary A. Now I Have her as a Cousson or Cosson.

Joseph F Morrow 1863-1924 and Dennis

Josephs’ Naturalization Petition was helpful. In that petition, a Dennis J Morrow vouched for Joseph. I found a second marriage for Dennis in 1916 in Dracut for Dennis that listed his parents as:

Here was a last name for Dennis which made me believe that he was Joseph’s brother. The last name is difficult to read. The transcriber has Cosson. I saw Cousson. However, I wouldn’t rule our Caisson or other possibilities. I further found Dennis being married for the first time in 11 Jan 1880 in Lowell to a Sarah F Whalen. At that time his last name was listed as Morrows or Morrowes. Finding Dennis doubled my potential for finding out more about this family. This family was French Canadian, so were they really Morreau or something else?

More on Dennis J Morrow

I couldn’t find Dennis in the 1880 Census, so I added an ‘s’ to the last name and he showed up on Worther St in Lowell:

Living in household were also his brothers Joseph and Charles as well as his brother-in-law Timothy. By now, Dennis’ mother and father had died in 1876 and 1879. That put young Dennis in charge of the family.

Worther is probably Worthen. Here is 67 Worthen St on a current map:

St Patrick Cemetery Lowell

I read somewhere that the Morrow’s were buried at Saint Patrick’s Cemetery:

Here is a listing from the St Patrick Cemetery web site:

I see Dennis and Joseph buried there, but not Charles:

Dennis is in Yard 4, Range 24, Lot 2 and Joseph in Section C Lot 148:

Here is Lot 148 for Joseph and his wife Nellie:

The Yard maps are not yet available online.

Morrow in the City Directories

The Lowell Directory shows these Morrow’s in 1875:

The question is, is this the same John Morrow that we are looking for? Recall above that Dennis J Morrow was living at 67 Worthen Street near Merrimack in 1880. This was likely the same place they were living with the mother Mary A Morrow died in 1876:

Here is a John Morrow in 1861:

I don’t think that an iron moulder would later be a painter, but it is possible. Matthew Morrow was a long time bleachery worker. The 1865 Census shows that the iron moulder John was born in Ohio:

This is probably the Matthew Morrow from above:

However, I have trouble finding him in the Census. I was hoping that he would be related to the Morrow I was looking for. However, his father was also a Matthew:

The ‘good’ news is that we eliminated two Morrow’s from our search.

Is Morrow French Canadian?

I did find this entry in the Lowell Directory for 1886:

This name would be French. However, my chidrens’ Morrows have names of John, Dennis, Charles and Joseph which are either English or Anglicized.

That leads me to this 1870 Ward 5 Mareau family:

The interesting thing about this record is the change from Canadian to Massachusetts births. This happens some time between 1862 and 1866.

The 1870 Lowell Directory has one Morrow:

I suspect that Hugh is related to Matthew above. Here is Hugh in the 1870 Lowell Census showing he was born in Ireland:

Another Morrow eliminated from contention.

The Timeline and Placeline So Far

  • John B Morrow (or Moreau?) is born in probably Quebec about 1832 to another John.
  • He marries Mary A Cousson (or variant of that name) say around 1855
  • They have at least three children in Quebec between 1857 and 1865
  • They family probably arrived in Portland, Maine in 1866
  • The family moves to Lowell
  • Mary A Morrow dies in 1876 on Worthen Stree in Lowell
  • The father John B Morrow dies in Lowell in 1879
  • In 1880 Dennis J Morrow marries Sarah Whalen from England and heads up the Morrow household at 676 Worthen St, Lowell

A Second Marriage for Dennis J Morrow

Does this 1916 Lowell marriage give us any hints?

Here is a different take on Dennis’ mother’s last name:

This is not necessarily the right spelling for Mary A’s last name, but it is the clearest. I checked around for the Cassion name and saw one instance where it was a form of Cashen.

More On Dennis

  • Dennis applies for citizenship in 1879, the same year his father dies
  • Here are the two brothers in 1896 
  • In 1900, Dennis is living at Mount Pleasant in Dracut when he is a witness for his brother Joseph’s Naturalization Petition
  • On the 1900 Census, Dennis shows that he was born in October 1857 in Maine as were both his parents
  • The brothers in 1903 
  • When Dennis remarries in 1916, he gives his birthplace as Canada
  • Here is Dennis in 1918 
  • Dennis J is listed in the 1920 Lowell Directory as a loomfixer
  • In 1920 Dennis states again that he is born in Maine and that his parents were both from Canada and English speaking
  • Same in 1921 
  • In 1930, Dennis is living on Pinkney Street in Dracut. Here he says he is born in Maine but his parents are both born in English Canada

This card seems to indicate that Dennis was from Great Britain:

Stuck Again

I have a better feel for the Morrow family now in Lowell. I found two possible names for Mary A. I found two more brothers to Joseph. However, one brother Charles remains a mystery with only one record showing for him. Perhaps, I will revisit the Morrow family at some time in the future. A trip to the records office in Boston for the death records of Joseph and Dennis Morrow may reveal more information on their parents.

Posted on

Hartley R-A11132 YDNA and Genealogy

I was contacted recently by the wife of a distant Hartley relative. There are many different tribes of Hartley’s as identified by their YDNA types. This Hartley is from my tribe. My previous update on Hartley YDNA is here. She was interested in my Hartley genealogy and I in hers. My thought was to look at the Hartley’s that are in our particular group as tested by YDNA and check out their genealogy. Then I can compare the genealogy to see where the oldest group of Hartleys in our YDNA group came from.

