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 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.

 

 

A New R1b-L513 YDNA Tree for Hartley

Well, the tree isn’t just for Hartley. This is a new tree that my branch of Hartley happens to be in.

The Old L513 Tree

Here is a Tree from 2016:

Hartley was about in the middle where I put an arrow. That Tree is pretty old. Here is a newer Tree from 2018:

Between 2016 and 2018, my Hartley branch moved down two levels from Z17911 to A11138 to A11132:

Updated 2020 L513 Tree

I was surprised that when I found my Hartley Line on the 2020 L513 Tree that I wasn’t in the middle anymore:

That is because the L513 Tree has been split in two. This makes sense due to more people taking the Big Y test. There were a few more changes. One is that the country of origin is no longer shown. Instead, there is a timeline on the left. The larger part of the tree is in green which is starting about 1,000 AD. Right below that is the genealogical Timeframe. To me, the most important part is the part where the SNP represents a particular Surname.

Here is Part 2 of the L513 Chart – the part that Hartley is not on:

SNP Tracker

There is a web site called SNP Tracker which tries to trace the history of your SNP through time:

Summary

  • A New L513 Tree Chart shows Hartley in a different format than previously
  • This new Chart splits the previous L513 Tree into two parts
  • The old Chart’s country of origins is replaced by a timeline

Some New Hartley STR Results

My last major Blog on Hartley STRs was about 2 and a half years ago. Things don’t always happen quickly in the realm of YDNA. However, as a result of my distant Hartley cousin Steve taking a BIg Y test, he now has new 111 STR results.

Steve, whose Big Y test is processing is now my closest Hartley STR match at the 111 STR level.

My Previous STR Tree

STR trees are difficult to draw and the results can be ambiguous. That is why the Big Y test which uses less ambiguous SNPs is a better test overall. Here is the tree I made over 2 and a half years ago:

Note that there were three Hartley’s who had taken the 111 STR test at the time. My guess is that one was too distant to be considered a match. I am Trawden Hartley in the diagram.

These people are also listed at the Hartley YDNA Project site:

I have highlighted the Hartley’s in my group who have tested to 111 STRs. The difference between the upper and lower group is that the administrator wanted the upper group to do a Big Y or more SNP testing.

  • David Hartley 1797 – this is for Steve who is awaiting his Big Y results
  • William Shepherd Hartley Lancashire 1851 – This is Wray Hartley in the diagram above
  • Thomas Hartley about 1769 – This is the Thornton Hartley in the diagram above
  • Robert Hartley – This is me, Trawden Hartley in the diagram above

In my 2015 Blog, I had this three person Hartley 111 STR signature:

In that signature, I tried to take account of the older SNPs to get the ancestral values. This time, I just took the simple mode of the four tests:

 

I was having trouble figuring out who Ross was. The reason for this is that he doesn’t appear to be in the Hartley YDNA project. I match the David ancestor above at a GD of 7. I match the other two at more than 9. The problem with doing it by hand is that it is easy to miss things. Fortunately, there is a way in Excel to choose differences.

Also notice that Excel interprets some of the values as dates, so care must be taken to format and copy and paste as text. Excel otherwise interprets 11-14 as 14-Nov.

Here is the new and improved version:

There were some discrepancies between what I did before I what I have now. I’ll go with my new chart for now:

Here I have a new Hartley A11132 Hartley 111 STR Mode. When there was a tie on the mode I used the higher value as I noticed that was what FTDNA did. It may be more accurate to consider the other testers for the first 67 STRs or go back to an earlier SNP as I did previously. For DYS447, I had a Hartley mode of 25 previously, so I’ll use that.

DYS455

I’ll also change the marker before DYS447 which is DYS445. The older SNPs upstream of A11132 had a value of 11, so I’ll use that for the mode. This actually makes a big difference. DYS445 is a very slow marker changing at a rate of 0.16 per 1,000 generations. A male generation is 35.0 years. That means that this marker has a 16% chance of changing every 35,000 years or one chance of changing every 218,750 years! That tells me that the marker should be 11 because the chance of this changing to 12 for Hartley and then back again would take over 400,000 years. However, in another paper, I see a rate of:

DYS445 0.00216

I take that to be 2.16 per 1,000 generations. So that is a big difference. I also see this:

DYS445 0.000918

And I see that the 0.00216 was a mistake. At least I’m not the only one who makes mistakes.

Analyzing the Numbers

Here if a STR value went up, I gave it a pink. If it went down from the mode, I gave it a blue.

