My New Hartley YDNA Branch of R-FT225247

It has been a while since my YDNA subclade has changed. I have been A11132 since 2017. My subclade changed recently because I had my brother tested for the BigY 700. Here are the results:

In 2017, I went from A11138 to A11132. Just recently FTDNA has put my brother and me in the same new subclade of R-FT225247. My brother and I have no private variants. That would be the usual case. David Vance, who is a YDNA expert points out the difference between the private variants shared between the A11132 Hartleys and the number of SNPs in my branch. He takes that to mean that my branch mutated much faster. My guess is that it did but that the A11132 testers mutated more slowly than average also. That means that if that these Hartleys had a common ancestor born in 1600, that would be 350 years from 1950 which would be around the time when some of these BigY testers were likely born. That would mean that on my branches the mutation rate was 50 years per SNP and 175 years per SNP on the A11132 branch. As the actual mutation rate as been estimated at between 83 and 144 years, the average between my two estimated Hartley SNP rates is about 113 years. So it all averages out.

This also explains why when the last Hartley tested, no new Hartley branch was formed. We must have all branched off the same Hartley tree around 1600 or so.


FT225237 is the name given to my group but the name is actually representative of 7 SNPs.

My Previous Prediction

In my last Blog on Hartley YDNA, I looked at my private variants and my brother’s private variants. We both had 6 private variants which I thought would make up the new subclade. That means that I was mostly right. These were my private variants previously:

A quick comparison between that and the new FT225237 block shows that I was missing A11130. For some reason, this was not shown as a private variant previously. I guess it should have been a private variant.

A11130 and FGC6800

In my previous Blog, I noted that when I looked at my A11132 matches, there were SNPs in common including A11130 and FGC6800. As can be seen above, A11130 is now incorporated in my FT225237 Block. But what about FGC6800? Here are my brother’s non matching variants with the two A11132 Hartleys:

Notice that FGC6800 appears in both A11132 Hartleys. As both my brother and I have tested for FGC6800, I am not sure why it is not in the FT225237 Block. The answer appears to be here:

According to my brother’s results, FGC6800 is already on the Y Tree. According to YBrowse:

This SNP is part of the I2a-L801 haplogroup. As I am R1b, that explains why this wasn’t added to my results. This appears to be an anomalous SNP.


Next, as I check my brother’s matches, I notice that we have this non-matching variant:

My brother didn’t test positive for this, so that must mean that I have this SNP. Here is what YBrowse shows:

Here are my brother’s results for this SNP:

It looks like the results were inconclusive. There were some poor reads here. Some showed a mutation. The high quality reads showed no mutation. I actually addressed this in my previous Blog and thought that my brother would be considered positive for BY26739. But apparently, that didn’t happen. If Jim really is positive for BY26739, then that SNP should be added to our FT225247 Block.

Next Steps

So far, we know that there are three different Hartley families who have had the BigY test. We all branch out quite early – probably around the year 1600 or before. It wold be nice to find a branch of our Hartleys that was somewhat newer. I have reached out to someone on my 67 STR match to see if he would take the BigY 700 test.

Summary and Conclusions

I was surprised at finding out so soon that I have a new subclade. This is a large old subclade, but thanks to testing with my brother it is now on the books. This goes back to really old Hartleys who were probably born before 1600 so it would be nice to split out the branching to a later date. This would require more Hartley testers.


My Brother Jim’s BigY Results Are Starting to Come In

When I checked on my brother’s BigY results today, I saw this message from Family Tree DNA (FTDNA):

That was good news. I noticed yesterday that the Haplogroup for Jim had changed from a basic haplogroup to a specific Hartley haplogroup. However, I believe that a manual review will put us in an even more specific haplogroup.

Jim’s BigY Matches

Jim matches with me first, then two other Hartleys, then a Smith and a Pillsbury. My guess is that the Hartley matches go back to after the use of surnames and Smith and Pillsbury represent common ancestors who were before the advent of surnames. Here are the Hartley matches:

Jim and Me and BY26739

Theoretically, I would think that Jim and I would have no differences in variants. There is a few reason we would have a non-matching variant. One is that Jim or I formed a new SNP. In that case there would be a new branch of Hartley’s. Another reason may be that one of our tests did not cover that SNP or didn’t test conclusively positive for that SNP.

I’ll check for this SNP at YBrowse:

This SNP appears to be at the right end of the Y Chromosome.

This SNP was named in 2018. Here are Jim’s results:

It looks to me that Jim had six good reads, but that wasn’t enough to make him positive for this SNP. I think that when a manual review is done, that Jim will be positive for this SNP. My guess is that I will have more reads for this SNP than Jim:

Well, it looks like I guessed wrong. Do I get another guess? The genotype is C and the reference is A. I have two good reads of A to C. Then there are a lot of (11) what appear to be low quality reads of A to C. In Jim’s good quality reads, it showed that he had A at that position. However, his 9 low quality reads showed A to C. As  BY26739 is not a non-matching variant with my other BigY matches, I can assume that they also have this SNP. That means that there is no new Hartley YDNA branch between Jim and myself.

STR Differences Between Jim and Me

In my previous Blog on STRs, I discussed a STR difference Jim and I had in the 111 STR test. Now Jim and I have an additional difference. Here is my match with Jim:

This shows that out of 586 STRs Jim and I have a difference of two. From my previous Blog, I found that Jim had a 15 at DYS534 and I have a 16. That means that at this marker I had one additional repeat compared to Jim.


Jim and I have different values for DYS548. In order to find this, downloaded my STRs and Jim’s STRs. I transposed the results in a spreadsheet. Then I subtracted one value from the other. When the value was 1, that meant there was a difference.

Jim and I don’t match on two STRs out of 586, but we were tested for about 830 STRs. In these 15 least STRs, I didn’t have results for two STRs and Jim was missing results for 6 STRs. That means that 7 out of these 15 STRs could not be compared. Also, I do not know whether Jim had the mutation at this location or I did. To figure this out, I would need access the results of at least one of our other close matches. I may ask my other close BigY match at some point for his STR results out of curiosity.

Any Predictions?

I like to make predictions as to what might happen one there is a FTDNA manual review. Here is the situation now:

Under R-A11138 there is one branch. A11132 only has Hartleys. A11138 is quite old. The common ancestor between Hartley and Smith is probably 1,000 years old or more. If Jim and I match on a SNP or SNPs that the other two Hartleys don’t have, we should form a new Hartley Branch.

Here are my matches:

I have already discussed BY26739. I think that will go away. As I compare, my matches I see that match 2 and 3 have some variants in common. They are:

  • FGC6800
  • 11535449
  • 12707325
  • 15438401
  • A11130
  • 7048756

However, the fact that these variants are listed could mean one of two things. It could mean that Steve and Michael have these and Jim and I don’t. Or it could mean that Jim and I have these variants and Steve and Michael don’t. Or, more likely, it could be a combination of the two.  

Based on previous work, I had listed these as my private variants:

Here are the ones that are listed above:

That seems to indicate that Jim and I should have the highlighted variants. But what about the two FT variants? I’ll think about those later. The ones left from my original list are:

  • FGC6800
  • A11130

It appears that these should be the two SNPs that Steve and Michael Share that Jim and I don’t have. That is, unless FTDNA renamed these two SNPs. First, I’ll look at FGC6800. From FTDNA’s Chromosome Browser, it seems like I do have that:

That is at position 9,309,609, so it wasn’t on my previous list. I better check my private variants:

They seem to match what I had. Next I’ll check my brother Jim’s Private Variants:

Well, that’s good. We have the same private variants. It seems like these should make up our new branch.

Next, I wonder about A11130. I am checking JIm’s results:

Jim shows he has this as well. I am sure I do also. As I recall a ways back, it was thought that A11130 would be my Haplogroup until others in my group were found not having it. So the group became named for A11132 instead. I guess here is where I get confused between FTDNA calling some SNPs private variants and some named variants.

I guess Private Variants are what they say they are. They are private for a person until they have a match. In this case my brother and I do match, but we are awaiting a manual review to tell what to do with the private variants.

FT225247 and FT135932

These were my two other private variants that I said I’d get back to. FTDNA would refer to these as their position numbers while they are private, but they all really have names. These were the two variants that did not show up as non-shared variants with my other BigY matches.

Summary and Conclusions

In this Blog, while I was waiting for FTDNA’s results, I made some guesses as how those results might come out. The results appear to out now, so I’ll take a look at those in my next Blog.


Charles: A Hartley Second Cousin at 23andMe

I see that 23andMe shows that I have a DNA match with a second cousin twice removed named Charles. After a little snooping around I think I know who it must be.

Charles’ Genealogy

I keep a DNA/Genealogy tree. These are for people that are related to me and have had their DNA tested. Here is part of the Hartley tree that I have so far:

Jennifer is my second cousin once removed. So Charles will be down an extra layer. James Hartley at the top of the tree had 13 children, so the more descendants I can get the better. I believe that Charles is on the Greenwood Line. Greenwood, also known as Green was born in 1897 in Rochester, MA.

Here is where Charles comes in:

It is good to have DNA from a different line because Greenwood, who was born in 1897, had a different mix of DNA passed down to him from his two parents than any of his other siblings. Chrales represents a fourth generation of DNA testers who have descended from James Hartley and Annie Snell.

