DNA Results‎ > ‎

Latest News

Subscribe to the email list to receive notifications of "Latest News" blogs. However, the notifications will appear under the "Promotions" tab of gmail accounts, not the main inbox.

Jan 5, 2018 - Ancient Branching of the Family Discovered

It is a favorite past time of some to search for royalty in their family trees. However, the vast majority of people do not descend from royalty in genealogical times, for the past 1000 years. But it can be said that we are all descendants of the most successful members of our species. It is the most powerful and resource rich families that have survived over time, the warrior chief whose family was favored with the most food, the best dwelling and the most wives. The most successful farmer or hunter. According to a recent study nearly 8% of men in the former Mongol empire of Genghis Khan, the 13th century warrior and chieftain, have identical Y chromosomes. His sons magnified his pillaging lust. One son is reported to have had 40 sons and one of his grandsons had 22 legitimate sons and countless other sons begotten from his practice of adding 30 virgins to his harem every year.

Genghis Khan might be an extreme and loathsome example, but resource rich families have always had an advantage over less endowed neighbours. They gave land and money to sons who raised large families. That can be said to happening down to this day, with rich families providing economic and social advantages to their children. 

The Shattockes are undoubtedly descended from the most successful individuals of the world's ancient peoples. And this is also true in our more recent history. The earliest records of our surname are attached to a tenant farmer in Staplegrove, Somerset (Thomas Shattocke) and a merchant (Robert Shattocke). While not royalty, they did have the land and the money to establish their children and ensure their legacy. In medieval and early modern times it was very difficult to marry without money or land. Poverty and poor living conditions exposed individuals to starvation and disease that pruned many of less fortunate Shattocke branches. These were likely to be the second and third sons of a relatively wealthy tenant farmer or land owning farmer. The law of primogeniture passed most of the property to the oldest surviving son.

The new version of the family tree you see above is a reflection of this. I now have two main branches of the tree, one descended from Thomas Shattocke (ca. 1420) and the other descended from Roger Shattock (ca. 1424). These are the sons or grandsons of the founder of the Shattocke family, whose record is in our genes rather than old manuscripts. He sported the SNP mutations in his Y chromosome, Y16895 and Y16884, that all direct male descendants carry on their Y chromosomes. 

This tree is a major breakthrough because it shows how the branches of the family are connected back to these original Cain and Abels of the family. We Shattockes not only descended from Y16884 / Y16895, we descend from those two sons or grandsons of the founder, Thomas and Roger. How do I know these are the only two sons of Y16884 / Y16895? 

There was a high mortality rate among children in the medieval and early modern period. Although mothers would have 6 to 7 children, 60% of them would die before the age of 16, so only 2.6 on average would survive to the age of reproduction, which was around the age of twenty-three. The number of males who survived to the age of reproduction is half that or 1.3 on average. We can assume that each family would have a maximum of two sons who carried on the family surname. Some would have one or none. 

The growth of the family to 33 sons in 1640 from a single founder in 1360 AD is predicted to be:

1380 --   1
1430 --   2
1480 --   4
1530 --   8
1580 -- 16
1640 -- 33

Thomas and Roger were born approximately in 1420 and 1424. By 1480 we would expect to find only about 4 male Shattockes. The argument here is that if there were only 33 male Shattockes over the age of 18 in 1642, then it is likely there were only 16 a generation earlier, 8 in the generation before that, 4 in the generation before that and 2 in the generation before that. And that is roughly what we find when we count how many male Shattockes are found in each generation of Shattockes from 1380 to 1642.

I keep a kind of digital shoe box of all the records of the Shattocke name in a Word document. In order to compare the count of Shattockes in the records with the prediction, I extracted from my Word document the Christian names and approximate birth dates of Shattockes between the first record in 1450 and 1674. The latter date is the date of the 1674 Hearth Tax in Somerset and Devon. 

I put this information into a spreadsheet, arranged according to place and time. You can download the spreadsheet here.  Along the left of the spreadsheet I listed the villages where Shattocks are found. Along the top of the spreadsheet I listed dates from 1420 to 1670. To see how many Shattocks were alive at any given time,  all you have to do is scroll down each of the columns and count the Shattock males.

As you probably know the parish records are spotty. Parish records did not begin to be used until 1538 and sometimes they were neglected, damaged or lost. However, I must say that the records for the villages that the Shattocks lived in were not as bad as I thought. There are a few names I have added to the spreadsheet that are not found in the records, which I indicate with a question mark, like "John?". But not that many. 

I do not rely solely on the parish records. Far from it. I use many different type of documents to reconstruct families. Wills name children and extended family members. There were tax lists. Muster lists for wars. Legal disputes and criminal courts. Tenants lists. There were land documents. There were histories. All these sources are found in the Word document.

If you count the number of sons to be found in 1490, there appears to be four: Thomas, Samuel, William and John. There is possibly a fifth fifteen years later, about 1505, called Alexander. This is close to the prediction. There is about eleven a generation later, a little more than predicted. This may have been the result of the fact that by the beginning of the 16th century the population as a whole was booming as the population rebounded from the plague, wars and famines.

If you look at the way the spreadsheet is organized you will see that families are associated with a handful of villages. I created a map where the earliest records of Shattockes are found.

The villages highlighted in blue are where records of Shattockes up to the middle of the 15th century are found. The red highlighted villages are where records are found up the end of the 15th century.

Up to the middle of the 15th century the two main clusters are in the north part of the Tone valley (Stogumber is just a bit north of the Tone) and around Staplegrove / Taunton. There is also an outlier in Bampton and North Molton. Mapping Shattockes to villages is one way of validating the spreadsheet of early Shattockes. 

There is an even better way of validating the entries in the spreadsheet of Christian names. In 1642 there was the Protestation Return and there are two early colonial records for Shattocks in America. The Protestation Returns comprises a list of all males over the age of eighteen in England. It acts as a kind of census. We Shattockes are descended from the males that appear in that list and the two Shattock immigrants to America. In the spreadsheet I have highlighted these men in red and annotated them. 

While there may be mistakes in the tree I have reconstructed from the old records, what matters is the Shattockes who appeared in the 1642 Protestation Return, as well as the Shattockes who appear in the earliest records of colonial America, William Shattuck (1622-1672) of Watertown, Massachusetts and Jon. Shaddock the indentured servant who appears in a court record in the Chesapeake Bay colony of Virginia in 1637. The latter is most likely the ancestor of Parrishs and Byars in the American south. These records tells us what branches of the family had survived by 1642 and went on to produce the subsequent generations of Shattockes, Byars and Parrishes.

There have been seventy-one descendants who have YDNA tested, with several more in the lab and a dozen or so autosomal relatives. This large sample of Shattockes comes from all over the world. I have particularly ferreted out and personally financed tests of Shattocks from families that have lived  recently in Somerset. Some of them still live there. So I am pretty sure that we have a pretty good sample of all the branches of the Shattocke family. This has given us a very good way of validating the genealogical reconstruction of our ancient family since DNA testing finds the way the family has branched over time. This is what the genealogy derived from the records and reconciled with the DNA results looks like:
All the Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars who have DNA tested belong to the six branches highlighted in blue (some with sub-branches). I have reconciled the phylogenetic tree constructed out of DNA results you see at the top of this page with the genealogical tree you see here. 

If you look at the phylogenetic tree you will see that the Y chromosome STR double mutation CDY = 36-38 is assigned to the two main branches, underneath Thomas Shattocke and Roger Shattock. I have previously talked about the important role the CDY marker places in Shattock genetics. But it was not until I constructed this tree from the paper records that I saw that the CDY = 36-38 mutation is the ancestral state of the marker. In the spreadsheet of STR markers that I maintain you will see that the values for this marker set each of the branches apart. This mutation validates the main structure of the tree. 

The Massachusetts Shattucks and London Shattocks

Remember what I said at the beginning of this little sojourn? If you "follow the money" you will also be following the inheritance patterns in the family. Look at Samuel Shattock (b. 1490) and his son John Shattock (b. abt. 1510). Samuel Shattock is the grandson of Roger Shattock, the cloth merchant in Stogumber who had his goods stolen in 1454. Samuel was taxed for property in Tolland in 1525. He may have been living in Stogumber. Alexander Shattock, who may have been a son or grandson of Samuel, and had connections in Tolland, is mentioned in a will of a member of the Woolcott family in Tolland. The Woolcotts were major merchants in the wool trade, including the ownership of ships out of the nearby port of Minehead. Stogumber was nexus of roads between Taunton, Bridgwater and Minehead at the time. It also had at least one fulling mill where cloth was finished, so had a sizable cottage industry of spinners, weavers and sheep husbandmen. In fact a member of the Woolcott family made the pilgrimage to the Massachusetts colony about the same time as William and Samuel Shattuck. William Shattuck was a weaver of wool and Samuel was also in textiles, a hatter and serge maker. The key to Stogumber is the wool and cloth trade and we have direct evidence that Shattocks were involved in the trade. 

It has yet to be determined when the London Shattocks left Somerset. The descendant Bob Shattock of Melbourne, Australia has the Y19751 SNP that identifies him as a Stogumber Shattock. The London Shattocks became very wealthy and prominent members of British society in London. Did the origin of that wealth have its roots in the success of Roger Shattock, merchant of Stogumber?

North Molton Shattockes

The advice in forensic investigation is to "follow the money." This was certainly the case in determining where the North Molton Shattockes branched off of the family tree. The map of Shattock villages showed the North Molton Shattockes as a definite outlier, the most distant branch of the family in the 16th century, thirty-one miles from Staplegrove or twenty-three miles from Stogumber. But as I report on the page devoted to my particular branch, the North Molton Shattockes first moved to Bampton in Somerset, half the distance from Stogumber or Staplegrove, before moving on to North Molton in northern Devon. It is a couple of tax records that finds them in Bampton. Bampton is near what was the major wool market town of Tiverton which gives us reason to suspect that is what drew the grandson of Roger Shattock, wool merchant, to the area. And North Molton was also a major wool town, close to the herds of sheep in the Exmoor forest near North Molton and the major sea port at the time of Barnstaple, just ten miles east of North Molton.

Thomas Shattock was taxed for ownership of goods in 1524. And his son John Shattocke was taxed in 1543. Thomas had to be at least twenty-one, so his birth date was around 1500 or earlier. That means his father was born in 1480 or perhaps one or two decades earlier. And the family was wealthy enough to be taxed. Where did his money come from? There is a will in 1533 of one John Shattocke of Bicknoller, less then two miles from Stogumber. He was wealthy enough to leave items to the Bicknoller church, a standard practice at the time among the wealthy to curry favor in the progress of their soul to the pearly gates. He identifies his widow Johanne, and his son "Sir" Thomas as beneficiaries. 

I can confidently say that the Bicknoller "Sir Thomas" was the same taxed Thomas in Bampton, because there are so few male Shattockes in the world at this time, three or four, perhaps five, and this is the only Thomas. And of course this is a money trail. Thomas must have been a merchant like his grandfather Roger, which explains why he was so mobile and is found near major wool markets. He could have been a weaver, but the fact he is called "Sir Thomas" and is apparently relatively wealthy tips the scales in favor of a merchant. I am not sure that the title "Sir Shattock" is anything more than an honorific, but at least my fellow North Molton (Yarnscombe, New Brunswick, Fremington, Tawstock, Burrington, Toronto, Illinois, etc.) cousins have some kind of claim to be descended from a "Sir Shattocke." It is entered on a will dated 1533. Regardless it was probably family wealth that set up the family in North Molton and the early family was large enough to produce a lot of branches. When the wool and cloth trade declined in the 18th century the North Molton Shattocks spread south in north Molton, at first to Yarnscombe and then along the coast and into the interior of north Devon. When the agricultural industry was mechanized in the industrial revolution beginning in the late 18th century, Shaddocks and Shaddicks eventually emigrated from Devon to Australia and Canada, and from Canada into the United States.

The final, rather compelling evidence, that the North Molton Shattocks are descended from the Stogumber Shattocks is the Christian names we find in the first few generation in North Molton: Thomas, John, Robert, Christopher and Henry. These names are found in both Staplegrove and Stogumber Shattock records. It is the Bicknoller will that makes it probable that Stogumber, only two miles away, was the birthplace of Thomas Shattocke. The DNA evidence is ambiguous. The CDY marker has the ancestral value for the South Molton - Bristol Shaddicks: 36-38. The later Yarnscombe branch appears to have lost a repeat: 35-38. So in terms of the DNA evidence Thomas Shattocke could be a descendant of either the Stogumber Shattockes or the Staplegrove Shattockes.

Staplegrove Shattocks

Up until Simon Shattock, a Staplegrove descendant, did his advanced "Big Y" YDNA test, the other Staplegrove Shattock, Ken Shattock, sat at the base of the Shattocke tree isolated from all other Shattocks and Byars and Parrishs. Simon shares a common ancestor with Ken in Thomas Shattock born in 1818. The discovery that Simon shared three private SNPs with Ken, and like Ken shares no other SNPs since the Y16884 / Y16895 is pretty good evidence that the genealogical tree above is correct. The genealogical tree shows descent from Thomas Shattocke born about 1420, a tenant farmer of Taunton Deane. The three private SNPs indicates a long term of isolation of the Staplegrove Shattocks from the other branches because the mutation rate of SNPs is about once every 144 years.

It is possible there are other sub-branches of the Staplegrove Shattocks with living descendants. But they have not yet been discovered. On the Staplegrove page there is a story by James William Shattock (1860-1948), a direct ancestor of Ken Shattock, about a once wealthy and prominent family that through "wild living" and mismanagement of the family's large estate lost it all and became farm laborers and wage earners. The Christian name "Henry" shows up in a number of late 16th century land transactions documents in Vexford (near Stogumber) and Creech St. Michael and West Buckland. He appears to have amassed wealth and land holdings, including farms around Taunton and as far north and east of North Petherton. The land he leased from the Luttrell family in Vexford might be a good demonstration of the principle of a father providing for his son. His son Christopher appears to have lived on the land as his children appear in the Stogumber parish records as baptized there and Christopher seems to have died in Stogumber. As far as I can determine Henry's branch of the family died out.

The family tree is lopsided, with the vast majority of Shattockes descending from Roger. But that is quite common. The Massachusetts Shattucks descend from a single individual, William Shattuck (1622-1672). But his branch of the family is lopsided as well, with the majority of descendants coming down from his first son, John Shattuck (1647-1675). And it appears among the Shattucks, the Shadducks of Pennsylvania are the most numerous descendants. Even in the Staplegrove Shattocks the proliferation of branches is lopsided. You can see Simon Shattock and Ken Shattock noted at the bottom of the diagram.

It appears the fortunes of the family were lost by the early 19th century. The law of primogeniture applies to the branch in green on the left side of the diagram. Samuel Kebby Shattock (1802-1854) appears to be the end of the line for the first born Shattocks, the wealthy and prominent Shattock family in Staplegrove. 

We have a lot of confidence in the paper genealogy of the Staplegrove Shattocks because of a document I discovered, and transcribed by Deanna Wallis, also a Staplegrove Shattock descendant. It is a list of the tenant farmers for Taunton Deane, the area where Staplegrove is found. It documents Shattock tenant farmers from 1450 to 1640. Together with the wills, tax lists, Protestation Returns and land documents, we can see that the family grew in wealth and property for more than three centuries before it fell on hard times and the family fortune was lost.

The Staplegrove Shattocks show up in records in Creech St. Michael, West Monkton and North Petherton, so they appear to have spread east, north east, with one Staplegrove Shattock, Christopher leasing a farm in Vexford as earlier noted. So why did the Staplegrove Shattocks, like the Stogumber Shattocks, NOT spread enmasse out into the areas west and north of Staplegrove? Milverton and Bishop's Lydeard, the nearest villages are home to descendants of Roger Shattock of Stogumber. And there is little evidence they moved to Taunton, even though Stablegrove, a largely agricultural area, is now a suburb of Taunton.  Philip Shattock, born in Stogumber in 1624, is the first Shattock we find in Taunton. I think it is because Staplegrove Shattock fathers provided work for their sons and grandsons on the farms they owned. And those farms were purchased east and northeast of Stogumber, with the exception of the Vexford farm. You see descendants of the Staplegrove Shattocks moving back and forth between Staplegrove and North Petherton, where they owned a farm. And there are records of Staplegrove Shattock land transactions, births and marriages in Creech St. Michael, Kingston St. Mary, West Buckland and North Petherton. Christopher of the Vexford farm appears to be a branch that died out.

Finally the CDY marker once more plays the validation role. All the Staplegrove Shattocks have the ancestral value for the marker: 36-38.

Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks

Bishop's Lydeard is located only three miles north west of Staplegrove. It lies at a crossroads between Staplegrove, Milverton and West Bagborough. I have DNA tested two Bishop's Lydeard living descendants of Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks, Gordon Shattock who lives in Somerset and was born in the Bishop's Lydeard area, and Michael Shattock, who lives in London but whose ancestors have a long history in Bishop's Lydeard. There is evidence that they descend from a common ancestor with the Milverton Shattocks. Michael Shattock shares two STR mutations (DYS497=14.t and DYS534=16) with Leslie Graham Shattock, a Milverton Shattock.  The fact Gordon Shattock does not share these STR mutations weakens the genetic match, so we must place a question mark beside this branching. However John Shattock, born about 1580 in the Milverton area, appears to have moved to Bishop's Lydeard at some point. The evidence is he was an agricultural servant on the Conquares farm on the manor of Wyke. His master was James Clarke, senior. He died in 1622. If John Shattock was born in Milverton, then he is a descendant of Roger Shattock as outlined in the Milverton Shattocks section. Michael and Gordon do not have any of the SNPs and no STRs that genetically characterize the Staplegrove Shattock.

The Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks have a long history of being farm servants, laborers and trades people. That seems to be in keeping with John Shattock as their founder, who was an agricultural servant. 

There is also evidence that Alexander Shattock, born about 1579 in West Bagborough, moved to Bishop's Lydeard and raised a family there. The surname appears to have died out as he is recorded as having two daughters. 

The Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks are 36-38 for the CDY marker, just like the Milverton Shattocks.

Milverton Shattocks

There were perhaps four sons of Roger Shattock: Thomas, Samuel, William and John. William is found in Oake, less then two miles east of Milverton. William is a name found commonly among Stogumber Shattocks not Staplegrove Shattocks, which makes it more likely William was born in Stogumber not Staplegrove. There is no candidate birth for William in Staplegrove. 

We have his will probated in 1548. I have assumed he was about fifty-three years of age, which would mean he was born about 1495. I have not found a copy of the will's contents, but there was a William Shattocke born Oct. 14, 1549 in nearby Milverton to John and Johan Shattocke, suggesting John would have been born more than twenty years earlier, about 1525. That would make him the right age to be the son of William. There was a John born about 1510 in Stogumber who appears to be the child of Samuel Shattock, although there is no birth record to prove this. He seems unlikely to be the same John. In any event both Johns would have been descended from Roger. 

We know the Milverton Shattocks, who include the Virginia Shaddocks, the Wellington - Australia Shattocks, the New Zealand Shattocks, and the Birmingham - Michigan Shattocks, share a common ancestor who had the Y29591 SNP mutation. Leslie Graham Shattock belongs to the earliest branch. He appears to have shared an ancestor with the other Milverton Shattocks before 1560. That just happens to be very close to the birth date of the common ancestor between the Milverton Shattocks and the Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks. Given the margin of error, it was probably Nicolas Shattock b. about 1580 who had the Y29591 mutation.

Once again it is the CDY marker that suggests this configuration of the tree branches is correct. All Milverton Shattocks are 36-38, the ancestral value for the marker. 

But perhaps the strongest argument for the theory that the Milverton Shattocks are descendants of an early Stogumber Shattock is the fact the two main branches are founded by weavers, Thomas and James Shattocke. And their descendants would become relatively wealthy, investing the money they earned from their specialized skills in land. I document this in the page I have devoted to Milverton Shattocks. The picture that emerges is of a wealthy merchant (Roger Shattock) who farmed out the production of cloth to local weavers. Some of this sons became merchants, including a John Shattock who was a big player in the early trans-Atlantic trade. (Read about him here.) In fact there may have been Shattocks who moved to Dorset and became involved in trade out of the ports there.

Byars and Parrishs

There are a lot of Byars and Parrishs in the southern U.S. who have Shattocke Y chromosomes. They trace their genealogies back to Virginia. In the page I devote to them I outline the reason why I believe the first Shattocke NPE was with a Byars family. And then another NPE event occurred in a Parrish family with a child that had a Byars father. What sets Byars and Parrishs who are descended from the common ancestor with Shattockes apart is the A8033 SNP mutation they carry on the Y chromosome. It has been dated by YFull as occurring in an individual who was alive in 1640. There is a court record that shows that a Jon. Shaddock arrived in the Chesapeake Bay colony in 1637 as in indentured servant. One has to assume that he was in his late teens or early twenties to be under contract. So he must have been born around 1615. Since the A8033 Byars - Parrish SNP is dated around 1640, and there virtually no Byars found in Somerset, and a very few Parrishs, we can safely make the assumption that it was a Shattocke who arrived in Virginia and fathered a Byars. I have not found another John Shattock anywhere in Somerset or Devon that could be the indentured servant in Virginia. 

Lesley Morgan, who is a local historian in Stogumber, has written that there were Stogumber village residents transported to the colony in Virginia during its formation. So there was a connection between Stogumber and the colony. The most likely candidate for the Virginia servant is John Shattock born March 7, 1616 in Stogumber to John Shattock. His father was born in 1595 and shows up in the Protestation Returns in 1642. And it may have been his brother Philip who moved to Taunton and is found in the Protestation Returns there. This makes it more likely John Shattock b. 1615 was from a family lineage that survived to 1640.

John and Philip are descended from a common ancestor with the Massachusetts Shattucks, Samuel Shattock born about 1490 in Stogumber, although he probably owned property in Tolland. The two lineages can be distinguished by the presence of the Y19751 SNP for Stogumber descendants that include the Massachusetts and London Shattucks, and the A8033 that sets apart Byars - Parrish descendants. John Shattock the indentured Virginian servant probably was descended from the son of Samuel Shattock who did not inherit the family fortune, Robert Shattock born about 1535. Or what he did inherit was lost in subsequent generations. John Shattock born 1615 was the fourth generation after Samuel and the fact he became an indentured servant suggests his family was impoverished. It is also possible he lost his father.  The fact that Byars - Parrish descendants have STRs that appear to have diverged significantly from other Shattockes, including the Y17951 Stogumber Shattocks, supports this distant relationship that goes all the way back to Samuel Shattock b. about 1490, or perhaps an even earlier Shattock. STR markers do not stay stable over time, moving up and down in value, seemingly popping in and out of existence.

It is also noteworthy that the Byars - Parrish descendants and the Y19751 Stogumber descendants are 36-39 and 36-37 respectively for the CDY marker. As I said earlier, it appears that 36-38 is the ancestral number of repeats for CDY. This means that the Byars - Parrish lineage gained a repeat and the Y19751 Shattocks lost a repeat. 

The DNA of Names

I said earlier that the Christian names found among the first generation of North Molton Shattocks suggested a link back to the Stogumber Shattocks. If you look at the Christian names found in the first few generations of Stogumber Shattocks, the same set appear: mostly Thomas and John, but Henry and Christopher as well. Only in later generations do new names arise, like James in Milverton, although Thomas remains popular there. There is Alexander in West Bagborough and William. If you look at the lineages in these places you can see why certain names become prominent. West Bagborough's earliest Shattock was Alexander who had sons with the names William and Richard. John appears to be the earliest family name in Bishop's Lydeard, and then subsequently Richard and Francis. 

The pilgrim founder of the Massachusetts Shattucks, William Shattuck, had a Christian name found in Stogumber, and the names he gave his male children are found in the Stogumber parish records: John (his father's name), William, Samuel and Philip. Philip is unusual because it is found in only one other early Shattocke, Philip of Stogumber, the brother to John the indentured servant who found himself transported to Virginia.

Shattocke Home Town?

Those of you who have followed my blogs know that I long thought that Taunton was the place where an immigrant Shattocke from the continent first landed. But when I began searching through the parish records west of Taunton, I began to think Stogumber might be the place where the common ancestor Y16884 / Y16895 was born. It became clear that Stogumber was exporting founders of Shattock branches all over Somerset and north Devon. 

Now I am not sure. Oddly enough the fact that all Shattockes are descended from a single founder born about 1360 AD, who most probably only had two descendants in the early 15th century and four by the end of the 15th century has made me think that Staplegrove could just as easily been the original village from which all Shattockes emanated. One scenario is that a wool merchant from London, the north of England or the European continent moved to Taunton because of its proximity to very high quality local wool producers. Or he could have been a weaver, whose skills would be in demand at a time when the kingdom was trying to transition from a producer of raw wool to an exporter of cloth. Perhaps a son of that original Taunton merchant or weaver went to Stogumber, which also had high quality wool producers and skilled cloth weavers. Given that that the study of Shattocke families and the villages where they lived suggest a single founder born about 1360, the theory of an immigrant to the area appears to strongly supported by the facts. 

Taunton was a center of the wool trade about the time a Shattocke would arrive in the area. Later the trade would spread out to the surrounding villages, especially those close to fulling mills (where cloth is finished), like Stogumber. The will of John Shattocke in 1533 in Staplegrove indicates he owned a shop, making him a merchant in the wider sense of the term. Perhaps the earliest Shattockes were shopkeepers and merchants who were involved with trade with London. 

The distribution map of Shattock villages in the 16th century is a pretty clear indication that Shattockes have not been long term residents in Somerset. You can see that their expansion beyond the Tone valley core did not occur until the late 16th century. Stogumber was a Saxon village with a minster (religious site) when the Domesday book first cataloged the area after 1066. Shattockes are not related to Saxons or the Celts in the area. Taunton has a much more mixed population by the medieval age because it was a relatively large market town and was a major center for the woolen trade, attracting immigrants from other areas of England and from across the Channel. 

While I still favor a theory that says Shattockes came from the continent, I certainly remain open to the theory we came from another place in England. So far the DNA evidence supports a continental Europe immigrant theory. We have found no near relatives in England, defined as distant cousins within the past one thousand years. The nearest branch to ours, Y16889, has a sub-branch, S44, that formed 3700 years ago, and has three living descendants, one in Ireland and the other in the Shetland Islands. They have a common ancestor who lived about 700 AD in England. In the past year there has been a huge expansion in the number of people who have done advanced YDNA testing. One of them, a living descendant in England, appears to be a branch just above ours, Y17163. (You can see it on the diagram at left near the bottom, just above our common ancestor Y16884 / 16895.) At this point we do not know when this branch formed or where it formed. 

On all but one of the phylogenetic trees (YFull, YNET and FTDNA), show we branch from the Y36 SNP. But I have discovered that this is not a valid SNP and have been working to get this SNP dismissed from official status. Removing it produces an interesting reversal of a longstanding mystery. With Z36 in our tree we have no near relatives in the world for 4500 years. With it removed, we will gain a lot of distant cousins who might give us a better clue to our very ancient origins. 

I have updated the family tree found at the very top of this page. I am going to sketch into the Ancestry.com tree I maintain the genealogical tree I have constructed out of the DNA and ancient documents. That is going to tell me exactly how I am related to other Shattockes, Byars and Parrishs. After three years of hunting, I have finally found the paths to the furthest members of my very, very, very extended family. 

One last thought. Thomas and John are the Christian names that are the most common names you find in all lineages of Shattockes. The etymology for Thomas traces back to ancient Greek and Aramaic so I cannot say it is a German, Dutch, French or Belgian name. John is an ancient biblical name. I have made Thomas the placeholder name for our common ancestor because it appears at the head of two of the most important Shattocke branches, the Staplegrove and North Molton cum Stogumber Shattockes. But the name could be as easily John. 

Jan 1, 2018

The Big Y DNA test results are in for Simon Shattock, who is a Staplegrove Shattock and shares an ancestor in the 19th century with Ken Shattock, another Staplegrove Shattock descendant. 

Ken Shattock had been sitting isolated at the root the of the family tree like Shattocks before him, all alone and unconnected, which suggested he was distantly related to all other Shattocks who descend from the common ancestor born about 1360 AD. I would like to thank his closest genetic cousin Simon for investing in the Big Y test because it brought Ken out of isolation. It is a gift to us all. Simon's Big Y SNP mutations show that the Staplegrove Shattocks are a totally unique branch of the family, going all the way back to the 1360 AD founder. Simon shares no less than four private SNPs with Ken, meaning they are SNPs unique to the Staplegrove Shattocks. One of them, DC213, I need to have confirmed but I am almost certain it is a genetic marker for Staplegrove Shattocks, not found in all other Shattocks and our Parrish - Byars cousins. I am temporarily using this SNP as the genetic name for the Staplegrove branch. The other three SNPs are completely unique to Staplegrove Shattocks, never discovered in another human being. They are known by their precise location on the Y chromosome: 19482965, 20309601, and 7079562. Think of them as like survey locations on a map before the geographical locatio
ns are given human friendly names. I am going to forward them to FTDNA to see which ones they will officially register. (20309601 is in a troublesome area and may not be used and they may not want to use DC213 as the terminal SNP.) The cool thing is that I have become a true explorer and discoverer of genealogically important areas of the Y chromosome and although I do not have the authority to officially name the Shattock sites I have found on the Y, we Shattocks can at least claim these areas as our own. It is sort of like sticking a flag in a newly discovered territory, even though that land has been around for millions of years! In a couple of weeks we should have an official name and official position for the Staplegrove branch on the tree at FTDNA. 

I suspect only three of the SNPs I have discovered will be approved, and given that SNPs only randomly occur every 144 years, three SNPs (3 X 144 = abt. 450 years) added to the age when the first son of the 1360 AD founder would have conceived (1390 AD) brings us to about 1840, very near the date when Thomas Shattock (born 1818) started having children (about 1840). Isn't DNA mutational analysis so very cool? Simon is descended from Thomas Shattock's second wife Eliza Cook 1842–1901 while Ken is descended from Thomas' first wife Harriett Hartnell (1817–1862). We are in the ballpark if not at the exact right location in the ball park. 

Simon already has an autosomal test that proves his relationship to Ken. This new male Y chromosome DNA test is additional proof of their relationship. But the most important contribution of the genetic data is that it makes it very clear that the Staplegrove Shattocks are not the master branch for the nearby Bishop's Lydeard descendants (or Gordon and Michael Shattock whose ancestors lived there for hundreds of years) or the Milverton Shattocks. They branch off the founder right back near the very root of the tree. The Bishop's Lydeard and Milverton Shattocks are not sub-branches of the Staplegrove Shattocks.

If you look at the above updated tree you will see I have given the branch its temporary DC213 genetic name and torn it apart from the Milverton / Bishop's Lydeard branch. That reflects the genetic results. But I am working on a new spreadsheet that captures the first names of all Shattockes born in the 15th and 16th century and arranges them according to village and chronologically. It follows upon my study of early Shattocke villages and the growth of the Shattocke family from its founder in 1360 AD. I might use this new information to develop an experimental branching of the family down to the five main branches. We'll see.

Much more on all this when I write and publish the article based on the new spreadsheet of Christian names and their locations and chronology. It will be a most interesting study!

Dec. 26, 2017

I have updated the maps of early Shattocke villages with this latest information. Here is a map of villages where Shattocks are found in the 16th century according to such sources as military muster rolls, tax payer lists, parish records and other documents. Click on the image to see it full screen.

The dates in blue show Shattock villages in the early 16th century. Red dates show that villages with Shattocks doubled in the course of the century. This is in keeping with what was happening with the English population as a whole. My Shaddock lineage was as far west as North Molton. For perspective, North Molton is only 30 miles (48 km) from Taunton. The first record of a Shattock in London occurred in 1576.

Here is a second map. This one is based on the 1642 Protestation Returns, which was a compulsory oath for males over the age of eighteen in England, essentially ensuring their allegiance to the Protestant King at a time of great religious and political upheaval. It is a kind of census.
The villages Shattockes are found in has shrunk back to the Tone valley west of Taunton, although there is still a large family of Shattockes in North and South Molton and a village further to the west called Yarnscombe. A Shattocke lineage in the Devon village of Culmstock has become established from a single male, William Shattocke. There are three immigrants to the American English colonies. The Shattock in Dorset is of doubtful provenance.

What is interesting is that there are only 33 Shattocke males over the age of 18 in 1642. They are descended from a single male and female born approximately 1360 AD.

There was a high mortality rate among children in the medieval and early modern period. Although mothers would have 6 to 7 children, 60% of them would die before the age of 16, so only 2.6 would survive to the age of reproduction. The number of males who survived to the age of reproduction is 1.3 on average. Women usually had their first child at age 23 1/2 years. Therefore we can assume that each family would have a maximum of two sons who carried on the family surname. The plague would ensure that up to the middle of the 15th century only one son would survive, and by the middle of the 16th century that two sons would survive.

The growth of the family to 33 sons in 1640 from a single founder in 1360 AD would be as follows:

1380 --   1
1430 --   2
1480 --   4
1530 --   8
1580 -- 16
1640 -- 33

Between 1501 and 1549 there are records of 12 male Shattockes over the age of 21 in west Somerset and Devon. That is within the expected population growth of Shattockes. The growth of the family probably did not occur as a simple doubling of numbers every generation. But it is pretty close!

There is another statistic that gives these numbers validity. There are 35 Shattockes (and Byars and Parrishes who descend from our common ancestor) who have done advanced DNA testing (Big Y). The recent discovery of a fifth branch of Shattockes, the Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks, suggests there are five male Shattockes whose descendants have survived down to the present. 

The North Molton Shattockes run into a brick wall in 1542. The Stogumber Shattockes run into a brick wall about 1590. The Stablegrove Shattocks run into a brick wall about 1533. The Bishop's Lydeard common ancestor is estimated to have lived in 1640, although it was probably earlier. The Milverton Shattocks have an estimated ancestor in 1561. The Byars - Parrishes run into a brick wall in 1640. If you look at the Protestation Return map you will see these are all hot spots for the location of the Shattockes in the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century. 

Why is all this important? The further back in time you go in your search for common ancestors of Shattockes, the fewer candidates. In fact, according to the growth of the Shattocke family from 1380, you would only expect to find three or four Shattock sons by 1480. We have a record of a Roger Shattock in 1454 in Stogumber and a Thomas Shattocke in 1450 in a village just outside of Taunton. Both villages would become 1642 hot spots for Shattocks. 

If you are a Shattock genealogist, these maps and records will help you find the path back to our common ancestor in 1380 AD by narrowing down choices to just a few men in a few places.  

Dec. 9, 2017

Gordon Shattock, whose ancestors lived in Bishop's Lydeard, a village near Taunton, Somerset, has his Big Y test back....finally. It took nearly 4 and a half months because the testing company, FTDNA, went through a major database upgrade to a new reference genome, Hg38. They will not be releasing the raw results for at least another month. Because I am known to be impatient, I decided to see if I could extract information from his test using the "SNP variant" information supplied with his results. This required upgrading my understanding of how to use Excel to format those results, which I did using a snippet of VBA code I found on an Internet website. 

If you kept the link to the spreadsheet I call "Shattocke SNP Variants," you can download it now. (If not I am going to put the link out again to people on the mailing list.) This is not the actual spreadsheet I plugged the VBA code into. The SNP Variants spreadsheet just shows the results of running the VBA code on the working spreadsheet.

Our cousin John Shattock from Leicester told me about a very, very useful Excel trick. You can freeze the first column or first row of the spreadsheet so that it stays in place as you scroll through the spreadsheet. Under the View menu you will see there is a "Freeze Pane" option. Freeze the first column which contains a color coded list of people who have done the Big Y test. I have color coded the different branches of the family that they belong to so that as you scroll right, you can see the SNP mutations the members of each branch share in common. That is the key to using this spreadsheet. You want to determine what mutations have occurred in the shared ancestors of each branch. You will see that I have color-coded those SNPs shared by descendants in each branch.

Amazing but true, all those hoops I jumped through got me to where I wanted to be. In comparing Gordon Shattock's results to the other Bishop Lydeard living descendant, Michael Shattock, I discovered two new SNPs that define the "Bishop's Lydeard" branch.  These are new discoveries. They are 14485523 and 20350999. The numbers refer their location on the Y chromosome. They show up as pink highlighted cells in the spreadsheet. The first SNP (14485523) has never been found in another human, a unique mutation shared by Bishop Lydeard descendants. The second SNP (20350999) has been found in another human from a different branch of the human family and named rs919276888. This does not mean BL descendants are related to him, just that he happened to have the same mutation. But the fact the two BL descendants we tested do share these mutations does mean that they do share a "recent" common ancestor. 

This result proves that there is a Bishop's Lydeard branch of the Shattocke family, but of course we actually do not know for certain where that ancestor lived. Was it in fact Bishop's Lydeard? We can calculate a very rough estimate when he lived using the average frequency of a SNP mutations, about once every 144 years.  That means John and Gordon have shared a common ancestor for roughly 288 years. Gordon's daughter Anna has worked her ancestry back to John Shattock and Jane who lived about the middle of the 18th century. 

There is no confirmed paper trails that identify a common ancestor in the records. John Shattock, Mike's cousin, has worked his lineage back to William Shattock and Anne Priest, both born 1719. So it is pretty good bet that the common ancestor between the two lineages was previous to 1719. That is in line with what the DNA very rough estimate is telling us. What we know for certain is that the two Shattock lineages are united at some point previous to 1719, we just do not know where.

Bishop's Lydeard is only five miles northwest of Taunton and six and a half miles south east of Stogumber. It is only four miles northeast of Milverton. These are the major Shattocke villages, at least in terms of the paper trails of living descendants. This puts Bishop's Lydeard at the crossroads of these major villages. Since the ancestor for the BL Shattocks lived previous to 1719 and there were only 24 Shattocke males over the age of 18 in 1642 in Somerset, this new information inches us closer to determining where the common ancestor of all Shattockes and Parrish / Byars lived. 

In this respect it is noteworthy is that Ken Shattock, a Staplegrove Shattock, does not have the mutant form of these SNPs. If the BL Shattocks and the Staplegrove Shattocks share a more recent common ancestor it would have to be early in the 17th century or even earlier. But where? Simon Shattock, also a Staplegrove Shattock descendant, is expecting his Big Y results at the end of this month, so his results may give us additional perspective, but at this point, when I bring the STR results into the picture, it looks like the Staplegrove Shattocks might be more distantly related to the Milverton and BL Shattocks than are the Stogumber Shattocks. There is growing evidence they are an outlier. The question is whether that potentially makes them the root of the Shattocke family tree or a branch that divided off from the tree very early on.

Gilman Shattock just purchased his Big Y test this week, and he looks like he might be the descendant of a Stogumber emigrant to Andover, MA, USA in the late 17th century, and therefore not a William Shattuck (1622-1672) descendant. In other words, he and Simon are going to give us more data about the Stogumber Shattocks to consider as we try to use DNA research to find the original home village of all worldwide Shattockes. We will get a better estimate of when the common ancestor of the Stogumber Shattocks lived. 

Gordon's results provide crucial confirmation that the way I have the Shattocks of west Somerset laid out in the family is correct. That is very important to people doing genealogical research among west Somerset Shattocks. In fact west Somerset Shattocks have a really difficult time sorting our their ancestors from descendants of other branches with the same name. DNA evidence cuts through a lot of impossible tangles.

I have updated the family tree and named the Bishop's Lydeard branch rs919276888. It now has official status as a unique branch of the Shattocke family. Thank you Michael and Gordon for participating in this research through the donation of your DNA samples. 

The Shattocke SNP Variants spreadsheet has helped me visualize Shattocke - Parrish - Byars ancestry much more easily. One of the things I discovered is that YFull, the 3rd party analysis service, uses Y16884 as the common ancestor's SNP, while FTDNA, the testing company, uses Y16895. All but one Shattocke or Parrish - Byars descendant shows they have Y16895. The Y16884 SNP is in a region of the Y chromosome that makes it much harder to detect. So I am probably going to start using Y16895 because we can test somebody to see if they are descended from our common ancestor with a simple $23 test and using Y16895 makes it easier to detect. 

This is the best time of the year to invest in a Big Y test because of the sale at the testing company. It costs $425 USD with a coupon and the YDNA-111 test is thrown in for free. Think of it as a gift to your descendants, who will have a copy of the record you carry in your DNA of where you came from and how you got here. It is also a gift to the rest of the Shattocke - Parrish - Byars members of the worldwide family since your results provide the additional data we need to refer refine the branching the tree and find our way home to that first Shattocke family.

BTW The "Journal of One-Name Studies" is publishing an article I wrote about my work with Shattocke family history in their next issue. The Journal is published by the One-Name Studies Guild, an English genealogical society with branches around the world. For those on the mailing list I am going to publish the text of the article after it has come out. 

Dec. 5 2017

Now here is a "tall tale" about a Shattocke to tell at the family Christmas table. He was known as the "Scottish Giant" at seven feet and four inches, but Frederick Shaddick (1813-1854) was not born in Scotland. His tall wife, Jane Gray, was born in Scotland. In fact Frederick Shaddick was a Fremington Shaddick born in Instow, Devon. The Fremington Shaddicks descend from the North Molton Shattickes. It was the infamous P.T. Barnum who gave him the Scottish Giant title and dre
ssed him up in Scottish gear, apparently to emphasize his size, although that rationale escapes me. As long as you take P.T. Barnum's "tweet" about Frederick Shaddick to be true, you can say that a Shattocke was once the tallest man in the world married to the tallest woman in the world. Or you can more conservatively say that Frederick and his wife Jane were stars in the Barnum & Bailey circus. Not until present times have we seen so much about so little. Read about him here: http://www.shaddock.ca/famous/tallest-person-in-the-world

Dec. 3 2017

William Shattock of Boston

Sometimes it is the small, tiny things that anchor a story, like this signature of William Shattock of Boston, the persecuted Quaker who was run out of town and settled in New Jersey. The fact he could sign his own name is significant as it indicates he was able to attend school while a child in the early 17th century. Here is what I have added to the page devoted to William Shattock of Boston (not to be confused with William Shattock of Watertown, perhaps a distant cousin). It is plausible William Shattuck of Boston was born in West Bagborough and I have his grandfather's will.

"In fact we discover a reference to William "Shattock" in a privately circulated family history dated 1905 called "Annals of the Sinnott, Rogers, Coffin, Colies, Reeves, Bodine and Allied Families" by Mary Elizabeth Sinnott. On p. 187 she writes:

William Shattock emigrated to Massachusetts in 1650, and while living at Boston, about 1658, embraced Quakerism and was mercilessly punished therefor by the civil authorities and compelled to leave their jurisdiction. The story of his persecution for conscience' sake "by the unjust rulers of Boston" is given in " New England's Ensign," in Besse's "Collections of the Sufferings of Quakers," and is noticed in Sewall's " History of the Quakers." After a short stay in Rhode Island, during which he was one of the original purchasers of land in Monmouth County, New Jersey, he settled at Shrewsbury, and was probably one of the founders of the Shrewsbury Meeting of Friends. In 1675 he was elected a member of the East Jersey Assembly from Shrewsbury, but declined to swear or take the oath of office. He was living as late as 28 September, 1693, when he witnessed a marriage at Friends' Meeting-House in Shrewsbury. By his wife Hannah, who accompanied him to Shrewsbury, he had : i. Hannah Shattock, born at Boston, 8 July, 1654 ; married, at Shrewsbury, 6 November, 1674, Restore Lippincott. 2. Exercise Shattock, born at Boston, 12 November, 1656 ; married, at Shrewsbury, 10 December, 1680, George Corlies. 3. Elizabeth Shattock, who married Jacob Coale, of Shrewsbury.

We have his signature, indicating how he spelled his last name. It was Shattock not Shattuck. I think this supports the theory that he was a late arrival in the colony. The fact he could sign his own name is significant as it indicates he was able to attend school while a child in the early 17th century.

William is a name commonly found in the Stogumber - West Bagborough area of west Somerset, although there was a William Shattock who was a tenant farmer in Taunton Deane in the early 16th century.