My Hartley YDNA – R-A11132

I have tested my YDNA using the BIg Y test which is now a bit outdated. The old test I took is now called the Big Y-500 and the new test is the Big Y-700. My testing in conjunction with one other Big Y Hartley tester has put my branch at R-A111132.

Most Hartley’s are R1b:

However, that only gets us to about 25,000 years ago, so not as helpful as you might think. In the past 25,000 years, there has been a lot of branching of the family tree. From R1b, I can trace the highlights down to A11132.

R-M269

R-M269 is the next big group to look at. According to Wikipedia:

Haplogroup R-M269, also known as R1b1a1a2, is a sub-clade of human Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b. It is of particular interest for the genetic history of Western Europe. It is defined by the presence of SNP marker M269. R-M269 has been the subject of intensive research; it was previously also known as R1b1a2 (2003 to 2005), R1b1c (2005 to 2008), and R1b1b2 (2008 to 2011)[3]

R-M269 is the most common European haplogroup, greatly increasing in frequency on an east to west gradient (its prevalence in Poland estimated at 22.7%, compared to Wales at 92.3%). It is carried by approximately 110 million European men (2010 estimate).[4] The age of the mutation M269 is estimated at roughly 4,000 to 10,000 years ago, and its sub-clades can be used to trace the Neolithic expansion into Europe as well founder-effects within European populations due to later (Bronze Age and Iron Age) migrations.[4]

R-L21

L21 is the next step down on  my Hartley YDNQ tree. I like to associate L21 with the Celtic Regions of Ireland, Scotland and Britain. It really includes more than that, but a lot of the people in these regions are L21. Here is how things proceeded from R-M269. R-P312 is the next main juncture, then the three main choices after that include R-L21:

R-L513

After L21, the next main group in my Hartley family is in is L513. This is also a group project at FTDNA. Here is a chart from about a year and a half ago:

My Hartley group is in the middle:

So far, I have found that this Hartley branch is quite old. From the Chart above, you can also see that some family branches have gone a lot further with their testing. The further down in the Chart you go, the more recent the connections. In order to get Hartley unstuck from the middle ages, we need more Big Y testers to refine more Hartley YDNA branches.

In the above chart, it looks like Hartley descends from Smith. However, that is not right. The block tree at FTDNA is more accurate:

In the above chart, Hartley is on the left and Smith is on the right.

A11132 Testing

So far as I know, three Hartley’s have tested positive for A11132. One other Hartley and I took the Big Y test. The person I will be calling Hartley 4.11 did not do the Big Y test, but did test positive for A11132. There is a problem in identifying these three people while maintaining privacy. Here is the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA:

I’ll identify the Hartley testers by number. So the first person in Group 4.0 will be Hartley 4.01. The last person on the entire list will be 4.15. The Hartley administrator has put 12 Hartley’s into a green A11132 Group. The first 7 are suspected A11132. The next five Hartley’s in Group 4.1 appear to have tested positive for A11132, but only two show that they have tested for A11132. My test (4.12) has Robert Hartley for an ancestor. The other Big Y tested A11132 (4.15) has the ancestor of Samuel Edward Hartley from 1666. Hartley 4.11 has the ancestor Richard Hartley. He tested for the single SNP A11132, but because the testing was not with FTDNA, the results do not show up on the Chart above.

Genealogical Triangulation

Assuming that the 4.0 and 4.1 Groups above are all A11132, it should be possible to look at their genealogy and triangulate a likely Hartley place of origin. My Hartley genealogy goes back to Trawden, Lancashire, England around 1803 and then gets stuck. This is due to too many Hartley’s in the area with the same names and I can on;ly guess which one is my ancestor based on location and occupation if that information is even available.

My Genealogy Back to Trawden

I can get back to Trawden, Lancashire. This was a little village that didn’t even have it’s own Anglican Church outside of Colne.

After my family moved out of Trawden, they moved to Bacup which was to the lower right of Newchurch on the map above. From there, they moved to Massachusetts.

The earliest Hartley I can trace for sure is Robert Hartley. He was a weaver in Trawden. His son, my ancestor, Greenwood was born in 1831:

Unfortunately, Robert was a common name and there were many Robert’s from the time when my ancestor Robert would have been born. Also a weaver was a common profession. Weavers were not tied to the land, so they may have moved around.

When Robert married Mary, he was already a widower:

When Mary married, she was already a single mother and had a son named John Pilling. To further complicate matters, Robert died, probably in 1835:

Hartley 4.05 – Congregational Ancestry

I looked at the genealogy of this Hartley in a previous Blog:

He is the one highlighted with William Shepherd as an ancestor. I’m calling him 4.05 because he is the fifth Hartley in group 4.0.  Through non-conformist Congregational records, I was able to get him further back to Wray near Hornby on the map below around 1750 or before:

Hartley 4.07 – Over the Yorkshire Line

This is the Hartley with the Thomas Hartley ancestor:

He is also mentioned in my 2017 Blog as he is the other Hartley who tested to 111 STRs. I have that his ancestors were in Thornton near Bradford as per the red marker in the image above. Going by the 111 STR markers, it appeared that Hartley 4.05 and 4.07 were more closely related to each other than to me (Hartley 4.12).

Hartley 4.15 – Quaker Ancestry

This match is interesting to me for a few reasons. One is that he is the only other A11132 Hartley to have taken the Big Y test. Secondly, by the less accurate STRs, he seems to be more closely related to me than all of the other Hartley’s except Sanchez:

Assuming I got lucky and was right with my tree above, our Quaker Hartley would have the most important genealogy to me other than Sanchez’s genealogy right now.