My DNA Match with Charles

Here is my matches with Charles at 23andMe:

We match on 5 different chromosomes. I can ‘paint’ that match onto my chromosome map. This is what I have already:

I have a paternal side and maternal side for each of my chromosomes. I match Charles on my paternal Hartley side. Charles will paint in as green as that represents our common ancestors James Hartley and Annie Snell. Right now I am 44% painted overall and 54% painted on my paternal side. I have already painted 13 Hartley/Snell descendants. Let’s see if Charles adds anything unique.

Turns out he doesn’t. And it turns out I had already added his DNA to my chromosome map using DNAPainter which is the program that produces the graphic above. I have already mentioned Charles in a Blog here.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I thought I didn’t know where Charles, my DNA match, fit in, but I had figured  out where Charles fit in before.
  • I now have a note at 23andMe showing where Charles fits in and I have him on my Hartley DNA/genealogy chart.
  • Although Charles could have added new DNA that came down from James Hartley and Annie Snell, he didn’t. That DNA was already covered by twelve other DNA matches who are also descendants of Hartley/Snell.
  • Charles represents a fifth child of Hartley/Snell with DNA matches to me. James Hartley had 13 children. The first child got half of his parents DNA. The second child, combined with the first represented a total of 75% of their parents’ DNA. The third child combined with the first two would have inherited a total of of 87.5% of their parents’ DNA. That means that adding this Greenwood line added a theoretical extra 3% of DNA from James Hartley and Annie Snell.



Waiting for My Brother Jim’s BigY: 111 STRs

I noticed on the BigY Facebook Page that people are starting to get their 111 STR results from the recent round of BigY testing due to this year’s DNA Day sale at FTDNA. I checked my brother Jim’s results and found that he also had his 111 STR results. This is not bad considering the BigY was batched a little over two week ago.

My Brother’s 111 STR Matches

Here are my brother’s matches:

Jim has five 111 STR matches. I am the first match. I am a little surprised that I am a GD of 1 from my brother. I am guessing that I have a STR mutation that Jim doesn’t have.

Here are my matches for comparison:

For some reason I only have three matches. I am one STR further away from matching Steve but one STR closer to matching Ross. Also I don’t match Mervin or Gary, so I must exceed the matching threshold for these two. Jim is at the maximum matching at a GD of 10 at the 111 STR level. That leads me to believe that I have the mutation that Jim doesn’t. Having said that, it doesn’t explain why I am a closer match to Ross.

Comparing My Brother’s 67 STR Matches with Mine

Here are my 67 STR matches:

Here I pick up John, Mervin and Lawrence. I picked up John and Lawrence because they only tested to this level.

Here is what Jim has:

I was expecting that Jim would have more matches than me at this level, but he had fewer. However, he does have one lower GD than me to John, Steve and Mervin. I match Lawrence and Jim doesn’t. This may be an issue of sharing – what settings Jim has and the fact that I haven’t singed him up for any YDNA projects yet. Or, this may be due to the STR difference between my brother and I that I discuss later in the Blog.

Jim and I Have the Same Matches at the 37 STR Level

Here are my results:

I won’t bother posting Jim’s results as they are the same as mine except for the match dates. Notice now that I also have a GD of zero to Jim. That means that the glitch must have occured in between marker 38 and 67.

It’s Not a Glitch; I Do Have a Different STR Than My Brother at DYS534

That was helpful, because I found the different STR:

Jim has a 15 at DYS534 and I have a 16. Each of these STRs have a different mutation rate. There are different studies trying to determine what these mutation rates are. This STR has a chance of mutating in every 5-8 times per 1,000 generations. That is actually one of the faster mutation rates. That means that if a STR was going to mutate, it makes sense that it was this one.

I have done quite a bit of STR analysis in the past, so it is helpful to look back on that.

This shows that of the four Hartleys tested, three had 15 for DYS534 and I had 16. At the time, I assumed that this was the signature of my Trawden, Lancashire branch of Hartleys. I didn’t realize that this was what now appears to be a new STR as of 1956 when I was born.

More on DYS534

In the image above, DYS534 is coded as blue meaning that it is not considered a fast moving STR. FTDNA shows the fastest moving STRs coded in red. Furthermore, the image above is somewhat skewed in that it is only looking at the Hartley testers who tested for 111 STRs.

When I look at the 67 STR test results, things get more complicated. Here are the full results from the Hartley YDNA Project:

The first three numbers in each group is just the minimum, maximum and the mode. The first green group are people who the administrator is asking to do more testing. There are two in this group, so the mode is not significant. There are four in the second group of green. In the first group, the mode was 15 and in the second group the mode was 16 even though there was an even amount of 15’s and 16’s in both groups.

In an older Blog I wrote, I tried to find ancestral values for these STRs by going back to earlier SNPs that were ancestral to the Hartley SNP of A11132:

Parallel Mutations and Back Mutations

So how do we explain the confusing situation for DYS534? The answer is in parallel mutations and back mutatations. This would be an example of a back mutation. Say the value for DYS534 was 15 prior to the Hartleys and the Hartleys was 16. If a later Hartley had a value of 15, that would be a back mutation. In this case, that would mean that my brother Jim had the mutation that went back from 16 to 15. I don’t think that is the case. That is because there are other Hartley that have 16 and 15. Also in Jim and my closest matches, I am a further GD from those matches. This suggests that I am the one who has the mutation.

I think that my situation could be due to parallel mutations. That is where two people had the same mutation on a line that are independent of each other.

Comparing Jim with Other Hartley YDNA Testers


According to this Chart, based on the STR mode, my brother Jim has the oldest Hartley YDNA in this group. The ultimate solution for this group would if everyone took the BigY test to see where the lines sorted out.  The STRs that have the orange number below them are the slowest mutating STRs. That is why in my previous STR trees, I have tended to separate these two groups by STR #445.

Explaining the Differences in Matches Between Jim and Me

Back at 111 STRs I have three matches and Jim has five. Jim matches three people at a GD of 10 or a match of 101 out of 111 STRs. Two of those (Mervin and Gary) went off the chart as I have a STR mutation that Jm doesn’t have (DYS534). However, how does that explain Ross? I have a lower GD with Ross than Jim does. The difference must be due to DYS 534. Ross must have the same number of repeats as I have: 16.

Finding Ross

The problem with finding Ross is that he does’t have ancestors listed on my match list. On the Hartley YDNA project list, Ross’ name isn’t listed. It may be possible to find Ross by the precoess of elimination. The ones who have tested to 111 markers at the Hartley YDNA Project have these ancestors:

  • William Shephard Hartley 1851 (Mervin)
  • Thomas Hartley 1769 (Gary)
  • Robert Hartley (me)
  • David Hartley (Steve)

That means that Ross is not in the Hartley YDNA Project. In the R L513 YDNA Project, there are four Hartleys. It may be that Ross is not part of a YDNA project. After snooping around a bit, it appears that Ross is my Hartley #3 above:

[Note: Where I have Ross above in the Chart, it should actually be Lawrence. That means the STR results apply to Lawrence. However, the genealogy below does apply to Ross.]

It turns out that Ross is very important indeed, especially if his genealogy is right. Ross’ genealogy goes back to 1628. Ross has this genealogy:

It turns out that Roger Hartley is the father of Edward Hartley, so that would put him as a relative of the BigY tester I have in the chart above highlighted in gold. The gold was meant to show that these testers also tested for the BigY.

Ross’ Genealogy

In this Blog, I looked at the other Quaker genealogy in some detail. I did this to prove to myself that the genealogy seemed reasonable. In other words, I was trying to seeif I could replicate the genealogy of one of the other Hartley BigY testers. Now I would like to do the same for Ross.

My normal procedure is to create my own tree to see if I come up with the same conclustion. I don’t think that I have created a tree for Ross before, so now is a good time to start. It shouldn’t be too difficult as I am just looking at father to father:

Ross’ grandfather was Park Douglas. His birth is listed as 1880, but there is a 2 year old in the 1880 record.

Also the 1900 Census shows he was born in May 1879:

However, I don’t think that there were a lot of Park D Hartleys around, so I’ll say this is right. This could be the right information from the WWI  draft:

Ross has his name as Park Douglas. I guess that sounded better than Drear. So at some point Park moved from Indiana to Kansas.

John Hartley

Here is a marriage transcription I found:

Here is John P in 1885:

The youngest was born in Kansas, but the rest of the family was born in Indiana, so that dates the family’s move. John was part of a fraternal order. Here is his death date:

Elisha Hartley

The 1850 Census says that Elisha and his wife Sarah were born in Virginia. At this point, I took the Ancestry hint that Elisha was the father of John Hartley. The 1850 and 1860 Census don’t say that John was the the son of Elisha, but I think that it is implied.

Plus someone has posted a nice photo of Elisha and Sarah. If the Census is right, then Elisha was born about 1800, but we still have to get back to Marsden in Lancashire in the 1600’s. Here is part of a biography of John’s brother Thomas:

Here is Elisha in 1830 in what is now West Virginia:

Here are a few more Hartleys on the same page in case they are related:

Here is Monongalia County to the South of Pittsburgh:

Here is something posted from a F.A.G (FindAGrave?) Memorial:

If this is true, it is interesting as it mentions Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Also, Elisha appeared to be living next to Benjamin Hartley in the 1830 Census.