Given that he was a Quaker, it is possible that he was not baptized in England, although it is possible he or his parents embraced Quakerism after he was baptized. In the Stogumber parish records there are William Shattocks born in 1616, 1621 and 1623, which would mean William was in his late twenties or early thirties when the emigrated to Boston.  This seems likely given he was still living in 1693, which would mean he was in his early seventies. 

There is also a William Shattocke born Sept. 10, 1627 in West Bagborough to William Shattocke (born Mar. 1606) and Annie Spence. He was the grandson of William and Joan Shattick (sic), husbandman of West Bagborough. I have his will. If this is the correct William Shattock he would be age twenty-three in 1850. 

The Protestation Returns of 1641 show three William Shattocks in Stogumber (one is William junior) and none in West Bagborough. This probably eliminates the West Bagborough William. In the Protestation return there is a William Shattock in Bishop's Lydeard who was in the "town tithing," meaning he resided in the town. But he appears to show up in the local records after 1650 so we can eliminate him as well. Since there is no other William Shattocks show up in Somerset in the Protestation Returns, it seems probable that William was from Stogumber. 

William Shattock must have been a man of a high social status as you find many references to him in the old documents."

He had all daughters so his surname was not passed on to succeeding generations.

Nov. 24

Are Samuel Shattuck's Descendants Alive Today?
I am exploring a new mystery.  Gil Shattuck's YDNA-37 results show he is not closely related to other Shattucks who have been tested. But they do show he is a Stogumber Shattock. Was he descended from William the founder's son William Jr. (1653-1732)? There are no William Jr. descendants results to compare him to. 

Gil's well-documented paper trail ends at Joseph Shattuck (1707-1772). Lemuel Shattuck in his Memorials did make this Joseph a descendant of William the founder, but only tentatively. He could not find a birth record for him. And no birth record has been found since Lemuel. He does assign his birth to Samuel Shattuck (1672–1758) and Elizabeth Longley Blood (1675–1759) of Groton, finding a convenient gap in the successive birth of their children. Samuel was the son of John Shattuck (1647-1675) and grandson of William the founder. The problem is that Gil Shattuck's DNA test results came back showing that he was not descended from John Shattuck (1647-1675). It appears Joseph's parents were not Samuel and Elizabeth Shattuck.

In reading Lemuel, I came across a passage in the introduction to Memorials that cast a new light on this mystery. 

The name of Shattuck, though not very rare, cannot be considered as very common. It occasionally appeared upon the records of Essex County, in connection with Samuel Shattuck and his posterity, from 1641 to 1735 ; but it afterwards became extinct in that line. It, however, has appeared in that county relating to Joseph Shattuck of Andover, a different branch of the family, and has continued there for the last hundred and twenty five years.

The Samuel Shattuck he refers to is one of the three original pilgrims (William, Samuel and the widow Damaris) to Massachusetts. Damaris and Samuel settled in Salem, which appears to have been favored by Quakers. 

It appears that when he wrote the introduction Lemuel thought it possible Joseph was descended from Samuel Shattuck of Salem, but later when he wrote the entry on Joseph (page 104) he decided that he was not related to him. 

His parentage is involved in some doubt. Some have conjectured that he might have been descended from Samuel Shattuck of Salem; but a more careful examination has showed that the name in that line became extinct, and that this conjecture is not well founded. The similarity of family names and other facts render it highly probable that he descended from William Shattuck, our own progenitor, though we have been unable from records to prove the exact relationship.

In his introduction, Lemuel thanks George Shattuck of Andover for supplying much of the information about the Andover Shattucks. My guess is that George Shattuck might have been the originator of the theory that his lineage was descended from Samuel of Salem rather than Samuel of Andover. But what if both George and Lemuel were wrong? Perhaps Joseph Shattuck was a later immigrant to Massachusetts, sometime after the immigration of the three original immigrants. I have always thought this was possible, because relatives often tread the path of immigration of earlier pioneering members of the family. Can we find Joseph Shattocks in Somerset? 

There is a Joseph Shattock who shows up in the Stogumber parish records in 1631.  He is named as the father of Mary Shattock when she was baptized Feb. 20, 1631. Born to John Shattocke of North Petherton (a little north of Taunton) is Joseph Shattocke Mar. 3, 1670. There is no record of either Josephs births, which suggests they might have been non-conformist. The Joseph biblical reference might explain why "Joseph" is not found commonly in the Church of England parish records until the middle of the 18th century. And the fact the founder of the Andover Shattucks has this Christian name does support to some extent a theory he was a descendant of Samuel Shattuck of Salem. But I happen to share Lemuel's doubt about this direct descendant theory. What I do think is that Joseph Shattuck might have been closely related to Samuel Shattuck, possibly emigrating from the same village, and arriving in the colony sometime in the late 17th century or early 18th century. 

Of course there is another possibility, that Gil is descended from William the founder's namesake and son William Jr. We have no descendants of William Jr. to test that theory against. I looked for William Jr.'s descendants in Andover and could not find them there. So it appears a late immigrant thesis for Joseph is the best theory to fit the facts. Gil is going to upgrade his DNA test to the Big Y test which will return a much more detailed and accurate representation of his genetic history. That is going to put us in a much better position for determining which theory about his heritage is the most likely. Lemuel Shattuck was not entirely sure if all Shattucks in America were descended from William Shattuck of Watertown. His theory may stand or fall on an analysis of Gill's results.

Stogumber Was Saxon in 1086, Shattockes Were Not Saxon
Just added this to the section of the page on Stogumber, the village in west Somerset where the Shattucks of America, and the London - Australian Shattucks are from. The new information shows that Shattocks were not native to Stogumber previous to 1086 when the Domesday survey conducted by the Norman invaders was compiled.

"There are local names that suggest Stogumber and area was the site of an Saxon village and the Domesday survey compiled by the Norman conquerors after 1066 lists a minster on the site, suggesting an Saxon presence. The population of Stogumber can be estimated from the Domesday survey of 1086. Although it lists only 11 villagers, they were probably heads of families, giving us an estimate of 50 villagers when we include other family members. In 2003 Channel 4's Time Team arrived in the village and dug up the front lawn of Zinch house, finding whet stones used to sharpen knives and swords, and a worked flint, which they believed dated from neolithic times. Iron age pottery was also discovered. We can eliminate a neolithic (15,000 years ago) to early bronze age (6400 years ago) presence of Shattockes in England because their genetic history puts them in western Asia. And by the middle bronze age (4800 years ago) they had slowly migrated to central Europe. Since Shattocks have been proven not to be descended from the Saxons, we can assume that they moved to Stogumber some time after 1086, the date for the Doomsday book. 

Roger Shattock, a wool merchant, is found in Stogumber in 1450. It may have been the fulling mills that attracted Shattocks to the village. Fulling cleans wool and makes it denser and thicker. It used to be done manually, but in the 13th century the process was automated with the invention of the water wheel, which raised a hammer that fell on wool, fulling it. Manual fulling used to be done in the major towns, like Bristol and Taunton. The craft was under the control of a guild, which restricted the number of fullers in order to keep prices high. But fulling mills were located in the countryside where streams are found, like Stogumber which has the Doniford stream on its eastern boundary. Stogumber is on a slope where three roads converge to cross a stream. By the middle of the 13th century the towns had lost a significant portion of their cloth business because once fulling was done in country villages, other trades like dyeing and cloth making followed. And such trades as spinning and weaving created a cottage industry around the mills. As it happens Roger Shattuck was born about the time fulling mills had bled towns of their monopoly on the wool business and when weavers were being imported by the king to bolster the cloth making business in his kingdom. Was Roger or his father from Taunton, the nearest major wool town? Or was he an immigrant to Somerset from elsewhere in England or from across the English Channel?"

Byars Parrish Descent Gets Additional Confirmation
I have always held in abeyance the theory that the Byars and Parrishs formed their branch of the tree before the adoption of surnames. However I  considered the possibility as remote since they have the Y16884, Y16885 and Y16895 SNPs, which define the Shattocke branch of the human family. So I checked to see if there were any other Shattocke SNPs they did not have. I discovered that Byars and Parrishs are descended from all the other SNPs shared by Shattockes. This removed the last niggling doubt about their descent from a Shattocke ancestor who was alive sometime around 1640.

Further Research into Our Ancient Heritage
Added to the Origins page of the site:

We are descended from Indo-European speakers who invaded Western Europe and destroyed the Megalithic cultures who preceded them by several millennia. They had lived on the steppes herding cattle, not farming cereals. Their bronze weapons and horses gave them a military advantage over the people they conquered. Genetic studies show women descendants of these invaders as genetically similar to the conquered people, suggesting the Steppe warriors killed men and took on women as concubines and wives. Or as the master elite, time favored their offspring, magnified by polygamy. The further west they pushed, the greater number of indigenous women descendants are found among modern Europeans. (If your mother is of European descent, she may be descended from these indigenous women, something you might be able to determine through an mtDNA test.) 

The above map above shows how U152 spread into England, with the highest incidence of descendants in the east along the coast. These are our nearest cousins on the human tree. They arrived in England nearly four thousand years ago. But there is a very important caveat. Most of them belonged to a sub-branch of U152 called L2. We belong to a different sub-branch called Y16889. Over 90% of British men who are U152 carry the L2 mutation. Besides Shattockes, only 5 descendants of Y16889 have been discovered in England. The vast majority of Y16889 descendants are found in the areas of continental Europe were U152 is found. We are descendants of La Tène Celts, but not many of our branch crossed the Channel to England. When they crossed the channel is still an open question. However a study I have made of one of the earliest Shattockes on record (1454 AD), Roger Shattocke of Stogumber in west Somerset, suggests he was not descended from the ancestors of the villagers. Stogumber was a Saxon village when the Normans invaded. The Saxons belong to a completely different branch of the human family than Shattockes, most likely U106. 

The La Tène Celts were are culture, and had a somewhat mixed genetic heritage. Besides the U152 mutation, there were Celts with the DF27 and L21 mutations (the latter not be confused with the L2 sub-branch of U152). The three branches, U152, L21 and DF27, were closely related.

The tree diagram at the left shows how our ancestors on the Pontic Steppe branched as they invaded and settled in Central and Western Europe. 

The most common paternal lineage found in Britain is Ibero Atlantic, who have the mutation DF27 (aka S250). They are our neighboring branch. These are the Celts who went south from Central Europe, all the way to Spain and then traded along the Atlantic coast to Britain and eventually all the way up to Scandinavia, bringing the Ibero Atlantic Celtic language with them.

While the Ibero Atlantic Celts came to England from the south, the Atlantic Celts (L21 / M529) are thought to have arrived in England through Belgium and northern France. L21 is found in high concentration in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. 

Of course the most famous incursions into England, in fact violent incursions, were the Vikings, Angles and Saxons.  The U106 / S21 Proto-Germanic descendants of the original Pontic Steppe invaders are found in high concentrations in the Netherlands and North-West Germany. The genetic mix of Scandinavia is has more variety but U106 is found in high concentrations. One of the reasons why descendants of original Britain inhabitants are found in Scandinavia is that Viking raiders brought back slaves bearing the L21 mutation to Iceland and Norway. Anglo Saxons are largely U106.

I have provided an abbreviated overview of where we fit into the European genetic landscape. DNA sampling of ancient remains and contemporary European descendants is continuing to revolutionize our understanding of where we came from and our closest relatives. I expect to return to edit this page continuously.

Nov. 18 Speculative Origin of the Shattockes and Chaddocks

I recently revised discussion of the Chaddock name on the Origins page of this site. Here is the revised text:

The Chaddock surname is often confused with Shaddock. DNA tests show that Chaddocks are not related to Shattockes within the last several thousand years. The majority of Chaddocks belong to the branch of the human family called U198 which has ancient roots in England, formed long before surnames were used. People who descend from the U198 common ancestor have a variety of surnames like Norton, Lawrence, Shacklock and Chadick. U198 is a small branch of U106. Some people with the Chaddock surname belong to the FGC35559 branch of the human family, which is also descended from U106. It is interesting where the members of the U198 project find their ancestry: "We come across R-U198 quite often in men whose ancestry is English, Lowland-Scots or Ulster-Scots, Flemish, Dutch or German (particularly from the Rhine Valley)."  (from meekdna.com). In other words, U198 descendants like the Chaddocks find their ancestor across the English Channel in the areas where I suspect Shattockes are from. 

But there is evidence that makes Chaddock a derivative of a local place name. According to Philip Chaddock (one letter removed from my name) who is an administrator of the Chaddock DNA project at Family Tree DNA, the name probably derives from a medieval village, Chaddock, that once existed just west of modern day Manchester.  The original spelling was Chaydok , with variants such as Chaidok, Chaydoke and Chaidoke, among others. It stabilized as Chaddock in the late 1600s. It is possible, or course, that the village was named after a Germanic, Dutch or Flemish immigrant or the place they were from in continental Europe! 

Another point to consider is that the variety of surnames among U198 descendants suggests that they arrived in England before surnames were adopted (after 1066 when the Normans introduced the practice). 

The Chaddocks may have arrived later than their U198 relatives. The fact that Chattocks are descended from a U198 ancestor tells us where they came from: the area just across from the Channel. In fact there is a possible location: Schadek Castle and its surrounding area. "Schadeck" is the German origin of the Shaddock name according to the old etymological dictionaries. And Schadek Castle is found near the Rhine Valley. It was a defensive castle. Wikipedia: "The name of the castle and its surrounding settlement came from its purpose eine Ecke zum Schaden der Burg Runkel ("a spot from which to damage Runkel Castle")."  If it were the case that the Shattocke name is derived from a German place name, then the true etymology of the Shaddock name has be found. A possible scenario is descendants of the common ancestor of Shattockes and Chaddocks lived in the Schadek castle area for thousands of years, before some of them departed after the adoption of the surname and settled in the north of England and in the southwest (particularly in Somerset). That would explain why Shattockes and Chattocks DNA results do not show them as related for thousands of years. The unrelated Chaddocks and Shattockes acquired the Schadek name when surnames were first adopted in the late medieval period in Germany. But there is no empirical data to support this scenario so it has to be treated as conjecture.

There have been various attempts to link variations, like Schattock or Schaddock to our name, but DNA evidence points to an origin of Shattockes in west Somerset and the first hard evidence of the spread of the family from west Somerset is to the south (Bampton in Devon) in the early 16th century. Not until the late 16th century is there a migration west and north to London. 

Nov.14 New Line of Descent from U152

You see it at the top of the latest family tree above. I have replaced the SNP that defines our ancient origin, Z36, with U152. That's because I have discovered that Z36, the man, may never have existed. Thomas Krahn, who founded the YSEQ lab in Germany told me the Z36 SNP is 99% similar to a corresponding SNP on the X chromosome, which suggests Z36 is not a valid SNP for genealogical purposes. Indeed I discovered that only 7 of the 31 Shattockes, Byars or Parrishs show up as having this SNP in FTDNA's own test results. 

So I killed the Z36 SNP in our tree. I didn't kill the man because he was a phantom. I killed a phantom.

This discovery that the Z36 SNP might be a false SNP has caused me to revisit our ancient origins as the genetic marker moves up to the next highest one, U152. 

The diagram at left shows the new "line of descent" from our R1b ancestor who lived on the Russian steppes some 22,800 years ago. Think of it as the journey our ancestors took to arrive in the county of Somerset in southwestern England by the 14th century.

What I  found is that the U152 ancestor is estimated to have lived only 200 years earlier than the phantom Z36 marker. That is not a lot considering he lived 4500 years ago. 

So here comes the big news. Z36 is virtually absent from England. Now I know why. He never existed. But U52 has a lot of descendants in England. His SNP is found in 10% of southern England descendants. It is virtually absent in northern England. It was the case before that Z36 was absent north of London and Somerset, but what is new is the high frequency of U152 in the south of England. The Belgae Celts of Devon and parts of Somerset, for example, are U152.

One of the main arguments for the thesis that said Z36 was a late medieval immigrant to England is that Z36 descendants are virtually absent from England. Not the case anymore with U152. But of course things are not quite that simple. It turns out the closest branch we have on the human family tree is called Y16889 (aka PH2997 or BY1328). You can see it third from the bottom in the above graphic. In the next graphic you see how Y16889 branches down from U152.

Y16889 has two branches, Y17163 and A7993. We don't know when Y17163 branches off of Y16889. But A7993 branched off of Y16889 about the same time as Y16889 branched off of U152. So it is possible that the split occurred about 3500 years ago (or 1500 BC).  In fact all the branches that came off of U152 appear to have appeared within 200 years of the formation of U152. We can probably blame our La Tène Celt ancestors for this. They were warriors who exploded out of central Europe, conquering everybody in their path, even the Romans at first. Their military success produced a population explosion. The following map is a kind of heat map of that explosion, showing the Alps as the point of ignition and depositing descendants in all directions.

The picture has not changed essentially from what I have written before. But one of the main pillars of the late medieval immigrant thesis, that there is no Z36 descendants in England, has been demolished. Noteworthy is that the home county for late medieval Shattockes, Somerset, is comprised of 5 to 10% of U152 descendants. 

The recent discovery of the Y17163 SNP has also weakened the late medieval immigrant thesis, although it is difficult to determine by how much. Although we do not have a genealogy for Stant, the man whose results revealed the Y17163 SNP, we do find him in England. The problem is that we do not know when his ancestors came to England. If it was 3500 years ago, that was a very long time ago. Bottom line is that I have reduced the late medieval immigration thesis to only one of several possibilities. We are going to have to wait for additional evidence to come to a more definite conclusion. 

I should mention that John Shattock has found a William Schattock buried 1382 AD at St John the Baptist, Norwich, Norfolk. Norfolk is a bit north of London. Meanwhile Eric Shadduck, who is an American expatriate working for a Canadian company in Germany, knows of a Enrique Schadock in Germany. That made me wonder if the Shattocke or Shaddock name crossed back and forth over the English Channel. John thinks the Shattock name is Old English. I favor a theory it is German. Back and forth we go across the channel. 

The recent discovery of the Y17163 SNP encourages me to think we may some day soon narrow the arrival of Shattockes in England to a time range of only a few hundred years.  In fact the Birmingham Shaddock descendants who have tested their STRs came back as distantly related to Shattocks. I am testing yet another Birmingham Shaddock right now for the U152 SNP. If he tests positive  I am going to test him for Y17163. If he tested positive for that I would know that the Shattock or Shaddock name is found in a more ancient ancestor than Y16884. And because surnames were adopted in the medieval period I would know that Y17163 split off from Y16889 in the medieval time period. But that is a lot of ifs. At least now I have better tools for investigating our deep past.

Nov. 5 New Shattocke Family Tree

I have generated a new family tree, shown in the graphic above. I have reduced the number of branches from six to two, the A8033 Parrish - Byars and the Shattockes. I am pretty sure this division between the Shattockes and the Byars - Parrish will not stand over time, because I rather suspect the Byars and Parrish descended from one of the three Shattocke branches, perhaps the Stogumber Shattockes.

I have written before of the special role the STR marker CDY plays in dividing the family into branches. It is obvious if you look at the marker in the "Table Comparing Match STRs" spreadsheet. The descendants belonging to the different branches have common values for this marker. 

I have given the Milverton, Bishop's Lydeard and Staplegrove Shattocks a common ancestor, based on three markers: CDY, DYF390.1 and DYR124.1. And I have given the Milverton and Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks a common ancestor based on the DYS497, DYS534 and DYF383.1 markers. 

So far the DNA evidence still does not give us certainty about how the family branched down from the Y16884 / Y16895 common ancestor, who was born about 1360. My suspicion is that he lived in Stogumber because there was a comparatively large number of Shattocks there when parish records began. There is evidence that Shattockes did not arrive in North Molton until the early sixteenth century, probably coming from Bampton, near the Somerset - Devon border.  There is evidence that the Bishop's Lydeard and Milverton Shattocks came from Stogumber. But there is not enough evidence to declare with certainty that Stogumber is the oldest ancestral home of Shattockes in England.

If you have looked at the "YFull Comparisons" spreadsheet, then you might have noticed that the DYF390.1 marker appears to have a common value (9) for the Staplegrove, Bishop's Lydeard, Milverton, most Stogumbers and Byars branches. The other branches, Parrish and North Molton Shattockes, appear to have 10 repeats for this marker. 

I wondered if 9 or 10 repeats was the legacy value. So I added at the bottom of the spreadsheet, the repeats for that marker for our nearest genetic cousin, A7993. It is 9. But why do the two Byars have the legacy value and not the Parrishs? Walter Ryland Byars also has the legacy value for DYS444 marker: 12 repeats. I have speculated before that it was a Byars who was born from a Shattocke father and a Parrish was subsequently born from a Byars father. This might be evidence supporting that theory. While Frank Dwight Byars is DYS444=13, he is DYF390.1=9 while the Parrishs have 10 repeats for this marker. 

Nov. 1 New Tools for Shattocke DNA Testers

I now make available three spreadsheets for analyzing the data produced by the DNA testing companies. I have written a very brief description of the spreadsheets on the "Interpreting DNA Results" page. The spreadsheets provide a visual means of analyzing those tables of numbers and matches that come back from the DNA testing companies.

I have made the description of the spreadsheets very simple and cursory because I assume most people do not have a deep interest in the data analysis. If I am wrong about that please shout at me and I will do a more thorough job of explaining the spreadsheets and how to use them. 

The spreadsheets are not published on-line. You have to be a subscriber to the email list I maintain. This is to protect the privacy of family members.

New Results for Big Y Testers

Those Shattocks, Parrishs and Byars who invested in the Big Y test may have noticed that their results recently disappeared and new results are currently replacing them. This is the result of a change in the data by Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). This only applies to people who have been upgraded to the Big Y test, which studies a type of mutation found on the male Y chromosome called an SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism). People who have only done STR testing (YDNA-37 to YDNA-111) will not see a change in their results.

When the results from Big Y testing are assembled from the raw data, they are compared against a standard reference, a representative sequence of all the genes found in humans. The standard reference FTDNA has been using is called hg19, compiled originally from six individuals from Buffalo, New York and published in 2009. In 2013 a new, more accurate representation was published called GRCh38 or more commonly, hg38. This is much more representative of humans alive today. Big Y results have been recompiled against this new standard. In some cases new SNPs maybe be found creating new branches.

I have been downloading the new results into a spreadsheet, and so far I have not seen any new branches in our family tree appear or seen the loss of old branches. But the change did prompt me to dig deeper into Big Y results than I had before. I think in the future I will be able to spot new branches emerging in the family tree a lot quicker since I will not have to wait for 3rd party services to analyze the results. I will also in a position to challenge the work of the 3rd parties.

I will make this new spreadsheet, titled "Shattock SNP Variants," available to family tree members so that they can perform their own analysis of the data. I have created a visual representation of the data so you do not need to be a data whiz to make sense of it. You will have to be a member of the Shattocke or Parrish - Byars mailing lists to get the link to the download of the spreadsheet from Google Drive.

What you will see when you open the spreadsheet is columns of genetic code and rows of Shattockes or Parrish - Byars who have Big Y test results. The columns of genetic code either are unnamed SNPs (such as 11316529) or named SNPs (such as Z36). The unnamed SNPs simply record the exact location where an SNP is found on the male Y chromosome. The named SNP is one that has identified as defining a branch of the human family. If two or more people have the same unnamed SNP (such as 11316529), it is assumed that they descend from a common ancestor who first had that SNP mutation. For example, if you look at the spreadsheet, you will see that all Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars have the Y16895 SNP mutation. That is, the letter of the genetic code found at that location (19857852) in the standard reference "C" has mutated to "T." In the spreadsheet I have shown this as "C>T." 

You might wonder what Y16895 is. It is the SNP that FTDNA has chosen as the "terminal" SNP for Shattockes, Parrish and Byars. YFull, one of the 3rd party services that analyze Big Y data has chosen a different SNP to act as the "terminal" SNP, Y16884. We actually do not know which SNP spontaneously appeared first in our common ancestor. But since all members of our family have these two SNPs we can use either one to designate our common ancestor. As a matter of fact, the other 3rd party service, Alex Williamson's YNet, chose yet another SNP, Y16885, as the terminal SNP. 

If you look at the Y16885 and Y16884 SNPs in the spreadsheet, you will see the columns of code under these two columns have the same background color (grey) but many people in FTDNA's results are missing these SNPs. This is the limitation of the FTDNA Big Y results. They use an algorithm to detect if the person has the mutation. But the mutations have different quality levels, meaning the raw data that comes back from sequencing DNA samples is variable in its detection of the genetic code at each location on the Y chromosome. 

The other new spreadsheet, which I dubbed "YFull STR comparisons" contains all the STR marker values YFull (the 3rd party SNP analysis service) has dug out of FTDNA's Big Y test results. There are over 400 of them. They are extremely useful because they help validate the work done with the SNPs. If a person has a branch defining SNP, there is a good chance there are signature STR markers that are also found in that branch of the family.

Expect to see links to these new spreadsheets if you are subscribed to the mailing list. Want to subscribe? Here is the link: http://eepurl.com/cavDef

Oct. 24 New Parrish DNA Match

There is a new Parrish match, Wesley Arzell Parrish. I believe he is the son of Wesley Arzell Parrish (1917-1989). I have added him to the spreadsheet, which you can download from its usual place. 

I have reviewed the following genealogy which I got from another source with Wesley Bauman, who administers the account of Wesley Parrish and he agreed with it and filled in a few holes:

Elcaner C. Parrish 1775-1870 (Elizabeth Wilkerson 1775-1850) Virginia - Arkansas
            Wyatt Parrish abt. 1791  married Elinor Norris 1780-1860  Virginia - North Carolina ?
                        James Gilbert Parrish 1821-abt. 1866 (Stacy Bishop Wiseman 1823-1881) Tennessee 
                                    William James Parrish abt. 1860 - 1939  (Laura Breeden 1868-1897) Tennessee
                                                    Luther Leonard Parrish 1890-1970 (Inis Craig 1890-1978) Tennessee 
                                                                    Wesley Arzell Parrish Sr. 1917-1989 (?) Tennessee 
                                                                                    Wesley Arzell Parrish Jr. ?-? Tennessee 
What is interesting about this match for Joe Dell Parrish, Gary Leigh Parrish and Leroy Michael Wallace is the DYS570=18 genetic marker. It is a marker that changes in the number of repeats rapidly, but there are no other Parrishs and Byars who have 18 repeats for this marker, they have the legacy number of repeats: 17. Joe Dell and Gary Leigh are in a different branch of the Parrishs than Wesley Arzell and Leroy Michael. They are in the Y19410 branch. So what is happening here? It is possible all four share a common ancestor who preceded the split in the branch that resulted in the formation of the Y19410 branch. YFull estimates that occurred about the middle of the 18th century. So this genealogy might be useful for Joe, Gary and Leroy to break through a brick wall to their past. 

Actually we do not know if Wesley Arzell belongs to Y19410 or not. That would require another DNA test. He may in fact be Y19410.

I have asked the administrator of Wesley Arzell Parrish's account to update the results.        

Oct. 22 Stories of Previous Shattock Lives

Just added a story about Gerberstone Manor, a really beautiful medieval manor restored in West Buckland, not far from Taunton, West Somerset. It was once owned by Malachi Shattock who valued it more for the agricultural land than the manor, which he probably did not live in. If you are planning a visit to the old Shattock stomping grounds, put this place into your Google maps driving instructions. Breathtaking. 

I might have found knights in our background, although debatable, but so far no royals. But there have been royals in the back seat. Read about this accident that happened in 1935. 

Oct. 9 The Puzzle Pieces Fall Into Place

Puzzles get easier as they progress because you have fewer pieces to try to put together. And the picture that is emerging begins to guide the choices you have to make. That is what is happening in Shattocke research right now. 

Shattock Coat of Arms

Ursula Ann Martin found the source for the Shattock crest originally discovered by Ken Shattock in the "main library" of London England, seen at left.

It is in fact a Shattock coat of arms, probably designed for Shattocks involved in England's earliest wars, like the Battle of the Spanish Armada. Read about it here: http://www.shaddock.ca/famous/william-shuttock-and-the-defense-against-the-spanish-armada. It is found in "Fairbank's Crests of the Leading Families In Great Britain and Ireland" by James Fairbairn (New York, 1911) plate 94 crest 13. If it dates from the 16th century, then we know that the family was indeed prominent at that time, and the documents with "Sir Shattock" might actually refer to their social rank, as these coats of arms were usually worn by knights.

Link Verified Between Massachusetts Shattucks and North Carolina Quakers

I think it is possible that Samuel Shattuck (1666-), founder of the South Carolina Shaddocks, and his family followed Massachusetts Shattucks down to the Quaker communities in North Carolina. After Quakers in the Massachusetts colony were persecuted by their Puritan neighbors beginning in 1659, they began to look for a place to settle far away from their Puritan neighbors, as far south as North Carolina. In 1661 and 1662 George Durant, a trapper and hunter, secured deeds for land from the Yeopim native inhabitants. It was these lands in what became Perquimans County that the Quakers would homestead. You can get an idea of how close the Quaker settlement was to Virginia from the fact that the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, who claimed the land was located within the colony of Virginia, made the settlers purchase deeds to the land from Virginia. George Durant was from Virginia and was married there. 

The persecution of the Quakers is described in the "Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England ( James Savage, V.4 p. 99) where he writes that Nathaniel Sylvester "in the higher cause of humanity shall be accorded to him to give protection to him who give shelter and protection to Shattuck and Southwick fugitives from the bloody persecution in Massachusetts under the successive rules of Gov. Endicott and Gov. Bellingham, whose zeal for the honor of God exterminated all tenderness for their fellow creatures." There were Shattucks in North Carolina at the time in a Quaker community, so it is possible he went there first and thence to South Carolina. The North Carolina "Quaker" Shattucks actually spelled their name "Shaddock." Descendants of Damaris Shattuck were found there in 1680. Perhaps Samuel spent a few years among them. They were growing tobacco and using slaves. That would turn out to be true of how the South Carolina Shaddocks made their living as well.  

The Three Shattocke Pioneers in America

It has long been known that William Shattuck (1622-1672), Puritan pilgrim to the Massachusetts Bay colony, was an early American pioneer. But recently I discovered that James Shattock of Milverton, Somerset boarded a ship in 1686 in Plymouth, Devon and sailed to the new Pennsylvania colony of Quakers founded by William Pen five years previously. He was a refugee from religious persecution and political turmoil in Devon. It turns out the Virginia Shaddocks, founded by his grandson or great grandson James Shaddock (ca. 1740-1795) are the only surviving descendants, as far as we know so far. (See the revised Virginia Shaddocks page for the evidence I uncovered for James Shattock and his Virginia Shaddock descendants.) The third Shattocke who founded a branch of the family was probably Jon. Shaddock who arrived in the Chesapeake Bay colony in Virginia in 1637. He was an indentured servant. Although there might be descendants of his bearing his surname down to the present, none have shown up as DNA matches so far. It is possible, however, that he may be the biological ancestor of people with the Parrish and Byars surnames in the American south. What makes this highly probable is that there were not too many Shattocke males alive in the world in 1642 when the Protestation Returns were conducted in England. The total is 34 males, almost all of them accounted for in the English parish records of the time. Plus he is found in the same county, Henrico, where all the Parrish paper trails end. On top of that, the estimate of the common ancestor of all the Parrish and Byars descendants who have done advanced DNA testing is 1640. I created a new page devoted to the Byars and Parrish branch of our family.

Shattockes Went To Town, London Town

It looks like Shattocks were in London very early on, in 1576, three decades previous to what I found earlier. John Shattock had a daughter Susan baptized at St. Saviour in Southwark in that year. That means her father John was born before 1556 at a minimum. And that puts him in the Staplegrove area, where Shattocks with the given name of "John" are found. That makes him a grandson of John Shattock whose will in 1533 indicates he was a merchant. The export of cloths was moving to London at this time from Barnstaple, Minehead and Bridgwater ports. So it seems logical that makers of cloth in Taunton would travel to London to sell their wool and cloth there.

Weavers and the Shattockes of North Molton

The highest concentration of Shattockes is in villages that had a very high proportion of their residents involved in the wool and cloth trades. Most of the villages in Milverton were weavers. Taunton (and its suburbs Staplegrove and Norton Fitzwarren) was famous for its cloth. There is substantial evidence the Shattockes of Stogumber were involved in the cloth trade. And North Molton, along with its neighbor South Molton, were wool and cloth centers when Shattockes lived there in the 16th to 18th centuries. It appears that in the earliest years, from the 15th to 17th centuries, during the heyday of the cloth industry, Shattockes were cloth merchants and weavers not farmers. North Molton makes a great case history. I found myself back in North Molton writing about the wool and cloth industry because the digital copies of the original Protestation Returns of 1641-2 were put online by the National Archives. I discovered three Shattockes in North Molton and a Thomas Shaddock in Yarnscombe that have never been transcribed. I knew from DNA studies that the Yarnscombe Shattockes were descended from North Molton Shatticks. But I never thought I would find the documentary proof. Using the newly discovered names, I was able to reconstruct the North Molton and South Molton parish records. Now I have the paper trail back to my 13th great grandfather, Thomas Shattocke ca. 1500, where before I only had solid a paper trail to my 8th great grandfather, Richard Shattocke ca. 1635. See the completely revised North Molton Shattickes page

Sept. 25

New YFull Tree and New Date for Our Greatest Grandfather
The latest version of the YFull human family tree is out. Here is our branch of the tree: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y16884/

The big news is that the estimated date for our common ancestor, Y16884, has moved up to 1417 AD.  This puts the estimated date for the common ancestor of all six branches of the family very close to the earliest records of Shattockes, Roger Shattocke the merchant who was robbed in 1454 and Thomas Shattocke who is listed as a tenant farmer on the Taunton manor in 1450. In effect Y16884 could be the father of Roger and Thomas as he is estimated to have lived 35 years earlier, and 35 years is the ISOGG estimate for a male generation. Were Roger and Thomas brothers? Given that they lived only ten miles (16 km) apart that seems very likely doesn't it? If not brothers they could have easily been 1st cousins. There are two more Shattockes who currently have Big Y tests underway so late this fall we'll see if the date keeps moving forward. 

If the date continues to move forward, that would make it possible that Roger Shattocke is Y16884 and Thomas is his son or vice versa. Another possibility is that Y16884 actually did not live in England, but was the father or grandfather of Roger and Thomas who lived back on the European continent. Have to keep all the possibilities open while the emerging DNA evidence rules on the validity of the hypothesis. 

The new date makes it more likely that Y16884 had the last name "Shattocke" since he lived so close in time to the earliest records of the name.  While there appears to be similar sounding or similar looking names earlier, like Shattek and Saddoc, at this point I think we would have to see a spelling a lot closer to Shattock or Shattocke to accept the hypothesis that Y16884 or his immediate fore-bearers were not immigrants to England.

New Branch of the Family 
YFull discovered a new SNP mutation named Y29589. It is found in descendants of the Milverton, Wellington and Virginia Shaddocks. If you have this SNP mutation then you are a descendant of the common ancestor for these three Milverton area Shattocks. You can see the new SNP in the revised family tree at the top of this page. While studies of the STR genetic markers had previously lead me to predict this relationship, the discovery of the SNP makes it certain that these sub-branches have a  common ancestor. He is estimated to have lived about 1555. 

Leslie Shattock of the Birmingham - Michigan Shattocks does not have this mutation so his common ancestor with the other sub-branches lived prior to 1555. This common ancestor of the Shattockes in the Milverton area had an SNP mutation called Y29590. 

This is the power of DNA testing. There are no paper records that would have established this branching of the Milverton area Shattocks. We carry the family tree in our genes.

Some time ago I got back the extended STR results for Leslie Shattock and noticed that he seemed to share some important markers with Mike Shattock of the Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks. (Extended STR results give us up to 200 markers to compare.) Bishop's Lydeard and Milverton are only 4 miles (6 km) apart so it should not be surprising if there was a common ancestor between them. Leslie definitely belongs with the Milverton area Shattocks because he shares the Y29590 SNP with them and not with Mike Shattock. But sometimes extended STRs can be used to find branching of the tree. Gordon Shattock, who also has ancestors in Bishop's Lydeard, has his Big Y results on the way. It is going to be interesting to see how his results match with Mike and in turn with those of Leslie. Leslie just may be the bridge between the Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks and the Milverton area Shattocks. 

Isn't it interesting how the results from so many people coalesce into only a few branches? That's because Big Y testing probes deep into the past, finding relationships that have no paper trail. Given that the common ancestor of all Shattockes lived in the recent past (relatively speaking!) we should not be surprised by this. And there is a huge attrition of branches over time. Think of how few males there are in your family taking the surname to the next generation.

You should check out the new version of the family spreadsheet, at its usual place on Google Drive. I've included a link to the spreadsheet in the latest mail list email notification of this blog on mailchimp. If you want to get a copy of the spreadsheet, subscribe to the mailing list or email me.

A7993 Sister Branch to the Shattockes
Another interesting development with the new tree is found in the nearest branch of the human family to the Shattockes, under the SNP A7993. You can see this branch at the top of this page of YFull: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y16889/. There are five people who have the A7993 mutation. One does not give his ancestor's geographical location. One gives Ireland, one Scotland and one Great Britain as the place where their most distant ancestor lived. One gives Germany. The YFull A7993 branch has a sub-branch S44. Here is what is interesting. The branch is estimated to have formed in AD 617. And the two descendants in that branch give Great Britain and Ireland as their locations. The A7993 sister branch formed 4300 years ago, in effect making them our La Tène Celt cousins. 

Not all the descendants of A7993 have submitted their Big Y tests to YFull. Alex Williamson has more samples in his Big Tree: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1063 . You can see the A7993 branch on the far right of his diagram. Included is an unnamed branch at the chromosome location 19972403-C-T. The three people under this SNP are from Switzerland, Portugal and Italy. Switzerland is considered by many people to be the home of Z36. Italy is just on the other side of the mountains. The other branch found by Alex is under the SNP 6111568-C-A. It includes one Russian and two German descendants. (One of those Germans may be the same German as the YFull German.)

So it appears that A7993 has three branches that have been discovered so far, with two of the tree branches with descendants in the traditional homeland of the La Tène Celts. The third branch could have been an immigrant to the British Isles, perhaps in the early medieval period.

The evidence suggests that the Shattockes were not the first La Tène Celts to immigrate to the British Isles. (A caveat is that the S44 branch could have formed on the continent and its two living descendants are descended from more recent immigrants to England.) It would be unsurprising if we Shattockes had distant relatives in England. What is surprising is the fact there is no branch of our family found in England in the 4300 years prior to Y16884. Our English ancestor Y16884 suddenly makes his appearance in the genetic record in AD 1417. Unlike our sister branch A7993, who show up in the British Isles in the medieval period, there is no record of a Shattocke ancestor going all the way back to our common ancestor 4300 years ago, or 2300 BC in the Alpine region of Europe.  

The fact that two of the three A7993 branches have descendants that trace back to the hotspot in Germany, Switzerland and perhaps northern Italy is also suggestive. Most of the academic etymologists think Shattocke was a "recent" west Germanic name....perhaps as recent as AD 1417. Did Y16884 bring the name with him to England? The new date for Y16884 and his proximity to the earliest records of the name suggest this. But the thesis requires additional confirmation.  In the coming months and years the picture of our ancient ancestry will have much more detail and will lead us to more definitive conclusions. 

Byars and Parrishs
The Byars and Parrishs belong to a unique branch of the Shattocke family. 

In the past several months Frank Dwight Byars and Walter Ryland Byars have done the Big Y test. Walter Ryland Byars' Big Y results are included in the latest YFull tree and besides helping to make the common ancestor date for Shattockes more accurate, he and Frank also made the date for the common ancestor of the Parrish - Byars branch more accurate. The last iteration of the tree estimated the date for the common ancestor of Byars and Parrishs to be 1613. The new date is 1640. This date has also been moving steadily towards the present. 

I had been waiting to see which direction the date would go when the I added the two Byars Big Y results to the YFull tree. If it moved towards the past that would suggest the common ancestor was in England. Moving forward to 1640 gives me more confidence that the common ancestor lived in the Virginia colony. 

This was an important addition to the tree because we only had Parrishs in the YFull tree before. So I wondered if the Byars shared the A8033 SNP that defines the Parrish branch of the family. They did have this mutation.  But a chicken and egg question remained. Was it a Byars or Parrish who first branched off the Shattockes? Who was the father and who was the son? 

If you look on the far left of the Shattocke family tree at the top of the page you will see how I have laid out the Byars - Parrish branching. The Y19410 SNP splits the Parrishs into a main branch and a sub-branch. 

At this point we only have one branch of the Byars and Parrishs and six samples who are waiting for a match to form one or more new branches. In the absence of an SNP mutation to sort the Byars and Parrishs into sub-branches, we do have the difference in the surnames. It is very likely the Byars have a common ancestor and the Parrishs have a common ancestor. So I have given the Byars their own branch in the Byars - Parrish family tree.

There has only been one new SNP branch defining mutation among the Parrishs in the descendants of A8033 for the past four hundred odd years. There has been four Parrishs who have done Big Y testing and do not have the Y19410 mutation. This probably means that the four Parrishs do not have a common ancestor going all the way back to early Virginia. And the two Byars do not share a common SNP mutation with the Parrishs either. So they are probably descended from an early Virginia ancestor.

SNP mutations are random so it is possible a branch defining SNP has not occurred purely on the basis of chance. However we have another way of determining how closely the Parrishs are related to each other and to the Byars. We have the STR results for the four Parrishs and two Byars. To see how the new Byars STR results compare to each other and to other Parrishs, check out the new spreadsheet. (It is available in its usual spot on Google Drive. If you want to get a copy of the spreadsheet, subscribe to the mailing list. Or write me.)

The spreadsheet shows a different type of mutation than SNP mutations, called STR mutations. In the column are the STRs used for genealogical purposes, also known as "STR genetic markers."

When you look at the all the Parrishs and Byars grouped together what strikes you is that they appear to be much more closely related to each other than they are to the Shattockes in the other branches. That is to be expected since they genetically diverged from Shattockes around the year 1640. That's eleven generations ago. STR mutations are quite active compared to SNP mutations.

The key STR that groups the Parrishs and Byars together is the CDY double marker, shown in the spreadsheet  in blue and grey columns, as having the values 37 and 39 for most of the Parrishs and Byars. (As I said the STR markers tend to bounce around a bit over time.) This confirms what we find with the much more stable SNP mutation A8033 holding the branch together. The Parrishs and Byars have a common ancestor. But what is important is that this branch of the Shattocke family is quite genetically distant to the other Shattocke branches. This suggests that the Shattocke ancestor of the Byars Parrishs was born within a few generations of Y16884, in the late 15th century or early 16th century. Since the Shattockes cluster around Stogumber in west Somerset and Taunton in west Somerset in this time period, that is a good reason to suspect that the Byars and Parrishs have an ancestor in these villages just 10 miles apart.

I am referring to the male Shattocke ancestor. The female Byars or Parrish ancestor may well have been from northern England. Of course it is also possible that the Byars or Parrish ancestor was adopted and never had any genetic connection to the Byars or Parrishs. We may never know for certain.

I have color coded certain marker results in green to indicate the "signature markers" that indicate descent from a common ancestor. Each of the Shattock branches have their signature markers and the Byars and Parrishs share a number of these. In other Shattocke branches the various sub-branches have their own signature markers. But this does not appear to be the case with Byars - Parrishs.

The STR results show that Walter and Frank Byars are very distant relatives of not only Shattockes but of Parrishs as well. Not only that they show Walter and Frank are very distantly related to each other. That probably means that the NPEs (non parental events) happened deep in the past. The fact the common ancestor of Byars and Parrishs is estimated to have lived in 1640 shows that the split between them occurred in Virginia, not in England. But it does not answer the question of when the split with the Shattockes occurred. Who stepped off the boat from England, a Shattocke, a Byars or a Parrish? 

It has to be a Shattocke doesn't it? If it was a Byars or a Parrish the date for their common ancestor would be prior to 1640....back in the 16th or 15th century. 