4.15 sent me this tree:

This goes back beyond his 1666 Samuel Edward Hartley ancestor, based on FamilySearch apparently. However, I need to get from 4.15 back to Samuel Edward. That could take a bit:

I found a Quaker record for Thomas C Hartley that made me think I was on the right track:

I’m not sure why the heading is for North Carolina Marriage Records if this was for an Ohio Quaker meeting.

Now I’m back to Pennsylvania in the early 1700’s:

At this point, five Ancestry Trees that have a parent or two for Roger, have Roger’s father as Samuel and four have Edward.

Geni has this information:

WikiTree matches what Hartley 4.15 has:

Here is a 1577 map of a portion of Lancashire:

Marshden Chap: must be the general area of Marsden. Trawden is NE of Marshden on the map. Pendle Hill is famous among Quakers. According to georgefox.edu:

Historians mark 1652 as the beginning of the Quaker movement. One day George Fox climbed up desolate Pendle Hill (believed to be a haunt of demons) and saw “a people in white raiment, coming to the Lord.” The vision signified that proclaiming Christ’s power over sin would gather people to the kingdom. And it did. By 1660, there were 50,000 followers. Zealous young men and women (“the valiant sixty”) joined Fox in preaching at fairs, marketplaces, in the fields, in the jails, in the courts, and through the printing press.

What I Gather from My A11132 Hartley Relative with Quaker Ancestry

Based just on my genealogy and the above Quaker genealogy, I take it that I am looking for my Hartley ancestors in the right general area. I would not be able to say if our common ancestor was in Marsden and my branch moved to Trawden or that our common ancestor was in the Trawden area and the Quaker Branch moved to Marsden. These two places border each other. However, the fact that the DNA points to an early common ancestor from around 1500 or so, makes finding that common ancestor difficult. The other aspect of my Quaker connection is that Samuel (or Edward or Samuel Edward) Hartley who was born in 1666 left for Pennsylvania. I don’t know if Samuel Edward left any children in Lancashire, England. According to WikiTree, Samuel’s father was Rodger John Hartley born 1628 in Little Marsden, Lancashire. The point is, that by genealogy and geography, he would be the latest possible common ancestor between myself and Hartley 4.15.

Hartley 4.04 Genealogy

This Hartley shows as Sanchez on the STR Tree that I drew and showed as my closest DNA match. If my analysis is right, then 4.04’s genealogy will be the closest and most important for my Hartley Branch.  4,04’s genealogy should also give a locational triangulation between my ancestors and Hartley 4.15’s ancestors. Here is the paternal side of 4.04’s Tree at Ancestry:

This tree begins with 4.04’s grandfather. When 4.04 originally contacted me, he did not know who his grandfather was, but apparently he has figured it out since then. 4.04 has his genealogy ending up in Todmorden, Yorkshire or Lancashire (I assume the County boundaries changed):

Here is part of a Wikipedia entry on Todmorden:

The historic boundary between Yorkshire and Lancashire is the River Calder and its tributary, the Walsden Water, which run through the town. The administrative border was altered by the Local Government Act 1888 placing the whole of the town within the West Riding.

So the answer is that Todmorden was historically in both Yorkshire and Lancashire, but since 1888, it has been in Yorkshire. I assume that I will end up in Todmorden also when I create my tree for Hartley 4.04. John Edward Hartley was the immigrant, so it would be nice to find Naturalization papers for him. John Hartley was a common name, so it would be good to double check the genealogy.

I did find a Naturalization for John’s daughter in law Agnes Hartley. Here we have some tight timeframes:

I was suspicious of this record as William and Agnes are shown marrying in 25 May 1940. However, when I check the 1940 Census for Harrison, NJ, it shows that William was single. That is because the Census was taken 25 April 1940.

I think I found John Hartley in the 1915 New Jersey Census:

He is living, widowed, at 617 John Street, Kearney, NJ. He is a Color mixer which fits in with his 1940 occupation as a color chemist at DuPont.

A Curious Marriage

This is a critical record for John Hartley:

The question is why John from Newark, NJ would have married in Boston, MA in 1913. Also Sarah’s address is given as the SS Laconia. It seems to tie together strangely when we see that John arrived in Boston on 13 May 1913 on the SS Laconia:

So the story holds together. The marriage record is important as it gives the names of John’s parents:

The ship record confirms Thomas as John’s father:

Unfortunately, I can’t figure out where 28 Union St, Castleton is. Google Maps wants to send me to Cartaret, NJ. [See later in the Blog for the answer.]

John’s Draft Registration Cards link hin to Todmorden:

The above card is from 1917.

Here is Todmorden:

I drew in where Marsden used to be. I included a one mile scale.

Here are a few more geographical tidbits:

My ancestors moved from Trawden to Bacup to find work in the textile mills around 1851 or before.  Joseph Edward Hartley married in Heptonstall in 1693.

Here is John Edward’s baptismal record from 1883:

Here is the family in 1891 in Rochdale:

Searching for Thomas and Mary

This Thomas was born about 1858 and Mary should have been born about 1857. This must be the marriage in Burnley in 1882:

That means that Thomas would have been single in 1881:

Note that the birthplace is given as Lancashire, Todmorden. This appears to be a transcription of Thomas’ birth record:

Walsden is the village South of Todmorden. Here is Thomas’ death record. I mention Castleton above:

Edward and Hannah Hartley

That gets us back to Thomas’ parents. Here is the family in 1841 in Walsden:

Here is where a map comes in handy:

I couldn’t read Knowl Wood on the Census, but it is plain on the map above (highlighted).