Benjamin Hartley 1766 and Cassandra Robinson

Now we are back to about the Revolutionary War. Here are some Hartleys in the 1800 Census for Bucks County, Pennsylvania:

More on this Early Hartely LIne

I found a Hartley web page put togethery by M.J.P. Grundy.

Children of Thomas Hartley and his wife Elizabeth (Paxson)[31]

i. Sarah3, b. 7 Tenth Month (Dec.) 1726; d. 29 Jul 1795 in her 69th year; m. ca. 1746 Jacob BEANS (he d. 13 Nov. 1807); 8 children. Jacob m(2) widow Hannah IDEN. He d. 13 nov. 1807 in his 87th year.[32]

ii. Mary, b. 19 Eleventh Month (Jan.) 1727/8; d. 15 Seventh Month (Sept.) 1746; unmarried.[33]

iii. Thomas, b. 6 5th mo. (July) 1729; d. 2 2nd mo. (Apr.) 1736.

iv. Anthony, b. 3 Tenth Mo. (Dec.) 1730; d. 1 May 1811; m(1) 29 Oct. 1755 Elizabeth SMITH of Wrightstown. Anthony and Elizabeth had 7 children. Elizabeth d. 3/8m/1769). Anthony m(2) 17 Apr. 1771 Sarah BETTS. She was b. 14/4m (June) 1747, daughter of Thomas and Sarah (Smith) Betts of Buckingham. They had 6 more children.

v. William, b. 15/2m (Apr.) 1732; d. during the night of 31 Dec. 1807-1/1m (Jan.) 1808; m 30 Nov. 1757 Catherine FISHER at Buckingham MM. Catherine b. 28 Apr. 1740.[35]

vi. Elizabeth, b. 16/11m (Jan.) 1733/4; m. 1753 John FELL at Buckingham MM. John Fell was b. 1 Apr. 1730; 5 children, including Rachel (b. 10 Oct. 1770; m. John Paxson).[36]

vii. Martha, b. 26/6m (Aug.) 1735; m. Luke WILLIAMS and had 5 children.[37]

viii. Anne, b. 8/5m (July) 1738; d. 28 Feb. 1758; m. 1757 James HILL.[38]

ix. Rachel, b. 2/5m (July) 1740; m. 12 June 1765 Ephraim SMITH under the care of Buckingham MM. He was the son of Thomas2 and Elizabeth (Sanders) Smith, and a grandson of William1 and Mary (Croasdale) Smith. Rachel and Ephraim had 8 children when they were granted a certificate of removal to East Caln MM in Chester Co., Penna. on 6 May 1783.[39]

x. Joseph, b. 18/8m (Oct.) 1742; d. 9 Jan. 1824 in Monongalia Co. [now West] Va.; m(1) Sarah RICHARDS 1 son; m(2) Elizabeth WASSON (she was b. 12 Oct. 1747; d. 6 Oct. 1834); had 10 children.[40]

xi. Benjamin, b. 6/10m (Dec.) 1745 in Lahaska; d. ca. Aug. 1804; m 12 Apr. 1769 Elizabeth SIMCOCK, at Buckingham MM.; she d. 13 July 1827.[41]

xii. Mahlon, b. 21/5m (July) 1749; d. 1824; m 12 February 1772 Hannah MOON, daughter of Roger, at Falls meeting house.  Hannah was b. 29 Aug. 1749. Mahlon was received at Falls Monthly Mtg. 5/2m/1772, with a certificate from Buckingham Monthly Mtg. On 7/9m/1796 Mahlon and Hannah and their children Thomas, Edward, Mahlon, Roger, and Hannah, were granted a certificate of removal from Falls Mtg to Westland Monthly Meeting. [42]


So this page didn’t follow Joseph the father of Benjamin down. However, from what I’ve read Benjamin was the son of Joseph’s first wife who died very young.

A Tree Connecting Ross and Michael

At this point, even though I haven’t fleshed out all the genealogy, I would like to create a tree that shows that possible connection between Ross who did the 111 STR YDNA test and Michael who did the Big Y test. Here is the Ross side of the tree:

Here I wanted to go two generations above the common ancestor of Ross and Michael because I and other with Hartley ancestry that stayed in England longer would likely fit in somewhere before Edward Hartley born 1666. This seems like a long time ago, but YDNA is good at going back thousands of years.

Here is how Ross and Michael are likely related:

This shows Ross and Michael as 7th cousins. One interesting thing is that the tree shows that some distant Hartley relatives were both in Kansas at the same time.

Hartley Genealogy and YDNA

The above genealogy tells me that there are the Quaker Bucks County Pennsylvania Hartleys and the Hartleys who had ancestors who stayed in Lancashire and Yorkshire longer. The Pennsylvania Hartleys have the better defined genealogy. They also have a specific common ancestor. In this case, that specific ancestor was Edward Hartley born 1666.

It also occurs to me that the common ancestor of those in the following table would be before 1666:

That branching should look like this:

Below, I have put the Pennsylvania Hartleys on the bottom of the list:

The problem with this grouping is that it has parallel mutations for marker 455. This is a slow moving marker and the chance of it changing in two different branches would seem to be low.

Here is what I was thinking:

I noticed that both Ross and Michael had STRs 449 at a value of 32 and 458 at a value of 16. I used that for the STR signature for Edward Hartley. From what I can tell is the overall Hartley Mode is the same as the Hartley Branch from England Mode.

How Does the English Side of the Hartley Family Branch Out?

That is a good question, because there is no known connection for these remaining 4 Hartley families other than the YDNA. It would help if each branch descendant had taken a BigY test and then had tested a known relative. I have done that with my brother Jim to describe our particular branch of Hartleys in Massachusetts.

At this point, I am looking at a combination of SNPs and STRs which is OK to do. Actually, we only have one SNP right now which is A11132, but more will be named when my brother’s BigY results come in.

This tree is helpful for a few reasons. This shows the date of the common ancestor of the Pennsylvania Hartleys who was Edward Hartley born in Masden, Lancashire in 1666. When I asked Steve to take the BigY test, my assumption was that our common ancestor would be later than 1666 and that we would form a new SNP branch. Assuming that FTDNA did the analysis correctly, that did not happen. That could mean a few things. One is that Steve and my common Hartley ancestor is right around 1666. That would mean that Edward Hartley was also A11132. Another perhaps more likely scenario is that the connection between Steve and I is further up the tree. That would mean that if Ross or another Pennsylvania Hartley Branch descendant took the BigY test, then that would define a new branch for those Hartleys.


The other thing that the tree shows is that I have a new mutation at DYS534. That STR will only apply to me, my son and his two babies.

Parallel Mutations for DYS534

This is a good example of parallel mutations. Because I have the same mutation as Ross and Michael, it looks like I am more closely related to them than I really am. However, they have had a value of 16 for DYS534 since at least 1666 and I have have mine only since I was born in 1956 almost 300 years later!

A Possible STR Tree for A11132 Hartleys

First, I am assuming that all these Hartleys are A11132. So far three of these Hartleys have taken the BigY, so it is a reasonable assumption:



Here I corrected my chart to show that the STRs aapply to Lawrence. I had wanted to show that English Branch 1 is older than the Edward Hartley Branch. It doesn’t look that way by the way the chart came out, but that could still be the case as I have no dating for the left hand side of the chart except for my recent mutation in 1956. In all this it is good to remember that STRs can be confusing due to parallel mutations and back mutations. However SNPs are not subject to these two phenomena. That is why SNPs are preferable in defining the male line.

Lawrence, A Third Descendant from the Bucks County, PA Hartleys

In looking back over this Blog, I see that I didn’t address Lawrence. He was the one that I matched at 67 STRs and my brother Jim did not. He also shows ancestry which should go back to Edward Hartley born in Marsden, Lancashire in 1666. Here is his tree from FTDNA starting with his grandfather:

Now I need to figure out what his STR results were. I see that I made a mistake and put Ross’ name on Lawrence’s STR results above. The good news is that it will be easy to add Lawrrence to the Pennsylvania Hartley tree:

From this I can see that Lawrence and Ross are third cousins. I will amend my STR chart to include Ross:

Here I have a placeholder for Ross in case I figure out where his STR results are.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was happy to see that the first part of my brother Jim’s BigY test has come in. That consists of the YDNA 111 STR test.
  • That test showed a surprise for me in that I didn’t match him in all 111 STRs. That means that I had a mutation in STR DYS534.
  • In looking back at STR results for other Hartleys, it appeared that one of those Hartleys is Ross who has the common ancestor with Michael of Edward Hartley born 1666 in Marsden, Lancashire. The family was persecuted as Quakers and moved to Pennsylvania shortly before 1700.
  • I later found out that the STR test belonged to Lawrence who is also on the Edward Hartley Line. I did the genealogy for Ross and added in Lawrence’s to a tree later.
  • That information put the testers into two groups and was helpful for grouping Hartley descendants based on YDNA testing of STRs and SNPs. These two groups were the descendants of Edward Hartley born 1666 and those Hartleys who stayed longer in England.
  • My assumption is that A11132 is an older SNP and that if another descendant of Edward Hartley were to test for the BigY, that would define a new SNP for all the descendants of Edward Hartley and the Pennsylvania Branch of Hartleys.
  • I tried to build a STR tree combining the Pennsylvania and English Hartleys. However, this presented some difficulties due to the possibilities of back mutations and parallel mutations.
  • I’m still looking for the STR results for Ross.