The most important signature marker for Parrishs and Byars is the DYS444=13 marker. The Parrish and Byars are the only branch of Shattockes who show 13 repeats for this marker. All other branches show a value of 12 repeats for this marker. However there is an exception among the Byars. Tim Byars and Walter Byars have a value of 12 for this marker, along with Chris Simmons who has an uncertain genealogy, other than the fact he is positive for A8033. The DYS444 marker is stable enough to use it like an SNP mutation and divide the Byars into two separate branches, as shown in the tree at the top of this page. Since "12" appears to be the legacy value for DYS444, we might assume that Walter's ancestor came before Frank's, but the marker could have just as easily dropped a repeat from 13 to 12. 

Here is the interesting point. If it is the case that Walter's DYS444 marker never gained a value, then it was a Byars that was the son of the Shattocke who was DYS444=12. Itt would be the case that Byars came before Parrishs. However the argument against this is the fact Tim Byars and Chris Simmons are DYS444=12 just means they probably descend from a common ancestor with Walter but we cannot be sure if this marker lost a marker or never changed in the first place but held its value from a Shattocke common ancestor.

There is an argument for the theory the marker never changed and that it is was a Byars descendant of a Byars that gained a repeat. The DYS444 marker is very, very stable for an STR marker. At no time in the last 600 odd years among the thousands upon thousands of Shattockes in the other branches has the marker changed from its value of 12, although it is possible but not likely it changed to 13 and then back to 12. That is not likely because it is a very slow moving STR and would have had to have changed twice in the last 350 odd years. And if you look even further back in history the marker seems to largely had 12 repeats, although again it may be the case that it becomes unstable at 13 and quickly reverts to 12. However its apparent stability makes it more probable that a Byars child was born to a Shattocke male rather than a Parrish child. But again, this is a problem with STR markers. It is still possible that a marker was lost. The fact that Frank Byars is DYS444=13 means he would have had to gain a marker after Walter's direct ancestor. That would mean it was a Byars who gained the extra repeat that was inherited by Frank's direct ancestor's descendants, including the Parrishs.

Let's look at the genealogical evidence. Can we find Byars or Parrishs in the south western English county of Somerset where Shattockes originated? Byars is a name I could not find anywhere in Somerset up to 1700. And I found very few Parrishs. I did find one one close to Stogumber. Byars and Parrishs are from the north of England. Parrish and Byars are not ancient Somerset families. This makes it more likely that it was a male with the name of Shattocke that stepped off the boat from England. 

What do we make of the fact that the Byars and Parrishs appear to be a double NPE in their branch of the Shattocke family. I blame it on the chaos in the early Virginia settlement. There was  a huge attrition rate because of the climate and novel diseases, meaning parents often died leaving orphans. It was socially chaotic. The early settlers were either high born English gentlemen or the bottom end of the social scale. Virginia was also used as a penal colony for English people convicted of crimes, no matter how petty in our modern view.

The Virginia colony was largely populated by indentured servants who were the property of rich plantation owners who treated them as chattel. Some historians describe English indentured servants as slaves. In fact there is a record of a Shattocke in Virginia in 1637...the date YFull estimates for A8033. The first landed immigrant Shaddock we encounter in the Virginian records is "Jon." Shaddock, who arrived as an indentured servant in 1637. And his "ownership" was a matter of a legal transaction. In Cavaliers and PioneersAbstracts of Virginia Patents and Grants 1623-1666, from Patent Book I, Part I, Nell Marion Nugent provides an account of the first recorded Shaddock's transportation to America (p.65). 

ELIZABETH PACKER, Widdowe, 950 acs. Henrico Co., 17 Aug. 1637, p. 454. E. upon 4 Mi. Cr., W. upon land of Seth Ward, S. upon the river & N. into the woods. Due in right of her late husband Serjant William Sharpe &  Thomas Packer, whoe at their own costs & charges trans. 19 pers: Rich. Vase, John Thomas, Lewis Jones, Leonard Houghton, William Cooke, Peter Hudsey, Edward Jones, Jon. Ward, William Wooley, 2 Negroe servts. to Serjt Wm. Sharp, Thomas Blancks, Jacob Dewitt, John Haman, Andrew Pratt, Christ. Stevenson, Christ. Beare, Jon. ShaddockFrancis Stone, servants to Tho. Packer. 

From The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography:
Elizabeth Parker, widow, 500 acres in the County of Henrico between Curies and Varinas, bounded on the south by the main river, and on the east by Four Mile Creek; due in right of her late husband, Serjeant William Sharpe, who, as appears by certificate of Henrico Court, dated April 25, 1636, transported nine servants and two negroes (names below) and due her 50 more for one of the negroes. By West, July 12, 1636.

I have no paper trail that links this Shattocke to a Parrish or Byars. But it is possible and not improbable that Jon. Shaddock was A8033. As usual, I welcome your comments and critiques. That is how research advances. By fits and starts and through group discussion.

Sept. 20 Lemuel Shattuck

I finally got around to writing up the bio of Lemuel Shattuck (1793-1859), author of the authoritative early history of the American Shattucks. He was an amazing man who was a "disrupter" in the fields he entered, transforming them and earning his place in history. Included is his biography of his achievements in his own words.

Sept. 13 New Family Profiles

I have added two new Shattocke family profiles, one descendants of Bishop's Lydeard Shattockes who emigrated to Troy, NY in the 19th century, and the other a history of the Portland, Oregon Shattucks who struck it rich and its most famous son. 

Sept. 1 Gil Shattuck's FreeReg Study and Its Conclusion

Gil Shattuck is a Younger Pepperell Shattuck descendant. He is planning a visit to Somerset with some of his adult children to explore the area where his ancestors lived. He is contacting local people and studying local records to make the most of his visit. One of the studies he made recently was the incidence of Shattocks in the FreeReg online database in the counties of England. Here is what he wrote to me. The document he refers to can be downloaded from here.

"For some time, I have been using the FreeReg.org.uk Parish Register data base for searches on variants on our family names. The transcriptions from the original documents are done by double keying. Two individuals transcribe the same document and then compare and resolve any differences. The result is a extremely high degree of transcription accuracy. There is still the problem of the quality, legibility and accuracy of the original document. Nonetheless, I have made various searches which I find interesting. I have extensive training and experience in statistical methods also with data base searches. Yet, while the attached is extremely interesting and suggestive subjectively, there are many qualitative issues that require caution on any conclusions.

I suggest that at this point, the conclusion that the William Shattuck heritage is derived from that single individual using both genealogical and DNA information is reasonable. Also the heritage originated in Somerset with somewhat different name spelling, probably in Stogumber. Further, I suggest the attached research adds a third element to that conclusion.

Page 1 summarizes a broad search for Shattock in a substantial sample of counties in the UK. Except for Somerset, the Soundex option was used. "Hits" are the total number of occurrences satisfying the Soundex criteria, most of which are clearly irrelevant with quite different name spellings. "Found" are occurrences of exact or close name variants (5) shown on page 3. Separate searches on Shattuck and Shaddock found no occurrences in the sample of counties except for one Shattocke in Dorset and one each possible in Cornwall and Dorset. Yet 202 "Founds" occur in Somerset. It is probable that there is duplication since searches were done on baptisms, marriages and burials and names may spelled differently on the entries in the registers.

Page 2 is a similar search for Shaddock with similar results to page 1.

Page 3 is a search in Stogumber summarizing 5 name variants. Again, it is probable there are duplications, particularly for the last three variants.

Pages 4 & 5 are the most interesting. The clusters are my very subjective groupings using the Somerset map. The largest cluster (Stogumber) is to the north toward Minehead and the north coast. The Milverton cluster is to the southwest toward Devon and Cornwall. The Cannington cluster is to the northeast toward Bristol. The Taunton sub-cluster could just as well be part of either the Stogumber, Milverton or Cannington clusters or even a separate small cluster.

This makes me agree with your theory that the proto-Shattocke, or however he spelled his name, came to that area of Somerset, probably Stogumber. There are many instances where skilled workers were brought in from one country to another, particularly textiles and also mining. Further William Shattocke of Somerset singularly emigrated to Massachusetts and was the unique proto-Shattuck/Shaddock in the US."

Gil's study differs from my own studies in that I never used the FreeReg database. I used the Ancestry, LDS and FindMyPast databases. I am very appreciative of Gil's due diligence for his trip in investigating the origins of Shattucks in England. Other members of our family tree who have done their own deep studies of deep Shattocke heritage include John Shattock of Leicester, Nancy Shattuck of Michigan and more recently Lesley Morgan of Stogumber. Thank you guys for sharing your research with me.  

Aug 28 New Results for Leslie Shattock

Leslie Shattock is a descendant of the Milverton Shattocks. He has the defining SNP mutation: Y29590. He sits at the base of the Milverton tree because he is not paired with another Milverton Shattock. His extended STR results came back. You can see them on line 24 of the updated spreadsheet available at the usual link. Subscribers to the email newsletter will be provided the link if you have lost it, or write me.

The Milverton Shattock descendants are divided into three branches, one under the SNP mutation Y32082: the Milverton Shattocks and Wellington Shattucks. Terry Shattock, who lives in New Zealand, and Mick Shattock who lives in Australia, descend from the common ancestor Malachi Shattock (1684-1766). The Virginia Shaddocks, Thomas Shaddock and Peter Shaddock, descend from Rev. Mordecai Shaddock (1840-1920). They share the Y33021 SNP mutation. Leslie Shattock is a Birmingham Shattock.

Besides the Y29590 SNP mutation, the Milverton Shattocks share three signature STR genetic markers: DYF408.2=15, DYR159=16, DYS467=13. If you have these three markers you are a Milverton Shattock. There is a fourth possible signature marker DYR132.1, but two of the Shattocks have "no calls" for this marker. 

There is good evidence that the Milverton, Wellington and Virginia Shaddocks share a more recent common ancestor then Leslie and the Birmingham Shattocks. They have the DYR2=13 STR mutation, while Leslie has 12 repeats. This is a medium moving STR. They are DYS534=15 to Leslie's 16. They are DYS389ii=29 to Leslie's 30. They are DYS497=14 to Leslie's 14.t. They are DYF383.1=9 to Leslie's 8, and DYF383=9 to Leslie's 8. They are DYS551=13 to Leslie's 14.  They are DYS611=19 to Leslie's 18. With this many genetic markers, it is a pretty good bet that the other Milverton Shattocks are more closely related to each other than they are to Leslie's ancestor. 

Since the Y29590 SNP is dated ca. 1540 and Malachi Shattock, common ancestor to the down under Shattocks was born in 1684, we can probably assume that Leslie's common ancestor with the other Milverton Shattocks lived in the middle to late 16th century. We do not have a lot of records for this time period. There was a John Shattock and Johan Richards married in Milverton in 1549. And a James Shattocke witnessed John Bowcher's will in 1562 or 1563. My Milverton genealogical tree, which documents the down under Shattocks, does not begin until the marriage of James Shattock to Agnes Howe in Milverton in 1606. 

This new information provides some assurance that the Virginia Shaddocks are probably attached to same tree as the down under Shattocks. So that narrows the time frame when they left Somerset for the Virginia colony to after the birth of Malachi in 1684 and before the marriage of James Shaddock to Hannah Samuel in Virginia in 1781. The case for that scenario is how many STRs they share with the down under Shattocks and the fact they appear to share a common ancestor with them more recent than a common ancestor with Leslie. 

It is possible that the common ancestor of the Milverton Shattockes did not live in Milverton. If so, where? There is actually a clue in Leslie's new results. Michael Shattock, a Bishop's Lydeard Shattock, has seven genetic marker that he shares with Leslie and four of them he shares with Leslie and not the other Milverton Shattocks. So it is possible the Milverton and Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks have a more recent common ancestor with each other than they do with other Shattockes. I would not be surprised by that given that Milverton and Bishop's Lydeard are less than four miles or six kilometers apart. And I think I can detect a connection back to the Staplegrove Shattocks. But I just crawled way out on the limb of the family tree in saying that so I best climb down and wait for the results of the other Bishop's Lydeard Shattock, Gordon Shattock for confirmation. 

Aug 27 New Results for Clark Shattock

The living descendants of William Shattuck (1622-1672) of Watertown, founder of all Shattucks in America, are the most numerous of Shattockes, some 8,000 strong out of a population of 13,000. And the most numerous of William's descendants are those of his oldest son, John Shattuck (1647-1675). It is ironic because John Shattuck died at the age of 28, drowning when he fell into a river off a ferry, on his way back from a skirmish in Philip's War. John in turn had three sons, John Shattuck Jr. (1666-1709), William Shattuck (1670-1743) and Samuel Shattuck (1672-1758). All three moved to the new frontier in Massachusetts, in the town of Groton, later divided into Groton and Pepperell. We have a DNA test underway for Jeremy Shattuck, who is a descendant of the oldest son John Jr. We already have advanced DNA results for Bruce Hall, Arthur Shattock, Terry Lee Shadduck, Paul Michael Shattuck and Jason Shaddock, all descended from the second son, William Shattuck. Clark Shattuck is a descendant of the third son, Samuel. 

We have good paper trails for all but four: Bruce Hall a Shattuck NPE, Paul Michael Shattuck of the Michigan Shattucks, Jason Shaddock of the West Bloomfield, NY Shaddocks and Terry Lee Shadduck of the Pennsylvania Shadducks. Their paper trails hit brick walls in the 19th century. Terry, Paul and Jason are curiously united under the Y24059 SNP mutation.

In some ways genealogists of William Shattuck the founder are the luckiest of genealogists and at the same time the unluckiest. Lucky because Lemuel Shattuck wrote a comprehensive and detailed history of the family, published in 1855. Lemuel was one of the founders of modern genealogy. But for those using DNA studies of William's descendants to unravel their family's history where it is obscure, they run into bad luck. The Massachusetts Shattucks do not have a rich history of SNP mutations. They simple do not yield up the SNP markers the genetic genealogist uses to create descendant trees. However there is another type of genetic marker that we can use to define the Shattuck tree. STR markers are much more active, although they have the disadvantage of popping into existence and sometimes then popping right out of existence again. This is not the case of SNP markers.

Such is the situation for Shattucks who have question marks hanging in their ancestral trees. And there are many. Four of the seven descendants of John Shattuck have big gaps in their trees. And the Halls who descend from a Shattuck ancestor would not even know they were Shattucks if it was not for the fact their DNA results revealed a Shattuck ancestor right where their Hall ancestor disappeared.

That is why Clark Shattuck (and soon Jeremy Shattuck's) DNA tests are so important. Clark and Jeremy have very good paper trails all the way back to William the founder. Testing them has already yielded important insights. Jeremy's recent YDNA-37 test showed he had the Y-GATA-H4=12 mutation which means all three branches of the John Shattuck (1647-1675) have this mutation. It has become a "signature" STR marker that can prove or disprove that you are a descendant of John since only the sons of John Shattuck have this marker. 

Clark Shattuck's new advanced DNA (Big Y) results have already advanced us quite far along the road to genetically defining these three very large branches of the Shattuck family. I have updated the Shattocke spreadsheet with his results, found on line 50. (The spreadsheet is at its usual link and I will once again send that link to people who have subscribed to the mailing list.)

The spreadsheet shows the result of DNA tests for the active, quick changing mutations called STRs. Let's see what signature markers we find in the spreadsheet.

The first four signature markers define the entire branch of the Shattocke family I have termed the Stogumber Shattockes. This is the branch of the west Somerset Shattocks that the Massachusetts pilgrims belong to. There are four STR signature markers that are shared by all Stogumber Shattocks, including Bob Shattock, who is an Australian Shattock descended from the London Shattocks. Clark's new results confirm this. They include  DYS710=36, DYS552=23, DYF399.2, and DYR6=15. If you have these four markers you are a Stogumber Shattock. 

There are three STR genetic markers that only the descendants of William Shattuck (1622-1672) share, the DYS447=24, DYS491=13, and DYS719=13 markers. Bob Shattock does not have these markers. Clark's new results confirm this. If you have these three STR genetic markers you are a Massachusetts Shattuck, a descendant of William Shattuck (1622-1672), the founder of Shattucks in America.

Clark's new results now help us find the markers that define the descendants of William's oldest son John Shattuck (1647-1675). We already know that John had a mutation called Y-GATA-H4=12 that he passed on to his three sons. If you have this marker, then you are descended from John Shattuck. What Clark's result shows is that the DYS627=28 and DYS695=32 markers set William, the second son's descendants apart from Samuel the third son's descendants because Clark has different values for these markers. This is great news for Bruce Hall, Jason Shaddock, Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck because it provides strong evidence that they are descendants of William. And of course it confirms that Arthur Shattuck's genealogy is correct. We cannot be absolutely certain that these markers are signature markers because Clark may have unique values for these markers not shared with other Samuel Shattuck descendants. This is very, very unlikely but still possible. And we do not have as yet results for John Shattuck Jr., the first born son. If it is true that these two markers set the descendants of William apart from the other two brothers, then we should see different values for these two markers in Jeremy Shattuck's results. 

There are other markers that reinforce the way I have the descendants of John Shattuck sorted. For example Clark is DYS712=22, the same as the Y24059 sub-branch that includes Terry, Paul and Jason. So it looks like Bruce Hall and Arthur Shattuck share a common ancestor. This is reinforced by the DYR170=38 marker shared by Bruce and Arthur, although Clark has a "no call" for this marker, meaning the test was unable to detect the marker in Clark. Once again we will have to wait for Jeremy's test for final confirmation.

The more descendants of John Shattuck we can test, the more markers we will discover that define how his descendants branched. In fact there are two more Shattucks whose results are in the works, both John Shattuck descendants, although I usually keep them anonymous until the results come back. But you can see that already we have some pretty good information on branching from volatile STR markers, despite a real drought in SNP markers. A strange and twisty business this genetic genealogy, but a very powerful tool when the records are obscure or missing.

Aug 25 The story so far...

For a long time I thought that the common ancestor of all Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars was a Flemish weaver, based on the fact most etymologists considered the name to have a west Germanic origin. Plus the earliest estimates of when the common ancestor Y16884 (the name of the mutation we all share with him) lived coincided with the dates when Flemish weavers were brought to England by Edward III (beginning in 1331) to improve the craft in England. And there was strong evidence that Shattocks were involved in the wool trade. But as more and more Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars have been doing advanced testing (32 and counting) the estimated date when the common ancestor lived has steadily moved forward to where it now sits: 1400 AD. 

Every one of us Shattockes, Byars or Parish males is a direct male descendant of Y16884. The age of Y16884 is based on counting the SNP mutations of each person who has been tested and averaging them. The more people who do advanced "Big Y" testing, the more accurate the date for Y16884 becomes. So we have to assume that the earlier estimates must have been distorted by one or more samples with unusually long SNP mutation intervals. The date our common ancestor lived has moved forward in time because of what is described in the mathematical study of chance as "the reversion to the mean." 

Meanwhile I have been using DNA analysis combined with document research to try to determine where Y16884 lived. This has gradually led me to two hot spots, the area around Stogumber in west Somerset and the area around Taunton (Staplegrove, Milverton and Bishop's Lydeard) in west Somerset. These two locations are a mere 11 miles or 18 kilometers apart. 

Is it possible to find the home village where Y16884 lived? It just might be possible. 

Some months ago Dea Wallis, an avid Shattocke researcher, pulled out of the Somerset archives a list of tenants of the manor of Taunton. And there it was: Thomas Shattocke was listed as a tenant in 1450. And more recently Lesley Morgan, a local historian in Stogumber, sent me her notes from a lecture by a leading researcher. In a 2005 talk given by Mary Siraut, editor of the Victoria County History of Somerset about the cloth trade in Somerset she says: “The earliest evidence [of the cloth trade in Stogumber] in fact dates from the fifteenth century when there was a fulling mill at Vexford, and there were several chapmen, (cloth dealers) working in the parish already. In 1454 one Roger Shattock of Stogumber lost six dozen of white and russet cloths worth five marks when a Nettlecombe man broke into his home and made off with them.”

Picture a pair of Disney cartoon eyes popping out of my head when I read that. That puts a Shattock in Stogumber only four years after the date Thomas Shattocke was working his farm in Bishop's Hull near Taunton. But what is really, really significant about these two dates is that they are only 50 years after the estimated date for Y16884. Given that Roger and Thomas had to have been at least the age of majority to be doing business, that means they were born no later than 1433 (Roger) or 1429 (Thomas). 

That means Roger and Thomas Shattocke were either the sons or grandsons of Y16884. 

And here is another major point. The spelling of Roger and Thomas surname is exactly the same: Shattocke. I think it is safe to assume that Y16884's surname was "Shattocke." That is significant because you would have expected to find somewhat different forms of the surname to appear among genetically related people. Shatauk. Or Shattek. Or Shaddek. But consistently the spelling of the family name is always Shattocke in the earliest records.

So where was Mr. Y16884 Shattocke likely to have lived? Taunton area or Stogumber area? 

Thomas Shattocke is the only Shattocke on the Taunton tenants list from 1450 to 1483, when a second Thomas Shattocke appears on the list, presumably his son. He eventually moves to the Staplegrove parish. Examining the tenants list and parish records for Staplegrove in the 16th century, it appears that there is only one family of Shattockes in Staplegrove. There are at least three families in the Stogumber parish when parish records began. So there were more Shattockes in Stogumber in the middle of the 16th century.

Once again it is Lesley Morgan's research that provides perspective. She tells me that the Shattocks historically are found in the south end of the Stogumber parish. This suggests they were related, living close to each other. That is significant because Roger Shattocke's business appears to be located in the south end of the parish. The fulling mill is at Vexford in the south of end of the parish. The Shattockes were land owners in Vexford, as indicated in documents found in this interesting box at the Somerset archives in Norton Fitzwarren:

Admissions to the manor of Vexford. 1578-1595 ...35/15/1           Copyhold admission. Land and tenement in Vexford. 1 Margaret Luttrell widow 2 John Shattock and Christopher son of Henry Shattock, brother of said John. Autograph: Luttrell. Seal: ?lion’s... LUTTRELL FAMILY OF DUNSTER MANUSCRIPTS   Box 35.  (South West Heritage Centre)

Lesley provides the following information about Vexford: "Vexford is in the south of the parish and now is very depopulated. It is not what I consider the far south (Coleford Water etc) since, in between, is an outlier of Elworthy parish. Historically there were three Vexfords. Higher Vexford which can be regarded as part of Hartrow manor, Over Vexford and Lower Vexford, which were manors in their own right. Lower Vexford has been owned by a variety of people but the records have not survived well. It was the centre of the tanning industry. Over Vexford is the interesting one. Geographically it is an odd shape, starting in the centre of the village and running south to the Elworthy boundary. It was owned by the Luttrell family of Dunster Castle."

Did Y16884 Shattocke live near the fulling mill at Vexford?

The document refers to a purchase or an inheritance of property within the "Over Vexford" area owned by the Luttrell family. This in effect pinpoints the location of the family of Shattockes in the Stogumber area. This scenario is supported by the fact there were fields named after fulling mill drying racks in Over Vexford, connecting the area to the wool trade, the business Shattocks were involved in. 

There is a record of a John Shattock murdered by a blacksmith in 1501 in Stogumber, so it is likely Shattockes lived continuously in Stogumber since 1454 when Roger Shattocke apparently had a business there. Roger Shattocke was a dealer in cloth, in a village (Stogumber) at a crossroads between regional centers (Bridgwater and Taunton) and coastal ports (Watchet and Minehead). 

I referred earlier to the image of cartoon eyes popping out of my head. It was not only the date of the theft from Roger's business that astonished me, it was the fact he was a merchant. Merchants had high social status in villages and often ran much of the village's business. This fact clearly shows Roger was much above the status of medieval serf. But how did he get there?

There is evidence that the other branch of the family, the Staplegrove Shattocks, were also merchants. There is the will of John Shattocke in Staplegrove dated 1533. In his will he bequeaths his "mansion" to one son and his shop and its tools to the other son. This information about very early Shattockes appears to confirm what a descendant of the Staplegrove Shattocks, James William Shattock (1860-1948), wrote to his son about the family. He said the family was once "prominent" in the area before losing it all to "wild living" and "gambling." Given that Thomas Shattocke and Roger Shattocke were either 1st cousins or 2nd cousins (they might even have been brothers) and the fact they lived only 11 miles apart, I would say they probably knew each other and the two families may have done business together. The names in that Stogumber Luttrell document, Henry, Christopher and John, are the most common given names found in the Staplegrove parish records. And the Staplegrove branch of the family grew to great wealth and property.

There are six branches of our family that have descended from Y16884 who was alive in 1400. The Parrishs and Byars branch away from Shattockes in 1600 about the time they appear in the Cheseapeake Bay colony, which means their lineage is descended from a Shattocke. There are no other surnames that genetically related to us, at least not for 4300 years. Studies of other English surnames, like Chaddock, indicate a common ancestor who lived prior to the adoption of surnames. (We are not even remotely related to the Chaddocks.) We have a common ancestor in a Celt (Z36) who lived in the Alpine mountains of Europe. And we are the only branch that is found in England. While it has been argued that all our relatives could have been wiped out by the plague, that seems like the most unlikely scenario.

The new estimate for Y16884 puts our common ancestor much closer to the present. And now we have documented evidence of two Shattockes, Roger and Thomas, who were probably the sons or grandsons of Y16884. And the fact that Roger Shattocke was a cloth merchant is very, very important. As a merchant he would have had to do commerce with distant entities. Or he might have traveled. In any event Stogumber is at a crossroads in the cloth trade in a county that was very active in trade with Europe. And Taunton was a major cloth town. There is even a famous cloth called "Taunton cloth." In Stogumber, the Shattocke family was located near the Vexford fulling mills, which was the last finishing step in the making of cloth.  

It is possible that Roger or his immediate ancestors were not from Stogumber, but were German merchants from a cloth center in the Rhine Valley. The name Roger might support this theory. According to Wikipedia Roger: "is derived from the Old French personal names Roger and Rogier. These names are of Germanic origin, derived from the elements hrōd("fame", "renown") and gārgēr ("spear", "lance"). 

Otherwise, how did Roger become a cloth merchant? Was he simply an enterprising peasant? Possibly. But the DNA evidence indicates that he was the son or grandson of a man who did not have relatives in England. It is even possible that Y16884 never lived in England, it was his sons or grandsons Roger and Thomas who were the immigrants. While the new DNA evidence and the newly discovered documentary evidence  does not provide hard evidence for this scenario, I am thinking that I was not actually that far off the mark when I speculated last year that the Shattockes where German immigrants involved in the wool trade. 

My central thesis is that the DNA and etymological evidence points to immigration of a west Germanic family into Somerset in the late 14th century or early 15th century probably because of the wool and cloth industry. Stogumber and Taunton were two hot spots, one because of the fulling mill and the other for the production and export of Taunton cloth. The DNA evidence is key because it is an exact science. Etymology is subject to many different provisos so is less reliable. Spelling in old documents can be inconsistent, even within the same document. (Mark Twain: I have no respect for a man who cannot spell a word at least three different ways.) It is when the DNA evidence and the etymological evidence align that you have a strong case, and I have found that to be true of the Shattockes. Stogumber had the largest population of Shattockes in the earliest records, a multi-generational family that stretches from 1564 or sooner all the way to the last family in the parish records in 1775, a time period roughly equal to the rise and fall of the wool business in Stogumber I think. Staplegrove and the immediate area is the next largest cluster of Shattockes. A study of the location of wills adds additional support. Wills usually indicate families with property in the early times and Stogumber and nearby villages have a high concentration of wills as does Taunton and its surrounding areas of Milverton and Bishop's Lydeard. It will be interesting to see where additional evidence takes the story.

What do you think? I welcome your comments.

Aug 11

Milverton Shattock Genealogy Clarified

I combined the Milverton and West Buckland pages on the site when I realized they were entwined and not really separable. Descendants of the Milverton Shattocks that have been DNA tested are Terry Shattock of the West Buckland - New Zealand Shattocks and Mick Shattock of the Wellington - Bristol - Australian Shattocks. When I combined their genealogies I discovered they shared a common ancestor in Malachi Shattuck (1684-1766). Malachi Shattock was born in the village of Runnington, just 2.5 miles or 4 km south of Milverton. He moved to West Buckland, just 3.5 miles or 6 km south west of Runnington. Terry is descended from Malachi's son Thomas Shattocke who stayed in West Buckland throughout his life (1722-1796). His son John Gawler Shattock (1786-1865) left West Buckland and died in Stallange Thorne, Devon. Mick's ancestor James (1726-1795) left West Buckland and died in Bradford on Tone, Somerset. 

Terry and Mick share the Y32082 SNP mutation which is dated by YFull to 1642, a date amazingly close to the birth of Malachi Shattock in 1684. So here we have a case where the paper trail is supported by the DNA evidence.

This clarification of the Milverton genealogy was also influenced by recent research I found. In 1641 every male over the age of eighteen in the kingdom was ordered to swear an oath to the protestant religion. In the Milverton area there where only two Shattocks on the list: Thomas Shattock and James Shattock. Malachi Shattock was born in 1641, so he would not be on the list. Thomas Shattocke was living in Langford Budville and James Shattocke was living in Runnington. These villages are only about a mile apart. Thomas is described as a serge weaver and James as a weaver. I think they were descended from a common ancestor who settled in Milverton. As weavers their homes were probably also their places of business, which kept them in one spot. We can probably assume that James Shattocke was the ancestor of Malachi Shattock because Malachi was born in Runnington. The fact that Malachi's father was named Thomas speaks to the close family relationships. 

You can see the new page and the new genealogy here. The family tree graphic has been updated with the new information.

So we know that the New Zealand and Australian Milverton Shattock branches track back to Runnington and the birth of Malachi Shattock in 1684. This finding helps us to some extent with the other Milverton Shattock branches: the Birmingham Michigan Shattocks (Leslie Shattock) and the Virginia Shaddocks (Thomas Shaddock and Peter Shaddock). Because the Y32082 SNP is found in Terry and Mick and not Leslie, Thomas or Peter, we know that Malachi Shattock is not the ancestor of Thomas, Peter and Leslie. That eliminates the entire Milverton genealogy as we have it laid out on the Milverton page. 

But in my Word document I have all kinds of entries in the Milverton parish record that are not attached to the Milverton genealogy as I currently have it. My suspicion is that Leslie and Peter / Thomas are descended from the Thomas Shattocke in the 1641 Protestation list, the one living in Langford Budville rather than Runnington. 

Indeed when you look at the extended STR results for Terry, Mick, Peter and Thomas, what you see is that they naturally split into two branches. Terry and Mick share a lot of STRs not shared with Peter and Thomas. Peter and Thomas descend from a relatively recent ancestor, Mordecai Shattuck (1840-1920) so you would expect them to share a lot of STRs. Leslie Shattock's extended STRs have not come back yet. So we will have Leslie's results to compare to Peter and Thomas and to compare to Mick and Terry. 

Virginia Shaddock Ancestor?

My original reason for creating a new Milverton tree was to see how this would affect the search for the Somerset ancestor of the Virginia Shaddocks. The paper trail runs out at James Shaddock, with no birth date and a death date of 1795. Some time ago I had identified a possible candidate in the Milverton parish records, a James Shattock born June 23, 1749 to James and Ann. As it turns out, my work with the Milverton genealogy does in fact narrow down the field of possible candidates. I have revised the entry on the Virginia Shaddock page in the section titled "Evidence for a James Shattock to Virginia in the Late Eighteenth Century." 

Elder Pepperell Shattuck Descendant Results

John Shattuck (1647-1675), son of the founder William Shattuck, had three sons who spawned the three branches of the Shattuck family: the Elder Pepperell Shattucks, the Groton Shattucks and the Younger Pepperell Shattucks. (See them in the tree above under John Shattuck.) Previously we Big Y tested Arthur Shattuck who is the key Groton Shattuck descendant. Then I Big Y tested Clark Shattuck who is a Younger Pepperell Shattuck. And now we have results for the Elder Pepperell Shattucks with Jeremy as the test subject. Having a descendant from each of the three branches makes it possible to identify the key genetic markers differentiating descendants of each branch. 

Jeremy YDNA-37 results are shown in row 39 of the spreadsheet. (The spreadsheet is at the usual link.) I have upgraded him to a Big Y test, which fills in values through to the last column of the spreadsheet which will give us many, many more points of comparison (up to 160 more). 

What we do learn from the first 37 marker that have come back for Jeremy is:

1) Jeremy has the Shattuck signature marker DYS447=24. All Shattucks descended from William Shattuck (1622-1672) have this marker. Since Bob Shattock does not have this marker, the mutation occurred further down the line of descent from their common ancestor. 
2) Jeremy has the Shattuck signature double marker CDY = 36-37 Most but not all Shattucks have this.
3) Jeremy has the signature marker Y-GATA-H4=12 which descendants of John Shattuck (1647-1675) have.

The third finding is significant because the only way that all the descendants of John Shattuck could have the marker is if John Shattuck passed it to them. And John's father William Shattuck (1622-1672) did not have the marker because none of his other son's passed it on to their descendants. So it appears to be the case that the mutation occurred in John Shattuck. In fact no other Shattocke, Parrish or Byars has this mutation and it is a relatively slow moving mutation, meaning it occurs very infrequently over the past many thousands of years. I am confident now that any Shattocke with this marker can be identified as a descendant of John Shattuck. 

In the next few months I will get back the extended results for Clark Shattuck and Jeremy Shattuck. This is going to give us very good points of reference to determine how descendants of John Shattuck fit in the Shattuck tree.

Aug 1: Stogumber, the Home Village for Shattucks

Sometimes when archaeologists find an object sticking out of the soil they dig further and unearth a treasure trove of artifacts. That was the case a few days ago when I got an email from cousin John Shattock telling me of the baptism record he found for William Shattock in the Stogumber parish records dated March 16, 1622. While I had earlier zeroed in on Stogumber as the Shattuck home village based on research I had been doing, I was missing that last bit of crucial evidence for the birthplace of William Shattuck, pilgrim founder of the Shattucks in America. I was missing his baptism record. John found it.

I rewrote the page about the ancestral home of American Shattucks as a result. For those of you who have already read that page, skip down to the section in the second half of the page titled: William Shattock of Stogumber. It can probably be said simply that there are no records of a William Shattock born in Somerset on or near the 1622 probable birth date for William Shattuck, except in Stogumber, where there are three Williams born 1621, 1622 and 1623. 

I decided to look at Stogumber more closely and went to the Stogumber village website where I came across a local historian, Lesley Morgan, who had been writing local history articles for the Stogumber Standard. I wrote to her. She was kind enough to write back the very next morning. And she included a jewel in her email. Digging through her archives she found a reference to a Roger Shattock, cloth merchant, who had cloth stolen from his house in 1454. That's right, the middle of the 15th century, just 50 years after the estimated date for the common ancestor of all Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars. 

That was huge, because previously the only pre-16th century reference I had found (and Deanna Wallis dug out of the Somerset archives) was a Thomas Shattocke, tenant of the manor of Taunton in 1450. Lesley's reference firmly placed Stogumber on the map as a contender for the home village of the common ancestor of all Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars.

And there was more, so read the part of the page I linked to earlier for the full story. 

A note for my Byars and Parrish cousins: Lesley in an article called "Emigration" says Stogumber villagers were transported to Virginia:

We tend to think of “transportation” meaning shipping felons off to Australia in the 19th century. In fact several Stogumber people were transported to Barbados in the 17th century to work as slaves on the sugar plantations. Their crimes have not been recorded. In the early days most of the slaves were white and demand for labour was so high that people were being kidnapped then sold to unscrupulous dealers. To combat this, the authorities in Bristol started to keep records of the transportees, their home parishes and their occupations. Some Stogumber people were also transported to Virginia in the mid 1600s and again their crimes have not been recorded. They included a blacksmith, a yeoman, a husbandman and two single women.

Is it possible that the Byars, Parrish or Shattocke who has been detected through DNA tests in Virginia about 1615 was from Stogumber? It is an interesting avenue of investigation.

Lesley also sent me a picture of the road that runs through Stogumber. It had once been an important economic artery between Taunton, Bridgwater and the ports of Watchet and Minehead on the coast of Somerset. When the turnpikes bypassed Stogumber in modern times, Stogumber lost its preeminent position on the economic super highway. Here is what the road looks like today:

A visual metaphor for the decline of Stogumber in the world of commerce. Lesley tells me that at certain times of the year, the road is made difficult to traverse even on foot. Come to think of it, this is a good visual metaphor for genealogical research as well. Now I am going to put on my "Wellies." That road ahead looks very, very interesting. 

July 30: New YFull Tree and New Research

Version 5.05 of YTree

YFull has come out with their latest human family tree, here is the link to our branch: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y16884/

The number of people doing Big Y tests has dramatically increased, making the most distant dates on the tree much more accurate. The reason? The average mutation rate for SNPs using the Big Y test is 144 years. Individual cases will vary widely from this average, so the more people you test the less a single individual's non-typical result will affect estimated dates. 

The most interesting change is in the date of the common ancestor of Shattockes, Byars and Parrishs. It has jumped from 1375 to 1397. The estimated date of our common ancestor has been moving steadily in the past three updates to the tree from 1330 to 1350 to 1375 and now 1400. The date of the first recorded Shattocke is 1450. It is still possible that there was an earlier ancestor since the mutation frequency rate is once every 144 years. Obviously as the estimated date derived from DNA results moves closer to the present, it also moves the error range closer to the present as well. The new estimate does not absolutely rule out "Saddoks" and "Shaddeks" in the county of Berkshire as early ancestors of Shattockes, it just makes them less likely. 

I am actually surprised at how accurate YFull's age estimation is for instances where we have genealogical evidence. The date for the common ancestor of Massachusetts Shattucks has hovered around 1600 for quite a few iterations of the family tree, even with the addition of the Southwark, London Shattockes to the branch, suggesting that the Melbourne Shattocks may have a common ancestor with William Shattuck (1622-1672), founder of the American Shattucks, well within genealogical time. 

Dwight Byars, a descendant of the Virginia Byars / Parrish branch of the family, had his Big Y test results incorporated into the tree. I had wondered if he would move that date of the formation of that branch back in time. Instead the time has moved up to 1613. It is now well within the time frame for the founding of the Chesapeake Bay colony in Virginia. I recently uploaded Walter Byars' Big Y BAM file to YFull. It will be interesting to see how his results affect the formation date for the branch. What appears to be the case is that the Byars and Parrishs have a common ancestor in Virginia rather in England, otherwise the date would have moved back not forward. Walter's result will be a test of that observation.

There is one anomaly in the tree. Clark Shattuck, who belongs to the Younger Pepperell branch of the Shattucks according to genealogical studies, was placed at the very root of the tree instead of in the Massachusetts Shattucks branch of the tree. That is his initial placement since his results have not been fully analyzed by YFull. Interesting to note is that Alex Williamson also placed Clark at the base of the tree until I told him of where Clark belonged according to genealogical evidence. I think the Y19751 SNP lies on the border of the area of the Y chromosome surveyed by the Big Y test. So it may not have shown up, or was ambiguously recorded. His extended STR results will probably sort this out, if YFull full analysis fails to do so.

North Molton Shattocke Research

I recently received three taxpayer lists for residents in Devon for the years 1524, 1543 and 1581. I wanted to see if there were any records of Shattockes in Devon. I have written about the result of my search on the North Molton page below this map: 

Notice the distribution of Shattocke villages with the earliest record of a Shattock present shown in red. Find North Molton on the far left and then follow the green valley along to Bampton to the right. Here is what I wrote below the map on the North Molton page.

You can look at this map and say that the Shattockes spread from North Molton to the Tone Valley in West Somerset or you can look at it the other way around. What is clear is that the Shattockes spread along the fertile corridors. In fact there is a tax record for a Thomas "Shatok" in 1524 (Devon Lay Subsidy Rolls 1524-1527) in Bampton, which might suggest that very scenario of the spread of Shattocke farmers along fertile corridors. In the Devon Lay Subsidy Rolls 1543-1545 there is a John Shattocke who is taxed in 1543. So there was a family of Shattockes living in Bampton on the border between Somerset and Devon. There is no other Shattocke in these two Devon tax rolls. There was a Thomas Shottocke (sic) in the 1581 tax in Berry Pomeroy (on the south east coast of Devon), but it is not clear if this is a bad transcription of Thomas Shattocke. There was no other Shattocke in the 1581 tax document. 

And then later in the page I write:

Cliff Shaddick believed that Shattockes spread from Devon to Somerset and then London. Do we find Shattockes in west Somerset earlier than 1542? There is a record of a Thomas Shattocke, on the list of tenants for the Manor of Taunton Deane in 1450. The fact we do not find Shattockes elsewhere in Devon in the 1524 or the 1543 tax rolls, and in no other documents, suggests that Shattockes arrived in North Molton from Somerset and not the other way around. In fact there is probably a case to be made that North Molton was settled from the Shattocks in Bampton. Bampton is only 14 miles (23 km) from North Molton. There was a John Shattocke taxed in the 1543 tax role in Bampton. In North Molton John Shattick had a daughter Johane in 1542. Was this the same man? After 1542 there are no records of Shattockes in Bampton until 1763, more than two centuries later. Where did the Shattockes of Bampton go? I think they were successful business people who moved to North Molton to take advantage of the burgeoning wool trade there.

New South Carolina Shaddock Research

For those of you not on facebook, here is some recent research about the South Carolina Shaddocks I posted on the Shattocke DNA page on Facebook.

I have come across evidence that the Shattucks of Watertown, Massachusetts migrated to Charleston (or Charlestown as it was called at the time) as early as the late 17th century. This is a big find because it means the Shattucks had family in South Carolina, making it much more probable that the Samuel Shattuck who purchases 480 acres on Bohicket Creek in Colleton county on August 27 1702 was from Watertown. Together with the DNA evidence, this is good evidence for making this Samuel Shattuck the long lost son of William Shattuck, the founder of Shattucks in America. Here is what I added to the South Carolina Shaddocks page (another puzzle piece put in its place):

There is in fact evidence that Shattucks moved to Charlestown, South Carolina. Lemuel Shattuck in his book has this to say about Rebecca Shattuck (1682-1710). She was the daughter of Dr. Philip Shattuck (1648-1722), son of the founder William Shattuck (1622-1672). She married John Underwood (1677-1754). . "Rebecca Shattuck, daughter of Philip, (p. 73,) born in Watertown., March 10, 1683 ; married Nov. 19, 1701, John Underwood, b. in Watertown, March. 6, 1677. He is supposed to have removed to Charlestown about 1714." (p. 85, Descendants). Here is another case showing the connection between the Massachusetts Bay colony and the new colony in Charlestown in South Caronlina: Samuel Shattuck (1672-1758) married Elizabeth Longley Blood (1675-1759). She had a sister Mary who married Samuel Leman, who Lemuel says was "probably from Charlestown." (p. 80, Descendants). There were Shattuck family connections in South Carolina going back to the late 17th century. 

Dr. Philip Shattuck Branch Documented

I finally finished documenting the Dr. Philip Shattuck (1648-1722) branch of the Massachusetts Shattucks. I now have a rough draft of the entire Massachusetts Shattuck tree of descent from the founder William Shattuck (1622-1672). Because the tree is documented, I was able to resolve some conflicts I found since the same person cannot belong to more than one twig on the tree. It is the most comprehensive tree of Shattucks since Lemuel Shattuck's Descendants, and fills in gaps he had, plus adds descendants down to the the present. 