Of further interest in the 1841 Census above, is that David the father was not born in the same County and his wife was not born in the same Country.

David and Betty Hartley

From another record, I see that David was from Stansfield. Here is the Stansfield section of Todmorden:

I get this Ancestry suggestion for a baptism at Holmfirth Wesleyan for David:

This is supposed to give his Township and Parish, but I am having trouble making them out. This could explain why there were not many Church of England records for this family. Concerning the date, that would make David only 16 when he married in 1817, assuming his birth was near his baptism. The 1841 Census says that he was 40, but those ages were rounded down, so he may have been as old as 44 at the time. Based on the 1841 Census, David was not born in Lancashire, so a Holmfirth, Yorkshire baptism would agree with that Census.

Abraham or Thomas Hartley?

Other trees have David’s father as Thomas Hartley:

This would make sense as it would have been a tradition for David to name his first son Thomas (which he did) after his father. One problem is that David was born in 1797 in the above tree and this tree has Thomas Hartley and Betty Barker marrying in 1801.

A11132 Hartley Places

Here is my summary, so far:

Now I just need all these places on a map.

Here I circled three, because based on YDNA STRs, it seemed that these three were more closely related to each other and the other top two blue markers seemed to be related to each other. I also added in Holmfirth as a possible birthplace for David Hartley mentioned above. This map could represent several hundred years of time in which Hartley descendants moved around the area.

Here I added the Hartley names and dates:

The genealogy of Samuel Edward Hartley is important as it is the earliest. My guess based on previous STR analysis is that Samuel is more closely related to Robert and David Hartley though 150 years separate their genealogies. I suspect that Samuel, Christopher and Thomas also descend from an earlier Hartley and that Christopher and Thomas are more closely related to each other than to Samuel, Robert and David. However, further Big Y testing my support or refute that theory.

Due to the age of Samuel Edward’s genealogy and the founder’s effect, I would place the origin for all these Hartley’s in the area to the South of Colne. The founder’s effect says that you will see a lot of Hartley’s, for example, in the area where they originally started out. The area of Colne has had the largest concentration of Hartley’s in the World that I know of.

Summary and Conclusions

  • YDNA testing for STRs and SNPs have shown that there is one certain group of Hartley’s presently identified by the SNP A11132 that separates themselves from all other Hartley’s.
  • According to the Hartley YDNA Project, there are 12 Hartley’s who have tested that appear to be in this A11132 group
  • Many of the 12 in the group have listed the oldest Hartley ancestor that they can find.
  • By further testing of Big Y, we should be able to get more YDNA branching of SNPs. This will refine which Hartleys within A11132 are related more closely to each other and suggest where each branch lived and when. This will further help in directing where to research for these ancestors.
  • I have looked at the genealogy of 5 of the 12 in this group. It would be a good idea to continue on with this work at some time.
  • I never did look at the genealogy of the husband of the woman who got in touch with me. His genealogy goes back to Virginia. He would benefit by a Big Y test in that could tell him which Hartley Branch is DNA is aligning with. This would also point to an English place of origin for his Branch of Hartley’s. However, even withouth that testing, it seems like all roads for A11132 Hartley’s lead to the Parish of Colne.

 

Posted on

My Wife’s Theories of Relativity and DNA Painting

My wife Marie has Butler, Ellis, Lefevre and  Upshall. Butler is originally from Ireland, Ellis from PEI, LeFevre from Quebec and Upshall from Newfoundland. I have uplaoded Marie’s DNA results to MyHeritage. They have a utility called Theories of Relativity. This matches DNA with family trees. Once I get those connections, I can map Marie’s DNA using DNA Painter an online utility.

DNA Painter

I have already mapped quite a bit of Marie’s DNA here:

This shows that Marie is 30% painted or mapped. I’d like to improve this by looking at MyHeritage’s Theories.

Marie’s Theories of Relativity (TOR)

Marie’s top TOR is already mapped. That is Fred. Marie’s second TOR is Jo-Ann. Their common ancestors are Hopgood and Watson:

Marie and Jo-Ann match here:

I downloaded the details of this DNA match and entered them in at DNA Painter. I didn’t have these ancestors at DNA Painter, so I added them along with a new suggested color:

When I do this, I notice a potential problem:

This indicates that Jo-Ann’s match is bumping into Sarah’s match. That makes me suspect that I have mapped Sarah wrong. Sarah may have Hopgood/Watson ancestors also that I didn’t notice.

Another Look at Sarah

Sarah’s results are at AncestryDNA and Gedmatch. This is how I have Sarah at Ancestry:

That means that there is a mix-up somewhere. The reason I suspect it is on Sarah’s side is because the DNA match for Marie and Sarah is high for a 4th cousin once removed. I don’t want to try to fix this at this time, so I’ll just note the discrepancy. The problem is that one shared segment should represent one shared common ancestor. In this case it represents two.

Even with the overlaps, Jo-Ann brings up Marie’s mapped DNA to 31%.

Caroline and the LeFevre/Boure Line

Next is Wallace who I already mapped. Then Caroline. TOR shows a common ancestor with this couple:

This tree is also not without its problems. How could Charles Lefebvre be born in 1891 and have a daughter born 1870? This Ancestry Tree from Marie’s cousin has a Charles:

When I checked details on Caroline’s tree, it said that Charles was born before 1891. So I’ll say Caroline’s tree is OK. Caroline doesn’t add much new DNA, but doesn’t conflict with other DNA

Caroline overlaps with orange and pink but those are also LeFevre matches from more recent generations:

Pierre -Luc and an Older Pouliot Ancestor

Here is how MyHeritage shows the connection:

My suspicious side says that there could be other ancestral connections, but my lazy side says, put this in as is. Pierre-Luc’s DNA doesn’t bump into anyone that it shouldn’t bump into.

