![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-22-13_58_17-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nGoing from right to left would be more chronological.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Smith is in the oldest group and has no matches<\/li>\n
- A11132 is empty but all those below it are A11132 historically speaking.<\/li>\n
- Holland and Mawdsely are a branch under A11132 called R-FTB95522.<\/li>\n
- R-A11134 – There are three Hartleys under this branch with no further branching. My assumption that all that are under A11134 are Hartleys and this SNP came out after the advent of the Hartley surname.<\/li>\n
- R-FTE2655 – There are two Channon testers under this branch. This name was historically associated with the Nutter surname. However, the assumption is that before Nutter the surname should have been Hartley.<\/li>\n
- R-A16717 – This SNP is associated with an early Quaker Hartley branch that fled religious persecution around the year 1700 and reloacted to Pennsylvania. This branch appears to have the oldest verified genealogy of the Hartley Branches that are on this Block Tree.<\/li>\n
- R-FT225247 – This branch contains the largest number of SNPs. My brother and I are in this branch.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Why is This Test Important to the Hartley Branch?<\/h2>\n
If I am right, then the boundary between Mawdsley\/Holland and Hartley should start the dating for when the Hartleys began as a surname. Here is the Time Tree:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-22-14_17_33-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis still needs updating as it shows Mawdsley and Holland under A11132. A11132 is dated on this tree at around 1163 CE.<\/p>\n
How Old is R-FTB95522?<\/h2>\n
When I was notified of the new SNP, there was no date on FTDNA or SNP Tracker. I tried FTDNA and the web site was not working well. I see this from SNP Tracker:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-25-17_46_08-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere are some details from SNP Tracker:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-25-17_47_36-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhere the date represents the tMRCA date. That means that the common ancestor between Hartley and Mawdsley\/Holland is around the year 1160. To put that into perspective, the Magna Carta was signed in the year 1215. The orange color represents the Medieval Period. However, a quick look at the the internet suggests that the Medieval Period could have ended around 1500. At any rate, this should surely be within the period of surnames in England. The problem is that the two testers have different names: Mawdsley and Holland. As I am not familiar with these two genealogies, I am not sure which name may be more likely for the common ancestor. SNP Tracker further shows 12 testers under A11132 which corresponds to the BigY testers listed at FTDNA.<\/p>\n
FTDNA is working better now and I see this note on the Match Tree feature:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-09_15_27-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nMore from FTDNA<\/h2>\n
When FTDNA was not working right, I could not find the Private Variants. Now they are back:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-09_27_49-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe greenish block shows that Private Variants. Mawdsley and Holland have an average of 7 private variants which suggests that their connection could be quite old. Above, from SNP Tracker, the tMRCA for FTB95522 is the year 1590. Visually, the Private SNPs from Mawdsley\/Holland fit in between the long list of SNPs from my branch and the short list of SNPs directly to the left of Mawdsley\/Holland. I still believe that A11134 and below are all Hartley and that FTB95522 is the split for non-Hartleys. In other words, Hartley and Mawdsley\/Holland appear to have a common ancestor which predates the advent of surnames.<\/p>\n
Another point from the Block tree above: FTB95522 did not split off the 8 SNP block which is called A11132. FTB95522 was apparently a private Variant of Mawdsley until Holland tested and that became their new Branch of the YDNA tree of mankind. Also, Mawdsley was previously A11132 which is now vacant. His tMCRA has moved, according to SNP Tracker, from 1160 to 1590.<\/p>\n
Some Variant Information<\/h2>\n
Holland is my 10th match out of 14:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-21_58_37-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI do not know if 5\/20\/2025 was when the Holland BigY test finalized. If so, it has taken a while to get the new SNP onto the FTDNA Time Tree. Holland and I have 23 non-matching Variants.<\/p>\n
Nine of the non-matching variants are numbers, so are likely to be the private variants for Holland.<\/p>\n
These are the SNPs under A11134:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-22_11_25-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThat appears to account for two of the non-matching variants:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-22_07_22-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere are the 7 SNPs my brother and I have:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-22_14_12-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis accounts for 6 non-matching variants:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-22_14_48-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI should have included A11136, so that accounts for all 7 of the SNPs in the branch my brother and I are in.<\/p>\n
That means that I have not accounted for the following non-matching variants:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-26-22_21_30-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nA11136 should not be on the list.<\/p>\n
FGC6800<\/h3>\n
This appears to be a SNP that my brother and I have. This is how it appears at YBrowse:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-27-08_38_54-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis appears to be under I2a rather than R where I am, so there is some confusion about this SNP:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-27-11_31_21-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI would think that this should be given another name for my branch of the YDNA tree, but I’m not in charge of these things.<\/p>\n
BY26739<\/h3>\n
I also show this as a non-matching variant between myself and my brother. That means that it is likely I have this variant and my brother does not, making it a new variant. Here is what YBrowse shows:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-27-11_41_30-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis has a date of 2018. It is unclear where this appears on the YDNA tree. There is also a strand. I do not know what a strand means. I ordered my BigY500 in 2016 and my BigY700 in 2019. So the date of this SNP does not match up with my two BigY dates.<\/p>\n
BY28775<\/h3>\n
It appears that only Holland has this SNP:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-27-11_48_32-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nYBrowse results are similar to the previoius SNP I looked at:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-27-11_50_42-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFT27444<\/h3>\n
This is a SNP that I have, but the reads were low quality.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-28-13_33_59-Window.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhen I check Mawdsley for FT27444, there are some positive reads, negative ones and lower quality reads. When I check Mawdsley for this SNP, the readings seem to be inconclusive:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-30-09_41_52-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFTB95522<\/h3>\n
This SNP is about three years old:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-30-09_52_12-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis actually was accounted for as this is the new Branch for Mawdsley and Holland. This was formerly a private SNP of Mawdsley and when Holland tested, it formed a new group.<\/p>\n
FTDNA Update<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-30-10_07_53-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nA date of 1386 is earlier than the estimate at SNP Tracker of 1590. If SNP tracker is right, then it is likely that Mawdsley and Holland descend from the same surname. If FTDNA is right, then the Mawdsley and Holland surnames could be on separate parallel tracks. I prefer the FTDNA rendition as it gives the most recent common ancestor of Holland and Mawdsley as before A11134 which I believe to be reserved for Hartleys. Here are some names and dates:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-30-10_15_08-.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nMawdsley\/Holland represents the first non-Hartley branch under A11132:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/2025-06-30-10_20_56-LGDisplayExtensionWnd.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIt appears the the new test has pushed back A11132 a little. Here is a screen shot from a Blog I wrote last February:<\/p>\n