Getting Ready for a New Hartley BigY Test

During the DNA Day YDNA sale I ordered a BigY test for my brother. Bob Wood of the FTDNA – BigY Facebook Page promotes a rule of three. That means test yourself, test a distant relative and test a close relative for BigY. That combination gives good branching for your surname – in this case Hartley. In this Blog, I’ll talk about the current state of my Branch of Hartley YDNA and what I might expect from this new test.

The Current Situation of My Branch of Hartley BigY DNA

I say my branch because there are many different Hartley branches that are not closely related. Here is where I am now with two other Hartley testers and one Smith:

Hartley and Smith

The Smith is on the right and is at R-A11138. That is where I used to be before another Hartley tested for the BigY. The common ancestor between Hartley and Smith appears to go back 13 SNPs. These SNPs were formed about every 83 to 144 years. Either number would bring the Hartley/Smith ancestor back to over 1,000 years ago.

A Hartley BigY Tester with Quaker Ancestry

The first BigY tester after me is important as he has the oldest genealogy. His Hartley Branch was of the Quaker faith and fled to Pennsylvania due to persecution in Lancashire County England . This Quaker ancestor was from Marsden which is quite close to Trawden in Lancashire, England. I have been able to trace my Hartley ancestors back to Trawden to around the year 1800.  As the Quaker ancestor was born about 1666, I would guess that our common ancestor was born possibly around the year 1600. That means that, even though the location of my Hartleys is close we are about 200 years apart in connection our genealogies. The fact that this Hartley Quaker ancestor lived in Marsden suggests that my Hartley ancestors may have been in the same Parish for those 200 years.

A Third BigY Tester

Not too long ago, a third Hartley from the same branch had a BigY 700 test. I also upgraded my BigY 500 to BigY 700 so we would get consistent results. I had thought that this new tester would result in a new Hartley Branch. However, as a result of the new test, FTDNA did not determine that there was a new branch. Assuming that FTDNA was right, that would mean that we all share the same SNP (A111320) within the period of time in which a SNP would form. That time is anywhere between 83 and 144 years. A male generation is between 31 and 38 years or say about 35 years. That means that the three of us would all descend from Hartleys within  two or four generations. In addition, we must all three descend from one particular person. This person is likely to have been a Hartley but that is not sure.

What I Expect From My Brother’s New BigY Test

It will be a while until the BigY test for my brother is expected. FTDNA predicts that the STR results will be done in June this year and the BigY completed in July. After that there is likely to be a manual review which will take longer. The result of my brother’s test will be at a minimum to put the two of us into a new YDNA Branch. This branch will likely be formed from most or all of my now private variants. I say part or all, because having a new Haplogroup with 6 new SNPs in it seems like a lot. It seems like a lot because between the three Hartley BigY testers there are an average of 4 private variants. If there is an average of 4 between 3 people there must be about twelve total private variants between the three of us. That means that I have half the private variants between three people which seems high.

My Six Private Variants

My six private variants are here:

This is the pool of SNPs from which my brother should match me. I’ll look these positions up at YBrowse:

That means that four of my private variants have been around waiting for a match since 2016 and none have been found. That is where my brother comes in. His test will show where he matches me. As a result of my upgrade to BigY 700, I now have two more private variants. I’m not sure why they are listed in different years, I suppose they were both found around the turn of the year.

The new tree will look like this:

The Block of SNPs will have to have a SNP name that will represent the new Block. For example A11131. I have many second cousins. That would bring the tree back two more generations. It is possible that testing one of these second cousins would also create a new branch.

Hartley BigY 700 Update: Part 3

I tend to write Blogs to figure out what is going on with my DNA results.

Private Variants

The main purpose of the BigY tests are to find and identify SNPs. SNPs are excellent markers to place you in the YDNA tree and hopefully identify family surname groups like Hartley. The Private Variants are those SNPs that don’t (yet) match other testers, so would not be included in the YDNA tree.

In my first Blog posted on January 28th, there were 12 an average of “private variants” shown between me and the other two A11132 testers:

However, these were not really private variants as FTDNA was still matching these SNPs with other testers. While I was writing my first Blog, the number of private variants went down to 10.

In my second Blog posted on February 17th, I noted that my number of private variants for the three A11132 testers had gone from 10 to 6. I wish that I had posted a screen shot of the average number of private variants. However, I did show that these were my own list of private variants:

Presently, I still have these 6 private variants. In order for there to be an average of 4 private variants between me and the other two testers, the other two testers must have a total of 6 private variants between them.

The A11132 Block

The three Hartley BigY testers are all in the A11132 Block. Here is what it looks like presently:

In the first image at the top of the Blog, this A11132 Block had 7 SNPs. Now it has 9. Here are the two new SNPs:

In order for these two SNPs to be added to the A11132 Block, they must be shared by all three testers.

A16716 and FT226983

In a previous Blog, I had noted that I shared this with the new BigY 700 Hartley tester and that the position number was 13658297.

However, I don’t see FT226983 on the list. This must be a newly named SNP. When I search at YBrowse for this SNP, I get this:

It does show as a new SNP from this year:

This is a little confusing, because in a previous Blog, I had that the new BigY tester had a private variant at position 14981376 but that I didn’t. Also here is what I get when I search for this SNP under my named variants:

So what that tells me is that FTDNA’s manual review is still in process or that something is not right. I dove in a little deeper and downloaded my BigY csv file. That showed this:

I assume that from this they couldn’t tell if I was FT226983 or not. This was probably a new position that was tested as it is listed in YBrowse under 2020. That means that the other Hartley tester who had the older BigY test wouldn’t have been tested for this.

My Private Haplotree

Bob Tipton from the FTDNA – BigY Facebook group had some more tips for me. He showed me how to get to my reads.

This shows only one read for FT226983. Usually, they want many reads for me to be positive (around 10?).

Here is another Bob Tipton tip. If you click on your confirmed Haplogroup badge you get to your private haplotree:

According to Bob:

The one for FT226983 should be yellow for Presumed Positive, but currently is probably gray for Presumed Negative. This is a bug in their system that has been reported, but not yet fixed.

The system highlights the line, so it is difficult to tell the color of the dots, but they appear to be gray. Another surprise is that BY16416 is also in gray. This SNP has been around since there were only two Hartley BigY testers.


I have had this since before the new Hartley tester. Bob Tipton from the BigY Facebook Group points out that this is actually an indel. Bob explains that an indel is an insertion or deletion rather than a mutation. In the case of BY16417 it was the insertion of an A in the DNA.

Has the Manual Review Been Completed?

After the BigY results come out FTDNA does a manual review. One of the frustrating parts of this review is that FTDNA does not tell you if the review is in progress or if it has been completed. I have tried to figure this out by posting at the FTDNA – BigY Face Group, but have gotten mixed opinions. I wrote an e-mail to Dave Vance who is a co-administrator to my Haplogroup and he said that I could check with FTDNA to see if my manual review had been completed. He also gave some suggestions on how to do my own manual review. This involves checking on the Private Variants for the other Big Y testers and comparing them.

I wrote to FTDNA and they said that my kit has been reviewed and there are no further changes to be made. That means that none of the men below A11132 have any private variants in common. Based on this, I get the impression that there was no manual review. Manual reviews are for when there FTDNA believes that a new branch should be formed.

The Implications of No Change of Haplogroup for the Three Hartley BigY Testers

Assuming that FTDNA came to the right conclusions and we are still A11132, there are implications. The obvious implication is that the three of us have a Hartley ancestor within a certain period of time. That period of time has been quoted as 144 years. However, with the newer BigY testing, that period of time could be as low as 87 years. Previously I had an average of two private variants between myself and the other Hartley Big Y tester. That should have meant a common ancestor about 288 years ago. I was born in 1956, so that would be going back to the year 1688. This date was off because the person I matched with had an ancestor named Samuel and/or  Edward Hartley born in 1666. He married in 1693 and moved to Pennsylvania in the early 1700’s. Assuming he brought his children with him, that means that the latest common ancestor probably would have been that Hartley’s father presumably born around 1640.

Now with the addition of an additional tester there are an average of 4 private variants between the 3 of us. If we use 144 years per variant, that is up to 576 years. That would bring us back to the year 1380. I think that date is too far back. That seems to support using a lower number of years per variant.

Non-Matching Variants

I thought that I would take another look at my Non-Matching Variants to see if they revealed anything. Here are my non-matching variants with the new tester and the previous tester:

This stuff gets tricky. With the newer tester, I have highlighted all my present 6 private variants. However, notice that only 4 of the 6 are non-matches with the older tester. The ones that are missing from the older tester are at positions 4317527 and 26539382. Now the tricky part. Just because I am not a non-match to the older tester does not mean I match him. He may not have been tested either way for those two positions. According to YBrowse 4317527 was named in 2019 and 26539382 in 2020.

Checking the New BigY Tester’s Private Variants

I asked the new tester to see his private variants now that the review has been done and got this:

FGC6800 and A11130

These are two more SNPs that I have that the other two BigY Hartley testers don’t have. FGC6800 is a strange one as it is listed under I2 and I am R1b. I think there is a name for this phenomenon, but I don’t know what it is. I guess that this SNP got ignored by FTDNA due to the weird result.

The next SNP is A11130. This was named by the Hartley YDNA administrator in 2016. As no one else has claimed this, I will say it belongs to me under A11132. I plan to have my brother tested for the BigY, so that should confirm it.