Pierre-Luc bumps into Joe and Patricia but they have common ancestors with Marie of LeFevre and Pouliot. That means that Joe and Patricia’s pink segments above Pierre are most likely Pouliot DNA. That means that if I wanted to get fancy, I could re-assign those two Joe and Patricia segments to Emma Pouliot. But I won’t.

The Problem with Daniel: Too Many Ancestors

Here is how MyHeritage shows Daniel:

But also like this:

DNA Painter may help figure out which DNA goes where. First, I’ll put Daniel in ambiguously:

Here are the hairs we are trying to split:

On Chromosome 2, we still can’t tell where Daniel belongs:

 

First I had to change Daniel’s color to green so he would show up better. In order to tell where Daniel belongs, we need an older match. The pink, orange and blue matches are too recent. That means that I entered Daniel correctly as Methot or LeFevre. For brevity, I left out the spouses. Sorry, spouses.

Daniel’s DNA matches with Marie were just under the limit of 7 cM, so they didn’t get painted:

Irma with PEI Ancestry

Matches on Chromosomes 2 and 3 will be too small to paint:

Painting this brings up more problems:

Here we have some bad overlaps between Ellis, Hopgood and MacArthur. One may be explained in that Irma has a different path to Ellis:

The Hopgood segment was one we just mapped from Jo-Ann – but with reservations.

Here is another path for Jo-Ann:

Here is a more likely, but slightly more distant relationship:

 

The Problem with Marie’s DNA Matches

Marie has four grandparents as do we all:

  • Ellis from PEI – Island genealogy and intermarriage, but the records are pretty good
  • Upshall from Newfoundland – More intermarriage like in PEI, but the records are not as good or missing
  • Butler from Ireland – No known intermarriage but very few relatives who have tested or posted genealogies
  • LeFevre from Quebec – Very good genealogies but a lot of intermarriage

Summary and Observations

  • Marie has confusing intermarriage issues on three out of four sides of her tree. This makes analyzing her genetic genealogy difficult
  • The further back the match is, the more possibility there is that the DNA could represent multiple sets of common ancestors
  • DNA Painter points out some of these issues. However, it is possible that DNA Painter could also sort out from which ancestors these DNA matches come from where there is more than one possibility.
  • I may come back to this later and try to sort this out.

 

 

Posted on

Looking at Stuart’s Big Y-700

I told Stuart (his last name for privacy) that I would look at his Big Y-700. I hesitate to write this Blog, because I am not an expert on Big Y-700 and describing the differences between Stuart’s Big Y-500 and Big Y-700 is likely to be difficult. Stuart is not part of the Frazer YDNA Project that I am part of, but he is in a line that has had a common ancestor with the Frazer’s before the Frazer were Frazer’s. I am also interested in learning about the Big Y-700 as none of the Frazer testers have tested to that level yet. That makes Stuart a pioneer in this area of YDNA testing.

Stuart at YFull

Stuart has uploaded his Big Y-700 and previous Big Y-500 results to YFull. This is helpful in giving probable dates on when the different family lines had their origin. In the big picture, Stuart is R1a.

I see one difference already due to Stuart’s Big Y-700 test. Here are Stuart’s pre-Big Y-700 results:

Before, the number of years to Stuart’s common ancestors were lower. Stuart’s common ancestor with my Frazer relatives used to be 700 years ago. Now it is 800 years ago. Stuart’s common ancestor with his closest group of R-BY26344 used to be 225 years ago. Now it is 425 years ago. That has implications as there is a Stuart and a Grant in that group. The obvious implication is that the mixup in names could have happened up to 200 years further back in time than previously thought.

Stuart’s Big Y at FTDNA

Here is the same tree shown as a block tree at FTDNA but only up to the YP6479 level:

The thing I don’t like about the FTDNA tree is that it filters out too much. For example, I had my Frazer cousin tested shown as YF09981 at YFull above, but he doesn’t show as a match to Stuart at FTDNA. FTDNA shows a stingy 4 Big Y matches for Stuart

By comparison, YFull does a better job at matching SNPs and gives Stuart 71 matches:

More is better. My 2nd cousin with the Irish Flag shows correctly above, ahead of Hayes who has a common ancestor with Stuart of 1150 years ago.

Stuart’s Private Variants at FTDNA

Stuart shows an average of 13 Private Variants with his match Grant above. I would expect that Stuart would have more private variants than Grant as the Big Y-700 is supposed to pick up more than the old Big Y test.

 

This is the first page of Stuart’s Private Variants. He has 19 altogether. These Private Variants are shown above as position numbers. Once they find a match in another Big Y tester, they will be given a name. In order for Stuart and Grant to have an average of 13 Private Variants, Grant must have 7 Private Variants. As there are two in this YP6488 group, it would be helpful to have a third Big Y tester. This additional tester should refine the results in make a new branch for Stuart or Grant.

Tie-Breaking Candidates

Here is a group from the R1a Project:

The two testers with the green R-YP6488 results above are the ones who took the Big Y tests. The other two testers with the red R-M512 results would be the best bets for an additional Big Y test to match with the existing 26 Private Variants to form a new YDNA Branch on the tree of all mankind. I note that the one with the ancestor of Arthur Grant has genealogy that goes back the furthest. However, this is still within the 425 year timeframe for the common ancestor. In other words, there could have been an adoption or other name-changing event before the time of 1683 which separated Stuart from Grant.

