{"id":12388,"date":"2019-11-13T13:44:48","date_gmt":"2019-11-13T13:44:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/?p=12388"},"modified":"2019-11-13T13:44:48","modified_gmt":"2019-11-13T13:44:48","slug":"hartley-r-a11132-ydna-and-genealogy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/2019\/11\/13\/hartley-r-a11132-ydna-and-genealogy\/","title":{"rendered":"Hartley R-A11132 YDNA and Genealogy"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

My Hartley YDNA – R-A11132<\/h2>\n

I have tested my YDNA using the BIg Y test which is now a bit outdated.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.<\/p>\n

Most Hartley’s are R1b:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

R-M269<\/h3>\n

R-M269 is the next big group to look at. According to Wikipedia:<\/p>\n

Haplogroup R-M269<\/b>, also known as\u00a0R1b1a1a2<\/b>, is a sub-clade of\u00a0human Y-chromosome haplogroup<\/a>\u00a0R1b<\/a>. It is of particular interest for the\u00a0genetic history<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0Western Europe<\/a>. It is defined by the presence of SNP marker\u00a0M269<\/b>. 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]<\/a><\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n

R-M269 is the most common European haplogroup, greatly increasing in frequency on an east to west gradient (its prevalence in\u00a0Poland<\/a>\u00a0estimated at 22.7%, compared to\u00a0Wales<\/a>\u00a0at 92.3%). It is carried by approximately 110 million European men (2010 estimate).[4]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The 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\u00a0Neolithic expansion<\/a>\u00a0into Europe as well founder-effects within\u00a0European populations<\/a>\u00a0due to later (Bronze Age<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Iron Age<\/a>) migrations.[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n

R-L21<\/h3>\n

L21 is the next step down on\u00a0 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.\u00a0R-P312 is the next main juncture, then the three main choices after that include R-L21:<\/p>\n

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

R-L513<\/h3>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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

My Hartley group is in the middle:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

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

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

In the above chart, Hartley is on the left and Smith is on the right.<\/p>\n

A11132 Testing<\/h2>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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

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\u00a0A11132 (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.<\/p>\n

Genealogical Triangulation<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

My Genealogy Back to Trawden<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

When Robert married Mary, he was already a widower:<\/p>\n

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

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:<\/p>\n

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

Hartley 4.05 – Congregational Ancestry<\/h3>\n

I looked at the genealogy of this Hartley in a previous Blog<\/a>:<\/p>\n

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

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.\u00a0 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:<\/p>\n

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

Hartley 4.07 – Over the Yorkshire Line<\/h3>\n

This is the Hartley with the Thomas Hartley ancestor:<\/p>\n

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

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).<\/p>\n

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

Hartley 4.15 – Quaker Ancestry<\/h3>\n

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:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

4.15 sent me this tree:<\/p>\n

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

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:<\/p>\n

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

I found a Quaker record for Thomas C Hartley that made me think I was on the right track:<\/p>\n

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

I’m not sure why the heading is for North Carolina Marriage Records if this was for an Ohio Quaker meeting.<\/p>\n

Now I’m back to Pennsylvania in the early 1700’s:<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Geni has this information:<\/p>\n

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

WikiTree matches what Hartley 4.15 has:<\/p>\n

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

Here is a 1577 map of a portion of Lancashire:<\/p>\n

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

Marshden Chap: must be the general area of Marsden. Trawden is\u00a0NE of Marshden on the map. Pendle Hill is famous among Quakers. According to georgefox.edu:<\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

What I Gather from My A11132 Hartley Relative with Quaker Ancestry<\/h4>\n

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\u00a0Trawden\u00a0area 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.<\/p>\n

Hartley 4.04 Genealogy<\/h3>\n

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.\u00a0 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:<\/p>\n

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

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):<\/p>\n

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

Here is part of a Wikipedia entry on Todmorden:<\/p>\n

The\u00a0historic boundary<\/a>\u00a0between\u00a0Yorkshire<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Lancashire<\/a>\u00a0is the\u00a0River Calder<\/a>\u00a0and its tributary, the Walsden Water, which run through the town. The administrative border was altered by the\u00a0Local Government Act 1888<\/a>\u00a0placing the whole of the town within the\u00a0West Riding<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

I did find a Naturalization for John’s daughter in law Agnes Hartley. Here we have some tight timeframes:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

I think I found John Hartley in the 1915 New Jersey Census:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

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

A Curious Marriage<\/h4>\n

This is a critical record for John Hartley:<\/p>\n

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

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:<\/p>\n

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

So the story holds together. The marriage record is important as it gives the names of John’s parents:<\/p>\n

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

The ship record confirms Thomas as John’s father:<\/p>\n

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

Unfortunately, I can’t figure out where 28 Union St, Castleton is. Google Maps wants to send me to Cartaret, NJ.\u00a0[See later in the Blog for the answer.]<\/span><\/p>\n

John’s Draft Registration Cards link hin to Todmorden:<\/p>\n

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

The above card is from 1917.<\/p>\n

Here is Todmorden:<\/p>\n

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

I drew in where Marsden used to be. I included a one mile scale.<\/p>\n

Here are a few more geographical tidbits:<\/p>\n

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

My ancestors moved from Trawden to Bacup to find work in the textile mills around 1851 or before.\u00a0 Joseph Edward Hartley married in Heptonstall in 1693.<\/p>\n

Here is John Edward’s baptismal record from 1883:<\/p>\n

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

Here is the family in 1891 in Rochdale:<\/p>\n

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

Searching for Thomas and Mary<\/h4>\n

This Thomas was born about 1858 and Mary should have been born about 1857. This must be the marriage in Burnley in 1882:<\/p>\n

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

That means that Thomas would have been single in 1881:<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Note that the birthplace is given as Lancashire, Todmorden. This appears to be a transcription of Thomas’ birth record:<\/p>\n

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

Walsden is the village South of Todmorden. Here is Thomas’ death record. I mention Castleton above:<\/p>\n

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

Edward and Hannah Hartley<\/h4>\n

That gets us back to Thomas’ parents. Here is the family in 1841 in Walsden:<\/p>\n

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

Here is where a map comes in handy:<\/p>\n

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

I couldn’t read Knowl Wood on the Census, but it is plain on the map above (highlighted).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

David and Betty Hartley<\/h4>\n

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

From another record, I see that David was from Stansfield. Here is the Stansfield section of Todmorden:<\/p>\n

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

I get this Ancestry suggestion for a baptism at Holmfirth Wesleyan for David:<\/p>\n

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

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\u00a0baptism would agree with that Census.<\/p>\n

Abraham or Thomas Hartley?<\/h4>\n

Other trees have David’s father as Thomas Hartley:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

A11132 Hartley Places<\/h2>\n

Here is my summary, so far:<\/p>\n

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

Now I just need all these places on a map.<\/p>\n

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

Here I circled three, because based on\u00a0YDNA 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.<\/p>\n

Here I added the Hartley names and dates:<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Summary and Conclusions<\/h2>\n