Here is some more information on rates:

I think the green, yellow and ornage color-coded numbers are old, but I like the colors as it gives a relative speed of mutation.

Rebuilding the A11132 Hartley STR Tree

The line that I have for the mode is considered to be the oldest value – though there is no guarantee – especially for the faster dark green markers. I added a column on the right for distance from the mode:

That means if I did it right, Steve at the top is closest to the mode or has the oldest combination of STRs. I am next with 4 differences from the mode. I’ll refigure myself with Steve:

 

 

Part of why I wanted Steve to take the Big Y test is because he seemed more closely related to me. I already saw that Steve and I shared the older value of 11 for DYS455. I think that is the major split for this group. Then I see that Steve and I also share the newer value of 26 for SYS447. Then after that Steve and I will split off from each other. Steve has the very slow moving newer marker of DYS435 and I have two other newer faster moving light green markers. I may ignore the darker green STRs for now as they could back-mutate more easily.

Here is the first cut:

Above is the Hartley Mode. I’m not sure if I displayed this the best way. At some point, an ancestor of William and Thomas had a mutation in marker 455 from 11 to 12. This split the A11132 Hartley line into two lines. Likewise, the assumption is that at some point, an ancestor of David and Robert had a mutation of 447 which went from 25 repeats to 26 repeats. Alternatively, an ancestor of David and an ancestor of Robert could have had parallel independent mutations. However, I think that this would be less likely. We don’t know which mutated first – 447 or 455 so I have them at equal levels.

Finally, everyone ended up on their own branch.

Fine-Tuning the STR Tree

Next, I can add in the fast markers. While doing that, I see one of my mutations that I missed:

Here is the new tree:

The other thing that I gather from this tree is that the common ancestor of David and Robert Hartley could be more recent than the ancestor of William and Thomas. That is because David and Robert have fewer mutations on their line. David and Robert have a total of 6 William and Thomas have a total of 10. I have from a previous Blog that STRs mutate at the 111 level on average every 125 years. I’m not sure if that is still a valid number.

I’ll take the average STR mutations for each branch, multiply by 125, then add about 50 years for average age (maybe low as I’m 63):

Assuming that was right, I’m not sure how to date the Hartley Mode.

Cross-Checking Dates Using Big Y

I currently match one other Hartley at FTDNA under A11132:

This shows that we have an average of 2 private variants between us. We used to have three, so that number went down for some reason. Perhaps the analysis was refined. The rule is that you can multiply this number by 144 years to get the years to common ancestor. That would be 288 plus my age of 63 or about 350 years ago. That means that it is possible that our common ancestor was as recent as 1670.

That is getting near the Big Y’s ancestor Samuel and/or Edward Hartley born 1666:

An interesting thing about this Big Y tester is that his DYS455 value is 11 and his DYS447 is 25. That brings about this unlikely scenario:

Here I have the other Big Y tester with 1666 ancestor on the left as his 455 is 11 and his 447 is 25. So that puts him above the common ancestor of David and Robert Hartley. That means that if I made the tree right, My common ancestor with Samuel Hartley could be around 1600, my common ancestor with the David Hartley Line could be around 1700 and the Hartley Mode could be around 1500. That would put the common ancestor of the William and Thomas line too early at 1345. That could possibly also be at 1600. Something to think about.

Here is my rough guess:

I think that the relative dating holds together somewhat. It still seems that the David and Robert Line (Steve and I) have the most recent common ancestor in this group.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I played around with Steve’s new 111 STR results and created a possible STR tree
  • The dating was interesting but it ran into a fairly recent proposed date based on Big Y testing. This Big Y dating could be more refined if the tester had uploaded his results to YFull. YFull has had a good reputation in the dating department.
  • I was able to priortize some of the STRs based on their speed of change. The more slowly changing STRs should be the most important ones.
  • I came up with some rough guesses on dating based on a lot of assumptions.
  • The newer more recent Big Y tester’s common ancestor dating makes review of the other Big Y tester’s genealogy more relevant.
  • A lot of this work is in anticipation of Steve’s upcoming Big Y results.
  • The STRs are not as accurate as the SNPs produced by the Big Y, but they are interesting to play around with in making predictions. They can also be used in conjunction with the Big Y information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some More A11132 Hartley Genealogy

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

This is the tree Michelle sent:

Here is a close-up of William Hartley:

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

 

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

The A11132 Hartley Genealogy Summary to Date

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

William Burton Hartley Born 1857

I found William at findagrave.com:

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

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

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

Here is young William B in 1860 in Kansas Territory:

William Hartley Born 1814 Kentucky

Back to findagrave.com:

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

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

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

Here is William in 1850:

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

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

Who Was the Father of William Hartley Born 1814?