Stuart At YFull

Stuart has two kits at YFull.

Big Y-500

I assume the shorter numbered kit is the Big Y-500. Here are Stuart’s 3 Private Variants:

 

This shows on Stuart’s original Big Y-500 test, he had one best quality Novel SNP and two that were acceptable. This SNP has two different position numbers based on the old system (HG19) and the new system (HG38). Due to newer technology and new SNPs being found, there had to be a new numbering system. It appears that this Private Variant already has the name of Y14660. However, different companies may have different names.

Here are the other two  private SNPs or Novel SNPs as YFull calls them:

 

They are of Acceptable quality. The last Novel SNP has a check by it:

It says that someone did a single test for this and it came up negative. Apparently the person who tested for this was someone other than Stuart.

Big Y-700

I’m curious to see any differences here.

Here are some huge differences. Now Stuart is up to 13 Best quality Novel SNPs. I can see the checked SNP from the previous Big Y-500. This has moved up from Acceptable to Best Quality.

Note that 6 Novel SNPs are marked as Homologous. I’m not sure what this means. I think it means that there is a SNP in a totally different haplogroup that looks the same.

One other difference is that YFull used the VCF analysis for Stuart’s Big Y-500. I checked the Big Y-500 test I had done for my Frazer cousin and the BAM file was used for that. My understanding is that the BAM file should be the one to use if possible.

Note that at FTDNA, Stuart had 19 Private Variants. At YFull, Stuart has 13 Novel SNPs of best quality and three of acceptable quality. This seems to be due to differences in how FTDNA and YFull choose which SNPs they should use.

Here is the side by side comparison between YFull and FTDNA:

For the YFull list, I only used the best quality list. That means that there were 7 Best Quality SNPs that YFull found that weren’t used by FTDNA.

Upon further review, I see that FTDNA has a second page of SNP Variants:

 

Now the comparison is closer. FTDNA has 19 Private Variants and YFull shows 15 Novel SNPs that match FTDNA’s. YFull has 13 SNPs of best quality and 3 SNPs of acceptable quality. These private SNPs are measuring Stuart’s non-matchedness. In other words, these are SNPs that are waiting to be matched, so that Stuart can form a new YDNA branch.

When I look at SNPs under different categories at YFull, it adds one SNP that FTDNA had. This brings up the importance of YFull. It is not necessarily showing that FTDNA is wrong but gives a second independent opinion to the analysis of the results.

YFull STR Matching

Here are the results of Stuart’s STR Matching at YFull:

When I try to choose Stuart’s old Big Y test, I get no results, so these are based on the more recent Big Y-700 test. The results are interesting, though generally not as precise as SNP results. Stuart’s closest match is correctly with Grant with a distance 0.03. After that, there are two Frazer’s, a Hayes and another Frazer. The last Frazer with the Irish Flag is my 2nd cousin once removed. Clearly the Hayes connection is much further back than the Frazer connection:

Extended STR Matching at FTDNA

This is available, but not in one place like YFull has it:

Here are Stuart’s 111 STR matches. If they have taken the Big Y test, then those results will show also. YFull showed 5 extended results. These are all the Frazer results. The rest of the group can be found at Stuart’s 67 STR match page:

For whatever reason, my second cousin once removed seems to have more than the average number of mutations, or that STRs that changed were the faster moving STRs to begin with.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on YFull, Stuart had a large increase of Private Variants or SNPs between his Big Y-500 and Big Y-700 test. Based on the Big Y-500, Stuart had 3 Private SNPs. This went up to 16 Private SNPs with the Big Y-700 test.
  • Stuart’s original YFull analysis was based on his VCF file and his Big Y-700 YFull analysis is based on his BAM file. My understanding is that the BAM analysis is more detailed.
  • Stuarts dates for a common ancestor to his Grant match and to his Frazer matches increased. This is apparently due to the increase of Stuart’s newly found Private SNPs. The more unmatched SNPs you have, the further you have to a common ancestor.
  • The new date for the common ancestor of 425 years before present between Stuart and Grant has genealogical implications. That goes back to before the year 1600. That means that the mixup between Grant and Stuart could go back that long, or it could be that these surnames were less set in stone at that time.
  • I don’t know how to look at Stuart’s old Big Y-500 results at FTDNA. It doesn’t seem like the old results are kept separately like YFull does.

 

 

Posted on

My Hathaway DNA

I was recently writing a couple of Blogs about where my Hathaway ancestors lived. It turns out that there are a ton of Hathaway descendants. This is a good thing for DNA matching. Think about it. If I was the only descendant of my Hathaway ancestors, I wouldn’t have any DNA matches on that line. As it is, I should have a lot. This made me want to look into my Hathaway DNA and see if I could do anything with it.

Hathaway Genealogy

The most recent Hathaway in my genealogy is Wealthy Hathaway born 1809. She married Harvey Bradford and is my 3rd great-grandmother:

Anyone with whom I share Wealthy Hathaway and Harvey Bradford would be a 4th cousin. At ancestry I have a DNA match with a J.H:

JH and I show as th cousins through Harvey Bradford. However, we are equally or more related on the Hathaway side:

This is JH’s tree and Olive descends from two different Hathaway Lines. As I said, prolific.

My JH match also appears on Ancestry’s Thrulines:

JH and Philip have modest DNA matches with me. I have a huge match with Patricia, but we are also 2nd cousins through a closer pair of common ancestors.