July 23, 2017: Updated Family Surname Entry in the Oxford Dictionary

John Shattock, who lives in Leicester, and is a Bishop's Lydeard descendant, has a deep interest in the etymology of the family name. He has been searching through old medieval records and has come across some pretty interesting surnames: Gilbert Saddock (1320), also known as Gilbert Shaddek, He was a verderer of Windsor Park. Windsor Park is a Royal Park of 2,020 hectares (5,000 acres), including a deer park, to the south of the town of Windsor on the border of Berkshire and Surrey in England. He apparently was a judicial officer of Windsor Park. The problem with the name spelled this way is that it cannot be found in living descendants who spell the name exactly that way, and therefore we cannot test the DNA of those descendants to see if they are indeed related. Dr. Peter McClure, the principal etymologist for the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names outlined the challenges in this way:

(1) The pronunciation and spelling of family names are highly variable, so family names of different origins can come to sound and look like each other.
(2) Some families named Shedwick, Chattock and Chaddock appear in the SW Midlands and SW England, where their surname could easily be alternative pronunciations of Shaddock or Shattock. For example the now extinct surname Shadwick has a history in Tilehurst Berkshire (16th/17 cents); it may derive from the medieval Berks family of Saddok/Shaddek, though I can’t prove it. Gelling (editor of the Place-Names of Berkshire) explains Shadwicks Pightle in Tilehurst as an original place-name from OE sceadu ‘boundary’ + wic ‘dairy farm’. She may be right but the place-name is not recorded before the 1500s so it’s probably not Anglo-Saxon in origin and it’s an odd coincidence that the surname appears in Tilehurst around 1600. I suspect that the farm was named from the family and that Shadwick is a hypercorrect re-interpretation of Shaddock/Shaddick.
(3) On the other hand families move around, so similar looking names in the same area need not be variants of the same name. In the end we are making best guesses from somewhat inadequate information.

In any event, John's find prompted the chief etymologist for the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names to update the entry for our name. John and I have been tossing back and forth a joke about whose spelling of the name came first: Shattock or Shaddock. (The earliest confirmed record is Shattocke.) The Oxford dictionary is going to change the primary heading for our family surname from Shattock to Shaddock. What a merry go round this has turned out to be. Here is the new entry for the Oxford dictionary:

Frequencies: GB 1881: 501, GB 1997: 552, GB 2011: 539, Ireland 1911: 10, Ireland 1997: 27, Ireland 2008: 3.
main GB location, 1881: Somerset
main Irish location, 1847-64: -

Variants: Shattuck, Shaddock, Shaddick, Shadick, Sheddick, Shedwick, Chattock, Chaddock.

language/culture: English

(i) Relationship name: perhaps from the Middle English personal name Saddoc, of unknown origin. A man named Saddoc was a tenant of the Bishop of Durham, 1183 in Boldon Book.

(ii) Locative name: perhaps from a lost or unidentified place named in Middle English as *Shadok or *Shatok, either from an unrecorded Old English *scēaduc ‘little boundary’, or from one of two Old English compounds scēad + āc ‘boundary oak’ or scēat + āc ‘corner oak’. A name of this type + Old English hyrst ‘wooded hill’ is possibly attested in the Kent place-name Shadoxhurst, recorded in the 13th century as Shattokeshurst, Sadhokesherst, and Chaddekesherst, though the first element might alternatively be the personal name in (i).

Early Bearers: Richard Saddock, 1318 in TNA (Elington, Berks); Gilbert Saddok, identical with Gilbert Shaddek, deceased verderer of Windsor Forest, 1320 in Close Rolls (Berks); Andrew Saddok, privy clerk of Hugh le Despenser and parson of Beaconsfield (Bucks), about 1327 in TNA; Johanne Saddok, 1327 in Subsidy Rolls (Uggeshall cum Frostenden, Suffolk); Andrew Saddok, presented to the church of Little Codford (Wilts), 1335 in Patent Rolls; Andrew Saddok, tenant, 1336 in TNA (Cookham, Berks); Nicholas Saddok, 1350 in Patent Rolls; William Schattok, son of Thomas Schattok, 1359 in Birmingham Archives (Castle Bromwich, Warwicks); Henry Saddock of Maidenhead (Berks), 1401, Henry Saddok of Beaconsfield (Bucks), 1404 in TNA; Richard Saddok, 1434 in Patent Rolls (Oxon); Thomas Shattocke, tenant, 1450 in Somerset Archives DD/SP/317, 318 (Taunton Deane manor, Somerset); Alexander Shattock, Richard Shattock, 1509-47 in TNA (Lydiard, Wilts, or perhaps Bishop's Lydeard or Lydeard Saint Lawrence, Somerset); Thomas Shatok, 1524 in Subsidy Rolls (Bampton, Devon); John Shattick, 1542 in Parish Registers (North Molton, Devon); John Shattocke, 1562 in IGI (North Petherton, Somerset); Agnys Shattick, 1566, Johanne Shaddock, 1584, Alice Shattock, 1590 in IGI (West Bagborough, Somerset); John Shattock, vintner, 1569-70 in TNA (Taunton, Somerset); Peter Shaddok, 1618 in IGI (Fareham, Hants); Joane Shattuck, 1639 in IGI (Taunton, Somerset); Frances Shattuck, 1640 in IGI (Exeter, Devon); John Shaddock, 1640 in IGI (Reading, Berks); Mary Shadick, 1651 in Parish Registers (Charles the Martyr, Plymouth, Devon); Humphrey Shaddock, 1665 in IGI (Oakford, Devon); Edward Shedwick, 1671 in IGI (Lewes, Sussex); James Shaddick, 1672 in IGI (Culmstock, Devon); Mary Shaddock, 1745 in IGI (Portland, Dorset); William Shiddick, 1794 in Parish Registers (Swimbridge, Devon); George Shedwick alias George Shadwick, 1809 in TNA (Culmstock, Devon); Mary Ann Sheddick, 1819 in Parish Registers (Stoke Damerel, Devon); William Sheddick, 1859 in TNA (Somerset).

Other info: For the surname's family history and additional early bearers see http://www.shaddock.ca/. It states that DNA analysis has found no genetic link between people surnamed Shattock and those named Chaddock or Chadwick, refuting the suggestion in Reaney and Wilson that Shaddock is a variant of the Lancs name Chadwick. There is no evidence to support a locative derivation from Schadeck (Luxemburg).
References: Watts, Dictionary at Shadoxhurst; information from Philip Shaddock.

DNA studies of Shattocke and Byars / Parrish descendants indicate a common ancestor who lived in the 14th century. (A recent study pegged the date to 1364 AD: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html.) Since estimated dates are based on SNP mutations, and they only mutate every 144 years, the date for the common ancestor could easily be in the previous century. So these dates for Saddocs, Saddocks and Saddeks are within the error range of the estimated date from DNA results. (The date can be no later than 1450 because we have a record of a Thomas Shattocke as a tenant in the manor of Taunton Deane dated 1450.) That would put Shattockes in the county next door to Somerset, Berkshire, and closer to London in the early 13th century. The fact Gilbert Shaddek was a high ranking official working for the king is noteworthy. John notes that "Gilbert" is a French name, which raises the possibility that Saddocs may have arrived in Berkshire from France, or as part of a Norman entourage. There is a lot of uncertainty in etymological studies for the reasons Dr. McClure outlines. But it may be the only window we have into the past until a DNA result turns up to confirm or rule out speculations arising from etymological studies.

July 20, 2017

Frank Dwight Byars' extended STRs are in. You can see them in the updated spreadsheet. For privacy I do not publish the spreadsheet on the web, but do include the link in the email newsletter, which you can subscribe to here

I am not going to comment in detail about the extra hundred or so markers, as I want to wait for the extended markers for Walter Ryland Byars to come back so that I can identify the markers particular to Byars.

The markers for Byars are important because of the surname. We can assume the two Byars who have done the Big Y test have a common ancestor that separates Byars from Parrishs. So the markers Walter and Dwight share will be significant. 

Dwight had previously only tested to the 37 marker level so the Big Y STR results filled in the gap to his results up to and beyond the 111 marker level. The new results gave us Dwight's value for the important DYS444 marker. Dwight has a value of 13 for this marker, a marker that is a signature marker for Parrishs, as all Parrishs have this value for the marker. Interesting to note is that there are Byars who have the legacy value for this marker, a value of 12, Tim Byars, Walter Ryland Byars and the probable Byars NPE, Chris Simmons. While I have speculated that this might mean that Byars was the original Shattocke NPE, Martha (Dwight's wife) has pointed out it is also possible that a Byars may have dropped a repeat from 13 to 12. Historically DYS444 seems to have oscillated back and forth between 12 and 13, adding then dropping a repeat so Martha is likely to be correct. Perhaps this is a marker that has a strong tendency to have only 12 repeats and becomes unstable when it adds a repeat, quickly shedding it again. 

A peculiarity of Dwight's results is in the other significant Byars - Parrish marker, the doubled CDY marker. Dwight is 36-38 for this marker, whereas the most common Parrish and Byars value is 37-39. It requires two mutations to get from 36-38 to 37-39 so the change in values suggests Dwight might be descended from a very early Byars - Parrish ancestor. Since Walter is 37-39, it would suggest that Walter and Dwight share quite a distant common ancestor. We will have to wait for Walter's results to see how this plays out. But I do find a value of 36-38 intriguing because 36-38 is the stable value for the Shattocks of west Somerset that we have tested. 

For the markers returned from the Big Y test above the 111 marker level, there is something very apparent. If you look at the spreadsheet, you will see three columns of green markers, signifying signature markers. These three markers, DFY372.2, DYS518 and DYS720, appear to be signature markers for Byars and Parrishs, meaning they are not shared with the Shattockes. So the extended STR results confirm what the SNP results have shown, the Byars and Parrishs share a common ancestor. He had the A8033 SNP mutation. I believe A8033 is actually an ancestor who lived in England in the 16th century, long before his descendant emigrated to Virginia, probably as an indentured servant. So this raises the possibility that there were actually two emigrants to Virginia, a Byars and a Parrish. A speculation, but it is necessary to keep your mind open to more than one scenario. The reasoning for a 16th century A8033 is that the Byars and Parrishs have significantly different STR markers than other Shattockes, so A8033 must have branched off very early on. It could be earlier than the 16th century as the common ancestor of all Shattockes, Byars and Parrishs, Y16884, is estimated to have lived in the 14th century. This even raises the possibility that the surnames arose independently of the Shattockes, so Parrish and Byars may have never been Shattockes. Again, a speculation, but a necessary one so that we keep an open mind as the new data comes in. The common ancestor for Byars and Parrishs is more recent than the 16th century based on the signature markers. But was that common ancestor in England or Virginia? We will find out more when Walter's results come back. 

July 19, 2017

New Branch: Bishop's Lydeard

I have revised the family tree again, this time to name the branch of the family first discovered in the DNA results for Mike Shattock, who is a university professor in London. His cousin John is a very careful genealogists, so he has not been quite sure if his family originated out of Bishop's Lydeard, the village just a little west of Taunton in West Somerset. The DNA results for Gordon Shattock, who is a long term descendant of Bishop Lydeard Shattocks, just came back and show that he shares a rare mutation with Mike Shattock, DYS439=12. The mutation is rated with three stars by YFull, meaning it is in the middle of the spectrum between being a fast moving or slow moving mutation. This makes it a very useful marker for determining if two people share an ancestor in the past four or five hundred years. I am quite sure this means that Mike and Gordon are both Bishop's Lydeard Shattock descendants. Further testing will remove any doubt about the marker, since Mike has other non-modal markers that Gordon should share when I upgrade him from YDNA-37.

I do not offer the spreadsheet of DNA data to the general republic. It is available as a link in emails sent out from the newsletter. To join the newsletter, click on the red newsletter subscribe notice at the top of this page. 

You can see the "Bishop's Lydeard" branch of the family on the right of the family tree graphic above. If I decided to upgrade Gordon to a Big Y test, I would expect the branch to split into two sub-branches, depending on how far back the common ancestor between Gordon and Mike was. That will give us a rough idea of when the common ancestor lived, very helpful for John and Gordon's daughter Anna, who are having difficulty with their family genealogies. If they discover that the ancestor was recent, an autosomal test might be in order as it would help confirm the relationship and might even say how many generations they are apart.

Documenting the Shattucks

The task of documenting the Massachusetts Shattucks is enormous. Currently the tree I maintain at Ancestry of Shattucks has just about 6,000 people in it. I keep discovering branches that have hundreds of people in them. By far the most numerous of Shattucks coming down from the founder William Shattuck (1622-1672) are descendants of his son John Shattuck (1647-1675). He had three sons who moved to the frontier in those days, the towns of Pepperell and Groton. They were John, William and Samuel, and the lineages they spawned are named after the villages they settled in. I have used Lemuel Shattuck's terminology in describing the branches they founded: Elder Pepperell Shattucks, Groton Shattucks, and Younger Pepperell Shattucks. You will find links to their branches on the Branches page under the Massachusetts Shattucks. I also feature stories of selected descendants, especially when I find their pictures. 

What I am discovering while documenting the Shattucks is a phenomena called by population scientists "polytomies." This describes a sudden appearance of multiple lineages in genetic results, that is, more than one branch descends from one node in the tree. This is in fact the case for Shattockes, as our common ancestor in the 14th century appears to have generated six branches of the family appearing suddenly in the latter half of the 16th century. In fact the Massachusetts Shattucks also conform to that description, generating four branches of the Shattucks. Fortunately we have Lemuel Shattuck's excellent Memorials book documenting all but one of these lineages. (He did not find William's son Samuel Shattuck 1666-, which I discovered through DNA testing was in fact the long last tribe of the South Carolina Shaddocks.) The four sons produced a massive population explosion as the Shattucks spread out from Watertown to the new frontiers, or from Charles Town in South Carolina, decade after decade. Cheap land and a Puritan work and family ethic combined to produce large families. When the land ran out and Shattuck sons had to turn to work for hire, the population boom came to the end and the fertility rate resumed at its historical average. Something like this appears to be detectable in the DNA results for the whole Shattocke family. We can probably assume that we are descendants of the more successful members of our family during times of normal fertility. Nice thought, isn't it?

I have to ask myself what I would see if I did not have Lemuel Shattuck's carefully written record of the descendants. We are extremely lucky to have the benefit of Lemuel's massive undertaking because the Massachusetts Shattucks actually appear to have had few SNP mutations. It would be a polytomy would I would not at this point be able to decide if it was a hard or soft polytomy. How ironic is that? Lucky with the written record, very unlucky with the DNA record. 

More "Famous" Shattucks

If you are not on facebook, then you have missed some great photos I have dug out of Ancestry showing historical photos of our ancestors and their places. Some recent additions include:

Job Shattuck was one of two key figures in a tax revolt in his native Massachusetts. He participated in the removal of the French from Nova Scotia at the behest of the British crown. He was an industrious and skilled farmer, building an estate of 500 acres to become Groton, Massachusett's largest landowner, he took up arms against the British in the American Revolution, and then took up arms against the Massachusetts government in what became known as Shay's Rebellion, a rebellion against unfair government taxes. 

Born in the Shattuck town of Groton, Massachusetts, Samuel Walker Shattuck (1841-1915) was wounded during the American Civil War at the Battle of Cedar Creek. He survived the war to lead a distinguished career as a Professor Mathematics and regent of the University of Illinois, helping shape its character and growth. 

Shattuck Inn, Jaffrey, New Hampshire

Opened in 1910 after the original Inn burned to the ground, this Inn was a favorite retreat for busy New Englanders. I discovered who was Ed Shattuck, who built the inn. There is some good stories and great pictures in the revised story.

Frederica Van Trice Shattuck was a professor and seminal figure in the University of Iowa's drama and public speaking studies. But her presence on the stage appears to have continued long after her death. A Shattuck ghost story.

Shattuck Rags to Riches: Schrafft's Restaurants Were Once a New York Institution
They are gone now, but Schrafft's were once a favorite stop on a ladies shopping excursion. Some of the restaurants had impressive architectural style. And they were started by a descendant of the Groton Shattucks.

June 29, 2017

Susan Shuford has upgraded Walter Ryland Byars to the Big Y test and the initial results came back yesterday. 

It was perhaps not surprising that the A8033 SNP was detected and confirmed. This is the mutation that all Parrishs and Byars have, the mutation that sets them apart from all other people on the planet. And of course there is the Y16884 mutation that shows Byars and Parrishs share a recent common ancestor with Shattockes. That "recent" common ancestor lived sometime in the 14th century! The reason I call it recent is because you have to go back to 2800 BC (4300 years ago) to find the next common ancestor with the rest of humanity. The first Egyptian pyramids were just being built at that time...that long ago. That makes Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars very close relatives in the time scale.

We have now discovered six branches of the family that have come down from Y16884 in the fourteenth century, five of them Shattockes and one of them Byars / Parrish. Recently we discovered a tenants list for Taunton Deane (the town of Taunton and its surrounding area in west Somerset) that dates back to 1450...not that many generations after Y16884. On that list is the name "Thomas Shattocke," making it the oldest record of the Shattocke name found so far. 

YFull has dated the common ancestor of Byars and Parrish at about 1600, roughly the time of the founding of the Chesapeake Bay colony in Virginia. The only Byars and Parrishs that we have found through DNA testing originate in the American south. None have been found in England. The evidence seems to support the theory that the common ancestor of Parrish and Byars arrived as an indentured servant, otherwise we would have been able to trace the surname to a landed aristocrat in Virginia. 

The fact that all six branches go all the way back to Y16884 in the 14th century is puzzling. Y16884 could not have six sons whose descendants survived all the way down to the present, so the six branches must emanate from his grandsons and great grandsons. The plague struck in 1348 and returned in years after that, probably wiping out entire Shattocke and Byars / Parrish families. This naturally raises the possibility that Parrish and Byars never had the name Shattocke but adopted Parrish or Byars when surnames were first adopted. Although some families can trace their surnames in England back to 1066 with the introduction of surnames by the Normans, it took until 1400 before the use of surnames filtered down to the lowliest peasants.

So it is possible that Parrish and Byars names came over to the U.S. from England. However it seems improbable because five or six branches of the Y16884 family have the name Shattocke and Y16884 Byars and Parrishs are only found in the southern U.S. in early colonial history. 

And now for a new surprise. When Susan gave me access to the Walter Ryland Byars account I decided to look at his DNA matches. What struck me right way is that his matches at the YDNA-111 level were largely a 7 or 8 genetic distance from him. What this means is that Walter is quite distantly related to all other members of the family. The less likely scenario is that his lineage was more active in mutations. If you are wondering if he is a false match to other members of our family, the fact he has the Y16884 and A8033 firmly rules out a false match.

I also noticed that there were quite a few more Byars matches in Walter's list of matches than my list of matches. I wrote to five or six of them and asked them to join our project. I always thought there were many Parrishs and few Byars. But that gap is not as wide as I thought. Why do I have so few Byars matches and so many Parrish matches? Because I suspect Byars are more distantly related to me than to Parrishs. This is the weakness of the FTDNA matching system. It assumes a lot of Byars are not related to me because of the genetic distance. But the only accurate way of measuring relatedness is advanced SNP testing. 

This new evidence also makes it more likely that the Parrishs and Byars split away from each other much earlier than I previously thought. 

The other noteworthy aspect of Walter's current results is that he appears to be modal for most of his markers, meaning he has the historical value for the markers. Does this mean that Walter is descended from a common ancestor very deep in the past, possibly a direct descendant of an ancestor in the 14th century? Possibly. When Walter's results are analyzed in the next few months we may get an answer to that question. The answer may lie in Walter's extended STR results which won't come back for 3 to 4 months. By that time we will have Frank Dwight Byars extended STR results to compare to. That's going to be very interesting. 

I wrote earlier about the fact he is DYS444=12 while the rest of the Byars / Parrish family are DYS444=13. I speculated that he might have the oldest ancestor based on this marker. Martha Byars wrote me and pointed out that it was possible his marker was originally DYS444=13 and dropped back to 12. Both scenarios are very possible. Three of the eight Byars have 12, the others 13. That favors Martha's argument. The possible old age of the Byars lineage favors my argument. Hard to decide.

After I noticed how distantly Walter seems to be related to the other Byars and Parrishs,  I decided to have a closer look at his matches. And I began to run into the surname Beckham and variations. I checked my own matches and saw that I had only one Beckham as a very distant match. I then went to the Beckham group and captured the DNA result of one of the Beckhams and plugged it into the spreadsheet. You can download it from its usual link, which I publish on the email newsletter, not here in public view. Join the email list is you have not already above.

Beckam is on row 53 of the spreadsheet.

The Beckham DNA markers were a perfect match up to 37 markers. There were 10 more markers added, where the match was 7 of 10 markers. And here is another parallel. Ray Beckham, administrator of the Beckham project, traces his lineage back to an indentured servant in Virginia in its early days. See: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Beckham/ Interesting. Very interesting.

What is noteworthy about the Beckham sample is he is  DYS444=12. If he is not a false match, this would make him most likely a Byars match rather than a Parrish match. 

It is possible he is a false match. I have written to Ray, the administrator of the Beckham group, to ask him if he is interested in testing the Beckham sample for the presence of the Y16884 and A8033 mutations. 

Has the A8033 sprouted a new NPE branch called Beckham? Or is Beckham in fact a very old branch of the family stretching back to the 14th century before surnames were adopted? I think the former. But I will let the evidence lead me to the correct answer. 

June 19, 2017

I have received some additional research from England, including the following documents:
  • 1641-2 Protestion Returns and Lay Subsidy Rolls: Protestation Returns list every male eighteen or over in Somerset in 1641-2. Lay Subsidy Rolls are tax lists. Both act as a kind of census of Shattock males alive early in the 17th century. The amount of tax charged to the individual Shattock gives us a measure of their wealth. 
  • 1674 Hearth Tax list. Homes were taxed based on the number of chimneys (hearths) they had. This was a rough measure of their size and opulence. 
  • Wills. Besides the wills I copied in England, Dea Wallis has been visiting the South West Heritage Centre and digging out old wills dating back to the early 17th century. These are valuable because they list not only the deceased name, but all of his relations, including in-laws.
  • List of tenants in the Manor of Taunton Deane from 1450 - 1644 (Dea Wallis).
I have added all these references to my Word document

This section has been added to the Discussion section at the bottom of the Celtic Origins page of this site. 

This information has helped tremendously in organizing, validating and filling in the gaps in the parish records. For example, the Stogumber parish records fail to record the parents of babies baptized in the local church until 1640. But the Protestation Return lists five male Shattocks living in the parish in 1641-2. So I know who the probable families in Stogumber were at that time. For those trying to find distant ancestors in the parish records, the information nails down what Shattock males eighteen or older were alive in 1641-2. Another example is the Milverton genealogy. There were only two Shattockes eighteen or older in Milverton and nearby villages in 1641-2, James Shattock and Thomas Shattock. This information makes it much easier for family historians to find their most distant known ancestor.

What is pretty remarkable is that there were only 23 Shattocke males in Somerset and 2 males in Devon in 1641-2. The Protestation Returns of 1641-2 are considered to be very reliable and comprehensive. There are a few Shattockes found in the tax list of 1641-2 that do not show up in the Protestation Return.  Robert Shattocke was assessed for tax in Stoke St. Gregory in 1641. John Shattocke in Wivelescombe on on the tax Roll for 1641-2 but not on the Protestation Return. Thomas Shattocke in Kingston St. Mary paid taxes but did not swear the oath. They may have been dissenters. 

It appears that the number of Shattockes appearing in parish records in the 16th and early 17th century are similarly modest in number. So we can treat this number of male Shattockes in the two counties as a very good census.   

The common ancestors of each of the four branches of the family that can be dated shows that they lived in the late 16th century and early 17th century. So the DNA evidence also seems to support the observation that there were very few Shattocke families in Somerset in 1641. There may have been at least one Shattocke family in the London area. In fact, for family historians seeking to find the English village where their ancestors once lived, the list of names and parishes narrows possible home villages down to a very short list. Here are the parishes were Shattockes are found in the 1641-2 Protestation Return:
  • Old Cleeve 1
  • Stogumber 7
  • Crowcombe 2
  • West Bagborough 1
  • Bishop's Lydeard 3
  • Taunton 1
  • Staplegrove 3
  • Norton Fitzwarren 3
  • Milverton / Runnington 2 
  • Kingston St. Mary 1 ?
  • Wivelescombe 1 ?
  • Stoke St. Gregory 1 ? 
  • London 1 ?
From this list it can be seen that the most populous Shattocke village was Stogumber in the upper part of the Tone valley with seven male Shattockes 18 years old or older. When Stogumber is lumped in with nearby villages, it appears nearly forty percent of Shattockes were in the upper part of the Tone valley. The Taunton / Staplegrove / Norton Fitzwarren area is the second most populous area with nine Shattockes. The third most populous area appears to be Bishop's Lydeard with three Shattockes, although there is some evidence that Bishop's Lydeard should be lumped in with Staplegrove as Dea found a will that shows an early 17th century founder in Staplegrove had relatives in Bishop's Lydeard. In the DD\SP/1630/18 will in the archive at South West Heritage in Norton Fitzwarren, Henry Shattocke of Staplegrove has a will in 1638 where he distributes part of his estate to John and William Shattocke in Norton Fitzwarren, formerly of Bishop's Lydeard.

The Milverton area is the fourth most populous area with two or three Shattockes depending on whether the Shattocke in Wivelescombe is part of the calculation. 

Again, it seems that the DNA evidence is in accordance with this distribution of Somerset Shattockes into three main groups. The Milverton Shattockes have a common ancestor. The Staplegrove Shattockes have a common ancestor. The Upper Tone Valley Shattockes have a common ancestor. There is a Shattock (Dr. Michael Shattock) who belongs to a fourth branch of the family, although preliminary evidence is that he is a Bishop's Lydeard Shattock.

Devon has one Shattocke in Culmstock, near the border with Somerset and two in South Molton, near the border with Somerset. The two South Molton Shattockes are mostly likely from North Molton, only a few miles away. 

There was one Shattocke who is found in Protestation Returns for the Wareham area of Dorset, with the name John Shatticke. This is a North Molton spelling of the surname. 

In the tax Subsidy Roll of 1641-2 there are two Shattocke widows in West Bagborough, one in Kingston St. Mary, four in the Taunton / Staplegrove / Norton Fitzwarren area and 1 in the Wivelescombe area. Some of these widows are shown living next door or within five or six doors of other Shattockes, so they may have been near relatives. So the number of Shattock families in Somerset and in villages in nearby Devon might have been somewhere between 30 and 35 families. 

When you include the Parrish / Byars among the descendants of Y16884, our common ancestor in the 14th century, you have six branches of the Shattocke family that have descendants living today. And each of those six branches goes all the way back to the 14th century ancestor. I have written a rather lengthy analysis of this anomaly. Basically it comes down to this: it is most likely that the plague played a role in reducing the fertility of the family from the middle of the 14th century to the middle of the 15th century. And because there was no SNP mutation in several ensuing descendants of Y16884, his is the only shared SNP found by the Big Y test. 

Fifty-seven Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars have DNA tested and fall into the six branches. The sampling has been done with Shattockes and our genetic cousins throughout the world. All 57 Shattockes have the 14th century Shattocke ancestor Y16884 as their common ancestor. There are no ancestors of Y16884 that have appeared in what is a pretty good sampling of the population. This is additional support for the theory that we descend from a German speaking immigrant to England circa 1350. 

The tenants list for the Manor of Taunton Deane seems to show that there was only one Shattocke family by 1500 in the area. But tenants lists for other manors in Somerset apparently do not exist. Is it possible that the Thomas Shattocke on the Taunton tenant's list had other male children that dispersed to other areas of Somerset and as far afield as North Molton in Devon? The 16th century parish records are somewhat unreliable. Parish records were not mandated until 1538 and some parishes did not comply until late into the 16th century. Records have become lost or are illegible. This is a list of villages that had Shattocke families and the date when the first child in the family was baptized or another type of record like a tax record or will indicated the presence of a family.
  • Tolland 1525 - 1
  • Taunton 1533 - 1
  • North Molton 1542 - 1
  • Milverton 1549 - 1
  • Stogumber 1560 - 2
  • West Bagborough 1560 - 1
  • Fitzhead 1576 - 1
  • Cannington 1577 - 1
  • Wivelescombe 1582 - 1
  • Wedmore 1584 -  1
  • Crowcombe 1595 - 1
  • Bishop's Lydeard 1599-1
The evidence shows few Shattocke families in Somerset in the early 16th century, though we cannot dismiss entirely the idea that missing records may be the main culprit. It is difficult to tell if Thomas Shattocke from the Tenant's list of 1450 was the founder of all subsequent Shattock branches. 

What we do know is STR DNA results for those six branches of the family. They do not appear to share any signature markers suggesting the branches diverged earlier than the late 15th century. We know that the founder of the Massachusetts Shattucks, William Shattuck (ca. 1622-1672) was born in Somerset before his pilgrimage to the Massachusetts Bay colony. Bob Shattock, who belongs to the Australian branch of the Southwark - London Shattocks, shares the SNP mutation with the Shattucks of America, indicating a common ancestor with them. He shares only a few signature STR markers with his distant relatives. So his common ancestor with the Shattucks must have lived early in the 16th century, or possibly the 15th century. One result suggests 1540. Because Bob and the Massachusetts Shattucks share no signature STR markers with any other branch of the Shattocke family and his common ancestor is Y16884 in the 14th century, it is possible the Massachusetts and Southwark London Shattockes split off from the family before Thomas Shattocke who is on the 1450 Manor of Taunton tenants list.

As a passing note, Bob Shattock's extended STR markers are additional, and perhaps final, proof that the South Carolina Shattucks are descended from William Shattuck (ca. 1622-1672) the founder of Shattucks in America. The South Carolina Shattucks have the Massachusetts Shattuck signature markers that Bob's Australian Shattocks lack. Take a look at the currently uploaded family spreadsheet, which has been revised with Bob's extended STR results. 

All the other branches of the family appear to be similarly divergent, sharing no signature STR markers among them. I think the plague probably wiped out the missing links between the branches of the Shattocke family, although it is possible that a descendant will be tested in the future that supplies one or more missing links. 

June 12, 2017

One of the results of my recent trip to England and the genealogical trail I followed there, was the discovery of the little village of Stogumber in the upper Tone Valley of west Somerset. It had a very big role to play in early Shattock history. Today you have to drive deep into the country down narrow roads to reach it, but in the 16th and 17th century it was on the road between the major towns of Bridgwater and Barnstaple and between Minehead and Taunton. It was at a commerce crossroads. There were streams and mills at Stogumber that kept its citizens busy. It was also a major player in the wool trade when wool was the economic engine of the west country, enriching its citizens. Today it is a sleepy little hamlet off the beaten track. But back in the 16th and 17th century it was square on the economic super highway.

St. Mary's Church in Stogumber

The magnificent St. Mary's Church testifies to the wealth of its citizens in its size and rich furnishings. What I discovered was that this was perhaps the most populous Shattocke village in the early 17th century and continued to support a number of multi-generational Shattock families until the wool trade declined in the 18th century. 

Stogumber is close to Tolland where the Wolcotts, major exporters and importers of wool products, ran their business. It is closer to Tolland then West Bagborough, which I have long identified as a possible launching point for Shattock emigration to the Massachusetts Bay colony. Stogumber is 3 miles to Tolland versus West Bagborough, which is 4 miles. Like West Bagborough, Stogumber is a very old Shattock village with a Shattock family appearing in the parish records within a year of the first parish record in 1559. There is also some evidence of a familial relationship between Stogumber Shattocks and Staplegrove Shattocks. This old document which my cousin John Shattock dug out of the archives at the South West Heritage Centre shows that Shattocks were land owners in the area as early as the late 16th century.

Admissions to the manor of Vexford. 1578-1595 ...35/15/1           Copyhold admission. Land and tenement in Vexford. 1 Margaret Luttrell widow 2 John Shattock and Christopher son of Henry Shattock, brother of said John. Autograph: Luttrell. Seal: ?lion’s... LUTTRELL FAMILY OF DUNSTER MANUSCRIPTS   Box 35.  (South West Heritage Centre)

Vexford was in the the parish of Stogumber.

When I stopped in the local pub in Stogumber on my genealogical trip through west Somerset, the pub owner seemed somewhat surprised to find a tourist in his pub. When I told him Shattocks used to be land owners in the area he was eager to know that details so that he could pass the information on to his local customers.

But what is particularly fascinating about the above document is the names on the land purchase. The names Henry Shattock, John Shattock and Christopher Shattock are associated with Staplegrove Shattocks. Henry and Christopher are names not found in the Stogumber parish records at this time. In fact there is a will of Christopher Shattock that was probated in Stogumber in 1619, but there is otherwise no record of a Henry Shattock family in Stogumber, nor a Christopher Shattock family. This leads me to suspect that the Staplegrove Shattocks had business interests in Stogumber. 

On the English Heritage page, I explore another link between the Staplegrove Shattocks and the upper Tone Valley Shattocks. It comes in the form of a will by a Johane Shottocke in 1533. She was buried in the churchyard in Bicknoller, a village not far from Stogumber. She may have been the wife of a Staplegrove Shattock. 

This view of Stogumber from the west shows how small the village is today. 

It is the wool trade that weaves Tolland, West Bagborough, Stogumber and another nearby village, Crowcombe, together. I call them the Upper Tone Valley Shattock villages in order to distinguish them from the major Shattock villages of Staplegrove and Milverton and the villages nearby them. Certainly the prevalence of certain Christian names in each of these areas justifies such a classification. But it is the emerging DNA results from descendants that perhaps confirm this. The Milverton area Shattocks (including Wellington Shattocks and Virgina Shattocks) belong to a branch of the Shattocke family, as do the Staplegrove Shattocks. 

The Massachusetts Shattucks, along with the Southwark London Shattocks belong to a different branch of the family according to DNA results. Given the new information about the Stogumber Shattocks, I have decided to rename this branch of the family the Upper Tone Valley Shattocks. 

This is all leading up to a interesting discovery I made when I began focusing on the village of Stogumber as a possible home village for William Shattuck (1622-1672), the founder of Shattucks in America, who emigrated to the Massachusetts Bay colony sometime around 1640. There is no record of his passage to the pilgrim colony on a ship's list. We cannot assume he even traveled with the widow Damaris Shattock or the other emigrant Samuel Shattock. I have been trying to find a birth record for him in West Bagborough, where several generations of William Shattocks are in the records around 1640. Dea Wallis dug out the will for one candidate, a William Shattock the second who left a will in 1637. But her excellent transcription of the items he bequeathed showed he was a farmer, not a weaver, which makes him less likely as William of Watertown's father because William was a weaver. (See the will and Dea's transcription. In its probate inventory list you get a glimpse of life in West Bagborough four centuries ago.) But what eliminated him was the fact he was married in 1626 and had a son William in 1627, too young to be William of Watertown. 

When I turned to Stogumber, with is rich heritage in the wool trade I came across a very interesting baptism. 

Here is what I have added to the page devoted to identifying the ancestral home of the Shattucks:

Candidate Birth for William Shattuck in Somerset

William Shattuck of Watertown's precise age is not known but the best guess is that he was born about 1622 in Somerset. 

The parish records of Stogumber yield up a possible candidate: William Shattock baptized March 16, 1623. 

John Shattock 

                William Shattock Mar 16 1623
                Philip Shattock Mar 2 1624
                John Shattock (Johan) Mar 18 1626
                Ann Shattock Jan 18 1627
                George Shattock Nov 16 1628
                Richard Shattock Jun 14 1629
                Marie Shattock May 22 1631

His father was named John Shattock, birth date unknown and wife's name unknown. William of Watertown named his first male child John. He also had a brother named John. William of Watertown named his second child Philip. William of Stogumber had a brother named Philip. The name "Philip" is significant because the Philip Shattock born in Stogumber in 1624 is the only Philip Shattock found there in all the time Shattocks lived there. In all of west Somerset, the only other Philip at this time is one appearing on a Subsidy Roll in 1624 in Taunton. Furthermore, Philip is a name more common in Devon than in Somerset.

If William Shattock born 1623 in Stogumber is the same as William Shattock who immigrated to the Massachusetts Bay colony, why is there no evidence of the rest of the family in Massachusetts? Did he undergo a conversion to the Puritan religion and leave his family behind? But he would have been in his late teens when he emigrated. Did he become a servant to another family immigrating to the Puritan colony? Did he go over to the new land with relatives, that is his "cousin" Samuel and "aunt" Damaris and an uncle who died on the way or in the new colony? Did his entire Stogumber family emigrate but succumbed to disease in the trip over and after landing?

Despite these caveats, we must consider this William of Stogumber to be a strong possibility. He was a weaver who must have learned his trade from his father. And John Shattock of Stogumber was living in a wool village. 

The other factor that makes this a strong possibility is that villages in Somerset can be identified by the common Christian names that you find in their parish records. William is a rare name in Staplegrove and Milverton Shattocke families at this time. The name is quite common in the cluster of Shattock villages further up the Tone Valley, in Stogumber, West Bagborough and Tolland. The first marriage we find in the Stogumber parish records is the marriage of William "Shaddock" to Alice Lewse in Stogumber May 7, 1560. They have a child William, born Aug. 27, 1565. There is a second William born Dec. 26, 1578, but it is not clear who the parents of this William was since their names are not entered into the record. John Shattocke is born April 7, 1577. There is a second John Shattock born Apr. 14, 1595. Were these the father and grandfather of William Shattock? A John Shattock died Jan. 6 in 1561 or 1562 and another who died May 16, 1695. One of these is more likely to be the grandfather. 

Curiously, William and John are very common Christian names in the North Molton registers at this time. However, DNA testing so far has not detected a connection between the upper Tone Valley Shattocks and the North Molton Shattickes. If there were a shared ancestor, it would probably be in the 15th century.

The fact William of Watertown named his his second child Philip might be significant. William, born in Stogumber in 1623, had a younger brother named Philip born the next year. Was William of Watertown pining for his family back in England? There are no other Philips recorded in the Stogumber parish records for the entire period Shattocks lived in the village, up to the late 18th century. And there is only one other record of a Philip Shattock, on a Subsidy Roll tax list for 1641-1642 in Taunton. It is possible this is the same Philip Shattock as William's brother. 

What of William of Watertown's other children? The next son was named William, presumably after himself, although it could have been his grandfather if his grandfather was named William. Then two biblical names follow, Benjamin and Samuel. Perhaps this reflects William's intensified religious beliefs. 

A plausible scenario is that William Shattock, born in 1623, was an apprentice to a weaver in Stogumber, possibly as an indentured servant. When that weaver emigrated both as a business venture and a pilgrimage to the English colony on the Massachusetts Bay, William went along with him. Perhaps he was offered terms where he served for a few years in the colony and was promised a grant of land as his reward for undertaking the venture. When the term of his contract ended, he was granted land in Watertown, where he continued to ply his trade as a weaver and farm. In the loneliness of his adopted land, he named his first three children after the loved ones he left behind. Contracts in which servants were granted land in exchange for years of service were quite common in the English colonies in their early years.

Stogumber as the birth place of William Shattock of Watertown is the strongest possibility to date. 

If you want to read a complete case for the upper River Tone valley as the origin point of the Massachusetts and Southwark London Shattocks, read this page: the Ancestral Homeland in England of the American Shattucks.

June 9, 2017

Last week Deanna Wallis went on a hunt to South West Heritage Centre in Norton Fitzwarren, a suburb of Taunton, west Somerset. She was tracking down an obscure reference to a Thomas Shattocke who purportedly appeared in a list of tenants for the Manor of Taunton Deane in the year 1450. (The Western Antiquary, Volume 4, edited by William Henry Kearley Wright, June 1884 – May 1885)

Document DD\SP/317,318 is an old record of tenants in the Manor of Taunton Deane, the old administrative district in Taunton and the surrounding area. She not only found his name in the the old, fragile document, but she was able to harvest a huge list of Shattocke tenants up to 1664.

Deanna found the oldest record of the Shattocke name ever to be discovered: 1450, five hundred and sixty seven years ago. And it appears he was the first Shattocke to live in the area. He is listed as a tenant in Bishop's Hull, just a mile and a half from Taunton, in 1450. Then Thomas Shattocke is listed as a tenant in Nailsbourne, just six miles from Bishop's Hull, in 1459. Then in 1470 Thomas Shattocke is listed as a tenant in Staplegrove, just a mile south of Nailsbourne, now a suburb of Taunton. In 1483 Thomas Shattocke appears again in the list for Staplegrove, along with a second Thomas Shattocke, presumably his son.  A Joanna Shattocke appears in Bishop's Hull's list of tenants in 1506,  who I think might be his wife. And Alice Shattocke shows up in the Staplegrove list of tenants in 1491, either his daughter or his son John's wife. There are no other Shattockes listed in Taunton, Staplegrove or the surrounding area in the 15th century or in the first decades of the 16th century. 

What is so useful about Deanna's find is that the list of names in the document help stitch together a paper trail of Staplegrove ancestors. For the Staplegrove Shattocks, the 1533 will of John Shattock of Staplegrove is a cornerstone because it mentions the Staplegrove church, gives us an idea of his trade (merchant) and lists his children and wife. He may even have had his name inscribed on the floor of the church, now lost. The names in the will match up with the names on the tenants list, including John's wife Alice, suggesting that Thomas Shattocke of Bishop's Hull 1450 was the father of John Shattock of Staplegrove.

chyd. of Peter and Paul in Taunton—Wells iiijd—d. Elsabeth xx nobbles—my son John all my yer [gear] in my shoppe as well as v [£] worth—Thomas my son vjd  xiijs  iiijd other he to have the mansion other [or] tenement the wh. I dyd dwell in—Jone my d. xls—hye crosse in the ch. of Stapulgrowe xxd—sepulker of the same ch. Xx d—Sir John Hykelege xijd—John Gune viijd.

Res.—Alice my wyff.
Overseer.—John Sauser.
Witn.—Thos. Smyth, Thos. Gymmose.
Prob. in eccl. Cath. Well., 29 Dec. 1533.

"Thomas Shattock," probably the son of John Shattock, named after his grandfather, is one of the first names to appear in the Taunton parish record, recording his burial April 18, 1559. 

Is Thomas Shattocke of Bishop's Hull the founder of the Shattocke family? By the beginning of parish records in 1538 there were a number of multi-generational Shattocke families in villages in west Somerset and in the village of North Molton in Devon, on the border between Devon and Somerset. So it seems unlikely Thomas Shattocke was the original founder. But if we assume he was about 30 years old in 1450, then he was probably the son, grandson or great grandson of the founder who lived in the 14th century. He may have heard tales of the founder of Shattockes in England.  

You can see how the list Deanna gathered complements the other information I have dug out of old documents and parish records in the Taunton - Staplegrove - Norton Fitzwarren section of my word document

I have other information on the way that is going to help weave all this information together. Deanna's list is especially valuable because it pushes our common history back by almost 100 years, deep into medieval England and it links to the names of Shattockes already found in other records.

One thing that crosses my mind is the that if there was only one Shattocke in the Taunton Deane area of west somerset during the 15th century, maybe that strengthens the case for an origin of the Shattockes in North Molton, Devon?

I have rewritten the Origins page of this site. The story of our family is evolving as I uncover the evidence bit by bit. The old etymologists believed that Shattocke was a west Germanic name, which would mean we were immigrants from a west Germanic speaking people in the 14th or 15th century. But a contemporary source, Dr. Peter McClure, chief etymologist at the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names, thinks "Shattocke" could be either west Germanic or old English. I sent the new information to him to see if the evidence pushes his expert opinion in one direction or another. I will let you know what he says. 

Jun 1, 2017

Carole Wray's uncle Leslie Shattock had his Big Y results come in and I sent them off to Alex Williamson to see where he would place him in his human family tree. (http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=957&star=false). This screen grab from Alex's tree shows where Leslie was placed:

Carole Wray had worked out that she was a Staplegrove descendant. In fact, Leslie has the Y29590 mutation that belongs to a branch of the Shattock family that up to now has had no documented connection to the Staplegrove Shattocks. Interesting to note is that the Y29590 Shattocks are found in villages a little to the west and south of Staplegrove, Wellington and Milverton.

The sub-branches that share the Y29590 mutation are the Virginia Shaddocks (Peter Shaddock, Thomas Shaddock and his daughter Jennifer Shaddock Dixon), the Wellington - Australian Shattocks (Mick Shattock) and the Milverton - New Zealand Shattocks (Terry Shattock). Ken Shattock, whose great grandfather in his famous letter said he was a descendant of the Staplegrove Shattocks, does not share the Y29590 mutation, nor does Mike Shattock or his first cousin John Shattock. 