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

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

Looks like a peaceful place:

Here is the stone for Mary Hartley:

According to findagrave.com, the Cemetery is:

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

Here is Goddard:

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

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

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

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

Finally, some Kirk’s are buried here:

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

Here is the marriage transcription:

Married by a Holmes:

Here is a Benjamin Hartley in Elizaville in 1820:

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

This is likely the family in 1830:

I don’t know where the Eastern Division was:

I think that Goddard was around the word Plains above.

Benjamin Hartley – Making the Leap (Backwards) From Kentucky

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

Benjamin in 1810 North Carolina

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

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

Here is Rowan County:

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

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

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

It turns out Thomas has an impressive stone:

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

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

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

Moore was the bondsman and Macay the witness.

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

Thomas H(e)artley Will and Probate

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

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

Ancestry Trees for Thomas Hartley

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

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

I’m not sure about this Emilie.

Here is Zilpha or Zelpha:

Thomas to Benjamin – the Weak Link

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

 

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

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

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

The Other Benjamin Hartley

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

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

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

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

An Ancestry Message Board Post

I found this 2011 message at Ancestry:

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

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

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

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

Waightstill Hartley and YDNA

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

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

Scroll down to Hartley 7.1

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

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

Any Other Leads?

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

Richard Hartley From WikiTree

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Richard Hartley 1721-1784

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

This brings up a few questions:

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

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

 

Hartley R-A11132 YDNA and Genealogy

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

My Hartley YDNA – R-A11132

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

Most Hartley’s are R1b:

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

R-M269

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

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

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

R-L21

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

R-L513

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

My Hartley group is in the middle:

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

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

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

A11132 Testing

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

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

Genealogical Triangulation

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

My Genealogy Back to Trawden

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

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

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

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

When Robert married Mary, he was already a widower:

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

Hartley 4.05 – Congregational Ancestry

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

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

Hartley 4.07 – Over the Yorkshire Line

This is the Hartley with the Thomas Hartley ancestor:

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

Hartley 4.15 – Quaker Ancestry

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

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

4.15 sent me this tree:

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

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

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

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

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

Geni has this information:

WikiTree matches what Hartley 4.15 has:

Here is a 1577 map of a portion of Lancashire:

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

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

What I Gather from My A11132 Hartley Relative with Quaker Ancestry

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

Hartley 4.04 Genealogy

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

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

Here is part of a Wikipedia entry on Todmorden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Curious Marriage

This is a critical record for John Hartley:

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

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

The ship record confirms Thomas as John’s father:

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

John’s Draft Registration Cards link hin to Todmorden:

The above card is from 1917.

Here is Todmorden:

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

Here are a few more geographical tidbits:

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

Here is John Edward’s baptismal record from 1883:

Here is the family in 1891 in Rochdale:

Searching for Thomas and Mary

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

That means that Thomas would have been single in 1881:

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

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

Edward and Hannah Hartley

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

Here is where a map comes in handy:

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

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

David and Betty Hartley

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

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

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

Abraham or Thomas Hartley?

Other trees have David’s father as Thomas Hartley:

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

A11132 Hartley Places

Here is my summary, so far:

Now I just need all these places on a map.

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

Here I added the Hartley names and dates:

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

Update On My Hartley YDNA

There are many Hartleys in the world. Not all of them are related which shows up in the YDNA testing. This is my first update in over 2 years on my Hartley YDNA.

My Hartley Branch is R-A11132

This branch may be shown many different ways. This view is from the Big Tree:

My Hartley overall group is R1b and further L21. R1b is mostly European and L21 can be loosely associated what is called Celtic background. In my case this could be considered perhaps early British as opposed to the later arriving Anglo Saxons. This designation is based on SNP testing.

From the chart above, our branch of Hartleys are associated with the Z17911 Branch of Bennett, Phillips, Merrick, Thomas and Smith and more distantly associated with the Z16854 Branch of Pillsbury, Hayes and Hays.

Why Is My Hartley Branch R-A11138 at YFull?

Here I am under A11138 at YFull’s YTree:

Under R-A1138, there are two people. It is difficult to tell who they are due to only id’s being used. I had assumed that these two were me and the other Hartley BigY tester. But, based on the the A11138 designation, I think that the other person in this group must be Smith:

So now I hope that my BigY Hartley match uploads his results to YFull.