More Searching for Hathaway DNA Matches at Ancestry

I can do a seach like this:

This narrows down ancestral Hathaway’s from Wareham, MA. However, some of my Hathaway ancestors were actually from Rochester, MA. When I run this Search with Rochester, I get Louisa. She responded to to a message I sent her, but was somewhat private. Her tree is locked:

She thinks we connect on the Simon Hathaway Line. However, that would make us 7th cousins if she is in the same generation as me from Simon Hathaway. That is pretty far out there for a DNA match of 34 cM. Ancestry expects us to be on the order of 4th cousins based on the amount of DNA that Louisa and I share.

Shared Matches that Louisa and I Share

Assuming that Louisa and I share DNA all the way back from Simon Hathaway and Hannah Clifton, our shared matches could be along that line also.

Gloria is the first shared match I have with Louisa with a useful tree:

Gloria’s second great grandmother is Susan Hathaway born in 1849. As Susan seems stuck at that point, I hesitate to try to figure out who she is. So I am stuck here. Susan had a son named Rufus and there was a Rufus Hathaway who lived not far from where I lived in Massachusetts, but I am stuck on Gloria right now.

Searching for Wareham Hathaway Ancestors with DNA Matches

Next, I’ll go back to my Wareham search that I mentioned above. The first person I find who I don’t already know about is Carol. Carol has a Rebecca Hathaway in her tree:

I found her death record at Ancestry:

Her married name was transcribed as Leaver and I can see why. Here are her parents:

I just have to make the connection to a common ancestor. This will also force me to build out my Ancestry Tree. Based on 139 Ancestry Trees, David’s parents were Salathiel and Lovey:

Here is how Carol and I match as 7th cousins:

It’s a double Hathaway match as Lovey in Carol’s line married Salathiel Hathaway. Salathiel was son of Thomas, so of Arthur. Our common ancestor Simon was also a son of Arthur but from a different wife. I won’t chart that out for the sake of simplicity. I think that means that Salathiel and Lovey were half first cousins once removed! If I add Rebecca Hathaway to my tree, Ancestry will probably see the connection.

Actually, I left out David on Carol’s side:

Back to Wealthy Hathaway

I can add a Wealthy Branch to the tree:

I could also call this the Bradford Branch. On the right side where I am, Annie Snell and James Hartley had 13 children. So I won’t add all those. Patricia also descends from that couple on her mother’s side.

Skot

I wrote a Blog about Skot here. In that Blog I gave more in-depth analysis of Hathaway DNA.

Nadine

I also have a small DNA match with Nadine at Ancestry. Her tree appears to be on the same Lovey/Salathiel Branch. Nadine’s tree stops at Jonathan Hathaway:

Jonathan was one of 11, so there was a good chance that I would be matching some of those descendants.

Looking at My Brother Jon’s Matches

I have four other siblings tested at Ancestry. My brother Jon matches WW by DNA. WW’s tree stops at Simon Hathaway, but Ancestry shows that WW’s Simon is the son of my ancestors Simon Hathaway and Hannah Clifton:

WW is interesting as she has Pitts descendants:

WW’s Ancestry Solves Gloria’s Ancestry with DNA Matches as Supporting Evidence

Remember, I got stuck about on Gloria’s genealogy. Here is how Gloria most likely fits in:

 

Simon above who was son and grandson of Simon’s Hathaway was born in Rochester, MA and died in Florida. Susan Hathaway must be the sister of Mary Hathaway. Mary marries William Pitts and Susan marries John Pitts. That means that Gloria and WW are my 6th cousins once removed. It’s cool that DNA picked up Simon Hathaway who moved from Rochester to Alabama and Florida around 175 years ago.

Jon and Tami

When I look for Jon’s DNA with a search for Hathaway ancestors from Rochester, MA, I get Tami. Tami is from the Holmes, Florida Branch of Hathaway’s:

Based on WW’s Ancestry Tree, Simon W Hathaway bought 199 acres of land in the Tallahassee area of Florida:

Tami helps build out the Florida Branch nicely:

My Sister Lori and Alyssa

Ancestry doesn’t pick up a common ancestor here, but I think I see one:

I descend from David Hathaway and Priscilla Hiller. Here is that Line:

Alyssa also added her DNA to Gedmatch which is important for analysis. Here is where she matches my sister Lori on Chromosome 2:

The match is fairly low, so it is difficult to tell how significant this DNA match is. However, the genealogical connection is probably quite good, so the DNA match is not as important as, say, with Gloria, where some of the genealogical records appear to be missing.

Lori and Thomas

Here I have added Thomas and Lori:

Joyce, My Father’s Cousin’s Hathaway DNA Matches

Joyce is a generation away from me, so should have more Hathaway DNA. Joyce matches AH:

AH’s tree ends at Salathiel and Lovey Hathaway. I’ll add AH and Joyce to my tree. Actually it is not that easy as it shows Salathiel born in 1836 being the father of Thomas Hathaway born in 1789. That’s not good. I better make my own tree:

My tree goes out to an Isaac Hathaway Jr. That would give a hint as to the father. AH’s tree has Thomas Hathaway as the father of Isaac Hathaway. On Edward’s marriage record, it shows that his father was a Junior:

This record of Intentions is for Isaac Hathaway Jr.:

Short story is that it seems like AH should be in the David Hathaway Line:

That would make Joyce and AH 5th cousins if I have it right.

