A16717 is only one branch among the 26,742 branches under R and 55,842 branches altogether. R is broken down usually between the larger R1b and smaller R1a group.<\/p>\n Here is the big picture of the R1b group:<\/p>\n At the bottom left of the tree is L513 where my branch of Hartleys are. The larger branch under L513 is S5668. Here is the tip of the iceburg view of L513:<\/p>\n There is an image above representing ‘Celts and other folks’ who were in the British Isles. Hartleys would be under Z16357 which shows as being in England just around or before the time of the Celts.<\/p>\n There used to be one L513 Tree when there were fewer branches. Now there are two trees. Here is the S5668 Tree:<\/p>\n This chart is more useful for genealogical purposes as it includes surnames. Hartley is near the bottom left of this tree:<\/p>\n Here I tried to get those under the Z16343 Branch. Under Z17911, Hartley is the only surname with multiple branches. Each branch of Hartley represents two BigY testers.<\/p>\n FTDNA portrays the results in the form of a ‘block tree’. Here are the results for A11138 and down from my perspective:<\/p>\n This is the more detailed view. I am at FT225247 where I match my brother James. Michael and Lawrence represent a US Colonial Branch of Hartleys who moved to Pennsylvania from being persecuted as Quakers in Lancashire, England. This was the A16717 that was just added to the FTDNA L513 Project Tree above. John and Steve represent an older branch of Hartleys that the other two branches descend from.<\/p>\n FTDNA has come out with some new tools recently. Here is one that is helpful for dating haplogroups:<\/p>\n I put my Haplogroup in and get this:<\/p>\n This is a little small to see. Here is a larger image of the left side:<\/p>\n This says that our common ancestor was born around 100 years ago. My father was born in 1918, so I would say that is pretty accurate. Secondly, Here we have a date of 1600, so they seem to be subtracting the 400 from the year 2000. I actually have what I think is the actual date for the common ancestor between Michael and Lawrence:<\/p>\n I have that as 1666. This is the better-documented Branch of Hartleys. Surprisingly, the date that FTDNA has for A11134 is only 50 years earlier than A16717 or 450 years ago. If I subtract that from the year 2000 to be consistent, I get the year 1550. To me, that date seems better than subtracting 50 years from 1666 which would be 1616, but who knows?<\/p>\n But wait, there’s more. I need to add in A11134:<\/p>\n I just noticed that the explanation for A11134 says that there are 2 yet unnamed lineages. I assume that these are Hartley Lineages for Steve and John.<\/p>\n I have already gone over the 1600 date as being representative of the Hartleys. However, this dating goes one step further to the Mawdsley surname and seems to put it at 700 years ago or around the year 1300.<\/p>\n According to familysearch.org:<\/p>\n The custom of applying a man\u2019s by-name to all his children began in the late 12th century and spread slowly, with the manorial classes and the south of England leading the way. The first legal recognition of an hereditary surname is found in 1267; it was de Cantebrigg meaning \u2018of Canterbury.\u2019 By 1400 three-quarters of the population are reckoned to have borne hereditary family names, and the process was complete by about 1450 in England. Wales is an exception, in that although they had surnames they were patronymics (derived from the father\u2019s first name) and thus changed each generation.<\/em><\/p>\n During this early period a married woman could be known either by her maiden surname or by her husband\u2019s surname with wyf added, as in Mary Walker, wife of Henry Field, or Mary Fieldwyf. The term Mrs. for a married woman was not used until after 1500.<\/em><\/p>\n If I use the new FTDNA tool for A11132, it should include Mawdsley (A11132) and Smith (A111138):<\/p>\n By the way, the grayed out portion will always be grayed out as it represents the female portion of the tree and YDNA represents only the male portion.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/2022-07-29-16_32_12-.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nS5668 Tree<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nHow This Part of the YDNA Tree Looks Like at FTDNA<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nMore on Dating Haplogroups<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nA11134 is said to have branched off 450 years ago. That could also be right as that would be the year 1570. That means that the common ancestor for the six BigY tested Hartleys would be around 1570.<\/p>\nDating A16717 – An Early American Quaker Hartley Branch<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\nDating A11134 – The Hartley Umbrella Branch<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nTwo Yet Unnamed Hartley Lineages<\/h4>\n
The Mawdsley Surname<\/h4>\n
Dating A11132 – Mawdsley and Hartley Ancestors<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n