What Is Left?

For the other two testers, there are 7 non-named private variants. It is my understanding that FTDNA uses these unnamed variants when they do their averaging. I have 6 private variants and the other two testers have a total of 7 for a grand total of 13 private variants. Divide these by 4 to get the 12 average private variants under A11132.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The BIgY is simple in theory but complicated in application
  • I had thought that, based on looking at the somewhat unreliable STRs and more reliable SNPs, that the new tester and I would form a newer YDNA branch.
  • It is likely that I was anticipating that the two new SNPs in the A11132 Block could have formed a new branch between the new tester and myself. However, I don’t have enough information to evaluate how it was determined that the previous Hartley BigY tested had A16716 and FT226983.
  • David Vance has a program to compare BigY csv files. However, I would have to get the BigY csv files from the two other testers to do this.
  • When a sale comes up, I would like to get a BigY test for my brother. This would probably force a manual review from FTDNA.



Comparing My Family’s Common Ancestor Results at AncestryDNA: Part 1

Recently, I was looking at my sister Heidi’s Common Ancestor results at AncestryDNA and noticed that she had a lot of new ones that I wasn’t aware of. In order to find these, I go to DNA matches, then I filter for common ancestors. Because I like to count things, I’ll put the results in a table. It will be interesting to compare the results for me and my 4 siblings who have tested at AncestryDNA. Here is a chart starting with me:

Also The numbers are good, but it is the actual common ancestors that are interesting. I guess I should add the mother’s side also. Ironically, my mother isn’t listed as being on my mother’s side, but my siblings are. That’s OK. Also, I don’t know if the mother’s side works for distant cousins:

Here is the filled out chart:

The comparison is interesting:

  • I have the fewest DNA matches with common ancestors.
  • My sister Lori has the most DNA matches with common ancestors
  • Maternal side matches are not given for Distant Cousins
  • My mother’s 4th cousin matches and Distant Cousin Matches are important ones. Many of these would not be covered by my and my siblings’ matches.

Looking At My Mother’s Common Ancestors

First, I went through my mother’s 4th cousin and Distant Relative Common Ancestor matches and put a colored dot with the ancestor to designate the branch. I have had trouble identifying Lentz ancestors previously, but now I notice quite a few, so I would like to take a look at those matches.

Shoring Up the Lentz Common Ancestors

Here is the Lentz DNA matching chart I have so far:

The left part of the chart has Nicholson matches and there are a lot of them, so I would like to augment the right-hand side of the chart. Green means that the DNA match is listed in a place where I can tell where on the chromosome the match is. This is usually at My mom’s top non-Nicholson match is Radelle. She linked her DNA results at Ancestry to her mother, so that is a little confusing. What that means is that Radelle is actually a 4th cousin to my mom instead of the 3rd cousin once removed that AncestryDNA shows. Radelle and my mom have one shared DNA match, so I sent a message to that match. The match had no Ancestry Tree.

My mom’s next match is with Deborah. She is also on the chart, though she has a lower DNA match. Deborah is on a branch with more connections. However, I didn’t see that Deborah and my Mom have any shared DNA matches.

Now that I have a purple dot for Lentz, I am able to filter by that dot:

Radelle and Deborah were the first two matches with Lentz common ancestors out of eight.

The next match is another Deborah and appears to be the mother of the previous Deborah. She also has no shared matches with my Mom.

Back to George Adam Lentz Born 1770

I’ll need to add an extra level on my chart for the next match. Here is what AncestryDNA shows for the connection:

Of course Ancestry wants me to evaluate the connection. I notice that TL’s tree goes up to a Lantz instead of a Lentz, so that is a little suspicious. The other suspicious part is that by this tree, George would have been 13 years old when Sarah was born. I’ll leave TL off my chart for now. From another tree at Ancestry, here are Sarah’s parents:

There is a probably a connection somewhere, but it doesn’t appear to be here.

John to John

This tree seems more reasonable as it goes up to Eliza Lentz. I’ll be a bit lazy and I won’t evaluate this tree. It is consistent with my chart with the Glenn surname. Here is John added in:

So if this is right, John is Radelle’s second cousin twice removed. It’s nice to have some company on the Eliza Lentz line.

Betty on the William Lentz Line

Betty appears to be related to the two Deborahs:

Another Bogus George Adam Lentz Connection

I had hope for these connections, but they didn’t pan out:

Mary Lantz was born when my ancestor George was 7 years old.

The last person on my list is Al who is already on my Lentz DNA match tree. So of the eight people I identified, 4 were already on the Tree. Two didn’t match by the AncestryDNA suggested genealogy and two were added.

My Mom’s Baker and Faunce Lines

Here is my chart so far:

In a sense my siblings and I are not as important as my mom should have more DNA than we do for these matches. Here is my mom’s top DNA match on that line:

The Baker family was large, so that means many descendants with DNA matches.

Adding Peter and Justin to the Baker DNA Tree

Now I’m up to four Baker Lines. Justin adds another generation going down.

FL On the Catherine Baker Slater Line

I just looked up Annette. She was a match on MyHeritage. FL at AncestryDNA is on that Line also.

This is beginning to look like a real surname DNA project now.

An Older Faunce Match with Lauren

Now I need to figure out how to get Lauren onto this tree. Actually, I need to build a new Faunce Tree:

I just didn’t add all the others under Catherine Faunce from above. Hopefully, I’ll find more matches here also.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started by comparing my siblings’ common ancestor DNA matches with mine and my mother’s common ancestor DNA matches.
  • This comparison showed that I should look at my siblings’ results.
  • I then saw that my mother must have more common ancestor matches to look at.
  • I looked at two different Philadelphia lines and matches that my mom had showing common ancestors.
  • The two matches my mom had with common ancestors going back to George Adam Lentz didn’t pan out. I would still like to find some matches there – though this is going back to about as far as a DNA match would be expected.

Waiting for My Hartley Big Y 700 Manual Review: Part 2

My Big Y 700 upgrade results came in on January 16, 2020. I had upgraded because another Hartley had tested for a new Big Y 700. Steve’s results came in on January 21, 2020. I wrote Part 1 while awaiting my Big Y manual review here. My thinking was that if Steve and I both had the Big Y 700 test done, then our results would be more consistent. I now see that I would have been better off testing my brother for Big Y.

Big Y and the Rule of Three

Bill Wood from the FTDNA BigY Facebook group developed what he calls the Big Y Rule of Three. Here is the short version of the Rule of Three:

The first candidate was me. So I’m all set there. These slides are from Bill Wood:



This is where I should have had my brother tested. The importance of this test is that my brother should match me on all or nearly all of my SNPs. These matches will then result in a terminal haplogroup for my branch of Hartley. So my next step will be to have my brother tested. Here is what I understand to be current pricing for Big Y:

Big Y is $449. I must have paid about $189 for my upgrade.


Here I have a lot of 2nd cousins, so that could have worked. One other person, Michael had already taken the Big Y (now called 500) test. Now we have Steve also. Steve and Michael are both greater than 4th cousin to me, but I don’t know exactly how we connect genealogically.

Alex Williamson and the Big Tree

I mentioned the Big Tree in my previous Blog on Hartley YDNA. On January 13, 2020, an administrator for the R L513 and Subclades FTDNA group wrote a message requesting that Big Y 700 results be posted to the Big Tree:

I posted my new results and they showed up at the Big Tree under my Unique Mutations. My new results are under the heading of BigY3:

My understanding is that the entries with a plus sign are the important ones:

That means that the SNPs numbered 26539382, 13658297 and 4317527 are newly detected for me by the Big Y 700 test. 13658297 is interesting because in the previous test, it was rejected.

** indicates “REJECTED” with just a single variant

Also 13658297 is important as it is listed as being in the combBED Region.  My understanding is that the combBED Region is a highly reliable region for SNP detection. This is indicated by a Y in the second column of Y’s.

Of the above three unique mutations, two show up in my FTDNA Big Y list of Private Variants:

What About 13658297?

I used to show 13658297 as a private variant, but it is no longer on the list:

That could mean that it is no longer a private variant, because Steve also has that variant. I suppose that means that FTDNA is working on its manual review. I previously had 10 private variants. Now I have 6.

Where Does That Leave Me and the Hartley YDNA Tree?

This is the chart that I came up with previously:

I had highlighted in gold those matches that I had with Steve. There are 6 variants that are not highlighted which is what I now show as having for Private Variants now at FTDNA. I don’t see any matches between Steve and Michael. I take that to mean that Steve and I will be named on a newer Hartley Branch and that Michael will remain on the older branch of A11132. We will have to wait to see what the new branch is named.

Summary and Conclusion

  • FTDNA’s manual review of Steve and my Big Y 700 results seems to be moving along
  • The upload of some of my Big Y 700 results to the Alex Williamson Big Tree web site was helpful in my understanding what some of the results meant.
  • I will be seriously considering getting Big Y 700 results for my brother when a new sale comes along. These results will get me a terminal haplogroup for my very specific branch of Hartley’s.
  • My prediction is that Michael will retain the A11132 designation and Steve and I will have a new downstream haplogroup. It will be interesting to see how many SNPs make up this new haplogroup.

Getting Ready for My Hartley BigY 700 Results

According to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) my BigY 700 results are in, but it appears that the analysis has not completed.

I am told that it can take two weeks to perform a manual analysis once the results are in. The good news is that FTDNA does this analysis. The BigY Facebook Page reports this manual review could take as long as 12 weeks.