Joyce’s ThruLines with David Hathaway

ThruLines are a sort of short cut. Ancestry tries to make the connections that I am trying to make by computer matching and DNA matching:

Ancestry wants me to evaluate these, but they look alright to me. The only problem is that Ancestry shows Charlotte as a half 5th cousin and she should be a full 5th cousin to Joyce. Here they are on my Chart:

If all these people had uploaded their DNA results to Gedmatch, I would be able to tell how they match each other and it would give more evidence for this tree.

More Rochester Hathaway DNA Matches for Joyce

When I look for common DNA matches and common Rochester Hathaway ancestors for Joyce, I find Katherine:

Edwin looks familiar from AH’s tree, so I’ll add Katherine to my tree:

Katherine brings the David Hathaway/Priscilla Hiller tree down an additional generation. So the skinny little tree I had at the top of the Blog has filled out quite a bit. This is a composite tree with DNA matches from myself my siblings and Joyce so far.

Joyce and Joyce

Joyce’s match Joyce is from the Salathiel/Lovey Hathaway Line. When I add Joyce, I can take out Thomas. AH had him as an ancestor, but I didn’t think that was correct:

This will fix the Savery Branch. Savery was the brother of my ancestor David Hathaway:

This shows that Joyce is a 4th cousin to my high school friend, Skot.

Joyce and Cynthia

Cynthia is on the Hathaway/Bradford LIne:

Joyce and AF

AF goes back to Simon Hathaway and Hannah Clifton through their daughter, Rebecca:

So far I have only descendants of Simon’s three sons, so this is a new line.

Joyce with Bradford and Catherine

Bradford and Catherine add to the Salathiel/Lovey Line.

Joyce has a DNA Match with MD on the David Hathaway Line

Here is an update of the progress so far:

This shows Simon Hathaway at the top with three sons and a daughter. The David Hathaway line has the most descendants as that is the line that I come from and am comparing. All of these people have a DNA match to me, one of my siblings or to my father’s first cousin Joyce.

Joyce Matches Melanie on the Simon LIne

Melanie is the last DNA match for Joyce with an easily identifiable common Hathaway ancestor.

My Dad’s First Cousin Maury

My cousin tested her dad at AncestryDNA and gave me access to the results. He should match many of the same Hathaway descendants plus a few new ones. When I do the find DNA matches of Hathaway ancestors from Wareham, I get DM. I don’t recognize DM from previous searches. DM has ancestors on the Simon side:

I’ll have to add Maury to my Chart also. Here is how the DNA match works:

Both Maury and DM both likely got the same slice of DNA from Simon Hathaway or his wife Hannah Clifton. DM is on the Simon Hathaway Line that ended up in Florida in the 1800’s.

Maury and HI

HI goes back to my David Hiller ancestor:

Maury’s ThruLines

These are some of the DNA matches and genealogical matches that Ancestry came up with:

I just added HI and already have JH, but I can add in Eli and Janet.

Maury’s Match to Carolyn on the Lovey Branch

My DNA Hathaway Chart

This is what I came up with as a result of this Blog:

These are some of the descendants of Simon Hathaway and Hannah Clifton that have DNA matches with me, my siblings and my father’s two cousins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Painting a DNA Match on My Mother’s Side

I recently came upon a DNA match of my mother’s that I hadn’t painted yet. I use a web site called dnapainter.com to paint DNA. In order to do that, you need:

  1. DNA matches
  2. Yotu have to be pretty sure you have a common ancestor with those DNA matches that you can identify

Here is how my Mom is painted so far:

 

This shows my Mom to be 24% painted. That means that I have found DNA matches with most likely identifiable common ancestors for about one quarter of her autosomal DNA. However, I am missing a DNA match on my Mom’s Chromosome 22. In addition, I have no paternal matches on my mom’s Chromosome 4. The paternal side as shown above is the top blue side.

My Mom’s New Match – Ingrid

Actually my mom’s match is not really new. The match’s sister was going to add her results to Gedmatch.com, but never got around to it. Here is a Rathfelder Chart where I just added Ingrid:

By this chart, Astrid and Ingrid are 2nd cousins once removed to my mother. Here is Ingrid’s tree:

We both have slightly different trees. I wrote a Blog here in 2016 about Wilhemine. I may have written others also.

Common Ancestral DNA

I have at DNA Painter, that my mom’s common ancestors with Astrid are Rathfelder and Bittenbinder. That also agrees with Ancestry.com:

The crazy thing about this connection is that it shows two brothers with the same name. Believe it or not, I have this from a published document. That means that I have to change my chart.

That’s a pretty big change. Now my Mom is a fourth cousin with Astrid and Ingrid. With the amount of DNA shared between my mom and Astrid, Ancestry says they have a 4% chance of being fourth cousins:

However, there is a good chance that they are related on additional lines due to intermarriage within the Colony of Hirschenhof where these ancestors lived.

Here is Astrid’s DNA at DNA painter (as she matches my Mom).

Here is how Ingrid matches my mom at Family Tree DNA:

Some of these matches are below 7 cM and by default, DNA Painter does not add matches less than 7 cM.

Here is the DNA that Ingrid adds:

Ingrid matches my Mom at similar places as her sister Astrid. However, Ingrid adds some DNA that on Chromosome 19. Due to the nature of DNA mapping, the largest matches are first and the newest ones are usually smaller.

Painting My Match with Ingrid

I can do the same for me. Here is my match with Astrid on DNA Painter:

Every time you go through a generation, some specific DNA is lost or diluted. Also my representation of Rathfelder and Bittenbinder has a pink background as they are on my Maternal side. For my mom, they are on her Paternal side.

This shows that Ingrid didn’t add anything new for me:

Ingrid is in the grey and Astrid in green.