{"id":13212,"date":"2019-12-26T22:56:24","date_gmt":"2019-12-26T22:56:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/?p=13212"},"modified":"2019-12-26T22:56:24","modified_gmt":"2019-12-26T22:56:24","slug":"shared-clustering-for-my-fathers-first-cousin-joyce","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/2019\/12\/26\/shared-clustering-for-my-fathers-first-cousin-joyce\/","title":{"rendered":"Shared Clustering for My Father’s First Cousin Joyce"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shared Clustering<\/a> is a program that was brought to my attention by Jim Bartlett<\/a>. As Joyce is my father’s first cousin, I share common ancestors with two out of four of her grandparents:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

However, once I go down this route, I need to know something about Joyce’s Gurney and Rounseville sides to make sure I’m not going down the wrong path.<\/p>\n

Jumping Into Joyce’s Shared Clustering<\/h2>\n

I had thought that I had downloaded Joyce’s matches from Ancestry already, but I guess it didn’t save the results. I’ll need to try again:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Joyce has quite a few matches – over 84,000. This could take a while to download. The advantage of using Joyce’s matches is that she is one generation closer than me to get matches from my great-grandparents. Stated another way, her Hartley and Snell matches should be about twice as strong as mine.<\/p>\n

Now that Joyce’s matches are downloaded, I can begin to cluster. I’ll choose a lower limit of 50 cM:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I’ll put the results in a chart:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The good news is that all four of Joyce’s grandparents are represented in the chart above. There were six clusters. There were two more on the Gurney side that I didn’t enter.<\/p>\n

Joyce’s 40 cM Clusters<\/h3>\n

Going from 50 to 40 cM adds two clusters:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The split is pretty even between Gurney in the upper left and Hartley in the lower right. Joyce’s Hartley mother was one of 13 children, so she has a lot of close relatives.<\/p>\n

When I compare the clusters at two levels in MS Access, I get this:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hartley was Clusters 5 and 6 previously. This shows that old Cluster 5 mapped to Cluster 6 and Cluster 6 mapped to new Clusters 6 and 7. That shows that the clusters are reorganizing.<\/p>\n

Victoria in Cluster 6 with Howorth Ancestry<\/h3>\n

One person in Cluster 6 has Howorth ancestry. It would be worth looking into Victoria’s tree:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This is Victoria’s paternal side. I’ll try to recreate Victoria’s tree.\u00a0 I want to focus on Margaret Howorth. According to the 1910 Census, James’ mother was Margaret and Margaret’s father was from England:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The 1910 Census has her born in Iowa in about 1878. Here is some information about Margaret from her marriage record:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Edmund Howorth from England<\/h4>\n

In 1880, Edmund was living on a Farm in Iowa with his family:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This appears to be Edmund living with his parents in Ohio in 1850:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The next record which is a hint at Ancestry seems to be a leap of faith except that one of my ancestors attended this same Baptist Church:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The record makes it clear that Edmund’s mother’s maiden name was also Howorth:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

That means that Joyce could be related on either side of the family or both.<\/p>\n

Edmund the father was a weaver in 1823. I’m not sure where Long Bridge is or was. I assume in Bacup. This also matches Edmund’s birth on the 1900 Census:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

By 1856 the elder Edmund had made his way to Crawford, Iowa:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Howorths in England<\/h4>\n

It appears that the Howorth’s should have been in England in 1841 for the Census. This could be the younger Edmund:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

He was living at Waterside which I assume is in Bacup with perhaps his grandmother and Uncles?<\/p>\n

Back to Iowa for Edmunds 1861 Will<\/h4>\n

Edmund mentions first his daughter Sarah, then his wife Mary:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Next. he mentions his four children and finally his brother Daniel and his son Daniel executor:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The son Edmund is not mentioned. However Edmund is referred to as Senr. which I take to be Senior and thus the son Edmund is implied in the will.<\/p>\n

Liverpool to New York in 1842<\/h4>\n

This appears to be the Howorth family traveling to New York in 1842:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

However, some of the family appears to be missing. I assume that the elder James was a brother of Edmund.<\/p>\n

Connecting the Howorths<\/h4>\n

I would like to connect this family to my line:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Perhaps more DNA review will help clear this up. These two lines are from Australia on the left and the US on the right and are connected by genealogy and DNA.<\/p>\n