My Block Tree

One way I can tell that things are still changing is by looking at my Block Tree results:

Above I highlighted the private variants. Yesterday I had an average of 10 shared variants. Today I had 12 shared variants. That tells me that things are still happening.

At the same time that I upgraded my BigY from 500 to 700, DNA relative Steve also did a BigY 700 test for the first time. Previously, there were only two people in my branch of the Hartley YDNA tree that had taken the Big Y test. They were Michael and myself. By getting Steve to test, we should be able to get a tie-breaker. By STRs, it seems that I am more closely related to Steve than to Michael, but STRs can be unreliable. The Big Y produces new SNPs which can place us in a different Hartley branch. As the Hartley YDNA branch seems to be fairly old, it is important to find more recent branching. I know that Michael’s genealogy goes back quite far. He has Hartley Quaker ancestors that moved out of the area that my ancestors were living in to find peace from persecution. They moved to Quaker-friendly Pennsylvania. Michael’s ancestor was Edward Hartley. He was born in 1666. He married in 1693 and moved to Pennsylvania probably in the early 1700’s.

Private Variants

Previously, I only had an average 2 private variants between myself and Michael:

The Private Variants are the ones I have and Michael does not have (or that Michael has and I don’t have). This is an average, so it may be two for each, one for one and three for the other or four for one and none for the other.

How Did We Get From 2 Private Variants to 12?

The first answer is that the BigY 700 tests SNPs that were not tested in the BigY 500 test. That means that the new test may be finding new SNPs along the route between Michael, Steve and myself as well as new upstream SNPs. However, I would imagine that the further upstream these SNPs are going back to genetic Adam, the more likely it is that these SNPs have already been discovered by thousands of other BigY testers.

SNP Matching Details

Here are the details of how I do and do not match Michael and Steve:

Looks like a bunch of numbers. From this, I take it that Steve’s test finalized 5 days after mine. If I add up all the Non-Matching Variants and divide by 2, I should get 12. When I add the two, I get 31, so that must be the wrong way to do it.

I put the non-matching and Shared Variants into a spreadsheets:

The only thing that did was show which variants I have that don’t match with both Steve and Michael versus those that don’t match with only Steve or Michael.

FTDNA’s Y-Chromosome Browsing Tool

Under the BigY Results tab, I find this:

Under named variants, I had no results which is confusing because under the BigY matching tab, I had 10 non-shared variants with Michael. Then I had 6 non-named non-shared variants with Michael. With Steve, I had more non-named non-matching variants than named non-matching variants. So I could say that I have no match between my non-matching variants and my Private Variants.

The browser above basically gets at the quality of the SNP. I like to look up positions at YBrowse. Here is what I get when I do that:

According to this list, I have two totally new Private Variants out of 17. Five were previously named by William Hartley – probably when I took my first Big Y. The rest have been named by FTDNA or Full Genomes Corp. The ones that FTDNA and FGC named, they didn’t know where these SNPs appeared on the haplotree. Here is the last SNP I looked up at YBrowse:

When I click on the circled SNP, I get this further information:

Under ycc_haplogroup for the FGC and FTDNA SNP, the comment was ‘unknown’.

My take-away is that I have 17 Private SNPs. There are an average of 12 private SNPs between Michael, Steve, and myself. That would be a total of 36 Private SNPs. That means that Michael and Steve must have a total of 19 Private SNPs between them.

Next, I looked at my non-matching variants and looked those up at YBrowse:

This told me that of my 17 Private Variants, 5 were the same as Non-Matching Variants between me and Steve. I suppose that makes sense because Steve just took a new test and I just upgraded mine.

Now I see my named variants. I must have missed them before or they weren’t there yet:

The list doesn’t say if they are matching or non-matching variants and there are 1775 of them. One issue that I have is with A11130, for example. It shows as non-matching to Michael and Steve, yet it does not show up as a Private Variant for me. Originally when people were naming SNPs, someone thought that A11130 would be a good name for my branch. However, it was later found out that this was a private SNP. That is why people wait for other Big Y matches before they name a branch. That brings up another point. My current SNP name is A11132:

However, A11132 is only representative of the above 7 SNPs. It looks like A11132 was chosen as it was the lowest number in the group.

Alex Williamson’s Big Tree

The Big Tree was used as the model for FTDNA’s Block Tree. Although the Big Tree is slowly being phased out, it still has useful information in it. This is what the Big Tree as my ‘Unique Mutations’:

The BigY2 was from my BigY 500 test where I uploaded additional information.

Here are some notes from the Big Tree Website:

In the table above, the meaning of the confidence field depends on whether the data comes from an FTDNA kit or an FGC kit. For FTDNA kits, + implies a “PASS” result with just one possible variant, * indicates a “PASS” but with multiple variants, ** indicates “REJECTED” with just a single variant, and *** indicates “REJECTED” with multiple possible variants. ‘A*’ are heterozygous variants not called by FTDNA, but still pulled from the VCF file. For FGC kits, + indicates over 99% likely genuine (95% for INDELs); * over 95% likely genuine (90% for INDELs); ** about 40% likely genuine; *** about 10% likely genuine. Manual entries read directly from a BAM file will be either + indicating positive, or * indicating that the data show a mixture of possible variants.

For the FTDNA kits, the BED data is encoded in the background color of the cells. Those cells with a white background have coverage, those with a grey background indicate no coverage in the BED file, and those with a pink background indicate the mutation is on the edge of a coverage region. These pink regions often indicate that the individual may be positive for a SNP even if there is no corresponding entry in the vcf file.

The good thing about the Big Tree is that it also shows details for Michael. Here are his unique mutations:

Here are some further notes:

The mutations unique to this man are summarized in the table below. Those with a ‘+’ or ‘*’ confidence level are considered by FamilyTreeDNA or FullGenomesCorp to be high quality SNPs/INDELs. For completeness, all other mutations of lesser confidence are included as well. These additional mutations may be useful for distinguishing between very closely related men.

I don’t know how much further light this sheds on the situation. It appears that both Michael and I have have 5 SNPs marked with a ‘+’. However, our average number of unique SNPs used to be three at FTDNA but this later went down to 2 for some reason. Also note that Michael shows A16717, but with a ** designation. The BigY 700 showed that I had A16717 as a Non-Matching Variant with Michael. That could mean that we are both positive for that, but that Michael didn’t have a good read, so it was rejected on his side. I suppose that these are some of the issues that FTDNA needs to sort out.

Shared Variants

While we are being confused, I’ll add this in. FTDNA shows that I have one Shared Variant with each of my five matches.

I don’t know what this means. However, going to the learning center explains it:

I think this should have said “…the number of known variants…” I probably used to know this. The confusion is that the column before this is Non-Matching Variants and the position number or name of the Variant. I interpreted the Shared Variants to be a uniquely shared variant with the position number. However, this is the number of variants I share. For example, with Steve we have both taken the Big Y 700. So out of 695, 105 variants or SNPs we share 675, 590. I share much less with Michael as he has not upgraded to BigY 700. Here, it would help if FTDNA told you if your match took the old BigY 500 or the new BigY 700. That makes one thing I understand.

Checking My Logic On Non-Shared Variants

According to the FTDNA Learning Center:

I take this to mean that this list does not just include variants or SNPs that I have and my match doesn’t have, but could include variants or SNPs that my match has and I don’t have.

FTDNA – BiGY Facebook Group

This Facebook Group has been helpful. They have a document there called: BiGY-700 I am a Newbie. The last bullet on Page 13 of that document says:

Check your Private/Unnamed Variants, and see if they are found in
your BiGY Matches’ Kits. If so, your Haplogroup will change after a
Manual Review.

Here are my Private Variants:

All I have to do is ask Steve if he has any of these and the ones that match with me should form a new Branch. However, I already know that the Variants in blue will not form a new branch. That is because the SNPs or Variants in blue are already on the list of Non-Matching Variants between Steve and myself. I really need clear instructions like the ones on the BigY Facebook Page because the terminology is so counter-intuitive. Why would I even think of finding a match with my Private Variants list? How are they Private if they match?

News From Steve

Steve wrote back to me with his private variants:

Steve has 19 altogether. The following is actually his first 10 Private Variants:

This is almost like looking at a secret decoder ring.

I put Steve’s Private Variants next to mine and found quite a few matches:

The matches are in gold on my list. The blue Private Variants are ones that are specifically listed in the Non-Matching Variants between Steve and myself. There are 11 Private Variants that match between Steve and me.

Next, I just have to wait for FTDNA’s manual review to see if a new Hartley YDNA Branch is formed.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The purpose of Steve and I doing this BigY test is to see if a new Hartley Branch forms from YDNA.
  • My assumption was that Steve and I are more closely related to each other than to Michael. If Steve and I form a new Hartley Branch and Michael stays in the existing Haplogroup, then that will prove my assumption to be true.
  • YDNA is basically a simple concept. However, the terminology and instructions make things more complicated than they really are. The only part that probably is complicated is the interpretation of the quality of the test results.
  • The FTDNA BigY Facebook site has some good information which counteracts some of FTDNA’s confusing information.



Where Did My William Bradford Ancestors Live?