I have updated the Shattocke family tree (seen at the top of this page) to reflect these new results. You will see that I have given Mike and John the designation Y16884*, which means they are as yet an undefined branch of the Shattocke family because they share no common SNP mutations with the rest of the family branches. John has said about his paper trail: "Mike and I can still trace back to Norton Fitzwarren and 1758 with some certainty but before that it might be Bishops Lydeard and West Bagborough, but still with some connection to Norton Fitzwarren and Staplegrove. " 

Technically I should give Ken Shattock (along with Simon Shattock and Dea Wallis) the same designation (Y16884*) because they are also a branch of the family with no shared mutations with any other branch. However there is a lot of evidence that Ken Shattock is descended from the Staplegrove Shattocks, defined as descendants of Henry Shattocke (1666-1717). 

See the page I devote to the Staplegrove Shattocks

There is also support for Leslie as a descendant of Staplegrove Shattocks. Leslie is descended from Robert Shattock (1767-1842), who married Rachel Ashford (1781-1858). While the paper trail connection between Ken Shattock and Henry Shattocke of Staplegrove is at one point ambiguous, Leslie has an unambiguous connection. So how do we interpret this new Big Y result for Leslie that makes him part of the Y29590 Shattock branch?

First of all the descendants of the Y29590 common ancestor actually share three SNPs in common according to YFull: Y29589, Y29590, and Y29591. That is a lot of SNPs to hold in common and means the lineage separated from all other Shattocks quite long ago. In fact YFull estimates the split from the other branches as about 1600. We'll see how that date is modified when Leslie's BAM file is analysed by YFull. These estimated dates are very tricky to estimate, and it is certainly possible they can be out by 150 years.  

The tantalizing question here is whether the Y29590 branch of the family is in fact a branch of the Staplegrove Shattocks.

Since Ken Shattock and Mike Shattock do not share the three mutant SNPs with the Y29590 Shattocks, the mutations would have to occur after the split from the Staplegrove Shattocks. YFull estimates that date to be 1600, give or take a hundred or so years. So the YFull estimate for the split from the Staplegrove Shattocks (1600) is at odds with the paper trail, which has Carole's ancestor Robert (born in 1767) moving from Staplegrove to Milverton about 1803. It is doubtful that he was the one who had the Y29590 mutation.  

Can we rework the genealogy for the Y29590 descendants to make this work? It looks doubtful at this point because the estimate is that the split occurred in 1600... and the parish records at first glance do not seem to support this scenario.

Against this backdrop is the visit I paid to the Staplegrove church a few weeks ago with my distant Shattock cousins. Under the carpet were revealed three names of the very distant Staplegrove Shattocks: Thomas Shattock, another Thomas Shattock and Henry Shattock. John Shattock is currently deciphering those marks in the effort to reconstruct the genealogy of the Staplegrove Shattocks. 

I was hoping that Leslie's results would confirm the Staplegrove genealogy that I have, along with Dea Wallis and Carole Wray. Instead it has muddied the picture. Fortunately we have another Shattock test underway, we still have YFull's analysis of the results for Leslie coming, and most importantly the forthcoming extended STRs for Mike, Terry and Mick and now Leslie. Perhaps those additional results will show that the Shattocks of Milverton, Wellington and Virginia are in fact Staplegrove descendants, defined as the descendants of individuals memorialized on the floor of the Staplegrove church. Exciting times for West Somerset Shattocks.

May 26, 2017

New results are in. The big news is in the Byars results.

I have updated the family tree with new dates from the lastest YFull tree, and the addition of the new scientific name for the Virginia Shaddocks: Y33021. They are officially a new twig on the human family tree. Congratulations to them. They will have this distinction for the duration of posterity...how ever long that is!

West Somerset Shattocks

Ken Shattock's extended STR values came back from his Big Y test. Extended STRs are extracted from the Big Y BAM file and increase the number of markers available for comparison by threefold. Use the link I provided earlier to download the new updated spreadsheet. If you are on the email list I will include the link in my next email posting.

I think his new markers will be much more meaningful when we get the extended markers for Mike Shattock and Mick Shattock. An initial reaction is that he appears to be genetically distinct from the Milverton / Wellington Shattocks, which you would expect. But is he more closely related to them than the other branches of the Shattockes? We will see.

Frank Byars Big Y Results

Frank Dwight Byars Big Y results are in. They show he has the A8033 SNP mutation. This is definitive proof that the Parrishs and Byars share a common ancestor, although it does not show at this early stage of analysis whether that common ancestor was a Parrish or a Byars. Alex Williamson has placed Frank in the growing list of descendants under A8033*: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=957&star=false. (The asterisk * means the samples have the A8033 mutation but we have not found an SNP that further divides them into sub-branches.) If Alex does not find a new branch defining SNP that is usually, but not always, a sign that YFull, which does a much deeper analysis, will not find one either. In point of fact, this state of affairs is a good indication that the Parrishs and Byars are in fact descended from a single individual who arrived in Virginia sometime early in the 17th century. SNPs mutate on average every 144 years. YFull previously found one (Y19410) that sets apart four descendants in their own branch. Either the five people under A8033* are very closely related or by chance there has been no new SNP mutation among them in the last 400 years. We have a similar situation among the Shattucks. They are descended from a single individual, William Shattuck (c. 1622-1672). It was not for the fact we have excellent genealogies for William's descendants, we would have a hard time defining how the Shattucks have branched over time. 

Tim Byars Y-DNA 67 Results

Tim Byars upgraded to 67 STR markers and the results are in. I have added them to the updated spreadsheet. You will find Tim on line 48. I have the Byars and Parrishs now separated in the spreadsheet.

He is a relatively close match with Walter Ryland Byars, who I have placed right below him. There are only two markers that are different (i.e. they are a genetic distance of 2 from each other). They share a common value for the marker DYS446=12. This marker value is different from all other Parrishs and Byars, so it probably (although it is not certain) means that they share a common ancestor more recent than the common ancestor of all Parrishs/Byars. Certainly a genetic distance of 2 adds weight to this theory.  

Walter Byars' markers are unusual for Parrishs/Byars. We know that Byars share a common ancestor with Parrish from Big Y results that came back for Frank Byars. But what is unusual about Frank and Walter's results is that they have only 12 repeats for the DYS444 marker (DYS444=12). Only 3 of the 32 Parrish/Byars so far tested have 12 repeats, all the others have 13 repeats. All other branches of the Shattocke family have 12 repeats for this marker. The third person with 12 repeats is Chris Simmons, who I have moved right under Walter. Here is the big question: do Tim, Walter and Chris have the legacy value for the marker (12) or did they inherit 13 markers from the Parrish / Byars common ancestor and subsequently lose it (13->12)?

The fact that all the descendants in the other branches of the Shattocke family have only 12 repeats for DYS444 rather suggests that this is a very, very slow moving marker. You would have to argue that the marker is especially volatile for Byars and Parrishs to dismiss the idea that a Byars family were the "first family" of the Byars / Parrish branch of the Shattockes. That seems unlikely. 

What do we make of the fact that there are 3 Byars who are DYS444=12 and 5 Byars who are DYS444=13? The best theory to fit that fact is that the additional repeat came after the original founder, or it happened in one of his sons, grandsons or great grandsons. And it was the subsequent Byars descendant who fathered a new line of Parrish descendants. Remember that early in the Virginia settlements there was a very high attrition rate due to disease and especially among indentured servants, who had abysmal living conditions. So it is possible that children lost their parents and were taken in by other parents and given adopted names. 

There are a lot more Parrishs than Byars among the descendants, but population growth is very uneven. Among Shattockes, 8 out of every 13 descendants is a Shattuck, all descended from a single individual early in the 17th century. 

Something to watch is the movement of the date for A8033. If the addition of Frank's Big Y results to the YFull calculation moves the date by several generations into the past, that might be a good indication that the immigrant to Virginia was a Byars since he would have an ancestor further into the past than all other Parrishs tested so far.   

Chris Simmons, who does not have a paper trail to the past, is looking very much to have a Byars as his most recent common ancestor. That is at least part of his personal mystery solved.

May 21, 2017

Autosomal DNA results have come back for Terry Shattock (New Zealand), Mick Shattock (Australia), Ken Shattock (Staplegrove Shattocks) and Simon Shattock (Exeter, Devon). I included the previous autosomal results for John Shattock (Leicester) in the comparison.

Autosomal DNA is inherited from both parents. I have found it useful for determining relationships since 1800. Before that date there is so much loss of DNA due to dilution, cross-over and chance that shared DNA is undetectable. 

Among all the Shattocks that I compared to see if they inherited shared DNA, only two showed a common ancestor since 1800: Simon Shattock and Ken Shattock. They share 46 centrimorgans of DNA, which means they share a small amount of DNA from their common ancestor. FTDNA estimated they are between 2nd and 4th cousins. Another table of estimating the relationship from the amount of shared DNA made them out to be 3rd cousins. In fact the genealogical paper trail that I worked out for them shows them to have a common ancestor in Thomas Shaddock (1818-). He was Ken and Simon's 2nd great grandfather. In other words, the paper trail makes them 3rd cousins. Simon is actually a descendant of Thomas Shattock's second wife Eliza Cook (1842-1901). 

The fact the Milverton and Wellington Shattocks (Terry and Mick) and John Shattock (who traces his ancestry back to Bishop's Lydeard) do not share any DNA with each other, nor with Simon and Ken, shows that it is highly likely they do not have common ancestors after 1800. Again this is in keeping with the paper trails I have with each of them.  Excellent corroboration!

Simon and Ken's DNA results confirms the correctness of their genealogies down from their common ancestor in Thomas Shattock (1818). It does not offer proof that they are Henry Shattocke (1666-1717) of Staplegrove descendants. But it does rule out the possibilty that Ken Shattock from a totally different branch of the Shattock family than Simon.  All that is required now is Carole's uncle Leslie's results to confirm or rule out Ken and Simon as Staplegrove Shattocks. 

May 16,2017

The new YFull tree is out. It had a disappointment and a surprise. 

The disappointment is that Ken Shattock and Mike Shattock remained exactly where they had been positioned in the tree previously, so Ken's relationship to other Shattocks remains a mystery. Ken has the Y16884 mutation that is common to all Shattockes and Parrishs, but he does not appear to have novel SNPs that would identify him as a new branch of the Shattockes. I am not sure how to interpret this situation. His cousin Leslie Shattock currently has his Big Y test in at the lab, so I expect that when those results come back the mystery will be enlightened. What is clear is that Ken Shattock and Mike Shattock do not show a recent common ancestor. In other words, one is a Staplegrove Shattock and the other isn't. As it stands their common ancestor is Y16884, the common ancestor of all Shattockes and Parrishs. What is interesting is that YFull shows Ken and Leslie to be each other's closest relatives, but since they do not share novel SNPs we have to assume their common ancestor is deep in the past. Very confusing! The next closest relatives to them both Is my North Molton branch of the Shattocke family. So when I spent time with Mike and his 1st cousin John in Somerset last week, I just might have been their next closest relatives after the descendants of the Staplegrove Shattocks. John thinks his descent is from Bishop Lydeard's Shattockes. Bishop Lydeard is just a few miles from Staplegrove. So in this respect it appears that the DNA results are confirming his genealogical research. He may not be able to have Hannah 
Au Lapthorn as a direct maternal ancestor. 

The surprise in the new tree is that YFull has found an SNP that defines the branch of the family I have been calling the Virginia Shaddocks. This is the result of adding Thomas Shaddock (Jenny's father) to the tree. The new branch is Y033021. Peter Shaddock, who is a cousin to Jenny and her father, is the other person in that branch. Their common ancestor is Rev. Mordecai Shaddock (1840-1920). The surprise is that YFull estimates their common ancestor to have lived approximately in 1870. Mordecai would have been about 30. Pretty accurate! It will be an SNP very useful for Virginia Shaddocks because it can act as a test to see if someone is a member of their branch. It is an identifying mutation...

I will have to update the Shattocke tree when I get back and show the new branch. 

April 27, 2017

Yesterday the analysis of Mike Shattock's Big Y test data came back and delivered a surprise. Mike Shattock is very, very distantly related to Ken Shattock of the Staplegrove Shattocks. In fact I have created a new branch of the Shattocke family because Mike is just as distantly related to all other Shattockes as he is to Ken. I have named the new branch the Bishop's Lydeard Shattocks, since his most likely ancestor is found in that village, only six miles (10 km) from Staplegrove. (I have added this branch to the family tree at the top of this page.) This is the third Shattock branch found in an area of only 10 square miles (27 km2). 

What's going on here? Well, first of all west Somerset is the cradle for Shattocks worldwide, so we should expect to find the greatest diversity of Shattocks in this area. Africans are the most genetically diverse population of humans in the world for the same reason. There is a loss of genetic diversity in each succeeding branch of the human family. 

I have recently been studying a tool provided by YFull, the SNP interpretation service. This tool looks at the SNPs detected by Family Tree's Big Y test. (SNPs are a type of mutation found on the male Y chromosome.) One person's list of detected SNPs are compared to another's. The SNPs they have in common must have been inherited from a common ancestor. The more SNPs you hold in common, the more closely you are related. 

The six different branches of the Shattocke family hold 37 SNPs in common. These are SNPs inherited from descendants of our common ancestor Y16884, who you see at the top of the family tree at the top of this page. Why was there exactly 37 SNPs held in common by each of the six branches of the family? And why did all six of the branches of the Shattocke family form between 1465 and 1600, a period of 135 years? What really puzzled me was that there seemed to be six sons of this mysterious descendant of the original founder who formed six new branches. Very, very unlikely! In surname-only studies, there is a tremendous attrition of family branches over time due to disease, all daughter families, childless sons and other factors. 

So I started working on a diagram to see if I could visualize a solution to the problem. It took me some time, but I finally came up with a theory to fit the data. I had suspected all along that the six branches were fragments of a tree structure that the DNA testing could not detect. And that turned out to be the solution to the problem. This solution is a major piece in the puzzle that is the history of the Shattocke family. I have written up the solution and included it as sub-page of the Celtic Origins part of this site

April 25, 2017

Thursday is the last day of the DNA sale. Hurry!

New Addition to the Famous Menu

I've added a story to the Famous menu that was the talk of the town in New York in 1924. It had all the earmarks of a potboiler. Rich banker and the daughter of the mayor. A rogue butler. (The butler did it.) Lifestyles of the rich and famous. Read all about it: AR Shattuck and the Sensational New York Robbery

Clark Shattuck and the Pepperell Shattucks

A new result is in, that of Clark Shattuck, who lives in Oregon, and who is a Shattuck descendant. I have updated the family spreadsheet. It is at its usual location, which I usually include as a link in mailing list postings. (Join the mailing list here.)

Clark is a descendant of the Shattuck pilgrim founder, William Shattuck (1622-1672), through his son John Shattuck (1647-1675). Clark in turn descends from John's son Samuel Shattuck (1672-1758). So he belongs to the branch of the Shattuck family Lemuel the chronicler called the Pepperell Shattucks, after the town they moved to and populated. You can read about the branch on the page I have devoted to it It is the largest single branch of the entire Shattocke family. The family boasts many distinguished members. 

This makes Clark's DNA profile very important because he is the only member of the Samuel Shattuck branch to be tested so far. You can find him in the Pepperell Genealogy by doing a search on the page devoted to the family for "Clark Waldo Shattuck Jr.," Clark's father. His mother Violet is still alive at the great age of 99!

Clark only tested to the YDNA 37 level, but the fact he has the Y-GATA-H4=12 marker clearly identifies him as a direct descendant of John Shattuck (1647-1765). In fact his results show that this marker must have been inherited by all of John Shattuck's sons. And since other descendants of William Shattuck the pilgrim founder do not have this non-modal form of the Y-GATA-H4 marker, we now know that the mutation must have occurred in John. Little did John know he was passing on a genetic marker that would be a kind of dog tag for all his descendants. It will now make it easy to identify any future Shattucks who show this marker in their results. No other Shattuck or Parrish has it.

Clark has no other non-modal markers, with the exception of the DYS447=24 marker, which is a signature marker for all descendants of William the founder. These are extremely useful markers in the absence of SNP markers, which are the classic tool for dividing a tree into branches.

Clark also has a pretty solid paper trail, as does Arthur Shattuck. Given that there are 5 members of this branch with paper trails that hit roadblocks (Bruce and Donald Hall, Paul Michael Shattuck, Terry Lee Shadduck and Jason Shaddock) this is very useful. But the problem is that the YDNA 37 test just did not return enough information to help us find ancestors for our roadblocked cousins. Clark has just upgraded to the Big Y test, which is really going to help. Because Clark is descended from Samuel, and Arthur is descended from his brother William (1670-1743), his extended STR results should help us eliminate many of the possible ancestors for the roadblocked Shattucks. 

I have updated the family tree at the top of the page to include Clark Shattuck in it. 

The Staplegrove Mystery

I am still very puzzled by the separation of Mike Shattock and Ken Shattock in the recent YFull Tree. In the end it may be just a boondoggle, an artifact of of incomplete processing. But the fact YFull could not definitively place Ken with Mike in the same sub-branch is mysterious. Fortunately Carole Wray has just upgraded her uncle Leslie to a Big Y test. If it turns out that Mike and Ken do belong to different branches of the Shattocke tree, then Leslie's results are going to tell us who is the outlier. Leslie will match one or the other. Since she has the solid paper trail all the way up to Henry, we will know that whoever Leslie matches is a descendant of Henry and the other is not. Then again, it could be all three are descendants of Henry. In that case we'll have good data for verifying the various paper trails. And we might even get an estimated date for a common ancestor that will push us back to the 15th century, organizing the family tree in a new way. Thank you Carole for upgrading. The data from Leslie's test will become a valuable legacy for future Shattocke genealogists. You may be investing in the past, but studies show family trees lose diversity as branches die out. So you are actually preserving the family's history written into the genes. Thanks to all the Shattockes and Parrishs who have provided sample DNA or invested in testing other people. We are leaving a very rich history of our family for future generations.

April 19, 2017

Just as I was proofreading this entry an email came with some amazing prices on DNA tests at FTDNA. Prices effective from April 20 to April 27.

In particular the Big Y upgrade is only $425, a big discount from the normal price of $575. To purchase the Big Y test, enter your FTDNA account and find the upgrade link at the top of your home page.

For those testing for the first time, or who want to supplement their YDNA test with a Family Finder (autosomal test) here are the other prices.

Family Finder marked down from $79 to $59.

Y37      $169 on sale for $129
Y67      $268                     $209
Y111    $359                     $289

These are great prices. www.familytreedna.com

New Spreadsheet

In the interest of squeezing the last bit of information out of the DNA data that has come back from tests, I have a new version of the Shattocke - Parrish spreadsheet out. 

The updated spreadsheet is at its usual link. Write me if you have lost or forgotten the link.

I realize that adding information to the spreadsheet makes it look more formidable. But hopefully I am creating a document that will be as valuable to our descendants as annotated bibles have been for genealogists in the past. And as useful as Lemuel Shattuck's book has been to Massachusetts Shattucks.

I took away some information that is outdated and fairly useless. Added are the ancestral values for markers in the format x -> y where x and y are marker values. This allows you to figure out when a marker was likely to be inherited. In this case "x" is the ancestral value and "y" is the value returned by the test.

In this example from the new spreadsheet, Stephen Parrish and John Mangan share two unique markers DYR159=14 on the left and DYR164=23 on the right. The ancestral value for DYR159 is 15. For DYR164 it is 24. So we know that the STR lost a repeat for each of these markers. And the loss of the marker happened recently, i.e. in the last 400 years because the other Parrishs and Shattockes are showing a value of "15" for DYR159 and "24" for DYR164.

At the top of each column in the spreadsheet are 2 to 5 asterisks (*****) that indicate how fast the marker mutates. ** is the fastest, ***** is the slowest. This is useful when you are trying to decide how fast a marker has historically mutated. In this case the markers mutated rapidly so we can expect them to change from one value to another within genealogical time (the last five hundred years). This makes them more useful for finding recent tree branching, but less reliable as we go back in time because they can change value up or down repeatedly. In fact, although the markers appear to be telling us John Mangan (a Parrish NPE) shares a recent common ancestor with Stephen Parrish, we should use corroborative evidence to make this assertion. That means looking at other markers. You will see that John Mangan and Stephen Parrish also have a common marker in DRY88.2=19?. The question mark beside the marker value (19?) means that the data is uncertain. They also share another unique marker, DYS576=18. So the evidence is tipped in favor of a close genetic match between Stephen and John. How close? I won't really know that until the extended results for RW Parrish and Frank Dwight Byars come in the next few months. The rule is the more people you compare, the more certainty and accuracy. As a wild guess I would say John and Steven have a common ancestor between 2 and 4 generations apart. 

I expect to make adjustments to the Parrish - Byars Family Tree when RW Parrish and Frank Dwight Byars extended results come back.

Massachusetts Shattucks

One of the things that happened when I updated the spreadsheet is that I found a few minor errors in the extended STRs. I have to enter the values for the extended STRs manually so it is easy for very occasional errors to slip in. So I have been checking my work again to catch the remaining errors. However I apparently made a whole bunch of errors for Arthur Shattock's extended STRs. In correcting them, I cleared up an old mystery. I had noticed earlier that he did not seem to match with other Shattucks very well. Now he does. This was an important fix because his nearest matches are in a sub-branch of the Massachusetts and they all have genealogical paper trails that fade out around 1800 and earlier. He has the only solid paper trail so it was important that I got him right.

The Massachusetts Shattucks are peculiar because they generally have excellent paper trails but SNPs appear to be infrequent in their Shattocke branch. I am going to summarize the situation by listing what we know about them. 

1. The Massachusetts Shattucks have the Y19751 SNP mutation. They also have 7 signature markers (shown in green in the spreadsheet) that also set them apart from other branches of the Shattockes and Parrishs. Because there are so few SNPs among them, the signature markers are very important for dividing them into branches. It is also a stroke of luck that Lemuel Shattuck published such an excellent and thorough genealogy of the Shattucks up to 1855. Without that we would be lost because for some reason not many Shattucks have joined our research compared to the population out there.

Recently a direct descendant of the Somerset Shattocks, Bob Shattock, showed up as having the Y19751 mutations. This means he shares a common ancestor with the Massachusetts Shattucks. The ancestor is estimated by the YFull algorithm to have lived around 1540 AD. In other words, the Y19751 mutation occurred in an ancestor of the Massachusetts Shattuck's founder (William Shattuck 1622-1742).

Bob Shattock only has 37 STR markers returned so far. Sometime in the next several months all four hundred of his STR markers are going to come back from his Big Y test. That is going to tell us which signature markers were inherited from the Somerset ancestor and which are particular to the Massachusetts Shattucks. That is going to be very useful. 

However I can make a prediction. Bob has one of the seven markers (DYS447), but it does not have the same value as the Massachusetts Shattucks (25 instead of 24). That makes me fairly confident that all the Shattucks in the spreadsheet are descended from William Shattuck the founder. Among the Shattucks we have tested they are all descended from William Shattuck (ca. 1622-1672), just as Lemuel Shattuck predicted. What signature markers will Bob share with Massachusetts Shattucks, if any? We will have to wait to see what the extended STRs look like...and see if the date of the common ancestor (1540) is accurate.

2. Arthur Shattuck is descended from William the founder's son, John Shattuck (1647-1675). The DNA results confirm this. There are three signature markers shared by John Shattuck's descendants: Y-GATAH4=12, DYS627=28, and DYS695=32. They are not found in other Massachusetts Shattucks. These three markers and their values are found in Arthur Shattuck, Bruce Hall, Paul Michael Shattuck, Terry Lee Shadduck, and Jason Shaddock. The question is which ancestor or ancestors did these markers first make their appearance in? Hopefully an outstanding test result for a Shattuck in a nearby branch will bring more clarity to the branching. 

3. Terry Lee Shadduck, Jason Shaddock and Paul Michael Shattuck have the Y24059 SNP mutation. That sets them apart from Bruce Hall and Arthur Shattuck. They all have paper trails that hit a brick wall in the early 19th century. I can find no STR markers they share in common. That implies they are each descended from separate branches. I am hoping the additional Shattuck test will narrow the common ancestor down to a specific date and place. That will go a long way to overcoming the roadblocks in their paper trails.

Staplegrove Shattocks

YFull added Mike Shattock, who I think is a Staplegrove Shattock, to their YTree. 

Mike is shown as YF09344 "new". He is shown as NOT belonging to any the existing Shattocke branches, which is what I expected. What I did not expect is that YFull did NOT put Mike with Ken Shattock, who lies at the root of the tree YF08357. When I asked YFull why not, they replied that Ken was sitting temporarily at  the root of the tree. In other words they cannot figure out where to put him. Is he even a descendant of Y16884, the common ancestor of all Shattockes and Parrishs? Mike is certainly a descendant, although he apparently is in his own branch. But there is a question mark beside Ken. 

Mike and Ken are supposed to share a common Staplegrove Shattock in John Shattuck in 1759. So this result throws a wrench into that theory. But it may simply be a matter of poor data. YFull has not done a deep enough analysis to come up with a correct assessment. It may turn out to be a boondoggle. Or maybe not. We should get an answer in about a month's time. Meanwhile, let's imagine that the Staplegrove Shattocks are direct descendants of Y16884 or maybe even an ancestor who lived previously to Y16884. Is that what is screwing up the tree? Time will tell. Meanwhile me and some Staplegrove Shattocks are going to invade the church in Staplegrove. Hopefully the rector, who is going to open the door will let us peek under the rug in the north aisle. If the family story that there is an inscription there that dates back to the 14th century turns out to be true then that would be a amazing confirmation of the origins of the Shattocke - Parrish family. We would know that our ancestor was a Shattocke who was a member of that church in the 14th century. Daddy to us all.

April 11, 2017
A significant DNA result came back. Carole (Shattock) Wray, who is a Staplegrove Shattock, got her uncle Leslie Graham Shattock (born 1931 in Birmingham) to do a YDNA test. The results came through yesterday and it confirms that he is a Shattock.

But something even bigger has the weight of new evidence. If you look at the new Staplegrove Shattock tree (shown on the Staplegrove page), you will see that Carole and Leslie are descended from Robert Shattock (1767-1842). So the DNA result for Leslie not only confirms he is a Shattock, but confirms the paper trail Carole has worked out to Henry Shattocke (1666-1717). Her paper trail is pretty solid and confirmed by the work of others, including myself. Her grandfather James Shattock (1890-1948) is shown in the picture attached. He and his son (Carole's father) Walter John Shattock would have been very excited at this news.

Mike Shattock, who is also a Staplegrove Shattock descendant, has his Big Y test back. Alex Williamson has done an analysis and placed him in his YTree. I wrote yesterday about Ken Shattock's placement at the base of the tree, unrelated to all other Shattock branches. Well, he has a new cousin to share that spot: Mike. You see them both on the far right of the YTree (567117 is Ken and 577545 is Mike). http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=957&star=false

What does this mean? The fact they do not show any shared SNPs (unlike the other branches which show 5 or 6) is probably due to the fact that Mike and Ken share a common ancestor in John Shattock born in 1759. There have been no shared SNP mutations since then. But you would still expect them to share SNP mutations before 1759. In fact, unlike the other branches they show no shared SNPs mutations in the same 500 period as the other branches. SNP mutations should occur every 144 years. So there should have been four SNP mutations.
Is this Lady Luck playing games with us? Perhaps. What do you think?

There is an ace up our collective sleeve. I am visiting the Staplegrove church in Staplegrove next month. There is a family story that there is an inscription under the rug in the north aisle of the church that has a Shattocke inscription that goes back to the 14th century. If that turns out to be true, then we will know that the first Shattocks of all the Shattocks and Parrishs / Byars in the world were born in Staplegrove. (DNA tests show our common ancestor lived early in the 14th century). What if that inscription is not there? We'll keep looking.

April 9, 2017

The new human family tree (version 5.03) is out from YFull. See it at https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y16884/ and the updated Shattocke tree above.

A new branch of the tree was declared, the result of adding Mick Shattock's results to the tree. You see it as a branch coming off the Y29590 (Milverton Area) Shattocks as Y32082. YFull has given the estimated date of the common ancestor between Mick and Terry as 1645. I think I am going to have to examine the work I did for the Wellington Shattocks (Mick Shattock) and Milverton Shattocks (Terry Shattock). Right now I do no show them sharing a common ancestor so recently. 

I cannot be absolutely certain that the Virginia Shattocks come from the Milverton area, but the fact Peter is in the same branch as Terry and Mick, whose ancestors do come from the area suggests the Peter's ancestors do as well. All three share a common ancestor in 1565. Again this is an approximate date. Peter's cousin Thomas Shaddock has recently got his Big Y results back, which will hopefully give that date more accuracy. And Peter's uncle has also had an advanced YDNA test. 

Jennifer Shaddock of the Virginia Shaddock apparently is aware of a letter that makes her most distant ancestor in Virginia an indentured servant working on a plantation of the Bransom family in the late 18th century Virginia. If that family story turns out to be true, it would be a major break through in the story of how and when the Shaddocks came to Virginia. Right now what the DNA results are telling us is that the Virginia Shattocks were not immediate family with the Milverton or Wellington Shattocks, but they were their closest relatives, perhaps 2 or 3 generations apart. Or perhaps the family story is wrong and the Virginia Shattocks arrived in America closer to the date when the colony was formed in the early 17th century. A lot is riding on that letter Jennifer is going to try to find.

Back in the early days of photography, that is before digital photography, you would go into the darkroom, expose photographic paper with light shone through a negative and bath the paper in chemicals. Slowly the image would ghost in. That is what if feels like combining genealogical research with DNA mutational analysis. Each time a DNA result is added to the tree the picture of the family tree becomes a little more discernible. If you look at the revised dates on the new tree above you will see that is slowly happening. 

The common ancestor of all Shattockes has stabilized around 1315 AD. The dates of each of the four or five main branches of the family have shifted somewhat. 

Adding Bob Shattock, a descendant of the Southwark London Shattocks, to the tree has given us an estimated date for his common ancestor with the Massachusetts Shattucks. It is 1540. That is looking pretty solid because we know the date for the common ancestors of the Massachusetts Shattucks. It is the birth date for William Shattuck, the pilgrim father: ca. 1622. William Shattuck had a grandfather or great grandfather that was also Bob Shattuck's direct ancestor. 

The estimated date among the Massachusetts Shattocks that sticks out like a sore thumb is the one for the formation of the Y24069 branch (Terry Lee Shadduck, Paul Michael Shattuck, and Jason Shaddock). It is 1540. The assumption has been that they are descended from a Shattuck who lived sometime in the first part of the 18th century. So what are they doing with a shared common ancestor back in 1540? Could the algorithm for calculating the age of branches be that far off the mark: about 200 years? It is possible, although the likelihood is small. I have a test underway with another descendant of a nearby branch. Knotty little problem. Hope it gets solved because it is driving me crazy. I think I will start calling them the "enigmatic three," because their results are so puzzling. They all have paper trails that it brick walls around 1800. But that only adds noise to the problem.

It is going to be very interesting when Bob's extended STR results come back. If he shows common STR mutations with the Massachusetts Shattucks then that just might build a case for the considering the enigmatic three as more recent immigrant to America and unrelated to descendants of William Shattuck (1622-1672) the pilgrim founder. However I do not give that theory much of a chance surviving. It is easy to go blind when you become convinced your theory is the only correct theory. 

The Virginia Parrishs have stabilized around the date of 1600, which coincides with the founding of the Virginia colony. Their common ancestor lived about 1600 but the tree shows the next common ancestor after that is Y16884. At this point I am wondering if Y16884 in fact had a surname. Perhaps the Parrish immigrants to Virginia in 1600 just assumed a different surname when surnames first began to be used. The argument against that is that no Y16884 descendants with the name "Parrish" have been discovered in England. They are all found initially in Virginia. Right now we have a Big Y test going for a Byars, who are genetically closely related to Parrishs. Will the result of that test push the common ancestor date back to England? Or were Byars a Parrish NPE. This is the power of DNA as a genealogical tool. 

It appears the North Molton Shattockes (the branch I belong to) have the oldest common ancestor. He lived about 1465. This was suggested by earlier results and seems to be stabilizing around that date.  The fact that North Molton has the earliest common ancestor keeps propping up the theory that North Molton is the place where Shattockes first landed as immigrants to England. I have read some research recently that points out something I know anecdotally to be true about Vancouver. Immigrants tend to settle in cities rather than rural locations when they first arrive because that is where the opportunities are and they tend to join family members that arrived previously. Medieval and early modern English towns had significant foreign immigrant populations. It is possible the woolen industry or mining first drew Shattocke immigrants to North Molton and they spread across to Somerset subsequently. Perhaps they also spread into North Devon but the plague wiped out their presence there before parish records began to be kept. However  the fact there were three or four large families in Somerset at the beginning of parish records in 1538 suggests a locus there. Or does it? I still favor the theory that Staplegrove or Taunton is the original landing place for Shattockes in England.

The surprise is that all the North Molton sub-branches seem to have formed about the same time. If you look at the North Molton branch as a whole, it looks like there were two sons, one who founded the South Molton - Bristol Shaddicks and the other who founded the Yarnscombe / Fremington Shattockes. The question is where the father of those two sons came from: Europe or Somerset?

The major branches of the Shattocke tree also seem to have formed within a 100 year period. What do you make of that? What if they were a family of 2nd or 3rd cousins who emigrated to England rather than a single individual? 

I like to generate new theories because of the danger of falling in love with one theory and then developing a blindness for evidence that contradicts that theory. The new theory I have is that the Shattockes arrived in England later than I previously thought. So the common ancestor of Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars, Y16884, lived and died on the European continent. It was a family group of closely related relatives (within 3 or 4 generations of each other) that emigrated across the English Channel to England. It is a theory, I am not claiming it is a fact. I still favor the theory that a Flemish weaver arrived in Taunton at the invitation of the King in the 1430s.

Are the branches of the family descended from four or five sons of Y16884? It is highly improbable. Medieval studies show that on average only one son survived in each generation at a time when population growth was stagnant. The four or five branches of the Shattocke family had to have descended from one or two sons of Y16884. It was not until the 16th century that the population of England rebounded, and the estimated dates for the branches reflect that. 

The fact that we do have an estimated date of 1315 AD for Y16884 means that there were a minimum of two sons of Y16884 who survived. Otherwise the date of the common ancestor would be much closer to 1500. So the best theory to fit the facts is that Y16884 had two sons whose descendants survived down to the present. 

I keep saying that there are four or five branches. That's because the new YFull tree has placed Ken Shattock, a Staplegrove Shattock descendant, completely outside all the other branches. He appears to be as distant from other branches of the tree as the branches are from each other. He is all by himself. Mike Shattock's Big Y Results are just starting to drip in as I write this. I have him pegged as Ken Shattock's closest relative to be tested. I should know within a week whether that turns out to be true. I still think that the CDY 36-38 STR is the common bond between the Staplegrove Shattocks and the Y29590 Milverton Area Shattocks. But I am waiting for fresh evidence to either support or debunk that theory. It is interesting to consider the Staplegrove Shattocks as being at the very base of he family tree with as yet an unknown relationship to descendants of other branches. Are they descended from one of the two sons of Y16884. Are all the other branches descended from a second son? That is not the case because Ken is only a recent addition to the tree and the tree has shown from the beginning that there were two sons. That beginning includes one North Molton Shattocke (me) and one Parrish descendant. So it is more likely that the Parrishs and Byars are descended from one son and all the Shattockes are descended from the other son.

A lot is going to ride on the extended STR results. Terry's (Milverton Shattock), extended results just came back and they show Peter Shaddock of the Virginia Shattocks to be his closest relative. That was expected because they share the Y29590 SNP. What will be interesting is when we compare him to Mick and then Mike's results. That will help validate or invalidate the role of the CDY 36-38 STR by showing if they have a lot or no STRs in common. 

I have also been updating the spreadsheet. I added  some Byars to the spreadsheet and organized the groups at the bottom of the spreadsheet, called "Different Haplogroup." What I mean by that is they are not descendants of Y16884, but rather of other branches of the human family. Some of them have a version of Shattocke as their surname, but there was obviously an NPE somewhere along the line. This section is useful because we will be able to place new additions to our project in the future with these Shattocke NPEs. I have yet to see a single FTDNA project that is not organized into different haplogroups. Shattockes are in fact unusual in that the vast majority of the people in the project are descendants of a single individual, Y16884. 

If you have previously downloaded the spreadsheet, use the same link to get the new version. I will provide the link to people on the mailing list.

April 8, 2017

Shattocke Places and People

I've added a new section to the web site, where I profile Shattocke places and people I call "Famous" because I needed a very short title on the crowded horizontal menu of the site. See what I have collected so far: http://www.shaddock.ca/famous

Despite the small size of our family, relative to other families, I keep finding Shattocke descendants almost everywhere in the former English colonies. When I found a picture of a Shattuck cowboy in New Mexico I thought he was lost or a vagabond. But he was not any ordinary cowboy, he became a sheriff, then a judge, just like his grandfather Judge D.O. Shattuck, chief justice of the supreme court of California. Read the story of a truly amazing Shattuck, Judge D.O. Shattuck here: http://www.shaddock.ca/family-tree/y19751-west-bagborough-shattocks/shattucks-in-america/william-shattuck-1653-1732/judge-david-alcott-shattuck-of-california Follow that with the story of his son Captain John Shattuck and the Shattuck cowboys of New Mexico: http://www.shaddock.ca/family-tree/y19751-west-bagborough-shattocks/shattucks-in-america/william-shattuck-1653-1732/judge-david-alcott-shattuck-of-california/cowboy-shattucks-at-shattuck-ranch-new-mexico 

I don't care too much for celebrity culture, but I do think it is useful to correct the notion that Shattockes descended from dirt farmers who have never raised themselves off the soil. In fact this entry in the Famous portfolio proves that is not the case: http://www.shaddock.ca/famous/john-shattock-visits-samuel-pepys-diarist I believe the John Shattock in this story may have been a Staplegrove Shattock. In any case what was he doing in Samuel Pepys' office in 1665? What business did he have with the famous diarist and administrator of the Royal Navy? Was he the same John Shattock who academics considers to be one of the twelve architects of the Atlantic economy in the 17th century? Dirt poor farmer he was not.

Oh, talking about celebrity culture, there is the bona fide case of Truly Shattock, vaudeville singer and silent move star. http://www.shaddock.ca/famous/truly-shattuck-vaudeville-star Not as well known to the general public is the pioneering botanist Lydia White Shattuck, who help fund and found a women's college and has a hall on the campus named after her in Jaffery, MA. http://www.shaddock.ca/famous/nancy-shattuck-pioneering-botanist Convinced yet?

The Shattucks founded by Samuel Shattuck (1672-1758), grandson of the pilgrim immigrant William Shattuck (1622-1672), are the most numerous Shattuck "tribe" in the family tree and produced some of the most famous Shattuck descendants like Francis Kitteridge Shattuck (1824-1898) of Shattuck Hotel and Avenue fame in Berkeley; Judge Erasmus Darwin Shattuck (1824-1900) who was a pioneering judge and educator in Portland, Oregon; George Otis Shattuck (1829-1827) who was another famous member of the legal profession, mentor to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Aaron Draper Shattuck (1832-1928) the White Mountain School artist and more! http://www.shaddock.ca/family-tree/y19751-west-bagborough-shattocks/shattucks-in-america/john-shattuck-1647-1672/samuel-shattock-1672-1758-and-the-pepperell-ma-shattucks

I could go on. And I probably will. For example, a famous resort in New Hampshire called the Shattuck Inn in Jaffrey. http://www.shaddock.ca/famous/shattuck-inn-jaffrey-new-hampshire which played host to the New England elite. The Southwark London Shattucks....well you get the picture. Not exactly Millet's "The Gleaners."

March 31, 2017

A second YDNA test of Dennington, Australia Shaddocks has come in. The Dennington Shaddocks are a branch of the Bristol - Birmingham Shaddocks. The other branch of the Birmingham Shaddocks are the Brooklyn, New York Shaddocks

The Y-DNA 37 test was that of Dale Shaddock. Previously Jennifer Smith (nee Shaddock) tested her father Charlie using a Y-DNA 37 test. Charlie and Dale are descended from different sons of the founder of the Dennington Shaddocks, John Shaddock (1807-1878). Dale and Jenny's father Charlie Shaddock are very closely DNA matched. We would expect that, given their common ancestor is their 3rd great grandfather.

There is no matches between Dale's results and those of other Shattockes, Parrishs or Byars. The same is true for Charlie.

We can therefore conclude that Dale, like Charlie, is not descended from the common ancestor of Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars, called Y16884. We tested Charlie's Y chromosome for the presence of the Y16884 SNP, and he did not have it. It is therefore unlikely to be present on Dale's Y chromosome given the close match between Dale and Charlie. 

Since the common ancestor between Charlie and Dale is the founder of the Dennington lineage, John Shaddock (1807-1878), we can safely make the assumption that the Shaddock NPE (non parental event) occurred either in 1807 with his birth or it happened in a previous generation. 

I have updated the spreadsheet with the latest results. (It is at the same link. People on the mailing list receive the link.) You will see that I have assigned Dale and Charlie to the Birmingham family near the bottom of the spreadsheet. Compare their results to other people with the Shattocke surname who do not have the Y16884 mutation.

Charlie and Dale do not match them either, and the FTDNA matching system does not show the other Shattockes as matches. They do not match the Chaddocks who I have in the spreadsheet or Chaddocks in the FTDNA database. 

Previously, on the shaddock.ca page devoted to the Birmingham Shaddocks, I explored the theory advanced by Donald Shaddick that the Birmingham Shaddocks shared a common ancestor with Richard Shaddick of the South Bristol Shaddicks. Charlie and Dale do not match the South Molton Bristol Shaddick's descendant. So that theory is disproved.

It is still possible that the Dennington Shaddocks descended from a Shattocke, but it would be a female Shattocke, not a male Shattocke. There is a large branch of the Shattocke family that descended from a female Shattick who lived in Culmstock, Devon in the early 18th century. I had a descendant tested from that lineage before I knew about the female ancestor and destroyed the results and the sample...how I regret that decision!

The Dale and Charlie results seem to show matches to people with the surname Webb. Indeed I managed to find one of the Webb descendants who they are matched to and put his DNA results into the Birmingham - Dennington group. It looks very much like Dennington Shattocks are descended from a common ancestor with him. He traces his ancestry back to a John Webb b. 1740 in Gloucestershire. That is smack in between Bristol and Manchester. And he appears to have an email address in Manchester university. 

I found this Webb descendant in the Webb FTDNA project, isolated. He appears to be unrelated to other Webb descendants! Dale is going to get in touch with him to see if the can pool information that will throw light on their common origin. 

I have actually not found a single surname project so far that does not show that people from different branches of the human family often share a common surname even though they descend from different distant male ancestors. That is certainly true of the Shattocke project. In fact share a common ancestor with people with different surnames: particularly the large Parrish and Byars branches of the family.  

I should mention that the Brooklyn, New York branch of the Birmingham Shaddocks descend from a different male founder than the Dennington Shaddocks. So we do not know if they share the same ancestor as the Dennington Shaddocks. Technically it is possible they are descended  from the common ancestor of all Shattockes. We would have to test a direct male Brooklyn descendant to determine that.

March 16, 2017

I don't much like analyzing autosomal results because they are so much work for so little benefit and my focus is on family relationships that are out of reach of autosomal testing. But I realize that people who more interested in their recent generations find it useful and informative. 

Using the matrix tool available in the FTDNA Shaddock - Shattuck project, I have created a new spreadsheet of autosomal results for people who have done the Family Finder test at FTDNA or have transferred their Ancestry.com DNA results to FTDNA. You have to be a member of the Shaddock - Shattuck project to have your autosomal results included in the spreadsheet. And of course you have to have purchased either a Anestry.com DNA test and transferred it for $19 to FTDNA or purchased a $79 Family Finder test from FTDNA.

For privacy, I only provide the link to the spreadsheet to people who are on my mailing list. You can join the mailing list here: http://eepurl.com/cavDef. Contact me if you were not on the list before reading this. 

To simplify the spreadsheet, I have only included people in it who have at least one shared DNA segment with one other person. 