On To Joyce’s 30 cM Clusters<\/h2>\n

At 30 cM, Joyce has 21 clusters. Using Access, I get the new cross-cluster comparison:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I’ll try this for now:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

However, there were two Cluster 6’s last time, so I’ll have to check. Also, I’ll want to see if there are any new Hartley side clusters.<\/p>\n

Gurney Clusters 7 and 11<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I have a note that one of the people has many of my ancestor names, but the DNA match is in a Gurney Cluster. That tells me that I should not pursue the ancestry of this one match. That is, unless this match has other DNA matches on my Hartley side.<\/p>\n

There is a similar situation at Gurney Cluster 11. However, this Cluster has common ancestors from Joyce’s maternal and paternal sides.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

First, if there is more than one common ancestor, I tend to go with the closest common ancestors.<\/p>\n

Hartley Cluster 13<\/h3>\n

This is the big Cluster this time:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It also has a funny bump at the bottom. The top left of the Cluster is a part I’m interested in.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I already looked at Victoria’s tree above. That is the tree with two Howorth Lines. Above are my Greenwood Hartley matches. Here is Greenwood and his wife Ann Emmet:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It was Ann’s mother who was a Howorth.<\/p>\n

Of the 7 I show in the first part of Cluster 13, I have already been tracking the last 5. I have Kristen and Emily in a tree already:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I have been unable to figure out where saudet fits in. Jennifer doesn’t have a tree and I haven’t been able to get in touch with her. Perhaps the first two matches, Janet and Stephen, will help place saudet.<\/p>\n

From comparing trees, it is clear that saudet is related to Stephen. So I will look at Janet’s tree:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It appears that both sides of Janet’s tree are from Lancashire. I see that James Stott was born in Cloughfold, to the West of Bacup:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Janet had this marriage for James:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I’ll assume that Janet knows her genealogy.<\/p>\n

Here Janet has James mother as Malley Stott. The 1881 Census mentions a Sarah Stott. So there is some confusion. Was Malley a nickname? So I didn’t make the genealogical connection but now Janet is on my radar. I did make a geographical connection.<\/p>\n

The Other Side of Cluster 13<\/h3>\n

In the middle of Cluster 13 are a lot of close relatives. It comes out of that on someone named Bessey. I’ll take a look at her tree:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s a bit skimpy, but I get some hints:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Althea was married to a Fearing. I thought that I was related tot he Fearings through the Snells and this shows how. We both descend from Bradford and Snell.<\/p>\n

It looks like I was already tracking a Katherine. This person must be the same person or a sister:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The part of the Cluster in green is Snell:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Moving on to Joyce’s 25 cM Clusters<\/h2>\n

This gets Joyce up to 43 clusters.<\/p>\n

Cluster 2<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Cluster 2 is broken into two major parts and a small part at the end. The first part is probably Snell\/Bradford. The second part is probably Hathaway\/Clifton. The third small part seems to merge back into Gurney (not related to me).<\/p>\n

Running the 25 cM Clusters Through Access<\/h3>\n

Access makes reviewing the clusters easier:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This is only part of the answer. Looking at the last two columns, this tells us that the previous Cluster 1 mapped to Cluster 2 at the 25 cM limit. However, that is not the whole story:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

When I sort by new Cluster 2, I see that it comes from other places. Usually the clustering is going from few to many. In this case, it went from many to one. From the chart above, at 50 cM, Clusters 3 and 4 are Gurney Clusters. This may be a result of the way I did my Access query or have to do with relatives of relatives.<\/p>\n

Here is my Access query:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It starts with the 25 cM Clusters. There is a right handed arrow which means to include all the 25 cM Clusters plus the clusters where the 25 cM clusters are the same as the 30 cM clusters. I do that the same way down the line. I tried to query a slightly different way and got the same results.<\/p>\n

Here are Clusters 3, 4 and 5 from 50 cM:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Clusters 3 and 4 are Gurney matches and Cluster 5 shows Hartley matches.<\/p>\n

I can simplify my Access Query by only including those Hartley Clusters I considered at 30 cM:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Interestingly when I restrict the 30 cM Cluster, I no longer show Gurney Clusters 3 and 4 at the 50 cM level.\u00a0This shows that previous Cluster 13 may now be 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 9. Cluster 2 is interesting in that it also came from Cluster 1.<\/p>\n