As I have mentioned in a previous Blog, the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims landing in Plymouth will soon be upon us. As I update this Blog it is now upon us. As a result, I’m struck that I’ve had ancestors living in Plymouth County where I live for the last 400 years. I have written a few Blogs on where my Bradford ancestors lived. My previous one was on Hannah T Bradford born 1838.

William Bradford Born Before December 1686

This William Bradford was the last William Bradford in my line leading down from Governor Bradford. His line of descent is from his great-grandfather Governor William Bradford to his grandfather Major William Bradford to his father William who married Rebecca Bartlett.


Here is William going back from Hannah Bradford:

Hannah was my 2nd great-grandmother. That makes William my 6th great-grandfather. I assume that William owned land and it is possible that I may be able to trace that land to a current location. According to my Mayflower Families book, William was probably born in Plymouth. He married in Plymouth and he died in Kingston. As William had three more William’s in a row to get back to Governor Bradford, the genealogy can be a little confusing.

One other way to identify these William’s is by their spouses. Unfortunately, I cut off the last wife who was Elizabeth Finney. I also cut off the wife of the William Bradford who was born in 1654. This was Rebecca Bartlett.

William’s Father Dies When William Is Young

Here is more of the story:

William was one of three children and he was the only boy. His father William died when William was only 1 or 2. None of the dates for the children are sure. Alice’s birth is from another book. William was born before December 1686 and Sarah’s birth year is based on her death record. The elder William died in a cart accident.

William Bradford: From Plymouth to Kingston

Here is William’s wife and children:

The first five children were born in Plymouth. That is up to my ancestor Josiah born in 1724. The last three children were born in 1726 or after. That would put William’s move to Kingston at about 1725. Or did the boundaries change? I note that Kingston was incorporated in 1726.

William First Mentioned in a Deed Dated 1687

When William was still a toddler, he was mentioned in a deed by his grandfather William Bradford (born 1624). According to the Mayflower Families Book:

On 23 April 1697 William Bradford in consideration of the natural love he bore for his grandchild William Bradford, only son of his son William Bradford deceased, gives to his grandson one parcel of upland on which his son had built his house “Given unto me from my father William Bradford Esqr”

So it seems this deed mentions four generations of William Bradford’s. This also indirectly mentions where William’s father built his house.

William’s Grandfather Major William Bradford Born 1624

It is usually best to go from the more recent to the less recent in genealogical research. However, in this case, Major William Bradford and his father Governor William Bradford are so famous, that a lot is known about them. For example, Major Bradford’s house is still around, so that will give us a foothold. I have this representation on my web site:

Here is a location on a current map:

Whose house is it?

I may have been wrong. As I look at the website, it appears that the house belonged to Major John Bradford son of Major William Bradford.

Looks like I have it wrong on my web site, so I’ll have to fix that. So it pays to look into these things. Major John Bradford was the brother of the William Bradford who died in a cart accident.

Looking for Where Governor Bradford Born 1589 Lived

I’ll start at the beginning. Here is where Governor Bradford lived in Plymouth:

Hey, someone put a furniture store on Governor Bradford’s property:

I have this rendition on my web site:

I’m not sure how accurate this rendition is, but it does appear to show the church next door. Records say that Bradford held Town meetings at his house. Here is another angle:

Burial hill is to the left in this photo. Governor Bradford lived where the brick building is. However, he also had farm land in present day Kingston. His wife was Alice (Carpenter) Southworth.

In a History of Kingston Massachusetts By Rev. Josiah Peckham, 1867:

For a time Gov. Bradford had his residence in Stoney Brook, near the dwelling of the late Francis Drew. The cellar of his house is still visible. His son, Deputy Gov. Bradford, lived, and died upon the same spot. A “High-Top Sweeting,” the last tree of the orchard, set out by the son, is still standing by the lane leading to Dea. Foster’s. Mr. Henry Colman speaks of it as “planted in 1669, and as bearing in 1838, thirty bushels of good fruit.” If this account of its age is true, it bids fair soon to enter upon its third century. Joseph Bradford, another son of the Governor, settled a little south-east of the Landing. 

Here is an old map of Kingston:

There is a Bradford shown to the North of Stony Brook. There is another S Bradford shown and highlighted to the South or SouthEast of Stony Brook. Today’s Stony Brook looks to be Halls Brook:

According to the Will of Governor Bradford dated 1657:

I have Desposed to John and Willam alreddy their  proportions of land which they are possesssed of;

Major William Bradford Born 1624

Here is an excerpt from an 1850 article on the Bradford Family:

This account appears to differ with the account above concerning where Deputy General William Bradford lived. Or perhaps he lived both places at different times. Here is a portion of the 1820-1830 map of Kingston South of the Jones River showing three Bradford locations:

Another Kingston Clue  in the Willett House

According to the Kingston Historical Commission:

Willett House update, 27 Wapping Road. Jack provided a historical overview, noting the house was likely built in the 1630s, perhaps in 1638, and describes it as having the best provenance of any house in town. Willett, who sold it to Governor William Bradford in the 1650s, came over on the second Mayflower voyage in 1629.

Based on further Commission notes, this house is in private ownership. This excerpt is from the Massachusetts Historical Commission:

The ownership history has been thoroughly researched and indicates the (house and?) land was sold to Governor William Bradford in 1653. It remained in the Bradford family when it was willed to his son, Major William Bradford, who built the “Bradford House” on Landing Road, and then to Samuel and Gershom Bradford. In 1747, the land was sold to Reverend William Rand and later to John Faunce, in whose family it remained for quite some time. From December 1936 to July 1937, a Historic American Buildings Survey team recorded the site and listed the owner as George Higgins. Shortly thereafter, a Mrs. Peabody owned the property and it was under her ownership that the house underwent a restoration by Strickland & Strickland in 1946. The current owner has not significantly altered the appearance of the house since she bought it and it appears very much as it did following the 1946 restoration.

Here is 27 Wapping Road, Kingston:

This is to the South of Jones River. I’m not sure if the previous reference to Stony Brook is accurate or not.

Here is a photo of the house:

The original house from the 1600’s is the one in the back and the ‘newer’ part is on the front dating from the 1700’s. Here is some more information from the Massachusetts Historical Commission:

The main block of the Willett House, in its current configuration, is a typical early 18th century saltbox. Town records indicating a land grant to Capt. Thomas Willett in 1639, including forty acres of “upland and meadow” and seven acres “on which to build his house,” have served as the basis for dating the rear ell. In The Story of the Thomas Willett House, Gordon Massingham of the Kingston Historical Commission assumed that the ell was built around 1640 and it apparently served as a model for a precise, although somewhat larger replica built at Plymoth Plantation in 1994. HABS field notes suggested a slightly later 1653 date, apparently based on town histories published in 1884 and 1920. Abbott Lowell Cummings visited the house in 1996 and, according to the owner, stated that the rear ell did show evidence of 17th century construction (based in part on sheathing exposed at the time) and that the saltbox was probably built around 1700.

It helps to have famous ancestors who have been well-researched. On the 1820-1830 Kingston Map, the house appears to be labelled as belonging to the Widow Faunce:

Chronology for the Williett House

Governor Bradford buys the Williett house in 1653. It is not clear to me if he lives in it or not. The Massachusetts HIstorical Commission [MHC] says it was willed to his son Major William Bradford. However, Governor Bradford died in 1657. His Will says he already gave land to his two sons prior to the Will. My guess is that if the Governor ever lived in the house it was for a very brief time or only to visit his son. According to the MHC, “It remained in the Bradford family when it was willed to his son, Major William Bradford, who built the “Bradford House” on Landing Road, and then to Samuel and Gershom Bradford. In 1747, the land was sold to Reverend William Rand…” That means tha the Willett house was a Bradford house between 1653 and 1747. 

The Samuel mentioned above, born about 1667, was the son of Major Bradford. Gershom, born 1691 was Samuel’s son. This Gershom was probably the same Gershom who in 1741 was appointed guardian of my ancestor Josiah Bradford (born about 1724) after Josiah’s father William Bradford died in a carting accident. That means that Josiah possibly lived at this location also when he was young.

The Bradford House on Landing Road

Am I going in circles? Above it says that the Willett House was willed to Major William Bradford who built the Bradford House on Landing Road. Wasn’t this the house that was listed as the Major John Bradford Homestead above? Major William Bradford died in 1687. The John Bradford house was built when?

According to Wikipedia:

The Bradford House, also known as the Major John Bradford Homestead, is a historic house at 50 Landing Road in Kingston, Massachusetts. The Jones River Village Historical Society owns the house, and operates it as a historic house museum. The oldest portion of this 2-1/2 story wood frame house was built c. 1714; this was the western portion of the house, including what is now the central chimney. Documentary evidence suggests the building was expanded to its present width c. 1750.

Apparently there is some confusion. So if Major William Bradford died in 1687, he couldn’t have built a house in 1714, unless there was a different house in this area that he built. According to a Major John Bradford Biography at the Jones River Village Historical Society web site:

Maj. Bradford’s home in Kingston, built in 1675, is still standing and open to the public today. According to tradition, the Indians attempted to burn John’s house during King Philip’s War. The Major discovered the fire. He spied an Indian on Abrams Hill waving a blanket and shouting to his fellows, and shot him. But on approach, he could not find the body. After the war, the Indian met Bradford and showed him the scars of his wound.

Based on this earlier date of construction, the house would have been built when John Bradford was 22 years old.