Dating Hartley YDNA

YDNA can be dated by SNPs or by STRs

I recently posted information on a Facebook page noting that I had 9 BIgY matches and only one 111 STR match. One informed responder noted that:

It’s pretty unusual to have one Y111 match and 9 Big Y matches certainly! Actually though that would normally mean the STRs have mutated faster than usual and the SNPs have mutated more slowly than usual, so that enough STRs have changed that only one match is left within the STR matching threshold (10 at Y11) while fewer than 30 SNPs have changed between yourself and the 9 matches so they show up on the Big Y matching report. 

Unless there is some other reporting error at work, I highly suspect that 8 of those Big Y matches are off on their own branch where their common ancestors had a lot of STR mutations and pulled them all out of reach of your STR matching threshold!

The person above, David Vance also produced a STR Mutation History for the group I am in. Here is the Hartley/Smith portion:

This shows that the common ancestor between Smith and Hartley is around 900 AD. The common ancestor between my Hartley match is 1400 AD. David further notes:

The age estimates in green are based on the STRs, not the SNPs; but are overall pretty consistent with the Big Tree estimates although note they align with the END of each block, not the start (since they refer to when the branching underneath each node first started).

This dating is helpful as it is the only one that I have right now. However, it is possible to roughly date the FTDNA Block tree by using 144 years times the average private variants under A11132. As there are an average of three private variants, that comes out to 432 years. I could add another 63 years for my age to get roughly 500 years or about 1500 AD. So if this is right, I find it pretty amazing that my match and I have both kept the Hartley surname for between 500 and 600 years!

Summary and Conclusion

  • By comparing my FTDNA Block Tree with the YFull YTree, I saw that YTree was missing some information. That missing information was my other Hartley Big Y Hartley match
  • David Vance performed a STR Mutation History for me. This gave a Hartley common ancestor date of about 1400 AD.
  • I did a rough estimate based on SNPs. The two Hartley’s have an average of three private variants. This would put our common ancestors at roughly 1500 AD.

 

 

Hartley YDNA and STR Tree: New Results

This Blog follows on my previous Blog on the subject.  In that Blog, I drew a two person 111 STR Hartley Z17911 Tree. Hartleys that are fairly close to me are assumed to be positive for the SNP Z17911 which was my terminal SNP.

When I look at the new Hartley results, I get the following Hartley Z17911 111 STR signature:

A few points from this new signature:

  • Previously, I was not able to have a 111 STR Hartley Mode. Now with three testers, that is possible. I fudged the mode for 576 as there were three different results: 17, 18 and 19.
  • The first Hartley on the list above is what I was calling the Bradford, West Yorkshire Hartley in the previous Blog
  • The second is the new tester with ancestor William Shepherd Hartley from Manchester, England.
  • The third on the list is me.

A New Hartley SNP

Previously, my terminal SNP was Z17911. Now there is a new shared Hartley SNP called A11132. Here is the SNP tree from the R-Z16357 Project web site:

Thanks to testing by another Hartley with Quaker Pennsylvania and NE Lancashire roots, I have moved down the tree past A11138 to A11132. I am guessing that other Hartleys that am related to by STRs will share this SNP. That means that the Hartley STR Mode I mention above, will also likely be the A11132 Mode.

Some Genealogy For the Newly Tested Hartley

This is part of what I was given for the ancestors of the New Hartley:

William was born in about 1851 in England. (1), Lancashire to be exact (2). His parents were Thomas Hartley and Hannah Shepherd (2).
I was able to find William’s Birth:
From there I found the 1851 Census:
This was a big deal as it shows that the father Thomas was born in the little village of Wray, Lancashire in the Northwest of Lancashire. Thomas’ wedding record was helpful in giving a middle name.
Name: Thomas Townson Hartley
Gender: Male
Marriage Date: 27 Mar 1826
Marriage Place: Manchester, Lancashire, England
Spouse: Hannah Shepherd
FHL Film Number: 1545585
Reference ID: pg152 ln456
From there I searched using the Lancashire Online Parish Search:
Baptism: 26 Aug 1804 St Margaret, Hornby, Lancashire, England
Thos. Townson Heartley – Son of Christopr. Smith Heartley & Mary
Born: 11 Aug
Abode: Wray
Occupation: Hatter
Register: Baptisms 1790 – 1805, Page 47, Entry 5
Source: LDS Film 1526204
Further searching lead to another Christopher Hartley ancestor:
Baptism: 3 Jul 1774 St Wilfrid, Melling, Lancashire, England
Christopher Smith Hartley – Son of Christopher Hartley & Alice
Abode: Wray
Performed at: Hornby Chapel
Register: Baptisms 1752 – 1781, Page 49, Entry 5
Source: LDS Film 1849660
Here is Wray and Hornby in NW Lancashire:

Here is where the Smith name comes in:

Marriage: 16 Dec 1752 St Wilfrid, Melling in Lonsdale, Lancashire, England
Christopher Hartley – Wray in this Parish
Ann Smith – Hornby in this Parish
Notes: X [in left margin]
Register: Marriages 1752 – 1754, Page 1, Entry 6
Source: LDS Film 1849660

Actually, the Bishop’s Transcripts show that Ann may have been Alice:

This is where my easy searching stopped. I did get further than I did on my own Hartley line. We now have a Christopher Hartley for our new YDNA tester probably born around 1725 who lived in Wray, Lancashire in 1752

The reason I go through all the genealogy is that it is interesting to match up the historic Hartley homelands with the DNA. Here is a map with our three testers:

To the upper left of the map shows a circle around Hornby for our new tester. My ancestors were just south of Colne and the other 111 Hartley STR tester had ancestors in Thornton, near Bradford. The distance between Thornton and Wray is probably no more than 35 miles as the crow flies.

Back To the DNA

With my new Hartley 111 STR Signature, I get this tree:

  • Again, it seems obvious to split the two groups by the 455 STR. 455 mutates 0.16 times every one thousand generations. I don’t know about you, but to me that seems like a pretty rare thing. My thinking it that this just happened once.
  • The next three slowest STRs are 540, 1B07 and 445. I had all those mutations, so that puts me by myself. Those three STRs are in the 111 panel, so I won’t be able to check those against other Hartleys until more Z17911 Hartleys test to 111 markers.
  • This groups Thornton and Wray together even though they are further away from each other geographically.
  • How could this tree be dated? If we take the Hartley Mode date to be the beginning of surnames, this could be around 1300 or 1400. A wild guess would be the that the Wray/Thornton ancestor could be about 100 years after that.

A New 67 STR Z179111 Hartley Tree

I say Z17911 Hartley Tree, because there are other Hartleys in other SNP groups that would not be closely enough related to be in a STR tree. First, we need a new 67 STR signature. This signature should be more accurate than the STR signature up to 67 STRs that was done for the 111 STR Tree. This is because there are more Hartleys that have tested 67 STRs.

  • I kept the Hartley mode for 455 as 11 even though it is technically 12. This is because at the low mutation rate, I didn’t think that it could have mutated up and down again in the time frame we are looking at. If I am interpreting the mutation rate correctly, there would be a 16% chance of this STR mutating in about 3,000 years.
  • In the previous analysis, I was the furthest away from the Hartley 111 STR mode. Here, I am the closest. This is because a lot of my differences were in the 111 STR Panel.
  • My inclination is still to separate the two groups of Hartleys by the slow moving 455 STR.

Here is the new 67 STR Hartley Tree:

  • What I was calling the Lancashire and West Yorkshire Hartleys, I’m now calling the Hartley 1 Line and the Hartley 2 Line.
  • I had already grouped Bradford, West Yorkshire and Hartley #3 by 449 and 576. Now I’m grouping our new tester with the West Yorkshire, William based on 389b and CDYb.
  • The Wray, Lancs Hartley and the W Yorks Hartley would be quite a ways apart from each other geographically. Yet they seem to be related by YDNA. Perhaps the Wray, Lancs Hartleys had their roots in West Yorkshire.
  • Joel and Quaker Hartley are the two that have taken the big Y tests. They are both also identified by the A11132 SNP.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Hartley YDNA has been in its infancy but is starting to grow. This is thanks to those Hartleys that have had Big Y tests and STR tests.
  • It would be interesting to see if all the Hartleys in this study have the Z11132 SNP. It is possible that this could be the Hartley SNP. However, this is based on only two Hartleys testing positive for it so far.
  • The 455 STR marker seems to be important in splitting the two Hartley branches. It will be interesting to see if that marker also corresponds to a specific SNP.