Here is another way to slice and dice it:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Cluster 5 at 50 cM was my Snell side. Cluster 6 was my Hartley side. That means that Clusters 6, 7, 9, and 25 should be on the Hartley side. This is generally true except for Cluster 25:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There is someone there who is related to Joyce on her Gurney side. However, he also has a Howorth ancestor which would be on Joyce’s and my Hartley side. I had discussed this some above.<\/p>\n

Restricting Members<\/h4>\n

In my previous Blog I restricted my wife’s large French Canadian clusters to 40. I wonder what would happen if I restricted Joyce’s clusters? One of the great things about the Shared Clustering Program is that it only takes a minute to see what happens. I tried it and it didn’t help. I only lost one cluster and I lost the English Hartley Clusters that I am interested in. So where it helped in one case, it didn’t help here.<\/p>\n

Looking At Clusters 2, 6, 7, 9, 25<\/h3>\n

Actually, I already mentioned that Cluster 25 is a Gurney Cluster, so that is confusing. I already looked at Cluster 2.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Plus, Victoria’s tree with the Howorth families is now in Cluster 6. After shuffling things around a bit, I get this:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This also has Cluster 5 which I missed above. It takes a little bit to sort these out.<\/p>\n

Cluster 4<\/h4>\n

I haven’t mentioned Cluster 4. This also came from busy previous Cluster 13. Cluster 4 is hanging off of the top left of Cluster 5:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There are only 6 matches in Cluster 6, but two are associated with Cluster 5 and one with Cluster 9. As Cluster 5 and 9 both have Snell’s in them, that tells me something about Cluster 4. Here is one tree in Cluster 4:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I’ll fill out this tree to see if I find any common ancestors:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Now if Ancestry could have figured this out, it would have saved me some time. Here is my tree:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Our common ancestors are Snell and Head. However, my guess is that there are other connections. I see also Palmer in LPs tree. I had to extend my existing chart from Isaiah Snell:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This is how LP matches Joyce:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

More Snells in Cluster 5<\/h4>\n

Joyce’s first match in Cluster 5 has a very large tree. Joyce and John’s ancestors go two steps beyond the tree above to Thomas Snell. I might as well add in John. However, it will make the names tiny. That makes John and Joyce 8th cousins:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The other Snell match who I know of is OT:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is OT added in:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Cluster 7 From Lancashire<\/h4>\n

Cluster 7 has an interesting shape:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

New in this Cluster is Ruth. Joyce and Ruth’s common ancestry go back to Pilling.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Ruth is in yellow as are the other 2 in this Cluster. One theory is that the overlapping clusters in Cluster 7 are for Hartley and Emmet. As Ruth has no known Emmet DNA, that could mean that Kristen is related to Joyce more on the Hartley side and Emily is related to Joyce more on the Emmet side.<\/p>\n

Cluster 8<\/h4>\n

This Cluster is situated between my Hartley and Snell Clusters. There are only three in this Cluster. One match, LD, has a tree:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is my buildout on LD’s maternal side:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I’m curious about this part of the tree:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I did a genealogy on the Snell’s years ago and didn’t have that Samuel had a son named Peter. This Peter was from Freetown and Samuel was from Tiverton. So there must be a Snell connection, but perhaps not through Samuel. Also looking at Cluster 8, there are some matches to Cluster 9 which is a Snell Cluster.<\/p>\n

Taking Joyce’s Clusters Down to the Minimum at 20 cM<\/h2>\n

This involves correlated matches that are down to 6 cM. This gets me 104 clusters. At the 6th cousin level, Joyce has 128 5th great-grandparents. However, I have already mapped out a match for Joyce at the 8th cousin level. At this level, Joyce has 512 7th great-grandparents. That is far back and old.<\/p>\n

Comparison in Access<\/h3>\n

I brought part of the cluster spreadsheet into Access and compared it to the two previous cluster runs. I set the previous run to only include non-null values. Then I sorted by new cluster number:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So that tells me that the new Cluster 1 and 4 came from the old Cluster 6. Cluster 6 is the one I had as Howorth previously.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Here the new Cluster 1 has many notes on Howorth. However, I have no notes on Clusters 2, 3, and 4. Cluster 4 extends down quite far with a lot of small matches.<\/p>\n

Starting at the Top – Joan’s Tree<\/h4>\n

There are some names above Cluster 1:<\/p>\n