Here is another reference from a 1920 Biography on Governor William Bradford by Albert Hale Plumb that further confuses the issue:

Based on what I have learned so far, I am a little skeptical of the above Biography.

Some History of Kingston

According to Wikipedia:

Originally part of Plymouth, Kingston was first settled by Europeans shortly after the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It was settled once more in 1635.[2] During 1675, several bloody battles during King Philip’s War are believed to have occurred within Kingston’s borders and the residence of Governor Bradford, which is now part of Kingston, was raided by Wampanoag warriors.

In 1685, the area was placed within the boundaries of Plymouth County and for a brief time, between 1686 and 1689, the borders of Kingston were within the Dominion of New England.

Kingston was first established as Plymouth’s northern precinct in 1717 upon the creation of First Parish Kingston, now a Unitarian Universalist church in the town’s center.[2] Kingston was incorporated as a distinct town on June 16, 1726, following a tax dispute between the residents of north and south Plymouth, when the parish was known as the upper class portion of Plymouth.

I would question that the residence of Governor Bradford was raided in 1675 as Governor Bradford died in 1657. If this is referring to Lieutenant Governor William Bradford, this would make more sense.

William Bradford Born Before 1654

According to the Mayflower Families he was probably born in Plymouth. But recall the boundaries were different then. This was the William who married Rebecca Bartlett and died when a cart he was driving overturned and killed him. I am hoping there will be some information on him that will clear things up. Here is a representation of my four William Bradford’s who lived in Plymouth as it is easy to get these William’s mixed up:

As the result of William’s untimely death in 1687, there are some records.

John Bradford was the administrator of William’s estate. I assume that this was the Major John Bradford who had the house I showed earlier in the Blog.

John’s job was to see what assets William had and pay off outstanding debts. Then he would see if anything was left over.

If I could read the above, it might give a clue to the kind of work William did. My assumption is that William had some sort of carting business as he died in a carting accident.

Here are the people that William owed:

According to to the book, “William Bradford of the Mayflower”:

On 23 April 1687 William Bradford in consideration of the natural love he bore for his grandchild William Bradford, only son of his son William Bradford deceased, gives to his grandson one parcel of upland on which his son had built his house “Given unto me from my father William Bradford Esqr.” Before acknowledging the deed on 4 Sept 1696, William added a paragraph saying that when his grandson William reached the age of 21, he “shall enjoy the lands without Interruption.” On 29 Oct. 1709 John Bradford, Samuel Bradford, Israel Bradford, Ephraim Bradford, David Bradford, and Hezekiah Bradford all of Plymouth County gave their right in a cedar swamp to their kinsman William Bradford, son of their brother William Bradford deceased. This deed was not acknowledged until 26 Marcy 1747.

What I gather from the above is that the carting William lived in a house that he built on land of his father Major William Bradford. This land was given to the Major by Governor Bradford. My guess is that the Major intended the carting William’s son William to be able to continue to live in the house that his father built. However, it does not seem that the younger William would own the land that the house was on.

From the book, “The Descendants of Elder William Brewster”:

The children of William and Rebecca (Bartlett) Bradford were remembered in the will of [William’s uncle] John Richards of Boston dated 1 April 1694 and proved on 10 May 1694 that mentioned that “the children of William Bradford Fr. of Plymouth were to receive the share fo their grandfather Major William Bradford, which was to be equally divided between them.” The children’s names were not mentioned.

The three children of William Bradford Jr., late of Plymouth, deceased, namely, William, Alice, and Sarah, made choice of their “uncle” Mr. Joseph Bartlett and Mr. Nathaniel Warren to be their guardians on 18 December 1700. Each child would have been over 14 years of age to be allowed to choose their guardian. A bond in the amount of 100 pounds was posted by the guardians “to ye orphaned Children.”

I wonder who Joseph Bartlett and Nathaniel Warren are? Rebecca Bartlett Bradford had an Uncle Joseph Bartlett (1639-1711). This Joseph also had a son Joseph (1665-1703). Nathaniel Warren seems even more obscure. Rebecca’s great-grandfather was Richard Warren. The titles Mr. are important. At the time, Mr. would have indicated a person of status and wealth.

Here is a helpful article from from the Plymouth Colony Archive Project:

D. Guardianship

Guardian agreements are another type of agreement that I will only briefly mention here. The Court Records demonstrate that by 1660 guardian agreements were more common in the records than service and apprentice agreements. No recorded laws governed these agreements. Guardian agreements were written in a contract form similar to that of a servant’s indenture. Often a child would “pick” one or two adults to serve as their guardian until they were adults. A typical guardian agreement reads as follow: “Att this Court, Hannah Hull made choise of Joseph Holley and Nathaniel Fitsrandall to be her guardians, which was approved by the Court” (PCR 5: 52). In this case it is uncertain as to whether or not this childððs parents are deceased. However, other agreements specifically mention that the child’s father or parents were dead (PCR 5: 124). In some instances guardian agreements explicitly stated what goods the chosen guardian was to provide for the child while others asked that the guardians manage the estates inherited by their new wards (PCR 4:39).

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a guardian as “one who has or is by law entitled to the custody of the person or property (or both) of an infant, idiot, or other person legally incapable of managing his own affairs” (Electronic Text Center: UVA). The Plymouth Court Records indicate that this was how Plymouth residents defined guardians. Guardian agreements thus became a type of social welfare for orphaned children or children who can from dysfunctional parents. We may never know the manner in which guardians dealt with their wards. Did the guardian treat them like their own children, or did they treat their wards like servants? Most likely, the treatment of wards was highly varied. One record from 1659 involved a complaint made against John Williams, of Scittuate, for the “hard vsage of a daughter of John Barker, deceased” (PCR 3:160). The child was removed from William’s house and given to Thomas Bird until the next Court session could look into the case further. In the meantime, Williams was required to pay a fine. The final sentence of the record was particularly intriguing as it revealed a kin relationship between Williams and the daughter of the deceased John Barker. The record stated that “the said Thomas Bird is to appeer att the next Court to giue in what testimony hee can produce to cleare vp the case betwixt the said John Williams and his kinswoman, the said gerle” (ibid.). Here we see that Williams was probably the guardian of Barker’s daughter, and yet he had mistreated her and used her like a servant.

This record concerning the treatment of a ward is on the one extreme. In other cases a ward may have been treated like the guardian’s child. A future project might entail looking at the wills of men whom we know were chosen as guardians. Are the children they were assigned to look after listed in their wills? Are they listed as servants? These are just a few questions which might help us to understand the social roles of both the guardian and the child.

Apprentice, servant, and ward all entered into a common law contract with a master or guardian. These indenture agreements were viewed as unbreakable contracts and were enforced by the Plymouth Court. Any changes in indenture agreements — from the trade of a servant and the withholding of food or clothing to the misdemeanors of a servant — were brought before the Court. The next several sections will explore the manner with which change and divergence in indenture agreements was dealt.

It appears that the children would live with the guardians and would be treated along the range between servant to child. This doesn’t surprise me, as I believe that natural children were aslo treated along the same spectrum between child and servant.

From “William Bradford of the Mayflower”:

John Richards of Boston, merchant, in his will dated 1 April, proved 10 May 1694, named, among others, the children of his late sister Alice the wife of Major William Bradford of Plymouth; Thomas Bradford of Connecticut; Mercy the wife of mr. Steel of Hartford, [Conn.]; Alice the wife of Major James Fritch of Norwich, [Conn.]; Hannah the wife of Joshua Ribpley of Norwich; Melatiah the wife of John Steel of Norwich; the children of Willima Bradford Fr. of Plymouth to receive the share of the grandfather Major William Bradford to be equally divided among the; John Bradford; Samuel Bradford; Mary the wife of William Hunt of Wymouth; Sarah the wife of Mr. Baker of Duxbury; and Elizabethe Adams the daughter of Alice the wife of the late Rev. William Adams of Dedham.

John Richards was Major William Bradford’s brother-in-law.

Two Generations of Bradford Guardianship

The last William Bradford in my line born before 18 December 1686 chose, along with his two sisters to be under the guardianship of “their uncle Mr. Joseph Bartlett and Mr. Nathaniel Warren”. This William died 9 March 1729/30. According to “William Bradford of the Mayflower”,  “On 29 Nov 1736 George Partridge of Duxborough was appointed guardian of Sarah and Jerusha Bradford, over 14, and of Mercy and Josiah, under 14. On 21 May 1741 Gershom Bradford was appointed guardian of Josiah”. Josiah who was my ancestor was born possibly 1724.

Who Was George Partridge?

My assumption is that Josiah went to live with George Partridge in what I assume would be today’s Duxbury between 1736 and 1741. According to a 1915 Partridge genealogy:

Perhaps Josiah didn’t care for being restrained and was able to choose Gershom Bradford as his guardian as of 1741.

Summary and Conclusions

  • For the most part, I did not get very specific with the location of various Bradford ancestors
  • A specific location is known where Governor Bradford’s first dwelling house was in Downtown Plymouth.
  • I also guessed as to where Josiah Bradford lived when he was under the guardianship of Gershom Bradford in Duxbury.
  • In general, for the time period that I looked at, my Bradford ancestors lived to the North of Plmouth mostly in what is now Kingston.
  • The study of where ancestors lived and the lands they owned goes beyond the basic birth, marriage and death records and can be complicated. On the other hand these land records are sometimes better recorded than other records. When people moved, it was often for a reason and adds interest to the family history.