 

An Updated Z17911 Hartley STR Tree

In my last Blog on the subject, I wrote about a Hartley Z17911 STR Tree. Since that time, I created a broader Z17911 STR Tree. However, that broader tree was not the best idea. Soon after creating that tree, I found out that at least one person in that tree was actually in a new SNP group further downstream from Z17911. This was based on Big Y and SNP testing. Within not too long from creating my tree, the SNP tree as created by Jared Smith went from this:

to this:

The link to Jared’s Website is here.

So, while Goff appeared previously to be in my SNP group, in fact, he was not. He was as far as 4 SNPs away. That means that any closeness in STRs could have been coincidental. When comparing SNPs and STRs, the rule is that SNPs take precedence.

A STR Tree for Hartleys Only

At this point, it seems to make sense to create a Hartley only STR tree. There is still no guarantee that Hartleys that are related to me by STRs will have the same SNP results as me. However, I think that it is more likely than not that they will.

Since my previous Blog, there have been two new Hartley STR testers. I have the results for one of those that tested at 67 STRs and one I don’t have results for yet who tested at 111 STRs. Previously, there was one other Hartley testing at 111 STRs. I have had my STRs tested indirectly through the BigY test. YFull analyzed 500 of my STRs – although some of the results were inconclusive. That means that there are three Hartleys with about 111 STRs tested, but I only have the results for two. I should be able to create a very simple tree from that.

The First Ever Hartley 111 STR Tree

At least I think it is the first. Those in the group I’ll call West Yorkshire Hartley,  and me. My ancestors are from Lancashire, so I’ll be Lancashire Hartley. I think that this will be interesting as I feel that the Lancashire Hartleys predated the Hartleys for West Yorkshire. However, I get the impression that my Hartley YDNA administrator favors an earlier date for the West Yorkshire Hartleys. Here are the differences in 111 STRs between a West Yorkshire Hartley and a Lancashire Hartley:

There are a few interesting things from the numbers above:

  • The 16357 Mode is the SNP above Z17911, so it would be older.
  • STR 449 could be a back mutation. It goes from 32 to 31 and back to 32 for West Yorkshire Hartley.
  • The 455 STR has an orange number above it. That refers to the slowest STR mutation rate. As that is the slowest STR rate and my result is the same as the 455 modes, I infer that my STR test represents the older Hartley version. However, a sample of 2 is not much.
  • I am a GD of 14 from the West Yorkshire Hartley.
  • Both the West Yorkshire and the Lancashire Hartley are a GD of 7 from the Z17911 mode. That would have given us a tie for the oldest STR profile if we hadn’t considered the effect of mutation rates.
The simple 111 STR Hartley tree

This Tree is a bit on the conceptual side. However, it does point out some things:

  • These two Hartleys likely descend from a common Hartley. However, at this stage, we don’t have the 111 STR Mode for that common Hartley.
  • The STR mutations are therefor shown to Z17911 rather than to a common Hartley.
  • As mentioned above, I favor the theory that the West Yorkshire Hartley Line originated in Lancashire. This is partly based on something called the founder effect. That means that due to the large number of Hartleys in the Colne/Trawden area, it is possible that the area was a founding area for the Hartleys. However, the distance between the Lancashire and West Yorkshire Hartleys is not far.
  • I did not include all the STRs for simplicity. The slowest marker is shown in orange.
  • The three last slower moving STRs (540, 445 and 1B07) are in the 111 panel, so will not show up in the 67 STR analysis.
  • I have the year of 1075 (125 years per STR mutation) shown above. This is supposed to represent a difference of 7 GD. However, I don’t know if that date should represent the Hartley Mode or the Z179111 Mode. If the date were to represent the Hartley mode, then that would likely be at the beginning of when Surnames were beginning to come into use.
  • As the overall GD difference between the two Hartleys is 14, I don’t see how the difference to a common Hartley ancestor could be less than 7.
  • There is also the possibility that these two Hartleys had a common ancestor just before the implementation of surnames and that due to this relationship, common area of origin or by coincidence they both took on the Hartley surname

Back to 67 STRs

Let’s keep the above tree in mind as we get down to the six Hartleys with 67 STRs tested. Checking the tree I made in a previous Blog, I see that Lancashire Hartley (me) and West Yorkshire Hartley were at opposite sides of that Tree:

In the above tree, Hartley #2 is the same  as West Yorkshire Hartley.