The spreadsheet shows the genetic relationships between members of the project. It shows the amount of DNA that two people share in common, if any. The more DNA they share, the closer they are related. A table at the top of the spreadsheet shows you how to translate the amount of DNA (measured in cM or centimorgans) into  likely relationship (3rd cousin, sibling, half-sibling etc.).

Because people in the project share a common name, they share a paper trail back to the common ancestor of all Shattockes and Parrishs or Byars, Y16884. Y16884 is a mutation that the common ancestor had and passed on to his male descendants. He lived in the 14th century. So everybody is related along the patrilineal (father to son) line. But what is interesting is that some people are related to other project members through marriage.

For example, Dana Parrish has some immediate relatives that she knows about (Harlan Parrish, Ken Parrish, Larry Parrish). But she is also related to the Virginia Shaddocks (Jennifer Shaddock and her cousin Jo Dee Musselman). I bet if these Parrishs worked with the Shaddocks they might be able to come up with their common ancestor. They can use the spreadsheet to refine that search. For example, Jennifer's father Thomas does not share any DNA with Dana. That's a mystery because Jo Dee does share a direct Shaddock ancestor with Thomas and Jennifer.  It's these little mysteries that can point the way to a solution because if you can solve the mystery you can find the relationship.

Jo Dee shares twice as much DNA with Thomas (318 cM) than with his daughter Jennifer (178 cM). That is exactly as it should be because Jennifer has half the Shaddock DNA of her father. If you look up 318 cM in the table at the top of the spreadsheet, you will see that the table predicts how Jo Dee and Thomas are related. 

Jo Dee also shares 40 cM of DNA with Angela Harlan, who is a Byars descendant through her father's mother. That amount of DNA suggests third cousins, or second cousins twice removed. However, Angela's father is not included in the table but he does not share any DNA with anybody, including Jo Dee, so this indicates that probably the connection is through Angela's mother.

Bruce Charles Hall, who is a Massachusetts Shattuck NPE, is related to Sally Matthews who is also a Massachusetts Shattuck descendant. But Jason Shaddock, her cousin, is not related to Bruce Hall. And neither is related to Donald Edison Hall, so the connection is probably through Sally's maternal line and Bruce's maternal line. Just to complicate things, Bruce is related to me (Philip Shaddock) and my half-brother Robert J. Shaddock but Bruce Hall is not. And me and my brother do not share DNA with Sally Matthews or her cousin Jason.

So you can see that the spreadsheet's matrix layout can be very useful if you have extensive genealogical trees that spread out to all the other maternal and marital relationships. And a lot of time on your hands. It is puzzle solving. To reduce the scope of my own studies, which is a surname project studying all worldwide male descendants of Y16884, I do not record the descendants of female Shattockes (unless their children carry the Shattocke name), nor the families male and female Shattockes or Parrishs or Byars marry into.

I use the YDNA test because it is strictly a paternity test. I know if the test comes back with enough matching markers to me then the person, whatever his surname, has a common direct male ancestor with me. 

However there is a place for autosomal testing within the scope of my study. I use autosomal testing, which tests DNA from both parents, to qualify genealogical choices I have made for the past four or five generations. If the person does not share autosomal DNA with me then I know the probability is high they are not related to me in the last four or five generations. More generations than that and the test is unreliable. I still have to work out if they are related to me through marriage or not. And that requires good old fashioned genealogical work. The matrix tool can help sort that out whether the match is coming down from a paternal line, a paternal - maternal or maternal line. 

In the spreadsheet I have provided some information about what lineage each person belongs to. You will know either by the last name (e.g. Parrish) or by a comment (for example, Jo Dee Musselman is identified as a Virginia Shaddock descendant). But remember it may be the person's grandmother who was a Shaddock, Parrish or Byars. Included in the spreadsheet are links to the Shattocke website and Parrish / Byars website, so you can look up genealogies there. 

Use the spreadsheet to identify your match, then enter your FTDNA account and find that person in your Family Finder matches. If you cannot do so, please contact me and I will hook the two of you up (although I may not have the email addresses of everybody). Please let me know if you do not want to be contacted by a match.  

Feb 19, 2017

WOW. The big news today is that Alex Williamson has used Bob Shattock's new Big Y results to place him in the Shattocke family tree ( http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=957&star=false). And what a place. Bob shares a common ancestor (Y19751) with the Massachusetts Shattucks. Your heard that right. The Massachusetts Shattucks and the Southwark London Shattocks descend from a common ancestor.

Take a look at the new family tree I created (seen above). You will see I moved the London - Melbourne Shattocks over and under Y19751. I have named the new branch the "West Bagborough Shattocks." This is definitely a working title. 

As you know from past blogs, and in a page I wrote about Massachusetts origins, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that William Shattuck (c. 1622-1672) emigrated to the Massachusetts Bay colony from the West Bagborough - Tolland area. DNA studies of west Somerset descendants have shown that the Massachusetts Shattucks and the Southwark London Shattocks do not share a recent common ancestor with the Milverton Shattocks, or the Staplegrove Shattocks. And there is some evidence that the North Molton Shattocks and West Bagborough area Shattocks do share a distant common ancestor. In other words the descendants of Somerset Shattocks seem to be coalescing into general areas of west Somerset   

We know that the founder of the Southwark London Shattocks (Thomas Shattock c. 1770 - 1842) was not from Staplegrove or Taunton. And the New DNA evidence supports this.  Bob has said that back in the middle of the 1900s his father's cousin (Tom Shattock) was in touch with relatives, Mary Shattock in London, and John Shattock in Kingston St. Mary, about the family history. Mary was 85 and John was 62, so they were born in the mid to late 19th century. The story is that Thomas Shattock (c. 1770 - 1842), who founded the Southwark London Shattocks, moved to London from a village outside of Taunton. Since the Milverton area Shattocks and the Staplegrove - Taunton area Shattocks are not closely related, and the Massachusetts Shattucks are, I am making the assumption that the Southwark Shattocks must come from a village further west of Taunton.

The problem I have had with the family story is that Thomas Shattock's children were wealthy and socially prominent. So I have suspected that the Southwark London Shattocks had arrived in London much earlier than the late 18th century. But it is certainly possible that Thomas Shattock had relatives in London, or the family had longstanding commercial ties in London. As I noted on the page I wrote about Massachusetts origins, the Shattocks of West Bagborough - Tolland had a business relationship with a major player in the wool industry in west Somerset, the Wolcotts of Tolland. And the West Bagborough Shattocks were a very wealthy branch of the family as evidence by the number of wills probated by Shattocks in that village. So it is possible the Southwark London Shattocks were already a wealthy family from the West Bagborough area when they arrived in London.

There is an interesting way to connect the Massachusetts Shattucks and the London Shattucks through their skills and wealth. The Massachusetts Bay colony, unlike the Chesapeake Bay colony, was settled by relatively wealthy and prominent immigrants. West Bagborough has a huge number of wills associated with it, so prominent and wealthy Shattocks lived there. 

Finally consider the names given by Thomas to his children: Thomas, Henry, William and Richard. All common names found among West Bagborough Shattocks in the early to mid 18th century. In fact, I actually found a family of Shattocks living in West Bagborough with those names at about the right time.

What is really interesting about the new result is that it unites two of the most successful branches of the Shattocke family, American Shattucks who were merchants, doctors and wealthy entrepreneurs from the earliest years of the Massachusetts Bay colony and the Southwark London Shattocks who rose to equally lofty heights in London. 

But what I have been saying is speculative. What is not speculative is the fact that the London Shattocks and the Massachusetts Shattucks are united by the Y19751 SNP mutation. I have moved Bob down under that SNP in the spreadsheet. I would never have done that based on the STR data because Bob is missing one of the signature STRs for Massachusetts Shattucks DYS447=24 (Bob's value is 25). He only has 37 STR markers tested, so we are going to have to wait until his extended STRs are back to see if he inherited other Massachusetts signature markers. 

It was Bob's CDY marker (35-37) that made me decide early on he did not share a recent ancestor with Staplegrove or Milverton Shattocks who are 36-38. It turns out he shares one of those markers with Shattucks, who are 36-37. So the Shattucks must have inherited the 37 repeats from the common ancestor. Again, we will have to wait until more STR markers come back from the Big Y test, but it looks like the common ancestor between Bob and the Shattucks is relatively distant. Hopefully YFull will give us an estimate of that.

As is so often the case, Bob's Big Y result provides evidence for settling seemingly unrelated questions. Those of you who have followed this blog for the past two years will know that the big question I had about the South Carolina Shaddocks was whether their ancestor came from England or New England. The fact that Linda's brother Ken and her cousin Robert have the same CDY and DYS447 markers as other Shattucks settles that question for me. They are descended from William Shattuck (ca. 1622-1672).  

As an aside, a small bit of additional evidence for Samuel Shattuck (1666- ) as the progenitor of South Carolina Shattucks, came in the form of a pre-nuptial agreement between William's wife Susannah and her new husband Richard Norcross, who she married after William's death. (Sally Matthews found this document.) When the agreement was acted upon in 1687 after her death, it lists the three Shattuck boys still living (Philip, William and Samuel) and distributes part of William's estate to them in the form of money. I think Samuel used this money to buy land and equipment for a plantation just outside of Charles Town. At least it shows that he had money both from his inheritance was well as the sale of his property in Watertown to emigrate to South Carolina. I have added this factoid to the South Carolina Shaddock page. 

The Y19751 SNP tying the London Shattocks to the Massachusetts Shattucks also confirms the origin of Shattucks in west Somerset. The estimated date when the Shattucks and London Shattocks split off from the main trunk of the tree is about 1600 AD. I have always taken that to be an approximation of the birth of William Shattuck. But now we know William inherited the Y19751 mutation from his father. Maybe we will get a new estimate of the common ancestor with the London Shattocks when YFull analyzes the BAM file. 

What strikes me is that the number of branches of the Shattocke family remains at 4 or 5 (depending on how the Staplegrove Shattock lineage ends up). And all four branches seem to have split from from the main trunk in the middle to late 16th century. That was a time when the wool trade in west Somerset was burgeoning. There was a huge population surge after the devastation of the plague and periods of war and economic hardship. What puzzles me is that the branches seem to have all come into existence with a few decades of each other. And the large mystery is that the common ancestor of all four branches has as his common ancestor 3500 years previous to that. 

A note about the new family tree. I have dropped the West Somerset description, now that it is clear that all Shattockes come from west Somerset (including the border town of North Molton). I had been using "West Somerset" to describe descendants who had ancestors that left Somerset rather late, after 1800. But it is clear that distinction has no further meaning. Perhaps it will be found that trying to divide west Somerset into areas is futile as well. I have started to describe branches in terms of their identifying SNPs (like Y19751 for the Massachusetts - London branch). But numbers are harder to remember than names.

Slowly the questions that have been driving me in this research for the past two years are being answered. Just a little more time and patience and perhaps all the questions will be answered.

Feb. 14, 2017
The Virginia Shaddocks have been dangling off the base of the family tree for almost the entire two plus years that I have been using DNA tests to find our common ancestors. But suddenly, with a couple of choice DNA tests and a lot of luck they are no longer the family outlier, but instead have a place at the center of a  brand new major branch of the tree.

Alex Williamson has found an SNP mutation that sets the Virginia Shaddocks off from the Wellington and Milverton Shattocks. I have updated the family tree to reflect this change (see above). The SNP has not been named yet, so what is shown on the tree is the physical address of the mutation (7133415) and the nucleotide that has mutated (from C to A). Shattocks and Shaddock still share the named SNP Y29590.

Take a look at the way Alex lays it out in his YTree: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1063&star=false

What you see is that all three share a total of five SNPs. The two Shattocks, Terry and Mick, share an additional SNP not shared by Peter of the Virginia Shaddocks. That means that the two Shattocks from Milverton and Wellington share a common ancestor more recent than the common ancestor they share with Peter. The three are still much more closely related to each other than to other Shattocks because of the number of SNP mutations they share.

Just look how the west Somerset branch has grown with only four Big Y tests. 

It is not what I expected. I thought that the west Somerset Shattocks would cause a re-arrangement of the Shattock tree into fewer main branches. I expected the west Somerset Shattocks, because they are direct descendants of the original inhabitants of west Somerset, would be the trunk from which the other branches sprouted. But that is not what happened. There are now more branches of the family, not less. That is the wonderful thing about genetic genealogy. You don't get to write the novel, you just get to turn the pages. And that is what makes it so entertaining.

At some point either I have to, or one of the descendants of these three lineages has to, work out the genealogy. The family tree I have built using DNA data should be used as a blueprint for this task. 

I said in the previous (Feb. 11) Latest News that the date for the common ancestor for the Milverton, Wellington and Virginia Shattocks was probably inaccurate. Now I am wondering if the Virginia Shattocks actually left Somerset for Virginia earlier than I thought. I will have to give that some thought in the light of the new evidence. Do I still think the Virginia Shattocks came from the same area around Milverton? I do. Peter shares 5 SNPs with Terry and Mick. That means they share a common ancestor in the relatively recent past. But again I need to give this some more thought. Pipe in if you have an opinion on the facebook page. I am just reading the genes, not writing the novel.

I am not sure if there is a west Somerset branch anymore. I will have to wait to see how the Staplegrove and London Shattocks shake out. Right now they are looking like completely separate branches. What impact will that have on the story I have told on this site so far? It appears that North Molton on the border between Devon and Somerset is as likely a place as any as the village where the common ancestor of all Shattockes and Parrishs / Byars lived. That's because the DNA evidence does not settle the matter of where he lived. So I have rewritten the page, giving voice to Clifford Shaddick, the early 20th century family genealogist and his theory that all Shattockes originate from North Molton. I still favor a theory that says the family originated from west Somerset, either near West Bagborough or near Taunton. But the fact Shatticks show up as early as 1542 in the North Molton parish records, and the fact the earliest verifiable record of a Shattocke anywhere is Thomas Shatok in the 1524 AD subsidy rolls of Bampton (only a few parishs removed from North Molton in Devon) keeps North Molton in the running for the original home of all Shattockes. 

Here is another interesting fact that has at long last occurred to me as I rewrote the North Molton Shattockes page. All the Shaddicks that I have studied seem to have descended from the Shatticks of North Molton. And "Shattick" was the dominant form of the name in the North Molton parish records up until the Shatticks disappear from the parish records in the middle of the 18th century. Indeed the Shaddicks of North Devon, Bristol and Wales all seem to have inherited that spelling. It can be used to figure out where Shaddicks came from when the genealogical paper trail hits a roadblock. I asked Peter McClure of the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names about the spelling. His reply: "The variation between –ick and –ock is quite normal at that date, when the vowel quality of weakly stressed syllables was unstable and variable." He is going to update the dictionary for its next issue with the new information. Shaddicks of he world, take your place at the head of the table.

Oh by the way...I added Mary Gower, Deanna Wallis and Carole Wray's name to the tree. Let me know if anybody whose name appears on the tree wants me to delete it.

Feb. 11, 2017

The new YFull human family tree is out: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z36/

I have updated the Shattocke Family Tree with the results. You can see the new tree above. 

The DNA results spreadsheet is at its usual link. 

Lots of news to report. I will start with the west Somerset Shattocks.

West Somerset Shattocks

YFull added a new branch for the west Somerset Shattockes, R-Y29590. It includes Peter Shaddock of the Virginia Shaddocks and Terry Shattock of New Zealand, who belongs to the Milverton Shattocks. YFull does not show it, but the branch also includes Mick Shattock of Australia, who is descended from the Wellington Shattocks. It is Alex Williamson who has placed him there. He is usually a month ahead of YFull. We know that the three west Somerset Shattocks have a common ancestor because they share four SNP mutations that nobody else has among all the other branches. What is interesting about that fact is the villages of Milverton and Wellington are only 3.4 miles (5.6 km) apart. So Terry and Mick had a common ancestor in the area, an example of genetic distance echoing the physical distance between villages.. If you have read the Milverton and Wellington pages, then you will know the local wool industry probably accounts for this. The income from the industry provided families with the means to support their children by giving them a trade, land or money to start a family and made it easy for them to pursue a living close to their nuclear family.

Additional evidence for this theory is the fact Alex Williamson placed Ken Shattock, a Staplegrove Shattock descendant, outside of the new branch. (You can see this in Alex's tree: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1063&star=false.)  Ken Shattock's id is 567117, and he is currently highlighted in red. He is in the branch beside Terry, Mick and Peter. I have made this change in the Shattocke Family Tree above. The fact Ken does not have the four SNP mutations that Terry, Mick and Peter have, indicates that the common ancestor between them is at least several hundred years previously since each mutation occurs on average about once every 150 years. It is probably true that if a Staplegrove Shattock met a Milverton or Wellington Shattock in 1800 they might have guessed they were related because of the surname but what probably not know how.

These results give Peter and his Virginia Shaddock relatives a lot of confidence that their English ancestors came from the Milverton - Wellington area of west Somerset. That narrows down the likely home village to a very small area.

The YFull tree also gives an estimate of when the common ancestor between the Milverton, Wellington and Virginia Shaddocks lived: about 1570 AD. The date does not have much accuracy at this time, as it is only based on two results, Terry and Peter. When Mick's results are added to the tree next month we should get a much better estimate. However, once again I am amazed at the fact that major branches of the Shattocke family seem to have been formed in the late 16th century, early 17th century. Perhaps this reflects the fact there was a huge population explosion at this time in England and the woolen trade in Somerset was booming, providing the means Shattock sons needed to start a family. You can not overstate the role this played in expanding families. 

The addition of descendants of west Somerset Shattockes to the YFull tree has created a lot of gyrations in the estimate of when the common ancestor of all Shattockes and Parrishs / Byars lived. You would expect this since the theory is that our worldwide family originated in west Somerset. So the direct descendants of west Somerset families would have a big impact on the date of our common ancestor. Indeed that is the case, the new estimate dropped to 1309 AD! Curiously that is close to the date we started at two years ago with only a small handful of Big Y results. At least the estimate has consistently stayed in the 14th century. We have four more Big Y results for west Somerset Shattockes coming so I expect that date to move around again, though probably within a narrower band in the 14th century. 

What we can say for certain at this point is that there is a major branch of the Shattocke family called Y29590, named after the terminal SNP shared by the descendants. It includes the Milverton, Wellington and Virginia Shaddocks. There is another branch that is called the Staplegrove Shattocks (Ken Shattock) and a possible third branch I have provisionally called the London Shattocks (Bob Shattock). In the next few months we'll see if the Staplegrove and London Shattocks share a common ancestor that groups them together.

I should mention that we are some months away from getting the extended STR results for the new Shattocks we have added to the tree. I use STR analysis to find the twigs emanating from the family branches. And I use STR mutational analysis to find connections between branches. So regard the current west Somerset Shattock analysis as preliminary.

Jason Shaddock, Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck
Jason Shaddock, who is a descendant of the Massachusetts Shattucks through the founder William's son John Shattuck (1647-1675), found his permanent place in the tree. He has not moved from his previous location, under the Y24059 SNP mutation. All that means is that YFull did not find a new SNP that would have separated him from Terry Lee Shadduck or Paul Michael Shattuck. What is new is the estimate of the formation of the branch of the tree: about 1538. It's hard to give this date much credibility as it pre-dates the new estimate for William Shattuck, founder of the Massachusetts Shattucks: 1594.  And we know when the ancestor of the three Shattuck descendants lived. John Shattuck lived between 1647-1675. This is probably an example of statistical error. 

It will be some months before Jason's extended STR results come in, helping us to figure out how precisely he is related to Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck. I have a suspicion he might be descended from an undocumented child of Joseph Shattuck (1745-1813). After Joseph Shattuck's death there was apparently a court battle over the beneficiaries of his will as it was not at all clear who he was married to and who he was not. He had about 18 children. This might explain why Jason's documented ancestor, David Shaddock (1809-1886), said that his father was an immigrant from Spain. He may have been disguising the fact he was born out of wedlock. Undocumented children of Joseph Shadduck might also be the ancestors of Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck, whose ancestry is also missing documentation. Terry and Paul's extended STR results indicate a close relationship. Adding Jason's extended STR results to the comparison will give us a much better idea of how closely the three are related to each other, suggesting a common ancestor. That is the value of STR analysis, along with genealogical analysis, you can nail down relationships and historical dates, places and people. And it acts as a corrective to possible errors. 

R.W. Parrish and John Mangan
The new tree also permanently fixed the place for R.W. Parrish within the tree. I was hoping that R.W. Parrish and John Mangan would cause a new branch of the Parrish tree to be discovered through shared novel SNPs. But it did not happen. So now we will have to wait until their extended STR results come in from the Big Y tests to find their relationships with other Parrishs and Byars.  Big Y tests are important for this branch of the family because so many extra STRs are generated from the Big Y test. This is a bonus because the Parrish / Byars branch formed about 1600 AD so we have only the last 400 years of mutations to work with. Since STR mutations are much, much more active than SNP mutations, the more we can use for mutational analysis, the more likely we are able to work out the branching.

As a consequence of adding RW Parrish to the tree, the date for the common ancestor of Byars and Parrishs moved to 1594. The more results that are included in the calculation, the more accurate the estimated date becomes. 

Feb. 10, 2017

The giant puzzle that is the Shattocke family is filling in as we place more pieces of the puzzle as a result of DNA testing. The more pieces that fall into place the clearer the picture becomes of how the family branched over time. It has caused me to go back to the spreadsheet and grapple with anomalies that I have noticed for a long time but not quite figured out. Such is the case for the DNA results for Mark Shaddick of the New Brunswick Shaddicks. His results definitively prove that the genealogy I have worked out for him is accurate. He has the FGC43716 SNP mutation that proves he is a Yarnscombe Shattocke. But for a long time I kept doubting my genealogical research because his STR markers are actually quite different from other North Molton Shattockes. The first step towards resolving this was the realization that the other Shattockes were very distantly related to him, so their markers had a very long time (well over three centuries) to evolve into different values. And the second step was to compare his results to those of the other Shattocke branches. That resulted in a surprise. He is possibly the link between the Devon Shattockes and the Massachusetts Shattockes. I have also worked out a very speculative ancestry for the founder of the Yarnscombe Shattockes, Richard Shattocke (ca. 1640-1706). Descendants of the Devon Shattockes may have a paper trail all the way back to 1520 and the birth of John Shattick. This is again analogous to puzzle assembly. The ancestry tracing back to the founder of the North Molton Shattockes, John Shattick (ca. 1520) just fits the best with the other puzzle pieces. Finally, I have written about Donald Shaddick of Kingston, Ontario, formerly of Bristol. I have excerpted the new sections of the Yarnscombe page here for your convenience:

Descendants of North Molton Shattockes

We know that Richard Shattocke married in Yarnscombe, but we have no record of his birth. The parish records only go back to 1653 in Yarnscombe and the best guess is that he was born around 1640. 

DNA studies using advanced SNP testing make it certain Richard is a North Molton Shattocke descendant. The studies show that his closest relative among descendants who have been tested is John Shaddick, born 1751 in the village of Fremington, Devon and died in the village in Instow, Devon. I call the family John Shaddick founded, the Instow Shaddicks. 

The Yarnscombe and Instow Shaddicks belong to one of the main four or five branches of the Shattocke family. Their common ancestor lived about 1570 according to DNA estimates. He had a mutation called Y19716. This is the genetic name of the branch. A descendant of Y19716 is Donald Shaddick, who is from Bristol, Somerset. His ancestor in Bristol claimed on one census form to be born in South Molton (a village near North Molton). On another census form he claimed to be born in Bristol. 

Donald Shaddick DNA Results

Donald Shaddick has a somewhat ambiguous status as a "Devon" Shattocke. I think his statement that he was "from" South Molton might be a family story of an ancestor who lived in or near North Molton and moved to Bristol. The spelling of his last name, Shaddick, seems to confirm the family origin in Devon as the name was usually recorded with two "d's" in Devon. The other clue is the ending "-ick." North Molton is the only place in Shattocke history where the name was recorded as Shattick or Shatticke. In fact this spelling does not survive down to the present day. What makes his status somewhat ambiguous is the fact his CDY double marker is 36-38, which values are typical of west Somerset Shattocks, not Devon Shattockes whose CDY marker values are 35-38. We will have to wait to see if his other markers align with west Somerset Shattocks when their STR extended results come back.

The Yarnscombe and Instow Shaddicks descendants share an SNP mutation called FGC43713. That sets them apart from Donald Shaddick. Descendants of the Yarnscombe Shattockes have a mutation called FGC43716 that sets them apart from the Instow Shaddicks. You can see this branching in the Shattocke Experimental Tree.

Mark Shaddick DNA Results

One of our DNA testers is Mark Shaddick, a New Brunswick Shaddick, who shares an ancestor with other Yarnscombe Shattockes. His common ancestor with Yarnscombe Shattockes was Thomas Shattocke born 1680 in Yarnscombe. Thomas's father was Richard Shattocke, founder of the Yarnscombe Shattockes. What is interesting about Mark Shaddick's DNA results is that they are quite different from the other North Molton descendants. We know he belongs with the Yarnscombe Shattockes because he has the FGC43716 mutation. But he is missing some of the key STR mutations that are signature markers for Yarnscombe Shattockes.  At the same time he appears to share some key markers with Massachusetts Shattucks. This similarity to Massachusetts Shattocke genetics may be the result of conversion, meaning the marker mutations were not inherited but independently occurred. But the fact is I counted six markers that Mark shares with the Massachusetts Shattockes and not with the North Molton Shattockes. What I think is possible is that he retains markers from a common ancestor with the Massachusetts Shattockes sometime previous to 1500 AD. This may be evidence that the North Molton Shattockes and the Massachusetts Shattucks share a more recent common ancestor than they do with other branches of the Shattocke family. That is an interesting theory because the Massachusetts Shattucks may come from the area around West Bagborough and Tolland in west Somerset. That makes them the closest branch of the Shattocke family to the North Molton Shattockes. I would assume that the common ancestor lived in west Somerset. However, there is another possibility. A Shattocke family researcher from the previous century, Clifford Ramiro Shaddick (1887-1956), who studied the parish records in Devon and Somerset, believed that the Shattockes emanated from North Molton. In other words he thought all living Shattockes were descendants of an immigrant Shattocke in North Molton sometime before 1500 AD. I just want to keep that theory alive in case evidence shows up in the coming year that corroborates the theory. In fact, I believe the evidence favors a Shattocke diaspora from west Somerset.

For a more complete profile of the Yarnscombe Shattockes we require more volunteers for DNA testing whose ancestors trace back to the 16th and 17th century. Contact me if you wish to participate in the research.

Speculative Ancestry of Richard Shattocke of Yarnscombe

We may never find parish records that show Richard Shattocke's descent from the founder of the North Molton Shattockes about 1520. Based on population estimates it is a safe assumption that the founder, John Shattick, was one of the earliest descendants of the founder of all Shattockes designated as Y16884 after the mutation had by all worldwide Shattockes. He lived in the 14th century so John Shattick may have been a great grandchild or great great grandchild of Y16884. 

John Shattick (1520-) North Molton
            Thomas Shattick (ca. 1545-) (Joan ca. 1545) North Molton
                        John Shattick (1567-) (Joan 1575) North Molton
                                        Philip Shattocke (1609-1687) North Molton - Tawstock
                                                        Richard Shattocke (ca. 1640-1706) (Agnes Strellin ca. 1640-1709)  Yarnscombe

Aside from the fact this genealogy is the best fit for the genealogical data, there are two key reasons why I think Philip Shattocke (1609-1687) might be the father of Richard Shattocke. One is the proximity of Tawstock to Yarnscombe. Yarnscombe is only 3 miles (5.8 km) from Tawstock. The other reason is that "John, Thomas and Philip" are common names in Yarnscombe Shattocke genealogies.

Jan. 20, 2017

Note: a much more detailed version of this blog was rewritten and expanded for the South Carolina Shaddocks page. 

The ancestry of the South Carolina Shaddocks has long faced a roadblock at the birth of the founder, Samuel Shaddock (c. 1760-1838). But DNA results from other Shattockes have steadily narrowed down the likely candidates for the parents of Samuel. The discovery of the role the CDY STR market plays in Shattocke genetics finally provided the key evidence to settle a long standing question. Did the SC Carolina Shaddocks arrive in the colony from England or New England? The SC Shaddocks have the 36-37 version of the CDY marker, which is common to all but one of the other Massachusetts Shattucks that have been DNA tested. The west Somerset Shattocks are 36-38 for this marker. In fact there is an overwhelming number of markers shared between Massachusetts Shattuck descendants and SC Shaddocks. 

That was all the evidence I needed to go looking in Massachusetts Shattuck genealogy for SC Shaddock ancestors. At first I thought that the SC Carolina Shattucks were descendants of William Shattuck, the progenitor's, son Philip Shattuck (1648-1722). But the Samuel Shattucks in that lineage are well accounted for by the records and none of them moved out of New England. When I compared the extended STR results among Massachusetts Shattucks I realized the SC Shaddocks very likely descended from one of William's other sons.

Why? There are two records of Samuel Shattucks born about 1760, but neither of them left New England. So I looked for an earlier migration of Shattucks to South Carolina. The earliest record of a Shaddock in South Carolina is a document granting 480 acres on Bohicket Creek in Colleton county to Samuel Shaddock on August 27 1702. The age of majority at the time was 21 so this Samuel Shaddock had to be born in Massachusetts 1681 or sooner. That made him most probably a son of the William the progenitor. On the land deed was the name of his wife: Abigail.

So I looked for a son of William named Samuel who married Abigail and there he was. Samuel Shattuck born 1666 in Watertown to William Shattuck. He married Abigail, last name unknown. And he had a son Samuel, born in Watertown in 1689. There is no death record for either Samuel or his wife or his children. Lemuel Shattuck in his Descendants book says that he left Watertown "about 1695" and there was no record of him or his family after that. There were Shattucks in North Carolina at the time in a Quaker community, so it is possible he went there first and thence to South Carolina. The North Carolina "Quaker" Shattucks actually spelled their name "Shaddock." Perhaps Samuel spent a few years among them. They were growing tobacco and using slaves. That would turn out to be true of how the South Carolina Shaddocks make their living as well.   

I have altered the spreadsheet and the Shattocke family tree to reflect this change. The case of the origin of the South Carolina Shaddocks is interesting because it shows that you how standard paper-based genealogy and DNA-based genetic genealogy can work hand-in-hand to overcome obstacles in family history. 

It is pretty amazing really. There is a whole branch of the Shattuck family that has been hiding down south under the name of Shaddock. I wonder how Lemuel Shattuck would have taken this. I bet he would be thrilled.

Jan. 15,2017

The DNA tests that are beginning to flow in from the west Somerset Shattocks are upsetting my plan to scale back the time I spend on Shattocke genealogy. Case in point: the recent confirmation that the Virginia Shaddocks are close relatives of the Milverton Shattocks finally prodded me into looking in my digital shoebox for a possible candidate for a Shaddock ancestor in Milverton. Remember that Terry Shattock of New Zealand is a direct descendant of Milverton Shattocks and Peter Shaddock of Houston is a direct descendant of the Virginia Shaddocks, who are in turn are also direct descendants of Milverston Shattocks according to the latest DNA evidence. 

Peter's direct ancestor is James Shaddock born about 1750, died in 1795. James married Hannah Samuel in Essex county in 1781. He has no birth record in Virginia. I had assumed all along that it had been lost. But what if it was not lost? What if he was an immigrant to Virginia from Milverton?

So I looked in my shoebox. And here is what I found:

James and Ann: James Shattock of Runnington married Ann Stevens in Milverton 1745


                Thomas Shattock born  27 Jun 1746 at Lee Farm

Ann Shattock born 13 May 1748 at Lee Farm (died in Runnington 16 Sep 1748)

James Shattock born 23 Jun 1749

Robert Shattock born 12 Jun 1751 at Lee Farm

James and Ann had their children in Milverton, apparently at Lee Farm. That is an important point because James Shaddock of Virginia was a farmer and he married his wife Hannah Samuel in a county where the main crop was food not tobacco. Was he the son of James and Ann in Milverton? Did the Shattocks in Milverton own Lee Farm? The Shattocks in the Runnington and Milverton areas are known to have owned property so it is not unreasonable to assume James of Virginia was not an indentured servant when he arrived in Virginia but may have arrived with enough money to buy land and set up a farm. Certain his marriage to Hannah Samuel indicates he was on a higher social scale than a servant because the Samuels were a respectable Virginia family.

But is this enough to declare James Shattock, formerly of Runnington, as the father to James Shaddock of Virginia? I looked into Terry Shattock's lineage. 

Terry's ancestor Thomas Shattocke (1610-1689) had been born in Milverton, but had a son, Thomas Shattocke (1641-1706), who was born in Runnington, 4 km (2.5 miles) south of Milverton. So we know that Terry's ancestors actually lived in Runnington. I think the James Shattock of Runnington, who married Ann Stevens in Milverton, is certainly a very possible candidate for the father of James Shaddock of Virginia, the founder of the Virginia Shaddocks. What is going to be very interesting is when the extended STR results come back for Terry in the next four or five months. Will the comparison of his STR markers with those of Peter produce the DNA evidence to clinch the case? In a couple of weeks we will have a rough estimate of when Peter and Terry shared a common ancestor. Will it show that common ancestor to have lived at the beginning of the 18th century?

Jan. 14, 2017

Mike Shattock, who is a Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset descendant, has received his Y-37 DNA results back. He was added to the spreadsheet previously. The link to the spreadsheet hasn't change.

Before I discuss his results, note that I have updated the spreadsheet once again. I have moved Bob Shattock, descendant of the Southwark London Shattocks to the top row of the spreadsheet. He is proceeding with a Big Y test, so we will see just how significant is the fact his CDY marker (35-37) has two different values than the rest of the west Somerset Shattockes. As I said before, I expect his Big Y results to show he is relatively distantly related to the other west Somerset Shattocks. He tells me the family story is that his ancestor came to London from Kingston Mary, close to Taunton sometime after 1770. Since Bob is going to be the fourth west Somerset to have done the Big Y test, we are going to have lots of detail to compare with the other three. I have put him in his own group in anticipation of his more distant relationship to the other west Somerset Shattocks. But as always, I am prepared to be proven wrong by the data when it comes in!

Meanwhile, Ken Shattock's Big Y raw test results have come back and I sent them to Alex Williamson. Ken is descended from the Staplegrove Shattocks. Alex has not thoroughly examined the results, but he has provisionally put him into his own group! That means he does not share any of the SNPs that define the other groups, including the North Devon Shattockes, the Massachusetts Shattocks or the Milverton Shattocks. I will wait until Alex has thoroughly analyzed Ken's results, but it is interesting he is not shown as being part of the same group as the Milverton Shattocks. The Milverton Shattocks are grouped with the Virginia Shattocks, so I would take this as a sign that the Virginia Shattocks and the Milverton Shattocks are closely related since they appear to share two or as many as four SNPs. Jenny should deeply investigate the genealogical paper trail for the Milverton Shattocks (whose descendant Terry Shattock in New Zealand is the "author" of the Big Y results). It is almost certain that there is a common ancestor within genealogical time, as the earliest a Virginia Shaddock could have emigrated to Virginia is in the early 17th century. My guess is it was later than than.

I am actually a bit surprised. I thought the Staplegrove and Milverton / Virginia Shattocks would end up in the same group as the villages are so close together. but they appear to be separated not in time but by quite a bit. But this is speculation at this point considering advanced SNP analysis has not been done on Ken's Staplegrove results.

Ken Shattock's Staplegrove result shows him to have the same CDY marker as Terry's Milverton result, so even Alex has put them into separate branches, I still expect them to be more closely related to each other than they are to the other branches (North Devon, Massachusetts, Parrish and Southwark London). 

That brings me to Mike Shattock and the Norton Fitzwarren results. Norton Fitzwarren is basically walking distance from Staplegrove and Taunton. 

Just look at the results in the group I have labelled "west Somerset" (Milverton, Wellington, Staplegrove, Norton Fitzwarren and Virginia).  They are all virtually identical in their markers for the first 36 markers and most importantly for the CDY marker. For Mike, the marker DYS439 has a repeat value of 12 instead of the group modal value of 11. But that may be noise, in the sense that mutations are random so one of this direct ancestors could have randomly had this increase of one repeat for DYS439. It may be useful in the future if another west Somerset Shattock is found to have this marker value. 

I am amazed at how all the direct descendants of west Somerset have such similar genetics. At the same time I expected to group them together. The outlier is Bob Shattock, the Southwark London Shattock - Melbourne Australia Shattock who (as I said) I moved to his own group (row 9 on the spreadsheet) because of his double difference at the CDY marker. I suspect his ancestor moved from Taunton or Staplegrove to London earlier than 1770, but we will see.

You will see I have the spreadsheet divided into branches of the family. Each of those branches has very distinct markers, with the most important of them color coded in green and the one at the next level of importance in orange - copper. In particular the CDY marker seems to telegraph the descent from different predecessors.

The key observation is that all these branches trace back to Somerset. So why the big similarity among the people I have tested and labelled west Somerset Shattocks? 

Well the problem right now is that west Somerset Shattocks only have results that show their first 36 markers out of a 158 markers. So I do not have enough data to be able to sort the west Somerset Shattocks into sub-groups and align that with their genealogical paper trails. I do have 158 markers for the West Virginia Shattock, and he shows a marked difference from other Shattocks. And of course there is that key marker, the CDY setting them firmly apart.

Actually the fact that Alex put Ken and the Staplegrove Shattocks into his own group is very good news, because it means he is distant enough from the Terry and the Milverton Shattocks such that their STR results, when we get them, will give us a lot of marker differences and similarities to find how their ancestors connected and split.

I wrote a blog Jan. 11 (just below this one) about the CDY marker because I do think it is a useful tool for finding the relationship among the five main branches of the Shattocke family. And the results for the CDY marker does confirm that the different branches descend from branch common ancestors. That is what makes these two results so interesting (Mike's Y-37 results and Ken's initial Big Y SNP results). And given that all branches descend from west Somerset ancestors, the conclusion you must come to (I think) is that the ones I have categorized as west Somerset direct descendants share a common ancestor who lived near and around Staplegrove / Taunton and the other descendants lived and worked around other villages in west Somerset. Indeed the fact that the Staplegrove Shattocks and the Milverton Shattocks have been put into separate groups by Alex might show eventually to reflect the distances between the Norton Fitwarren / Staplegrove / Taunton lineages and those of Milverton. This certainly seems to be true of the North Devon Shattockes who emanate from North Molton, and there is a very good case for making the home villages of the Massachusetts Shattucks West Bagborough / Tolland and the Southwark Shattocks London. The Parrishs and Byars have a common ancestor in Virginia...and they appear to be a very old branch of the Shattocke family...maybe going all the way back to the home village of Y16884. 

Although Milverton is only 6 and a half miles from Staplegrove, the Big Y SNP results for Ken of Staplegrove lineage showed a marked genetic distance from Terry of Milverton lineage. That was good news for me because I am hoping genetic distance among the descendants of the branches will be mirrored in the distance of their home villages. It is a method I am using to find the home villages of the branches. That is a difficult proposition considering how close the Shattocke villages were and the several hundred of years that elapsed, giving Shattockes enough time to move around. We will see if I can hang on to this theory in the months ahead when more results come in.

My other hope is to eventually....once the results are in for both SNP and STRs of west Somerset Shattocks come in...develop a phylogenetic tree for the west Somerset Shattocks. When that is combined with the genealogical information from the parish records, I think I will have accomplished the goal I set out to achieve, to re-unite the descendants by showing how their family lineages branch down from your common ancestor. Too optimistic? We'll see in the next few months. Meanwhile, I am going to include at the end of this blog a very interesting story about our genetic cousins the Parrishs. It helps illustrate how powerful genetic genealogy can be! In particular I think it shows how a very small bit of DNA evidence can have a huge impact on the unraveling the story of the Parrishs whose common ancestors have been devilishly difficult to tease out of an incomplete genealogical record. 

The Curious Case of the Simmons

Some time ago I noticed a new match on FTDNA. It was Chris Simmons. His 111 genetic markers pegged him as a Parrish, but when I put him into the spreadsheet, he was missing the signature marker for Parrishs and Byars/Byas, DYS444=13. He had 12 repeats for that marker. I was pretty sure he was a Parrish, but I wanted to be sure. So I moved him into to the "ungrouped" part of the spreadsheet.

They have ordered the SNP test for the A80933 SNP that is the acid test and will remove the possibility he was a false match. But I consider a false match now to be unlikely, given his CDY marker.

Meanwhile I did that work on the CDY double marker in my previous blog and today decided to see what values he had for it. He has 37 and 39. Back he went into the Parrish group because the CDY=37-39 marker has become a kind of signature marker for Parrishs. Nice to have it.

There are two possibilities. One is that his distant ancestor was DYS444=13, but a subsequent mutation switched it back to 12. That's the problem with STR markers, they can add or lose a repeat. And the other is that he is descended from a very early Parrish that never gained that extra repeat.

The second seems to be the most likely scenario for a couple of reasons. One is that the DYS444 marker is very, very slow moving, or to put it another way, its mutation is rare. Only the Parrish branch of the Shattocke family is DYS444=13. Another reason is that DYS444 appears to be a marker that adds a repeat, not subtracts a repeat, so if a mutation had occurred after the ancestor with DYS444=13, it should probably be DYS444=14. The final reason why I think he has the ancestral version of DYS444 has to do with all his other 111 markers. In fact if you look them you see something amazing. He has the Parrish ancestral values for all his STRs. Except for one: DYS389ii=30. All other Parrishs, without exception are DYS389ii=29. You want to know something even more amazing? Marker DYS389ii=30 is actually the ancestral value for the marker...meaning it had this value in the very distant past.
If he has all the ancestral values for his STRs, that means he does not share a common ancestor with any Parrish or Byars / Byas descendant tested so far (a total of 23).

If in fact the DYS444=12 marker has remained unchanged, it raises an interesting possibility. Chris is descended from an ancestor who came before all other Parrishs (and Byars or Byas) we have tested.

If it is true that Chris has the ancestral value for DYS444, then that means he belongs to a completely different branch of the Parrish family then all the other people who have tested. His 111 STR values certainly seem to indicate that. Now do you see why I originally was mystified by his DNA results?
Here is an interesting thought. What if his ancestor never was a Parrish? What if there was a family of Shattockes that lost the parents and the children were adopted out to two different families? Well, I think you can imagine a number of other scenarios.

One thing is certain. The Parrishs and Byars / Byas have very, very similar genetics, which provides strong support for the theory that the first Shattocke - Parrish child was born in Virginia sometime around 1640. And the fact Chris is from the south, makes it likely that he is descended from an early Virginia immigrant. See how a single digit change in a DNA result can spawn a theory that you can test with further testing? Genetic genealogy is so much fun.

Jan. 11, 2017 

For the benefit of those among you that are family genealogists, I have updated the STR spreadsheet with additional extended STRs and new color coding to make the spreadsheet more useful to you. 

The updated spreadsheet is at the usual link. I no longer publish it on the web. If you are on the above mailing list it will be included in your email. Others can write me for the link but I prefer that you join the mailing list.

I provide a primer on reading the spreadsheet here.  I have updated it. You might want to peruse that before reading this blog.

I should mention that the above Tree now shows the Southwark London Shattocks as a fifth branch of the Shattocke family, for reasons I will outline below.

Color Coding

I have simplified the color coding to make using the spreadsheet more useful. The principal behind the color coding  is very simple. If all the members of a Shattocke branch have the same value for a STR marker than that marker is considered to be a "signature" marker for that group and it is colored green. You can see that in the case of the Massachusetts Shattucks. Find the column for the DYS447 marker and follow it down until you see the band of green numbers indicating the value for that marker (24). The number of repeats for that marker (24) sets Shattucks apart from all other Shattockes. (See the spreadsheet primer to understand the concept of repeats.) 

It appears to be the case that William Shattuck, the founder of Massachusetts Shattucks) or his ancestor lost a repeat for this marker, and it was a rare enough event to make it almost as good as a SNP marker for identifying somebody as a Shattuck descendant. However signature markers do need to be substantiated by SNPs to be of value. STRs are more volatile than SNPs and can change up or down over time. Somebody from a completely different branch of the human family can have the same marker value. What validates the DYS447=24 marker as a signature marker for Massachusetts Shattucks is the fact that members have the  Y19751 SNP mutation.

Now look at the Y-GATA-H4 marker a bit to the right. For Massachusetts Shattucks it has a repeat value of 12, color coded green. This appears to be a mutation that the descendants of William's son John Shattuck (1647-1675) have in common. So it is a signature marker for the descendants of John Shattuck. Very handy this color coding because I can immediately identify the specific branch of the family that a new DNA tester belongs to by looking at these signature markers. The John Shattuck branch actually has a sub-branch that was discovered when three of its members did Big Y testing. They have an SNP mutation called Y24059 that positively identifies them as a having a common ancestor. That is a huge help because all three have paper trails that run into brick walls around 1800. This SNP mutation means they can look look for their ancestor at a very specific location in the genealogy of the Shattuck family so well documented by Lemuel Shattuck. And they are only missing one or two direct ancestors. Further back they know who the direct ancestors are. 

The orange / copper markers are similar to the green markers but not all the members of a group will have the same value. It is also the case that another person or persons from a different branch might have the same value. This is the sign of a marker that is more dynamic, changing more rapidly over time. It is less reliable for identifying a common ancestor. However it some cases it might actually be useful for finding common ancestors between members of different branches. The CDY double marker is a case in point.

Is the CDY Double Marker a Valuable Sleuthing Tool?

Take a look at the double marker CDY (CDYa and CDYb). If you look at the color coding for this marker in each of the four main Shattocke branches something remarkable appears. Each branch seems to have its most characteristic number of repeats for each of the two markers. For example, look at the Massachusetts Shattucks. The Massachusetts Shattucks appear to have the same values for this marker (36-37), with a couple of exceptions (36-38 and 35-37), both of which have a single digit difference in one of the markers. Normally this double marker is considered to be too unreliable to be used because of its volatility, but it does appear have a "most common" value for each of the four main branches. The North Devon Shattockes (Y19716) have a value of 35-38 for this marker with the exception of one that is 36-38, a change in one marker. The west Somerset Shattocks have a value of 36-38. 

Southwark London Shattocks and the CDY Marker

I have moved the Southwark London Shattocks into its own branch of the family (they have been moved to close to the bottom of the spreadsheet). It was actually the London Shattock marker that made me realize that the CDY double marker might be a key to open the mystery of how Shattocke branches are related to each other. In the case of the Southwark Shattocks, it changed in two values over time which suggested that the Southwark London Shattucks are actually a different branch of the family than the other west Somerset Shattocks.  It caused me to re-examine the Southwark Shattock paper trail, where I had previously provisionally shown Southwark Shattocks leaving Taunton for London sometime in the middle of the eighteenth century.  But when I saw this double change in the CDY marker I decided to change the possible migration date to much earlier, possibly as far back as the early 17th century. This made this split in the tree far enough back to declare them a separate branch of the family. And the genealogical information confirms this. Shattock birth, death, marriage and other types of records begin appearing in London in the early 17th century (although there was a marriage in the previous century). Bob Shattock, who is a descendant of the Southwark Shattocks (his ancestor immagrated to Australia) has agreed to do a Big Y test, so we should have a lot more information on this branch to work with in the next six months. 

Parish / Byars and the CDY Marker

The Parrish / Byars branch (A8033) shows a unique set of values for the CDY marker:  37 and 39, again with some exceptions. In fact one of those exceptions, Frank Dwight Byars, appears to have the same CDY values as the west Somerset Shattocks 36-38 and several other Byars and Byas share at least one value with the west Somerset Shattockes. At first this made me wonder if the Byars and Byas descendants belong in the west Somerset group rather than the Parrish group. What overrules that speculation however is the fact that all Parrishs and Byars have the signature marker DYS444=13 in common, plus the A8033 SNP mutation. The A8033 SNP mutation clinches the deal. What the Byars / Byas CDY marker values probably mean is that the split from the Parrishs occurred very early, so they either retained old west Somerset values for their CDY double marker or the markers had time to change value over time. That is true of the other people with non-modal values for Parrishs. But I should caution again that the CDY marker is more volatile than a signature marker like the Parrish DYS444=13. When using the CDY double marker as a tool you should corroborate its meaning with other marker values and genealogical research.

North Devon Shattockes and the CDY Marker

A good example of the use of the CDY Marker to help us with genealogical questions is the case of Donald Shaddick, who sits at the top of the Y19716 North Devon Shattockes branch. He has the Y19716 SNP mutation so he belongs in this branch of the family. But he does not have the FGC43713 North Molton Shattockes SNP, so his common ancestor with the other north Devon Shattockes is more distant. His paper trail runs into a brick wall about 1800 with Richard Shaddock (1799-1859). On one census form he says he was born in Bristol in Somerset, in another South Molton in Devon. Interesting to note is his CDY values, 36-38, are identical to  the West Somerset Shattocks, whereas they are different from the North Molton Shattocke values 35-38, one repeat difference. I think this means the Y19716 SNP mutation occurred in an individual who had the West Somerset values for CDY: 36-38. The North Molton Shattockes subsequently lost a repeat for CDYa. We do not know how long the Shattockes were in North Molton before parish records began. But there seems to have been a family story among the Bristol Shaddicks that they were from South Molton, the village just three and half miles south of North Molton. That might mean that Donald belongs to a very old branch of the North Molton Shattockes whose descendant emigrated from South Molton around about the end of the 18th century. Isn't genetic genealogy beautiful? It not only acts as a corrective to bad paper trails, it can also tell you which fork in the road ahead to follow.

CDY as a Marker for Branching

SNP testing so far has shown the branches of the Shattocke family share a common ancestor about 1365 AD. It does not tell us how the branches are related. If further test results prove that the CDY double marker is a very important tool for figuring out how the Shattocke branches are related then it would appear that the North Devon Shattockes are relative closely related to the west Somerset Shattocks (Staplegrove, Milverton, Wellington, Norton Fitzwarren). They only differ from west Somersets by one CDY repeat. 

The CDY double marker for the Massachusetts Shattucks also shares one of their CDY marker values with west Somerset Shattocks (CDYa=36). In fact the Massachusetts Shattucks, west Somerset Shattocks and North Devon Shattockes have only one repeat difference relative to each other. What this probably means is that the three branches are relatively closely related, more closely to each other than to the London Shattocks or the Parrishs / Byars. 

Arthur Shattuck and the Massachusetts Shattucks

The case of Arthur Shattuck, who is a Massachusetts Shattuck, is interesting. He is a descendant of John Shattuck (1647-1675), the son of William the founder. There are three other Big Y testers who belong to the same branch. John Shattuck's descendants apparently share the Y-GATA-H4=12 mutation. For a long time I have puzzled over Arthur's extended STR results because the SNP results seem to be telling us where to place him in the tree, while the STR results seem to contradict this. He has a lot of different values for markers compared to the other members in his group, although none of them are signature markers. A possible reason for the differences finally came to me when I was color coding the spread sheet. His three other group members share a common ancestor that is more recent than the one they share with Arthur. The common ancestor Arthur shares with the others is William Shattuck (1670-1743). The common ancestor of the others has not been nailed down but he appears to have been alive sometime in 1730. Arthur's results may reflect an earlier common ancestor then the common one with the other descendants. The more recent common ancestor among the others would give them more markers in common. Simple, but it took me months to figure out that one. For awhile I thought his paper trail was wrong, but the signature marker Y-GATA-H4 shared among the group probably rules that out. The fact is the Massachusetts branch of the family goes back to at least 1622 and the birth of William Shattuck. The longer the time span the more mutations accumulate. The take away here is that the three descendants who are in the Y24059 group have a much more recent common ancestor than they do with Arthur Shattuck.

Randall Shattuck, who is descended from John Shattuck (1647-1675) through his son Samuel (1672-1758), has his DNA in the lab for testing. It will be really interesting to see his CDY marker and how it might differ from Arthur's. If it is the same as Arthur's then we will know that the marker is actually an ancestral form for the marker and might in fact be the form of the marker that the founder William brought over from Somerset. There is always another DNA test coming along to contradict or support a theory.

South Carolina Shaddocks and the CDY Marker  

I have moved the South Carolina Shattucks under the other son of William represented in the spreadsheet, Dr. Philip Shattuck (1648-1722). The CDY double marker appears to shed some light on the South Carolina Shaddocks, who I have been trying to figure out for almost as long as I have been doing this... over two years. The South Carolina Shaddocks appear to be very close relatives of the of the Y23841 group (William Pomeroy, a Shattuck NPE and Lee Shattuck) who are also descendants of Philip. Both the South Carolina Shaddocks and the Y23841 group are CDY 36-37. And they have a lot of other orange-copper markers in common. If the CDY marker is a marker for membership in a branch of the family, and I think it is, then we can say the ancestor for the South Carolina Shaddocks came from Massachusetts, not west Somerset. And the ancestor might be a descendant of Philip Shattuck. The problem with making the South Carolina Shaddocks descendants of Dr. Philip Shattuck is that we do not have the DNA results for one of William's other sons to compare to, other than Philip's brother John. At least we know William the Shattuck founder is their ancestor.

North Devon Shattokes and the CDY Marker

Mark Shaddick is a New Brunswick Shaddick, a branch of the Yarnscombe Shattockes, which in turn is a branch of the North Devon Shattockes. His results puzzled me as well because the SNPs told me he was placed correctly, but his STR markers were at variance with other North Devon Shattockes. It turns out they differ for the same reason as Arthur's differ from his group. The other North Devon descendants have a more recent common ancestor with each other then they do with Mark. And the DYS452 marker tells the story. While the other members of the group have 32 repeats for this marker, Mark has 31. Mark's value for DYS452 is the ancestral value for this marker. His ancestor's descendants never got the additional repeat. The same is true of Arthur Shattuck. Most of the markers that differ from his other branch members are ancestral. The spreadsheet is a very, very useful tool for validating your genealogical research. And the information provided by DNA testing can get you around a roadblock.

Parrish / Byars / Byas and the CDY Marker

The Parish / Byars values for the CDY double marker (37 and 39)  are different from all other Shattockes. The two Byars on the spreadsheet at first glance appear to have inherited their CDY double marker from the west Somerset Shattocks (36 and 38). But the Byas person in the spreadsheet has the Parrish modal values (37 and 39).  We know the one Byars and one Byas individual who have test results for the signature Parrish / Byars marker, DYS444=13, belong to this branch of the family because they show 13 repeats for DYS444. And we know that probably means they have the SNP that defines this group absolutely, which is A8033. But we cannot be absolutely certain. That is the challenge with working with STR data. Some STRs, like the CDY marker, can change relatively rapidly over time. One of the Byars or Byas people should do a Big Y test.

Turning to the Parrishs, a Shattocke male acquired the surname Parrish about 1640 according to the SNP estimate. But that Shattocke descends from a branch that might be very old. The Parrish descendants are shown by SNP testing to share a common ancestor about 1640. But their common ancestor with Shattockes currently points to the distant past. Does that mean they acquired the Parrish or Byars name in the distant past? No, because the Parrish common ancestor is estimated to have lived in 1640. It is the Shattocke male in 1640 who has the distant connection to other Shattockes. What the CDY marker, with its unique values of 37 and 39 does seem to tell us is that the Parrish branch is a more distant relative of other branches. 

What the CDY marker does seem to provide us with is a tool for roughly estimating the age of the different branches. That is pretty useful. On the spreadsheet, along the top, you will find a row titled: Y16884 Common Ancestor. Under each STR marker is the probable value for the Y16884 founder who is grandfather to us all. It is as if we have an advanced DNA test result for him. Pretty cool. And useful, because we can use it to figure out who came first when we are trying to figure out the order of our common ancestors.

Other News: Ancestral Home of Shattucks
Looks like the case for Tolland / West Bagborough as the area where American Shattucks can call their homeland just got stronger. I discovered a much closer bond between the Woolcotts of Tolland and the Shattockes in the same area. Here is what I added to the page about the ancestral home of American Shattucks:

Guess who the Woolcott family historians make the father of Henry Woolcott, our Puritan immigrant to the Massachusetts Bay colony? It is John Woolcott, the very same John Woolcott who made Alexander Shattock a beneficiary in his will in 1623 in Tolland. This links Henry Wolcott of the Massachusetts Bay colony to the Shattockes in nearby Watertown and Salem. Henry's father had a very close relationship with Alexander Shattocke and that bond was forged in Tolland, Somerset. What gives this connection additional credence is the fact William Shattuck, founder of Shattucks in America, was a weaver. I think the Shattockes in Tolland and West Bagborough might have been suppliers of wool and cloth to the Woolcott mill in Tolland. At least they might have been part of the local woolen trade. 

You might notice that the spreadsheet includes a new addition. Mike Shattock's results came back. I am going to write about them soon. Also Ken Shattock's Big Y initial results are back and I sent his VCF file off to Alex Williamson. More on that later.

Jan. 5, 2017

I am constantly going back and rewriting the pages to this site as new evidence from the written record and new evidence from the record we carry around in our genes comes in. The process is dynamic, like an archaeological dig where artifacts in the early part of the dig suggest a certain scenario for the people who lived there, but new artifacts and evidence from other sources expand and refine the story. It is always possible that you get part of the story wrong.

Such is the case with the latest YTree from YFull: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z36/

Terry Shattock and John Mangan have been added to the tree, but they have not generated any new branches. I have written YFull asking them why Terry's results did not create a new branch, as they did in Alex Williamson's Big Tree. That is why it is a good idea to have the advanced SNP results tested in more than one place. I am confident in Alex's analysis so I am going to leave the tree as it is. In a couple of month's time we will have additional Shattock results to add to the mix. That will probably get us over this current discrepancy of the two analyses. 

I have generated a new version of the family tree as a result of the new YFull YTree. It is at its usual place: Shattocke Family Tree

The biggest change came as a bit of a shock when I saw it. The estimated date of our worldwide common ancestor has jumped forward in time from 1330 AD to 1405 AD. That is doubtlessly the result of including Terry's results in the calculation. I expect that date to move again when Ken Shattock and Mick Shattock's results are included. As I have explained before, the more people whose results are part of the calculation, the more accurate the estimate becomes. We have watched the date steadily move from the earliest estimate in the 13th century to now the beginning of the 15th century. The reason I think it took such a big jump is that Terry's branch of the tree is at the base where it would have more impact on the calculations. Also included are John Mangan's results in the Parrish / Byars branch of the family. This was the other big impact on the date because the Parrish / Byars branch of the family is one of the four major branches influencing the estimate of the common ancestor.

The date has moved a lot closer to the first evidence of the Shattocke name in the record that lists "Thomas Shattocke" as a tenant in the Manor of Taunton Deane in 1450. Unfortunately name Shattocke is transcribed and the author does not provide a source or digital photo of the primary document. So we do not know for certain that his transcription is correct.

This change in the date comes at an interesting time. You will recall that Dr. Peter McClure, principal etymologist for the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Britain and Ireland, in an email to me cast some doubt on my theory of a Flemish weaver as the ancestor to all Shattockes.  He could not find the name in medieval Flanders. The latest estimate for the common ancestor for Shattockes is 70 years after the first Flemish weavers arrived in Taunton, Somerset. So although it is still possible that the estimate is out by 70 years, and it is still possible a Flemish weaver arrived sometime between 1330 AD and 1405 AD, I would have to say this new evidence and other evidence I am exploring have weakened the Flemish weaver thesis...to the point where I am ready to abandon it...not let it go entirely, but consider it one of several possible theories.

As it happens, John Shattock has been educating me about Middle English, which affects the way words were spelled between c. 1100 AD and c. 1500 AD. Dr. McClure rendered "Shattocke" as it might have been spelled in Middle English as: *scēaduc. Then he suggested that it might refer to old location names in England. Ironically the new estimated date for the common ancestor of Shattockes (1405) makes it more unlikely that the Shattocke name is Middle English. What if Dr. McClure's other suggestion, that the name is not a transliteration of a Middle English name but rather a transliteration of a German immigrant's name? McClure points to a close similarity between Shattock or Shattick (as it was commonly spelled in North Molton) and the name "Schadeck" found in modern Belgium, Germany and Switzerland.

The use of surnames in English is believed to have begun after the Norman invasion in 1066 when the Norman barons introduced the use of surnames, first among the ruling class and over time all the way down the social scale to free peasants or serfs. There are no records of a name like "*scēaduc" in medieval times. But if our ancestors were serfs or free peasants the appearance of our surname in records would be highly unlikely. We have to look elsewhere.

Where? DNA evidence of course. So far the DNA evidence is that Shattockes are not descended from the Britons who were the original inhabitants of England beginning a few centuries after the last ice age about 12,000 years ago. They are not descended from later invaders, including the Saxons who, according to John Shattock, made up about 40% of the population of Somerset. The Saxons belong to the L1 branch of the human family, a very distant branch from ours, from Scandinavia and further up the tree. We are not English Celts either. The Dumnonii of Devon are not our ancestors. Nor can we find a relative among the other English Celts. (This year genetic studies of ancient peoples in England is apparently going to be published. That will give us a clearer picture.) In fact we are the only Z36 Celts found among 238 modern descendants of Devon people.

The major branch of the human tree we belong to is called Z36, a mutation found among La Téne Celts who originated from Switzerland and spread out from there. But there is little evidence they crossed the channel to England before being defeated by the Romans. Of course it is possible the Romans brought La Téne Celts into England as slaves or mercenaries. Or trading networks could have brought them over from Gaul or Flanders.

Our branch of the La Téne Celts is called Y16884. The closest branch to ours, our closest relatives, are called A7993. If you look at the YFull YTree you will see that the members of each branch have beside their names the places where their oldest documented ancestor is found. The vast majority of the place names are in continental Europe. Here is a list I derived from a project at FTDNA. I have broken the list into two groups. There are people in the A7993 branch closest to ours and then there are the rest of Z36 descendants. 

A7993 (our closest relatives)

381312 Filippo Dondero, b. 1833, Santa Margherita Ligure R-A7993
E21077 Battista PANTEGHINI, Brescia, Lombardia R-A7993
61465 Giuseppe Rigoni b.1803 Trasquera, VB, N. Piedmont R-A7993
377737 John Cochenour. b. 1792, d. 1846 R-A7993
51926 Schurch family of Sumiswald, Switzerland R-A7993
431247 Arantes R-A7993
B30973 Andreas Heinrich Rupp b: 1876 Russia d: 1960 NE R-A7993
5825 Laurence Strang, b.~1630, Shetland,UK R-A7993
293548 Jesse Jefferson Perry b1874 AL d 1906 OK R-A7995

Z36 (the other more distant branches)

N110858 Jacob Dietrich b Mar 17, 1825 d June 26,1904
117746 Andrea Suardi, abt 1020, Bergamo
174590 Michael Abram, 1869-1960
N26266 Robt Ashby, 09-1796 - 09-1878
128037 Robert Allan dob.c1816. dod.1885 Fermanagh, Ulster
122489 Kasper Hunke, b.ca. 1700 Rokitnitz, Bohemia, CZ
E5182 Jakob Schär b.1754, Bern, Switzerland
N72602 John Tyson, born March, 1863 near Birmingham, Engl
233197 Joh. Heinrich Winkelmann, 1762-1830, Wersen-Lotte
280323 Agustin Arana, born c.1901 Tenamaxtlan,JAL,Mexico
156644 Johannes Nicholaus Barthelmes, 1560 - 1620
N69385 Gaspar Font, 1782, Sant Feliu de Pallerols, Girona
10435 George Lautenschlager,b1743,Ober-Mossau,Hessen,Ger
128242 Jost Krahenbuhl, Zaziwil, Canton Bern, Switzerland
22799 Peter Young, b. ~1791 PA, d. 1845 Plymouth, PA
520683 John Nimmo, b. 1715
43845 Sandoval Flippo b. c. 1807 N. C., d.1884 AL
E14605 Johann Andreas Keller, b.1671, Bödigheim, Buchen
E14528 Hendricus Keller, b.1786, Amsterdam, Nederland
B55491 Randolph W. Winona b. 1834
199556 Pierre Monnier, before 1600
N4960 George James Stevens b.1862-65 Oxfordshire d.1940
E10249 Caspar Konther, b.1634, Friedrichroda, Thuringia
479075 Johan August Petzold, d. bef 11 Oct 1877 R-FGC6418
42389 Peter Binggeli, b.1704, Switzerland d.1793 NC
188413 Jacob Mosemann b 1795 Baden d 1876 Lanc Co, PA
284919 John Binkley, b. 1700
204013 Jacob Musselman b c1698, to Bucks Co, PA c1724
80786 Abraham Strickler, 1693? Germany? - 1746? VA, USA

There are not too many English names or locations among them are there? Among the A7993 group there is one in Scotland and one in Alabama. But they share an ancestor with us 3500 years ago. "Perry" is a name believed to derive from a Welsh or English word for "Pear Tree." And Strang is believed to be derived from a Norman or French origin "etrange," meaning "foreign." Perhaps a Roman slave or mercenary? Scotland is where that name appears. So according to etymological evidence, even among the people in the branch closest to us, only one name appears to have its roots in ancient England.

Take a look at the Z36 list of our more remote relatives and you will see the vast majority of them have a decidedly non-English spelling and origin. What I am trying to do is understand why there is very, very little evidence of a more ancient relative to our common ancestor in England. Thirty-five hundred years separates us from our closest relatives in England, and he appears to be an English "foreigner" (etrange!). 

The new estimate for our common ancestor, 1405, may cast doubt on the theory of a Flemish weaver immigrant, but it also casts doubt on the theory that our name is derived from a Middle English word or combination words for a location in England. There is no evidence that there was an ancestor earlier in England, although it can be argued they were wiped out by the plague, which reduced the population of England by 50% of some estimates after 1348. But you would still expect to see a common ancestor with another English surname sometime after 1500 BC. Instead the vast majority of our common ancestors with other Europeans appears to have descended from continental Europeans. And the Anglo-Saxon portion of English descendants are related to northern Germanic tribes or Scandinavian tribes, not the central Europe La Téne Celts. 

On the other hand, why have we not discovered a branch closer to us outside of England? One possible answer is that more English speaking people outside of Europe have had their DNA tested than continental Europeans. There is actually a law against providing DNA tests to French citizens, for reasons I will let you guess. But our name suggests an ancestor from Germany, Switzerland or Belgium. We are missing that crucial "missing link," a living descendant of a La Téne Celt who belongs to a branch much closer to us. Will he trace his ancestors to England or to France, Belgium or Switzeland? Someday that link will be found. Soon I suspect.

London Shattocks

I have been looking at the evidence for Shattock presence in London, England. I was surprised to discover records of Shattocks living in Southwark, an area of London, as far back as 1614. This is an important clue because I have suspected the genealogy I have for the Taunton Shattocks might have an incorrect date for the migration of Shattocks from Taunton to London. The lineage I worked out has them arriving in London late in the 18th century. But doubt crept into that scenario. The Shattocks rose to very high social standing and wealth in the early 19th century and I doubt they could have achieved this within one generation or two. It turns out the earlier London Shattocks are found in the same neighborhood as the later Shattocks. Southwark. So they may have been a branch of the family that had been living there from the late 16th century or early 17th century. A 1614 document shows a Shattock in London is a blacksmith. Another small blow to my Flemish weaver theory! What really tweaked this investigation was the discovery that the descendant of the London Shattocks was genetically more distant from other west Somerset Shattocks suggesting his lineage had diverged from other west Somerset Shattocks much earlier. See how the DNA data can act as a very necessary corrective to purely document-based genealogy? Hopefully another descendant of the London Shattocks will come along and participate in our research by doing advanced DNA testing. 

I have found some pretty interesting old records that flesh out the story of the London Shattocks a bit more. I will write about these later... as I said earlier, this is like an archaelogical dig where the story slowly emerges as each new artifact is found and the scholars have time to digest the new information and integrate it into previous knowledge.

Parrish / Byars

There is another estimated date that had a significant jump forward in the latest results. That is the date for the common ancestor of Parrishs and Byars (Byas etc.). As a result of including John Mangan's SNP results in the calculation, the date moved from 1580 to 1641. That is huge, because that places the common ancestor of the Parrishs / Byars firmly in the period when Virginia was first settled. Given that the surname Parrish originates from the north east of England, and the Shattocke name originates from south western England, I would say that is pretty good documentary evidence supporting the estimated date.  There is also virtually no Parrishs or name variants found in west Somerset. 

I now think of Parrishs and Byars as having a kind of "dual citizenship" among Shattockes. Genetically they are 100% Shattocke in terms of their YDNA, and there is zero DNA left from a possible Shattocke - Parrish liaison in 1640. But whether the common ancestor had a Parrish mother or was a Shattocke adopted by a Parrish family, or was a Shattocke who changed his name, the fact is a surname is a powerful pillar of our identity.   

Hopefully when RW Parrish's SNP results form part of a new calculation of the date of the Parrish / Byars common ancestor we will get an even more accurate date. Meantime, will somebody settle a dark issue that has been rattling around in my head? It is a chicken and egg kind of thing. Which came first, Parrish or Byars? What if the first NPE event was a Byars or Byas and not a Parrish? 

I have included the Parrish / Byars family tree within the Shattocke tree to show how we are related.

Coming News

The wealth of new results have sent me back to North Molton. I believe there is a strong circumstantial case for a paper trail that unites the Yarnscombe Shattockes (which include my branch, the Burrington Shaddocks) with the Instow Shaddicks. Working on it.

Jan. 1, 2017 (revision)

The fourth west Somerset result came in. This is one was for Mick Shattock, a descendant of the Wellington Shattocks. His lineage emigrated to Bristol and then branched off to Australia. That is where Mick lives now. You might want to read about his family lineage on the Wellington Shattocks page, which I have recently updated thanks to new information from John Shattock of Leicester.

I have added his results to the spreadsheet. Those of you on the mailing list will have the link to the spreadsheet (it hasn't changed). Those who are not on the mailing list, and have lost the link, can write and request that I send you the link.  

I have made big changes to the family tree. You can see it in its usual spot here

Mick is on the 11th row of the spreadsheet, grouped with the other west Somerset Shattocks and the Virginia Shaddocks. What you notice right away is that he is a genetic distance of one from all the other Shattocks with the exception of the lone Taunton - London Shattock (who I have privatized). This means he shares a common ancestor with the Staplegrove, Milverton and Virginia Shattockes. If you look at the new family tree you will see that I have re-organized the tree once again to reflect the new findings. I now have four distinct branches of the family, including our A8033 Parrish cousins. 

The reason for this new grouping? First of all the SNPs (Y19751 for the Massachusetts Shattucks, Y19716 for the common ancestor of the west North Devon Shattockes, a temporary STR connection between the Somerset and Virginia Shattockes, and A8033 for our genetic cousins the Parrishs) dictate it. So there are only four branches of the Shattocke family defined among the eighteen people who have invested in the advanced Big Y "next generation" testing. The reason the west Somerset Shattockes are not on the same branch as the north Devon Shattockes or the Massachusetts Shattucks is because Terry's SNPs do not test positive for these defining mutations. 

And look at the dates (shown in bold green) associated with the SNPs for the three branches that split off from the west Somerset Shattockes. The year 1604 for the Massachusetts Shattucks, which happens to fall close to the arrival date of the Shattucks in the Massachusetts Bay colony (between 1635 and 1641). The year 1580 for the A8033 Parrishs, which happens to be close to the arrival of Shattockes and Parrishs in Virginia (about 1620). And 1567 for the northern Devon Shattockes, who are found in North Molton, a town on the border with Somerset at the beginning or record keeping in 1538. 

Besides the eighteen Big Y testers, there are twenty-five other Shattockes and Parrishs who have STR tested and belong to the three branches. That means that the forty-three Shattockes and Parrishs who have DNA tested are all descended from three individuals who were alive sometime in the 16th century. All Shattockes, with the exception of the Massachusetts Shattucks, are descended from a common ancestor who lived sometime in the 16th century. And the Parrishs descend from a third Shattock who lived in the 16th century.

Donald Shaddick, the lone Bristol Shaddick on the family tree, may be more closely related than the north Devon Shattockes to the west Somerset Shattockes because he shares the marker CDY 36-38 with the west Somerset Shattocks. (The north Devon Shattockes have a 35-38 value for the CDY marker.) He is only a genetic distance of "two" from west Somerset Shattocks.  That measures how close he is related. But we are comparing only the first 36 markers to the west Somerset results. Because we have 400 markers for Donald, we can compare the rest of his markers with north Devon Shattockes who have also done advance testing. And what we discover is that Donald shares the key DYS452=32 and DYS712=23 markers with north Devon Shattockes. It is the fact that he tests positive for the Y19716 SNP that provides absolute certainty he is descended from a common ancestor with north Devon Shattockes. 

Another fascinating observation about the results is that when you compare the Parrishs first 36 markers to those of the Shattocks, you once again see how the west Somerset Shattocks act as the root from which the other branches spring from. There is actually zero genetic distance between Frank Dwight Byars (a Parrish NPE) and Ken Shattock of the Staplegrove Shattocks. And all other Parrishs range from a genetic distance of 1 to 3. This is going to be a really exciting development to watch as the more advanced results for Shattocks begin to role in. This is something I should have noticed before, but the Somerset Shattock results bring it into clear relief. I think this shows that the Parrishs descend from a Shattocke who came directly from Somerset, not from another location in the U.S. or from Devon. And we may in fact discover the village where the Parrish Shattocke ancestor came from...maybe! Again, preliminary results but very, very interesting.

Lest you think I am just about DNA, let me tell you how I have been spending my time in the last several weeks. I have been studying family sizes in the medieval ages and the impact on population growth of the successive outbreaks of the black plague, beginning curiously enough, about the same time our common ancestor lived (1330 AD). The first outbreak was 1348 AD. Rather a coincidence, yes? I have also been studying the digital photo copies of Somerset parish records recently uploaded by Ancestry.com to their servers. And found a lot more Shattocks in the period between 1538 and 1680. I counted 106 male Shattocks alive during the period 1533 (a Shattock will) and 1600. Not a lot! It is quite impossible to get an accurate measurement of the growth of the Shattocke family between 1330 and 1600. But three generations of Shattockes descendants in the 16th century comprising 106 males seems highly plausible. The fact is population growth fell off a cliff after the black plague struck, curiously at the same time as our common ancestor is predicted by DNA evidence to have lived.  So you should expect very few Shattock males in Somerset in the 15th century. The population did not start to rebound in England until about the time the DNA evidence says the founders of the three main branches lived (abt. 1550). Coincidence?

It was critical that I examined the parish records with my own eyes. I found some mistakes, but not a lot. And among the records uploaded by Ancestry recently I found a lot Shattocks in some critical villages that had probably not been previously available to transcribers. And guess what? Something pretty interesting happened. I began to see a pattern emerge. Clustering. Major Shattocke villages defined as large, multi-generational families. One around Taunton, or more precisely Staplegrove. Another in villages near Wellington, south of Staplegrove.  A third in West Bagborough and nearby Tolland. A fourth in North Molton, on the border of Somerset. I realized that the wool and cloth industry was the central factor in these locations. There was a mill just a few miles from Taunton. A mill in Wellington. A mill in Tolland. And North Molton was a major woolen center as well. And there was a lot of evidence in wills and land documents for the occupation practiced by Shattockes in these locations, weavers principally, but a clothier in Staplegrove, an interest in the ownership of a mill just outside of Taunton by a Shattocke, a relationship between a major woolen merchant in Tolland and a Shattocke, and the Shattocke family shield...which now I think may be a woolen or cloth guild symbol. I should say that John Shattock, a Norton Fitzwarren descendant, first pointed out to me how short the distance is between these villages and how much Shattock familes tended to move among them.

Will I ever be able to find proof for this way of looking at the parish records? Well, the next six months are going to be interesting. We have one more Shattock result outstanding, that of Mike Shattock who is descended from the Norton Fitzwarren Shattocks, who in turn belong to the Staplegrove - Taunton and surrounding villages cluster. Mick has just upgraded to a Big Y test, as has Ken Shattock of the Staplegrove Shattucks. And in a few days to a week we should see where Terry Shattock's results fit in the tree. I expect that result to be a big one. With all that DNA data coming we are going to see how the west Shattocks branched down from the common ancestor I have dubbed "Adam Shattocke." That might show us how the people we find in the early west Shattock parish records are related to each other. It is even possible we will find a common ancestor with the Massachusetts Shattucks or our Parrish cousins or both. At least we will have the STR markers that will allow us to create a very detailed family tree.

I have not finished combing through the Somerset parish records. But there is another major discovery that I am trying to substantiate with additional evidence. I think I am close to identifying the village the Massachusetts Shattucks ancestors left behind so many centuries ago. The DNA results from Terry, Ken, Mick and Peter will help provide evidence for that location.

Dec. 20, 2016

It is always exciting when new results come in, but it is especially true when the results are for Shattocks, because they are direct ancestors of the original inhabitants of west Somerset where we all ultimately come from. 

Two DNA results came in the same day, one for (Private) Shattock, who I have been calling a Taunton Shattock descendant, and who lives in Australia. The other is for Ken Shattock, who I have dubbed a Staplegrove Shattock. Ken lives near Seattle, Washington. 

Both are genetically Shattocks, which means they are descended from the common ancestor of all Shattockes, who I have dubbed "Adam Shattocke" born sometime in the period around 1330 AD.

The third Shattock who we already have results from is Terry Shattock, who lives in New Zealand and is descended from what I call the Milverton Shattockes. Milverton is 6 miles or 10 km west of Taunton. Next month we will get results for a Norton Fitzwarren Shattock and a Wellington, Shattuck. The Shattock branch names refer to the last home of the most distantly documented ancestor.

Check out the results on the updated spreadsheet. (I am not publishing the link to it on this page anymore for privacy reasons. PM me for it, or email me through the contact page, or put yourself on the mailing list, where I will publish the link.) 

Here is what jumps out when you look at new results in the spreadsheet. You see that Ken Shattock, a Staplegrove Shattock, is more closely related to Terry Shattock, a Milverton Shattock then to (Private) Shattock, a Taunton Shattock. While Ken Shattock has only one marker difference between him and Terry, there is a four marker difference between him and (Private). This means Ken and Terry had a much more recent common ancestor. 

If the spreadsheet puts you to sleep, I have a better, more visual way, of seeing the impact these new DNA results have on the family tree. I have created a new version of the tree using the DNA data. It can be viewed or downloaded from here: http://www.shaddock.ca/experimental-shattocke-phylogenetic-tree .

What you will see is the family tree organized into three main branches that ultimately connect back to the common ancestor, "Adam" Shattocke (although I think "Thomas" might be a good guess). (The Wellington Shattocks DNA results are not back yet, so I don't count them as a fourth branch.) The new DNA additions to the tree are the Staplegrove Shattocks (and their descendant Ken Shattock of Seattle) and the Taunton Shattocks (and their descendant (Private) Shattock). 

Look where they are. I have the Taunton and Staplegrove Shattocks in completely different branches of the tree. The STR data is telling me this because they are separated by a genetic distance of "4," that is, they have four markers with different values. (Private) and the Taunton Shattocks are grouped with the North Devon Shattockes. Why? because of a single, somewhat doubtful marker they share in common, DYS576=18. It is doubtful because it appears to be somewhat volatile. There are Parrish descendants that have this marker as well, and I assume the Parrishs did not inherit DYS576=18 from the Shattockes. (Private) Shattock also has different values for the CDY markers (35 - 37) then the rest of the Shattocks. That groups the other Shattocks together and separates out (Private)'s Taunton Shattocks. He does share a value of 35 for CDYa with the Shattocks. That means he is only a genetic distance of two from me and other North Devon Shattockes. That is the reason I show him sharing a distant ancestor with North Devon Shattockes. Pretty cool because it provides evidence for the descent of north Devon Shattockes from west Somerset Shattockes.  I am hoping that (Private) Shattock decides to upgrade to the Big Y test some day, as that would clear the doubt away, which I have expressed as a dotted line with a red question mark over the doubtful connection.

Again, I want to emphasize that the results for Ken Shattock, (Private) Shattock and Terry Shattock are based on only 37 markers. In a week to two weeks we are going to have the results of the interpretation of the raw Big Y SNP results for Terry back, and I expect that is going to confirm what I have for him. Ken has just been updated to the Big Y. Potentially the SNP data is going to identify and roughly date their common ancestors with other Shattockes. Right now we don't know how the three main branches interconnect back to Adam Shattocke. We just might find out from the Big Y results.

Peter Shaddock of the Virginia Shaddocks has been sitting all alone at the base of the tree for many, many months. In my last blog, Dec. 14 below, I speculated that the closest branch to the Virginia branch was probably the Milverton Shattockes. I am very sure that the four SNPs shared between Peter of the Virginians and Terry of the Milvertons means they share a common ancestor. The new DNA results show that Peter is actually more closely related to Ken Shattock of the Staplegrove Shattocks. But the difference is only one marker and we are only comparing 37 markers. I have made this connection somewhat doubtful. What can be determined with a much higher level of certainty is that the two Shattocks (Peter and Terry) and the two Virginia Shaddocks (Peter and Jennifer's dad Thomas) share a common ancestor.

But here is the surprise. It is partly due to an error in my Dec. 14 thinking that has been exposed in these new results. I said that the four SNPs shared between means that Peter and Terry shared a common ancestor in the very deep past. But in fact the opposite might be true. The common ancestor might be in the 18th century not the 15th or 16th century. This would mean that the Virginian Shaddocks immigrated to Virginia much later then the founding of the Chesapeake Bay colony early in the 17th century. Fortunately we have a better estimate of the date when Terry is added to the YFull tree in a week or two. A very rough, back of the envelope guess, based on the shared 4 SNPs is middle to late 18th century. 

This raises an interesting possibility...perhaps better described as a somewhat wild speculation. Remember the story told by James William Shattock to his son in the 1943 letter of two Staplegrove Shattock brothers who left the ruined family for new opportunities in America? What if the two brothers emigrated to Virginia? The evidence for this is slim indeed...but the DNA is hinting that the nearest relatives of the Virginia Shattocks are the Staplegrove Shattocks...something to keep in mind at least!  I bet Ken Shattock's results in a month or two are going to pass judgement on this speculation. Don't you just love genetic genealogy?

Addendum: Massachusetts Shattucks

The results that have come in for the three direct west Somerset descendants increase the probability that the South Carolina Shattucks are descended from Massachusetts Shattucks not a common ancestor with west Somerset Shattocks. We still have two more west Somerset Shattock results to come, but the genetic distance between the currently tested west Somerset Shattocks and the Massachusetts Shattucks seems large enough to make this prediction. Put another way, the South Carolina Shattucks share so many common STRs with other Shattucks and so few in common with the west Somerset Shattocks as to make it highly probable that they are descended from William Shattuck, the founder of the Massachusetts Shattucks. 

At this point we have well defined DNA results from two of William Shattuck's sons, John and Philip, but have no DNA results for William's other sons. Results from another son or two would provide much clarity in determining who the ancestor was for the South Carolina Shattucks. 

What does seem certain is that the Massachusetts Shattucks, including the South Carolina Shaddocks, are very distantly related to the existing tested west Somerset Shattocks. So they must descend from a more distant common ancestor. 

The west Somerset Shattocks tested so far come from Taunton / Staplegrove and the nearby villages. So will the two new ones next week. I have previously suspected that the Massachusetts Shattucks come from a village or its vicinity further west, Tolland, based on where known Massachusetts pilgrims came from and on the fact that congregations and families emigrated together. And there is evidence that Shattocks were scattered as far as North Molton on the border with Devon when records began in 1538. The first Shattocke in the records of North Molton, in Devon, is 1542, a Joan Shattick born to John Shattick. Maybe these physical distances are mirrored in the genetic distances. I have had a Taunton centric view of the birth place of Adam Shattocke. But perhaps he was born further west...and his descendants scattered...

There is an outside chance I might find an answer to the origins of the Massachusetts Shattucks. I have ordered a book in a series that tries to determine the passenger list of the Mary and John. I ordered the book because it apparently has a page about the Shattocks. I suspect that passage is about Shattocks in Massachusetts, but who knows? In any event, I might get a better idea of where in Somerset the author thinks some of the Massachusetts Bay pilgrims emigrated from.

Dec. 14

Terry Shattock (Milverton - New Zealand Shattocks) had his results come back today from the SNP interpretation service, YFull. It is confirmed that he does not share the Y19751 SNP mutation with Massachusetts Shattucks. So he does not share a recent common ancestor with American Shattucks. 

Something else is pretty damn interesting. Terry, who is a direct descendant of Milverton, Somerset Shattocks,  apparently shares four unique SNP mutations with Peter Shaddock of the Virginia Shaddocks. (You can see these mutations on Alex Williamson's Big Tree graphic, on the very far right, beginning with 6850806-A-C, the position of the mutation on the chromosome and what the change in the genetic alphabet has been, from A to C. http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=957&star=false) This information has not been confirmed by YFull yet, but it is a good bet that it's true. The Virginia Shaddocks are apparently Terry's closest relatives in America, among those who have DNA tested. This is additional confirmation that the Virginia Shaddocks are not descended from the Massachusetts Shattucks, they are indeed not descended from the other three major branches of the worldwide Shattocke family. They are apparently descended directly from West Somerset Shattocks.

What is significant is that there are four unique SNPs shared between Peter and Terry. Since SNP mutations occur once every 144 years on average, this means that Terry and Peter have a common ancestor that goes back some distance in time. Terry's ancestor left Somerset in the middle of the 19th century for London, and an ancestor left London for New Zealand just after the turn of the century.  Peter's paper trail puts his ancestors in Virginia at least as far back as the late 18th century. While this new information does not prove that the Virginia Shattocks arrived in the Chesapeake colony in the early 17th century, it does not contradict that theory either. And it eliminates the attempts that have been made to trace Virginia ancestry back to North Devon or to existing Shattocke or Shattuck lineages in North America.  

There is a record of a Virginia Shaddock immigrant in Virginia in 1637, "Jon. Shaddock." He was an indentured servant. There are no records of what happened to him. And there was a "Peter Shadock," arriving as an indentured servant in 1654. There are sporadic instances of Shaddocks in the records all the way through to the late 18th century.  

I expect YFull to declare a new branch of the Shattocke family emanating from West Somerset in their next version of their tree if they concur with Alex's findings. 

Meanwhile, if subsequent testing provides a higher degree of certainty that the Virginia Shaddocks were among the earliest settlers in Virginia (i.e. the first half of the 17th century) then that makes a Shattocke - Parrish NPE more likely. Like a detective, I have to determine if my suspect "perpetrator" had the opportunity to father a Shattocke child with a Parrish mother. Placing a Shattocke near a Parrish mother in the early part of the 17th century does that. 

One more point. In the last few days I have been posting interesting information about the Staplegrove, Taunton and Norton Fitzwarren Shattocks. As I review digital copies of the actual parish records it is becoming clear to me that the home of the original common ancestor, Adam Shattocke, cannot be established from the parish records. There are a number of Shattockes born in places other than Taunton or Staplegrove when parish records began being kept in 1538. Even North Molton in Devon shows a Johane Shattick baptized in North Molton June 15, 1542 with a sister born there three years later. This does not rule out that the original home town for worldwide Shattockes is Staplegrove. But the Staplegrove Shattocks themselves might have moved to the village sometime after 1330 AD. If Mike Shattock is able to capture an image of the inscriptions over a Shattock vault in the Staplegrove church that shows the oldest Shattock was buried there in the 14th century, then I would consider that very strong evidence for Staplegrove as the original home of all Shattockes, since the DNA evidence points to Adam as born in the early 14th century. 

Dec. 12

Work is progressing on discovering how Shattocks who lived in and around Taunton in West Somerset were related. We are lucky to have Shattocks living near Taunton or in other parts of England who have done a lot of their genealogical work digging out the original documents from local sources.  And they have a better feel for the original Shattock location having lived there or visited there.

It appears the case that separating the branches into Staplegrove Shattocks, Norton Fitzwarren Shattocks, North Petherton Shattockes etc. is not going to be viable in the long run as the villages are so close together and Shattocks appear to have moved from one village to the next. We are finding family connections that confirms the DNA evidence of a recent descent from a common ancestor in 1330 AD. 