The New 67 STR Hartley Tree

The Hartley we want to add is believed to have Quaker roots in Lancashire in the 1600’s. He also is taking a Big Y test which is exciting. The results for that exploratory YDNA test will likely show us the first Hartley family SNP. I currently have many private SNPs. However, once the Quaker Hartley tests, his SNPs that are in common with my now private SNPs should become the new Hartley family SNPs. Here are the new Hartley 67 STR results:

  • Due to the fact that there are now 6 Hartley results, this causes there to be a tie in some of the modes. In these cases, shown with a 3 in the bottom row, I used the older values. This ended up in also being the lower values.
  • I chose to make a split on STR 455. This STR has the lowest mutation rate of those in the table. I didn’t think it likely that these last three results would have mutated independently.
  • This split also separates the two Lancashire Hartleys from the two West Yorkshire Hartleys
  • Again, the Lancashire Hartleys tend to be the older group as they are closer to the Hartley mode by one GD (STR difference).
  • For these markers the Z17911 Mode is identical with the Hartley Mode. This suggests that Hartley is an old Surname.  This result agrees with the 111 STR analysis above.

A New 67 STR Hartley Tree

Here is my interpretation of the above data in a tree form:

  • The Hartley Mode results are shown in 2 boxes at the top of the Tree. This is meant to represent a common Hartley signature or the signature of a common Hartley ancestor in the distant past.
  • I split the two branches at the top based on the slow moving STR 455. These two branches appear to represent a Lancashire Hartley Branch and West Yorkshire Hartley Branch
  • On the Lancashire side, Sanchez and Joel are together due to their STR similarities
  • Similarly, Hartley #3 and Bradford West Yorkshire Hartley are together as due to their similarities
  • It appears that the Quaker Hartley’s mutations happened between the Quaker Ancestor and our Hartley tester. However, these mutation would be spread out up to the common Hartley Lancashire ancestor. The same would be true for the Hartley tester with the West Yorkshire ancestor William Hartley. However, his mutations would be spread out up to a common West Yorkshire ancestor under the above scenario.
  • Based on the above point, the Quaker Anc. and Wm. Anc. boxes in the Tree above are not really needed.
  • An early split between these two branches could explain the parallel mutations. For example, Sanchez and W Yorkshire William both have double mutations at location 398b. However, they are shown in different branches and not grouped together. Under my scenario, these two double mutation would have happened independently over a long period of time.
  • Unique mutations are in bold italics.
  • Adding the mutations up the tree gives the GD to the Hartley mode. The double mutations must be counted as two.
  • A rough guess for dating the tree would have the Hartley mode at 1100. The split between Lancashire and West Yorkshire at 1300. The further divisions around 1500. These dates are give or take 100 years or so. The bottom line represents tested Hartleys living today.

Here is the streamlined version of the new Hartley Z17911 Tree with some rough guesses on timeframes:

Summary and Conclusions

  • There would be other ways to draw the 67 STR Hartley Tree. This one seemed most logical to me.
  • The addition of a new Hartley 67 STR tests helped to define a Hartley ancestral mode. It appears to have defined a Lancashire and West Yorkshire branch of Hartleys
  • A pending BigY test should result in one or more Hartley Family SNPs.
  • It is possible that there are unique SNPs for the two Hartley branches shown as coming from Lancashire or West Yorkshire. However, it may take a BigY test from a Hartley from the West Yorkshire Branch to confirm this.

A Z17911 STR Tree

Previously, I wrote a Blog on a STR Tree for Hartleys that were likely Z17911’s. In this Blog, I would like to look at others that have tested to be Z17911 or are likely Z17911 due to STR patterns. Since my last Blog, a lot has been going on in the little area of Z17911.

Z17911 in the L513 Tree

Z17911 is a small group under the L513 Group. L513 is a group under L21 which is a part of R1b. The L513 Tree is presently bursting at the seams:

One of the larger branches of L513 is S5668. That takes up about 2/3 of the lower left of the tree above. Here is a blowup of the Z16357 Branch of S5668.

At the time that I wrote the last blog, Merrick and Thomas were in the same location under an unnamed SNP. Now it has been named as BY11573. The placement of Merrick and Thomas below Z17911 was a result of my Big Y Test. Now Bennett has also taken a Big Y and found to be BY1157.

Enter Jared Smith on the Z17911 Scene

Jared Smith has been a large contributor on the Z17911 scene of late. He tested positive of Z17911 recently and has ordered a Big Y test. He is not to be confused with the Z16357 Smith above. Jared has developed an excellent web page called The R-Z16357 DNA Project. Jared has also created a discussion list for Z16357. Here is Jared’s updated version of the Z16357 Tree:

The part that I am most interested in is Z17911 and BY11573.

My First Attempt at a Z17911 STR Tree

First I took the 15 people listed as having STR results at the FTDNA L513 project. There are 6 that have tested positive for Z17911. There are an additional 9 that the administrator has put into a JM STR Cluster. The administrator figures that based on the STRs, they should also be Z17911’s. According to the administrator, Mike Walsh:

“You can see the “J” people 390=25,26 458=18,19 449=31 446=14. I would call this the “J” STR signature.”

I looked at the significant STRs for the 15 known or suspected Z17911’s and got this:

This was just for the first 37 tested STRs. I have the STR names at the top. I have the mode for L513, S5668 and Z17911. I tried to group the YDNA testers by patterns in their STR values. The GD is the Generational Distance. That means that the Phillips are closer to the Mode and Bullock and Bennett are furthest away. That would mean that Phillips should have the oldest pattern and Bennett the newest.

Here is the tree I built based on the above:

My intention was to have the oldest STR groups branching at the top and the newest branching nearer the bottom. I note that when I built my STR Tree for the Hartleys, I did it the opposite way.

The Problem with my first Z17911 STR tree

The tree was OK based on the way I did it. However, it did not account for one very important thing:

The STRs should account for the fact that the BY11573 SNP derives from Z17911. SNPs are the anchor and STRs may vary. Maurice Gleeson has promoted this type of analysis. In the old days, there were not as many SNPs. Now, due to Big Y type testing, there has been a tsunami of SNPs and it is now possible to incorporate them into STR analysis. When I added the SNPs to my STR chart, I noticed something interesting:

It took a while to see it, but I saw that all the BY11573 men had 13 or more for DYS439. All those who were Z17911 and not positive for BY11573 had a DYS439 of 12. Then I decided to sort my chart by DYS439:

Next I changed the DYS439 Mode for Z17911 from 13 to 12. This created a new oldest line of Gilroy. If DYS439 is the break between Z17911 and BY11573, then Phillips is now in the older, more signature BY11573. The results of a pending Phillips Big Y test will tell us for sure soon whether Phillips is BY11573 positive or not.

More SNP Structure

Jared Smith built a more  detailed SNP tree here based on recent testing information:

Here is the Z17911 part I’m interested in:

I would expect that the STR tree would follow the SNP tree. Here is a simple SNP/STR Tree with a few signature STRs that I have added in on the left top and bottom:

What if DYS439 = 12 is Z17911 and DYS329 = 13 is BY11573?

The Z17911’s I’m talking about are negative for the SNP below of BY11573. Until more testing comes in, that is the out on a tree limb assumption I’m making. Based on that and some other Hartleys that have had the YDNA tested, here is a spreadsheet for Z179111 positive and BY11573 negative people.

This Chart does not show DYS439 as these are all of the above have a value of 12. In the Chart above, I note a Gilroy/Goff/Smith signature of DYS391 = 11 and DYS576 = 16. That leaves the Hartley signature as DYS391 = 10 and DYS576 = 17, 18. I went back to the older S5668 Mode to get a feel for the overall direction of the STR mutations.

Z17911 STR Tree

Here is the tree I drew from the above STRs.

I tried to learn how to make these trees using two different methods, so it gets a bit confusing. In this method, only two lines are allowed to come out of each box. I like that method, but it required me to put in a Hartley Ancestor box under the West Yorkshire Hartley Ancestor box. On the bottom line, Gilroy probably has the oldest Z17911 signature. The Hartleys on the right have the newest signatures. Actually Wm. Hartley going up has the most STR changes (7), so I suppose he would have the most recent STR signature. Jared Smith has noted that I am positive for the SNP A11130, so it will be interesting to see if this is a defining Hartley Family SNP or not. Above I made a guess on the West Yorkshire and Lancashire Hartley split based on the knowledge that one of the Hartleys has West Yorkshire ancestors and that I on the bottom right have Lancashire Hartley ancestors.

Some BY11573 Patterns

I’m not ready to build a BY11573 Tree yet. However, I did note some BY11573 patterns.

Interestingly, most of the places where I found patterns were on the BY11573 positive people shown in darker blue above. If I were to draw a 37 STR BY11573 Tree at this time, it would just include those above highlighted in blue. The actual list of names was taken from Jared’s website and includes other names.

Next Steps

Next we wait for pending tests to come in and others who may decide to test. We are also awaiting analysis of the Bennett Big Y test from Alex Williamson at the L513 Page of the Big Tree.