What does seem remarkable is that the story told about Shattocks in the letter written by James William Shattock (1860-1948) to his son Victor Tom in 1943 rings true with the facts. Just today I discovered this passage in Lemuel Shattuck's "Memorials of the Descendants of William Shattuck" (p. 13) about tax records:

"And in 1642, Philip Shattuck of Taunton, Thomas Shattocke of Kingston, the widow Shattocke of Staplegrove, and Henry Shattocke of Norton, were assessed for the same purpose."

These are land tax records for Shattockes villages in and around Staplegrove, suggesting Shattockes were landowners, a cut above the farm laborers, in other words a "family of importance" in the words of James William Shattock or as Lemuel Shattuck describes, writing in the middle of the 19th century: "These facts show that the family were owners of lands and other property—evidences of respectability at that time, in that country. (p. 14)"

In another letter by James William Shattock there is a reference to an inquiry from America sent to the vicar in Staplegrove about Shattock real estate. The story goes there was some property up for sale, but the sale was stopped because of descendants of the family in America had a claim on the property. This helps confirm the legend of two Shattuck brothers leaving for America after they had squandered the family fortune by lifting the entails from the property they owned. Originally I wondered if these were the two founders of Shattucks in America, William and Samuel, the Puritan emigrants who landed in the Massachusetts colony in the 1640s. But this fresh evidence makes me think they were later immigrants. 

Hopefully the five DNA tests we have going on the direct Shattock descendants of founding fathers in Staplegrove, Taunton, Milverton, Norton Fitzwarren and Wellington will reveal how these founders were connected on the family tree. There is an SNP mutation I have been using as a signature marker for Shattucks in America, Y19751. If one or more of the five Shattocks currently been tested shows they have this mutated SNP then we will know that the male Shattock who first had this mutation was born in West Somerset and had children there. And if only one of the five Shattocks we are currently testing has the mutation we will know exactly where William Shattuck (ca. 1622-1672) was born and which branch of the Shattocks he belonged to. We do have Terry Shattock (Milverton - New Zealand Shattocks) Y37 STR results back, and I am betting he does not have the SNP. That's because all Shattucks who have been tested so far have 24 repeats for marker DYS447, while Terry has 25 repeats for that marker. Regardless of how the others show up, we will probably see new branches of the Shattocke family be generated when the current tests are upgraded to Big Y SNP testing in the months ahead.

Great news in the last few days is that there is a descendant of William Shattuck, founder of American Shattucks, who has invested in a YDNA test. I came across him when I was looking for descendants of William's son Philip Shattuck to test. Turns out this new Shattuck is a descendant of William's son John. The descendants of John Shattuck are the most numerous Shattocke descendants among the Shattucks, who are in turn the most numerous Shattockes in the world. 

Don't forget that all Shattockes, Shaddocks, Shaddicks, Shattucks and other surname variants most probably descend from West Somerset Shattocks. So how the tree finally takes shape with all the results of all the Shattockes converging on the original homeland in West Somerset is going to be very exciting. 

There is a new Big Y test for Jennifer Dixon's dad, who is a Virginia Shaddock. This test will tell us if the Virginia Shaddocks are descended from the Massachusetts Shattucks or the West Somerset Shattocks. That's what makes SNP testing such an excellent tool for genealogical research. It allows you to get answers where the records never existed or were lost. It is possible that we will find which branch of the West Somerset Shattocks the Virginia Shaddocks are descended from.

I still have the origins of Shattockes as an emigrant Flemish weaver in my back pocket, ready to be pulled out if additional evidence comes to light supporting the theory.  However, there is another possible point of origin I am exploring that may never be confirmed...although in DNA and genealogical you should never say never. It was the new Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland that speculated that "Saddok" is an early form of Shaddock. The Saddok name occurs  in medieval Berkshire, just to the west of London, although there is a burial in Suffolk just to the north of London in 1327 and a land record for another Saddok sometime around then. The earliest record of a Saddok in Berkshire is in 1288. John, son of Richard Saddok, is listed as a tenant of the Manor of Strouds in Berkshire. I have put all Saddok references into a page found here. Fascinating is a document dated July 16,1350 that records a debt owed by Edward III to the Earl of Suffolk, money he borrowed to wage war with France. Apparently Nicolas Saddok took part in the campaign in Gascony and Brittany. Given there is evidence of Saddoks in Suffolk, and the entry is about money owed the Earl of Suffolk, Nicolas Saddok may have been from Suffolk. 

The principal etymologist has described the origin of the Saddok surname as "obscure." Did the spelling of the surname survive? Because of the number of records of Saddoks found in Berkshire, I thought the descendants might be found there with the surname Shaddock or Shattock. I did find a family there, but not until the early 17th century. But then the Saddok name seems to disappear from the records in the 16th century. Just to complicate the picture, the common ancestor of all Shattockes is about 1330 AD around about the time the name shows up in the earliest records.

The records show Saddoks to the north and west of London. Does that suggest an immigrant to England in the 13th century who first set up his home in London? 

I am not an etymologist, so I do not know how much weight to give this name variant. What I do note is that I have not found variants of the Shattocke name spelled as "Saddok" or "Saddock" in the subsequent records up to the present time. I have found a few modern Saddoks. But they had Arabic first names. 

So I am sticking to the proposition that Shattockes originated from an English immigrant to England sometime before 1330 AD. Will it ever be proved or disproved? In fact there may be a record of the first Shattocke family in England.  James William Shattock said in his 1943 letter that there are Shattock inscriptions on vaults dating back to the 14th century. Mike Shattock in London wrote to the rector of the Staplegrove church to see if he could have the carpet pulled in in the north aisle of the Staplegrove church.  As it turns out, the carpets in the church are due to be pulled up and replaced. What an amazing stroke of good luck, because if those inscriptions are found, Shattock history will be uncovered. It would pinpoint the location of the common ancestor of all worldwide Shattocks. Would that not be amazing?

Dec. 7

RW Parrish, who is Leslee Dunlap's uncle, has a Big Y result that has come in. I sent the raw results to Alex Williamson, who created and updates a tree of the human family. You can see where he places RW Parrish in the family tree here: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1063&star=false

RW is highlighted in red and is tagged with the number: 465862.

I call the Parrishs who are descended from a Shattocke father and a Parrish mother, the Z36 Parrishs. The Z36 Parrish family branched off the Shattocke tree about 1585. The name of the SNP that all Z36 Parrish inherited is A8033. (It would be more accurate to call our Shattocke genetic cousins the A8033 Parrishs, but Z36 is further up the tree and easier to remember.)  A8033 has a sub-branch which YFull estimates split off about 1790. It is called Y19410. Don Parrish, who studies Parrish genealogy, thinks the actual date is much earlier. 

You can see how I have used STR results to define how the Parrish family branched from their common ancestor ca. 1585. Download and view this graphic: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5TueXYTXoP6eTFlRGhkeUFSd2s

Look for RW Parrish on the far right of the graphic. Alex Williamson's placement of RW Parrish in his tree is consistent with where the STR results told me to place RW.  I show John Mangan as RW's closest relative. As it turns out, John Mangan also has a Big Y test in the works and he too was placed in the main branch of the Parrish tree. So again my STR analysis is supported by SNP analysis. 

I am hoping that a SNP mutation occurred that will allow YFull to define a new branch of the Parrish tree that includes John Mangan and RW Parrish. That would confirm that I have them correctly diagrammed as each other's closest relatives and would provide an approximate date for their common ancestor. That will partly depend on how far back their common ancestor was. SNP mutations occur approximately once every 144 years, but they are random events. The more people do Big Y testing the greater the chance the family branching will be revealed. 

It is possible that John or RW will generate a new branch with one of the two other Parrishs (Stephen or Pete) the other Big Y testers in the A8033 main branch. That is much more likely scenario since the common ancestor of all Z36 Parrishs is so far back  (ca. 1585).

That date has some flexibility. It could be 1640 or 1540. Don't you think it is odd that the date of the common ancestor of all Z36 Parrishs falls so close to the formation of the colony of Virgina in 1607? Is it mere chance that a Parrish child was born to a Parrish mother and a Shattocke father so close to the date when English immigrants arrived in North America? The majority of Parrish descendants who are not Z36 Parrishs trace their ancestry back to the north of England. Shattockes (as I have shown here) originate from a very small area of Somerset in the south west of England.  Back in time people simply did not travel the way they do today. At the time there were a few Parrishs scattered in south west England but essentially non-Z36 Parrishs come from the north. And by definition the mother of all Z36 Parrishs was not a Shattocke descendant, but rather a Parrish descendant. (Although it is possible that the original Z36 Parrish was a Shattocke child adopted by a Parrish family.) And at this time (15th and 16th century) there were no Shattockes in the north of England. 

A "remote" possibility is that the Shattocke - Parrish child was born in the north of England or in London. The scenario might be a soldier who fathered a child with a Parrish woman. But Virginia is a much more likely location for a Shattocke - Parrish love child. 

Were there Parrishs in Virginia at this time? Yes indeed, I believe all Z36 Parrishs ultimately have paper trails that end in Virginia. What about Shattockes? There is a record of a Jon. Shaddock, an indentured servant, in Virginia in 1637. (See Virginia Shaddocks.) Records in Virginia, because of fires, negligence and the Civil War, are scarce. But we do have records that lay hidden but can be discovered. That is the records in our DNA -- in Shattocke DNA and Z36 Parrish DNA. 

I am conducting DNA studies of west Somerset Shattocks right now, including a new Big Y test of a Virginia Shaddock, who I suspect is a direct descendant of west Somerset Shattocks. At this point, when I compare Virginia Shaddock DNA results with Z-36 Parrish results, it does not look like the modern descendants confirm a close relationship. But then I do not know if the Virginia Shaddocks I have tested (two of them) are related to the Jon. Shaddock in the records. More testing required!

Sometime in the next four or five months we are going to get more Big Y results that may help us decide if a theory of a Shattocke - Parrish child in early Virginia history has any legs. It is good to have the theory on hand, just in case it turns out to be true. Exciting times ahead!

Nov. 13

The mystery about the origins of the Virginia Shaddocks just received an "ambiguous clarification." That sounds like an oxymoron? Even ambiguous information can be very helpful and suggest new scenarios and lines of investigation into our shared Shattocke ancestry.

I had previously suspected the Shaddocks of Virginia are descended from an indentured servant who arrived near the time of the founding of the British colony in Chesapeake Bay in the early 17th century. (See the study I made of the Virginia Shaddocks.) This suspicion was based on the fact that the DNA interpretation service, YFull, was unable to assign one of the Virginia Shaddock descendants I tested, Peter Shaddock of Houston, to any of the existing branches of the Shattocke family. (Take a look at where he sits on the Shattocke tree created by the DNA analysis service, YFull: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y16884/. His sample YF04851 at the very top of the tree. He is not assigned to any of the branches that spring off of the base Y16884.) 

The reason why YFull could not assign Peter to a branch is because his Big Y testing results are ambiguous.  That I already knew. What I found out recently is that YFull thinks he might belong to Y19751 branch of the family. He doesn't belong to any of the existing branches of the tree I am told, but maybe, just maybe, he has the Y19751 SNP mutation. 

The Y19751 mutation defines the branch of the family I call the  "Massachusetts Shattucks." The South Carolina Shaddocks also have the Y19751 mutation. I have not been able to determine if the South Carolina Shaddocks are descended from the pilgrim immigrant William Shattuck (ca. 1622 - 1672) or are descended from a common ancestor back in Somerset, England. All I know is that the Y19751 mutation sets the Massachusetts and South Carolina Shattucks and Shaddocks apart from all other Shattockes and our genetic cousins the Parrishs. 

We need to do another Virginia Shaddock advanced SNP test to confirm or eliminate the existence of the Y19751 mutation in that lineage. Based on STR results I am pretty sure the Virginia Shaddocks are not descended from the pilgrim William Shattuck. So that fact would place the ancestor of the Virginia Shaddocks in Somerset not Massachuetts. (Also, by the way, if the Virginia Shaddocks were positive for the Y19751 mutation, then the Z36 "Virginia" Parrishs woudl be proven NOT to be descended from a recent, i.e. early 17th century, common ancestor with the Virginia Shaddocks. 

Currently I am testing four Shattocks directly descended from ancestors in west Somerset, England. They are direct descendants of the original Shattocks who lived with 18 miles of each other near Taunton, England. That is ground zero for Shaddocks worldwide. With better DNA results from a Virginia Shaddock descendant, I might find out what specific branch of Shattocks in West Somerset the Virginia Shattocks are descended from. And of course, as is usual with these tests, it will help clarify the branching of all other Shattockes. 

If it does turn out that the Virginia Shaddocks ARE positive for the Y19751 mutation, then there are two scenarios. Scenario one is the Virginia Shaddocks and the South Carolina Shaddocks are descended from William Shattuck, founder of the Massachusetts Shattucks. Scenario two is that they are descended from a family of Shattocks who lived in West Somerset sometime before 1640, perhaps in the 16th century. The STR results you see in the spreadsheet suggest the second scenario for the Virginia Shaddocks, who do not share many STRs in common with the Massachusetts Shattucks. And the spreadsheet suggests the South Carolina Shaddocks are more closely related to the Massachusetts Shattucks than the Virginia Shaddocks. So the most likely scenario becomes a shared ancestor further back in time between the Virginia, Massachusetts and South Carolina Shattockes. And a more recent ancestor between the Massachusetts Shattucks and the South Carolina Shaddocks. 

If it turns out that the Virginian Shaddocks are NOT positive for the Y19751 mutation, then that will make them descendants of a more distant branch of west Somerset Shattocks. Again the STR results seem to suggest this. I think a new test of a Virginia Shaddock combined with tests of Shattock descendants are going to reveal which scenario is true.

Oct. 23

I have recently been talking to Kenneth Shattock, who lives just three hours south of me in the Seattle, Washington area. Why is that noteworthy? 

I have spent the last few years on a determined hunt for my ancestors and have hunted them down to the town of Taunton, in west Somerset, England. What I have learned so far is that Taunton is very likely "home town" for all Shattockes world wide. DNA results of living descendants of Shattockes and our Parrish cousins show that our common ancestor lived about 1330 AD, which is a date that coincides with the immigration of Flemish weavers to Taunton, according to a local history book written in 1795. 

But is there a paper trail back to 1330 AD?

Kenneth Shattock's genealogy and family records show that he is a direct descendant of the Staplegrove Shattocks. Staplegrove is a suburb of Taunton. I have written a page about his family lineage, with a genealogy at the bottom of the page

Kenneth has very kindly sent me pictures and documents from the Staplegrove Shattocks document archive. The cache of goodies included something that blew my mind. It is in the form of a letter his grandfather, Victor Tom Shattock, received from his father. Victor's father, James William Shattock (1860-1948), wrote to him in 1943, when James was 83 years old. We have to thank good fortune that he recorded the most important paragraph of Shattock history to date five years before he passed away. Note that he was born in 1860, and was telling a family story about his own grandfather. Here is a portion from the letter that I have transcribed:

Our family was at one time a family of importance in the history of Staplegrove, residing at Hope House [now called Bishop's Mead]  on the Kingston Road for the Shaddock names are inscribed on the Arch of the dining room mantelpiece, owning nearly a square mile of the best land in Taunton dene. To show the importance of the family there were two vaults in the Staplegrove Church, north aisle, with names tracing the family back to the 14th century, and the importance of the family held is far as the 17 century. During the latter part the family apparently deteriorated, wild living and gambling caused them to lose their possessions and to raise mortgages in order to live and to the extent that two brothers, Lemuel and another, under pressure, went so far as the cut off their own entail to their property. Upon realizing the foolishness of their action they went off to Detroit, USA. Their action rendered your grandfather's father to be left in poor circumstances; he was able to farm some part of the land by paying a rent to those who held the mortgage. He resided at Kibbys Farm, Staplegrove, and on returning one day from the field and riding on the shaft of the cart, got killed, through the horse shying and turning the cart over on him, thus leaving a widow and a son, your grandfather, and three daughters to battle with the world. Your grandfather, Thomas Shaddock, born February 9, 1818, was the eldest, nine years old, had to go back to work to help keep his mother and three sisters and to make matters worse those who arranged the mortgage made the widow and her family leave the farm, Kibby's, because they could not pay the rent.

Staplegrove church, in a suburb of Taunton. This is the place where the original familes of Shattockes were married, were buried, and celebrated life.  The first Shattocke born in England may have been baptized here.

Did you notice what he said about inscriptions found in the Staplegrove church? There are inscriptions in two vaults in the north aisle with names tracing the family back to the 14th century. The DNA test results of Shattocke descendants tell us that our common ancestor lived in the early part of the 14th century. Perfect. 

I have wondered how it is possible that the Shattocke name preserved its "German" spelling for two hundred years until parish records began ca. 1538. This must be the reason why. They were a prominent and educated family and the local vicar knew how to spell their name. And the name was on property and tax records.

Indeed Henry Shattocke, Kenneth's direct ancestor, shows up in legal documents in the records, indicating how important he was in the local area. 

The house that James William Shaddock talks about, Hope House, is now known as Bishop's Mead and is found at 192 Kingston Rd. in Taunton. It is still standing, although it appears to be a somewhat run down shadow of its former self. Imagine the carriages arriving at his door in its heyday, spilling out the town and county elite, the house sitting on a square mile of land.  (You can see the house and explore the area around it through Google maps:

If you see the house and its other buildings from the air in Google maps, you will see how large it was!

There is another Shattock family from Taunton, who I call the Taunton Shattocks and I have written about them. A branch of the Taunton Shattocks moved to London and rose to the highest echelons of society there. They must be "closely" related to the Staplegrove Shattocks, if not the same family. One of their descendants, (Private) Shattock, recently undertook a DNA test. The results are not back yet. Another Shattock, descended from the Milverton Shattocks (also mentioned in the correspondence sent to me by Kenneth), already has his DNA results back. I have sent them to YFull for analysis, but I already know he is descended from a branch at the very top of the Shattocke tree. Kenneth has agreed to do a DNA test. It is going to be interesting to see how these three Shattock descendants from the Taunton Dene match each other. I have a feeling that the whole Shattocke tree will become unified. Right  now there are four branches pointing back to 1330 AD, but with no interconnection.

Is that not amazing? Next spring I am going to travel to Somerset and see if I can examine those inscriptions myself. I have a feeling that the missing record of the Shattockes in England just might be written there.

Two years ago I set out to find my ancestors. What is amazing is that my most distant relative, Kenneth Shattock, who probably shares a common ancestor with me 500 or more years back, is just three hours drive from my door.

Oct. 19

For some months there has been a mystery about the origins of the West Bloomfield, NY Shaddocks. Sally Matthews, who is a descendant, and family researcher, had run into what is classically called a "brick wall" in genealogical research. Her paper trail ended with David Shaddock (1809-1886). The term "brick wall" describes the pain you feel when the document trail ends suddenly and you are presented with a barrier impossible to overcome. Your prospects for continuing the journey are sitting at the wheel of a wrecked car.

Here was the major obstacle: David Shaddock claimed to census takers that his father was an immigrant from Spain. Some of his children seemed to believe this. There is even a Spanish doubloon passed down to Jason Shaddock, a direct descendant. 

To solve the mystery of the West Bloomfield Shaddocks origins we did a DNA test of Jason. I had convinced myself that the evidence was strongly tilting in favor of a Spanish origin and was somewhat reluctant to encourage the test because the West Bloomfield Shaddocks are a very, very nice Shattocke story. David's son, Seranus Shaddock (1848-1938), was in the U.S. Calvary and had fought in the Indian Wars, had developed great respect for Native Americans and lived all over the western frontier. I did not want to lose him! (Read about his colorful life here.)

Well, last night the DNA results came back. The results showed David Shaddock was NOT the son of a Spanish immigrant. David Shaddock was a Shattuck. He is descended from the pilgrim founder of the Massachusetts Shattucks, William Shattuck (ca. 1622-1672).  By coincidence I had been studying this specific branch of the Shattucks. Jason's closest living relative among those who have had their DNA tested is Terry Lee Shadduck of the Pennsylvania Shadducks. Jason has had only 37 markers tested, but he matches Terry on all 37 markers. You can see this on line 23 of the updated Shattocke spreadsheet. 

Terry is a descendant of William Shattuck's first born son John Shattuck (1647-1675). I have created a graphic of John Shattuck's descendants, showing where Terry fits within that branch of the Shattucks. You can view it here, along with a biography of John Shattuck's life.

I am awestruck. The Shattucks are the most numerous of Shattockes, 8000 living descendants of 13,000 Shattockes. And it appears, at least so far, that the John Shattuck descendants are the most numerous of Shattucks. And among those descendants who have DNA tested (Paul Michael Shattuck, Terry Lee Shadduck, Bruce Hall, Arthur Shattuck and now Jason Shaddock) four of them run into brick walls and we have had to use DNA studies to reconstruct their genealogy. 

What is it about these family lineages that made them appear on my Shattocke radar? They have descendants looking for their ancestors: Priscilla Acre of the Michigan Shattucks (through her brother Paul Michael's DNA). Kimberly Dugan of the Pennsylvania Shadducks through Terry Lee Shadduck. Sally Matthews through her cousin Jason Shaddock. Kevin Tvedt and Brian Edgerton through their distant cousin Bruce Hall. And Arthur Shattuck who knows who his ancestors were and loves to be re-united with them through DNA and genealogy.

I believe the genetic marker Y-GATAH4=12 is marker that defines this group. But I could be wrong. It will do for now.

I have added to the tree Arthur Shattuck's lineage to the John Shattuck descendants graphic. Arthur has a very good paper trail. So he really anchors the tree. 

I have added Terry Lee Shadduck to the tree. I am very confident about Terry Lee Shadduck's paper trail (although making his ancestor Albert a son of Frank Shadduck is less certain). That is because of the spelling of his last name (Shadduck), the fact he shares the Y24059 mutation with Paul Michael (scientifically solid) and the fact Terry's paper trail solidly takes him back to the Pennsylvania county where Joseph Shattuck (1773-1835) settled. I have done some major updating of the Pennsylvania Shadduck page, including adding a huge family genealogy. Boy this family was extremely fruitful.

I have also added Paul Michael Shattuck to the tree with a question mark because his paper trail is lost around 1800. But guess what? My genealogical work (and I think Priscilla's) shows his ancestor is probably John Shattuck (1752-1821).

Well the Big Y and extended DNA results you see in the spreadsheet for Terry, Paul, Arthur and Bruce support this connection of Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck to the tree. They both belong to the Y24059 subgroup, which means they share a mutation (Y24059) that is not shared by anybody else. And the person who appears to have had that mutation is their common ancestor John Shattuck (1696-1759), who was born in Watertown and moved to Marlborough, Massachusetts. What this does is eliminate everybody else from John Shattuck (1696-1759) descendants. That's because only Terry Lee and Paul Michael have this mutation.

John Shattuck's father, William Shattuck (1670-1743) could not have this mutation because Arthur would have inherited it. 

This also means George Hall is not a descendant of John Shattuck (1696-1759).

The problem I have with Bruce Hall's placement in the tree is that he is shown in the spreadsheet sharing a lot of the same non-modal STRs with Terry Lee. So here is the dilemma. He does not belong in the Z24059 (John Shattuck 1696-1759) branch where we find Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck. This is certain and unequivocal. But he has nine non-modal STRs identical with Terry Lee, indicating a common ancestor, which would have to be William Shattuck (1670-1743) or his father. To make Bruce fit into the same branch as Arthur, you would have to assume that Bruce's ancestors had 9 non-modal mutations that happened by chance to be identical to that of Terry and Paul. Don't bet on it! Or Arthur's ancestors had nine mutation events that took him back to the modal (ancestral) values for these markers. Again a bad bet. I am hoping that Paul Michael's extended STRs come back they shed some light on this inconsistency. I am also hoping that Jason Shaddock's Big Y test will help us resolve this particular conundrum. 

You cannot be married to your theories. They need to be acquaintances. Here is a possible hypothesis: Arthur Shattuck's paper trail is wrong! In this hypothesis, Arthur would descend from another son of John Shattuck (1647-1675), either Samuel Shattuck (1672-1758) or John Shattuck (1666-1709). Or the marker Y-GATAH4=12 is not the signature marker for this group and Arthur belongs to a completely different branch of Shattucks, one of the other sons of the founder William Shattuck (1622-1672). The second is the more likely scenario because of the number of markers involved (nine). 

Here is something odd I have just noticed. Arthur and Bruce have the same value of 21 repeats for the DYS712 marker, whereas Donald Edison Hall has a value of 20 repeats. Don't know how much weight to give this observation at this point. Perhaps the Hall descendants should consider upgrading Donald Edison Hall to a Big Y test. Or find another Hall who descends from George Hall and test him. Even more useful would be to test a descendant from one of the other John Shattuck sons, either Samuel Shattuck (1672-1758) or John Shattuck (1666-1709).

At this point I cannot say that Jason Shaddock of the West Bloomfield Shaddocks belongs to the Y24059 group since only a Big Y test will reveal this. And Jason only has ony tested 37 STR markers so far. The marker that does indicates that he belongs in the umbrella group that includes Bruce and Arthur is Y-GATA-H4=12. At this point I do not know if John Shattuck (1647-1675) or his son William Shattuck (1670-1743) had that mutation. That is a big deal because it will tell us where people belong. 

The fact I had myself mostly convinced that Jason Shaddock's DNA matches would show a lot of Spanish names, shows how circumstantial and paper evidence can lead you astray. In my own defense I will point out that I kept an open mind about the issue and cautioned that the issue would only be settled by DNA evidence. About that I was entirely correct.

Oct 15

Extended STR results have come back for three Shattucks in the John Shattuck (1647-1675) branch of the Massachusetts Shattucks: Arthur Shattuck, Terry Lee Shadduck and Bruce Hall (a Shattuck NPE). I have updated the spreadsheet. 

Extended STRs are markers that the interpretation service YFull digs out of a Big Y test BAM file. It increases the number of markers used to compare DNA results by threefold. Very useful.

I am not going to go into detail on the new results because I am still waiting for extended STRs of Paul Michael Shattuck. 

What the new results reveal is something I never guessed. Terry Lee and Paul Michael are more closely related to Bruce Hall then they are to Arthur Shattuck. In other words, Terry Lee, Paul and Bruce share a common ancestor more recent than the common ancestor they share with Arthur Shattuck. I have updated the Shattocke Phylogenetic Tree to reflect this. You will find them at the far left of the diagram. See the updated tree here: http://www.shaddock.ca/experimental-shattocke-phylogenetic-tree.

If you look at the spreadsheet, and compare the results of Bruce, Arthur and Terry Lee, you will see what brought me to the conclusion. The markers that Terry Lee and Bruce Share with each other but do not share with Arthur are CDY (a and b), DYF399.2, DYR6, DYS491, DYS518, and DYS695. That is a lot of markers! And it appears to be the case that Arthur has the ancestral value for these markers. I am going to wait for Paul Michael's extended STRs before I fully analyze the implications of this. But it does create a narrower time frame for the common ancestor for Bruce, Arthur and Terry Lee.

Oct. 12

Burrington Shaddock descendants are having a kind of virtual family re-union. I recently had dinner with my 4th cousin from Troy, N.Y., David Shaddock, a descendant of Richard Shaddock (1807-1881), founder of the third major branch of the Burrington Shaddocks. Richard Shaddock emigrated to London, Ontario abt. 1850 and has descendants in both Ontario, New York State and Minnesota. (See Burrington Family Tree below.) The last time our ancestors shook hands was probably in the mid 19th century. 

I recently spoke at length on the phone with Paul Shaddock, who shares a common ancestor with Darrell Shaddock in Enoch Wood Shaddock (1870-1933) son of the founder of Western Ontario Shaddocks, Thomas Shaddock (1834-1912). My direct ancestor, James K Shaddock (1862-1933), son of Thomas, was a brother to Enoch. The last time our family members spoke was probably in the 1930s. 

I have had many telephone conversations with Cliff Shaddock of the Toronto Shaddocks, whose ancestor Richard Shaddock (1837-1906) immigrated to Canada in the late 19th century and probably never knew he had relatives from Burrington, Devon in western Ontario. The brothers Roger and David Shaddick are descended from the same common ancestor as Cliff, whose founder settled in Paw, Paw Illinois. Both are regular visitors to our facebook page and David's DNA test helped me confirm my place in the Shattocke tree. 

I have corresponded regularly with Ken Shaddock, who is also a Toronto Shaddock. 

These are all people who I think as "immediate" family in the context of the Shattocke family tree, in the sense they are descended from a "recent" common ancestor (William Shaddock 1766-1856).

James Shaddock, jr. (1832-1913)

If you have read the page on the Burrington Shaddocks, then you know I have a special fondness for the Yorkshire Shaddocks. David Tetlow, a descendant who I have been in touch with regularly, belongs to this sub-branch. He is descended from Lena Shaddock (1912-2002), granddaughter of James Shaddock, jr.   In the spring I contacted Shaddocks who have facebook pages and one of them finally got back to me. It was Margaret Shaddock, who was married to Billy Shaddock, now deceased. She lives in the North of England and was wondering why there were so few Shaddocks in her area, her husband having be raised in Middlesbrough with three brothers. On a hunch that she was a member of the Yorkshire Shaddocks, I checked my tree and that proved to be the case. Her husband, William "Billy" Shaddock (1942-2000) was son of John James "Jack" Shaddock (1910-1987). Here is the male lineage from the founder of the Burrington Shaddocks.

William Shaddock (1756-1856) Burrington Shaddock founder
                James Shaddock (1801-1865) (direct ancestor of Western Ontario Shaddocks)
                                    James Shaddock, jr. (1832-1913) (founder of Yorkshire Shaddocks)
                                                        William Shaddock (1870-1913) (founder of Middlesbrough Shaddocks)
                                                                                John James "Jack" Shaddock (1910-1987)
                                                                                                    William "Billy" Shaddock (1942-2000) 

David Tetlow's ancestor Lena Shaddock was a sister of John James "Jack" Shaddock. 

For those with Ancestry.com Shattocke trees, I have added to the tree Margaret's husband and family, and her husband's brothers, wives and children, although Margaret is going to confirm my additions to the tree and add supplementary people and data early next week. I will update the Yarnscombe genealogy on this site as well.

Margaret's husband carried on the "William" name from the founder William, born all the way back in 1766. Margaret and Billy named their child William, who might be the last member of the Burrington Shaddocks to carry the name. Correct me if I am wrong! He has no children.

One thing Margaret told me strikes a chord. She told me that among members of her twig on the Yorkshire tree (descendants of William Shaddock 1870-1913, then John James "Jack" Shaddock 1910-1987) only one remaining male with the Shaddock surname is left to carry on the name. Paul Shaddock reports the same phenomenon in his twig on the family tree. The same is the case in my twig. In fact if you look at the Shattocke family tree as a whole, the same "surname attrition" has occurred throughout Shattocke history, with entire branches of the family "dying off," in the sense that the family name is not passed on. That is what makes Shattock genetic genealogy so important to us right now. I had a hard time finding Shattocks from West Somerset still living, although it can be argued that the main branches of the Shattocke tree (the Massachusetts Shattucks, possibly the South Carolina Shaddocks, the North Molton Shaddocks and the Virginia Shaddocks) are descendants of West Somerset Shattocks. Nevertheless, the fact that I was able to so quickly to place Margaret's husband in one of the branches makes me suspect that there are in fact very few main branches to the Shattocke family, and those branches in turn have very few branches, all the way down to the twigs. I think this might in fact confirm what is found elsewhere. There is a huge attrition among branches of a family tree, with occasional sudden explosions in families with many children, who in turn have many children. That was the case with Massachusetts Shattucks who are now the most numerous of Shattockes, all stemming from a single founder, William Shattuck of Watertown, MA in the 17th century. And it is reflected in the spreadsheet I have created for Shattocke descendants. People who are descendants of the main branches have very similar genetics. The Parrishs, who are a Shattocke NPE from about 1585, have very close genetics, relatively speaking. I recently did the genealogy of Pennsylvania Shadducks, whose founder produced another Shattocke population explosion, and then, almost as suddenly, within a few generations a huge number of Shadducks either lost their children to disease, had girls instead of boys or simply had no children. There are 13,000 people in the world with the Shattocke surname or its variants, and 8,000 of them are Shattucks or Shadducks. That makes me think that the major branches of the family are in fact very few and most of my work in accounting for the major branches of the original Shattocke ca. 1330 might be done!

Oct. 10 

Joe Dell Parrish's extended STRs from the Big Y test came back, but I am going to wait until Gary Leigh Parrish's extended STRs are back before I analyze them. Donald Hall's extended STRs also came back. Again, I will wait for the extended STRs to come back for Arthur Shattuck, Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck before I analyze them. 

Terry Shattock's and John Mangan's Big Y preliminary results came back. I will analyze them in turn.

Terry Shattock
I sent off Terry's VCF file to Alex Williamson's "Big Tree." If you look Alex's tree, you will see that he has removed Peter Shaddock (Virginia Shaddock) from the same group as the Shattucks and put him and Terry in their own group at the very base of the Shattocke tree. This means that Terry, who is descended from West Somerset Shattocks via London and then New Zealand, shares a common ancestor with all other Shattockes and Parrishs that goes all the way back to 1330 AD. In other words he and Peter do not belong to any of the three main branches of the Shattocke tree, including 1) the Massachusetts Shattucks / South Carolina Shaddocks, 2) the North Molton / North Devon Shattockes and 3) the Parrishs. 

The fact Peter and Terry are grouped together does not mean they belong to a fourth branch. It means they do not share any of the mutations that distinguish the three main branches. Bill Shaddock, a descendant of the Virginia Shaddocks (and Peter's uncle) is currently waiting for his Full Genomes Corporation (FGC) YDNA results. I am hoping that this test, which is much more comprehensive than the Big Y test, will turn up some SNPs that might reveal his Virginia Shaddock lineage's relationship to the two Shattocke branches of the family. However, the fact that Peter and Terry do not apparently share mutations with the three main branches may be due to the fact he is a direct descendant of an ancient West Shattock lineage. I have grouped Terry and Peter together in the revised family spreadsheet. 

If you have read the Virginia Shaddocks page, then you will know that it is indeed possible that the Virginia Shaddocks were very early settlers in America, specifically the Chesapeake Bay colony. There was a very early immigrant, Jon. Shaddock, who was an indentured servant brought over to Virginia in 1637.  There is no paper trail between Jon. Shaddock and Bill and Peter's documented ancestors, but this new placement of Terry and Peter does not contradict the theory that Virginia Shaddocks are indeed descended from very early English settlers, possibly Jon. Shaddock. When Terry's extended STRs come in the months ahead, and Bill's FGC results are eventually analyzed, we will have additional evidence for or against this theory. Of course, it would be really helpful to test additional West Somerset Shattocks. The more people we test the clearer the picture we will get of our common distant past.

John Mangan (Parrish)
As previously noted, John Mangan is a Parrish NPE, meaning he is genetically a Parrish. When he sent his VCF file off to Alex for inclusion in the Big Tree, Alex did NOT make him as a member of the Y19410 Parrish subgroup, but rather made him a generic A8033 member. In other words, the situation is similar to that of Peter and Terry, meaning John is descended from the common ancestor of all Parrishs, who had the A8033 mutation about 1585, but he does not have the Y19410 mutation that would identify him as a descendant of the Parrish sub-branch. So his common ancestor with other Parrishs at this point goes all the way back to the founder in 1585. 

I have created a new version of the Parrish Phylogenetic Tree. You can find John Mangan on the very far right of the diagram.

As you may remember, I have had some trouble with the DYS576 marker. I did not know if it was a signature marker for the Y19410 sub-branch of the Parrish. Now it seems clear what role it plays in Parrish genetics. This a marker that has an ancestral value of 18 repeats (DYS576=18) and that is what John has. Among many other descendants of Shattockes and Parrishs the marker has lost a repeat (DYS576=17). So it has become a very useful marker for grouping and dating descendants. What is also true is that it cannot be used as a signature marker used to assign people to the Y19410 subgroup since John is DYS576=18 and not a member of the sub-branch, unlike the members of that group that are DYS576=18. 

The interesting observation about John's results is that he appears to have the most common number of repeats for Parrishs for each of his 67 markers, except for two. And most of them are the more recent values for markers rather than the ancestral values. 

Because he has only 67 markers in his results right now, it is dangerous to make any firm assertions until his extended STRs come back from his Big Y test.  However, I have placed him tentatively in the Parrish Phylogenetic Tree on the very far right, in the branch anchored by Stephen Parrish (DYS710=35) and then, based on his marker values in a subgroup with R W Parrish. Unfortunately there is no Big Y test for R W Parrish, otherwise we would be able to eventually compare John Mangan's extended STRs to those of R W Parrish. 

John Mangan's closest match at FTDNA is William Wheeler Parrish, who I had previously placed in the Y19410 group based on the DYS576=18 marker. But it looks like he belongs in the generic A8033 group alongside John Mangan. The email I sent out to Parrishs does not have the correct tree diagram embedded. Use the link in the email instead to download the new Parrish tree.

It is great however that John did his Big Y test, because this branch of the Parrish family only has two Big Y test results so far. John's results are going to help verify the way I have it branched in the tree. 

Sept. 12

I am breaking this report into two sections, Shattockes and Parrishs, but I talk about both major branches of the family in the Parrish section.

Shattockes New YTree Results
A new YTree is out. YTree is the human family tree put out by the SNP analysis service YFull: See it here. Shown is just one branch of the tree (and its sub-branches), Z36. The Z36 branch identifies us as Celts, who formed about 4500 years ago. Our branch off the Celts is Y16884. Everbody below that is a Shattocke. Parrish is a sub-branch of Shattocke. 

Today's news is at the very bottom of the tree, in the new twigs on the branches outlined in red: Y24059 and Y23841. These new "twigs" on our family tree are sub-branches of the Massachusetts Shattucks. I have updated my graphic of the Shattocke family tree, which will be easier for you to visualize. Look for the two new branches on the left bottom of the graphic. (You may have to click on the graphic to see the whole tree.)

Bill Pomeroy and Susan Hughes have been on a long hunt for Bill's biological ancestor. His DNA results do not match any Pomeroys but they do match many Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars or Byas, as well as other Shattocke NPEs like the Halls. So we have known for a long time that Bill is probably genetically a Shattocke, but we were not certain it was a Shattuck or other lineage of Shattockes. 

As you may recall from the Aug. 5 "Latest News," I said that his direct ancestor was Mary Ann Coe, who married a Pomerory and gave birth to Frances Pomeroy in 1807. But the DNA results say he was fathered by a Shattocke, not a Pomeroy. Bill and Susan had long suspected it was a Shattuck neighbor in the town of Pompey in NY state, but the true father of the baby was not a matter of record.  So we tested a likely descendant (Lee Shattuck) of the lineage of Shattucks who were neighbors to Mary Ann Coe.  Today's YTree result confirms that Lee Shattuck belongs to the same Shattuck lineage as Bill, but what is really exciting is that YTree provides an estimate of when that common ancestor lived: 1791. Since the baby was born in 1807, the date makes it virtually certain that one of the Shattuck males who was a neighbor to Mary Ann Coe was the father of her child. The common ancestor between Bill and Lee, Samuel Shattuck, lived between 1716 and 1760, so the date may appear to be off by three decades. But that is within the margin of error, and the YFull method of calculation assumes the individual is 60 years old. Pretty amazing is it not? I have put a question mark beside the name of the father because we don't know which Shattuck male was the father. Bill is conducting further testing to find out which member of the family was the father.

The other new branch of the Shattuck family is Y24059. The two Shattuck descendants who are members of this new group are Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck. Both have paper trails that hit brick walls, Terry in about the mid-nineteenth century and Paul at the beginning of the 19th century. I had thought that their common ancestor was in the 18th century. But the new YTree estimates their common ancestor lived about 1631. I think I am going to have to wait until their extended STRs come back before I attempt to figure out who that common ancestor was and when he was born. The estimated date suggests it was a son of William Shattuck.  The fact that Arthur Shattuck and Bruce Hall are not in Terry or Paul's new branch makes the estimated date a big mystery! Given the margin in error in YFull's estimates, it could mean that John Shattuck (1647-1675) is still the common ancestor among these four. But they would have split from each other in John's son. I have some research to do!  

I have left the South Carolina Shaddocks where they are in the tree. When the extended STRs from the Big Y results for Bruce Hall, Terry Lee Shadduck and Paul Michael Shattuck come back I think we might get a clearer idea where the SC Shaddocks fit within the Shattuck / West Somerset tree.

Parrish New Phylogenetic Tree
Harlan (Pete) Parrish's extended STRs just came in. They are the markers above the YDNA 111 markers that you get from SNP Big Y testing. You see them on the spreadsheet at the beginning of column DL. The extra 200 STRs are a nice bonus when you order the Big Y or Elite 2.1 SNP tests. Here is the updated spreadsheet. Pete is on row 42. 

Pete belongs to a group (A8033*) where there is only one other Parrish descendant (Stephen Parrish) who has done SNP testing (purchased the Big Y test). There is a sub-group, Y19410, that has four Big Y testers, with a fifth one, John Mangan, added yesterday. So the Y19410 Parrishs in the next six months are going to be really well defined. We need more A8033* Parrishs to do their Big Y testing because the results give us the patterns of mutations that can be extrapolated into branching of the trees. This allows us to find ancestors where the paper trail fails. It also gives us dates when the branches formed.

We just updated Terry Shattock to a Big Y test yesterday. When the results come in I suspect that is going to give us a lot of insight into how Shattockes branched over time, and might even help us interpret Parrish branching, because he appears to share a lot more markers with Parrishs than other Shattockes. This suggests his Shattock branch is closer to the Parrish branch than most Shattocke descendants. 

Here are some points I picked up comparing Pete to other Parrishs and Shattockes.

It looks like DYS720=32 might be a new signature marker for Parrishs. It is in the extended STRs so it is only useful for Parrishs who have done the Big Y test. The ancestral value is 32. (The "ancestral value" is the number of repeats the marker had before subsequent mutations changed the number, by adding a repeat or subtracting a repeat. So an ancestral marker is an older mutant form of a marker.) The Shattockes lost a repeat for DYS720 (31 repeats instead of 32) since their common ancestor lived. There is another marker in the extended area that also acts as a signature marker for Parrishs: DYS518=35. 

I seem to have an overabundance (as if that were possible) of North Molton Shaddocks among the people who have Big Y tested, even though most of the descendants are from a later branch. Probably due to my habit of haranguing my closest relatives until they get their DNA tested.

I discovered a very surprising pattern in looking at Harlan's results, that has been there all along, and it was not until I was trying to make sense of Harlan's results that I discovered it.

Among 14 significant STR markers that I examined, Parrishs had the ancestral value for all of them.  

Normally I would think that the descendant with the older mutation is descended from an earlier ancestor. But I know from SNP testing that the oldest Shattocke common ancestor is older than the oldest Parrish common ancestor by over 110 years or 3 - 4 generations. 

Of course Terry Shattock's results may prove to upset this particular apple cart.

Oh, but this is a tricky business. It was not until I looked at the Virginia Shaddock (Peter) that I saw that Virginia Shaddocks are another contender for having the most ancestral markers. Certainly that is true for Peter's markers up to the 111 marker level. The picture is not as clear when you get to the markers above that. It will be interesting when Bill Shaddock, the other Virginia Shaddock, gets his extended markers in the months ahead, and again Terry Shattock. 

Then there is the case is that of Walter Ryland Byars. I now believe him to be NOT a Parrish NPE but rather a West Shattock NPE. He is missing the key signature marker for Parrishs, the rare DYS444=13. However I seem to have lost touch with the administrator of Walter Ryland Byars' results. I have written to her repeatedly but with no response. I have dropped him from the spreadsheet.

So what am I witnessing? I think the DNA results are uncovering the oldest branches of the Shattocke and Parrish family. Certainly that is the case for the West Somerset Shattockes. And it looks to be the case that the Parrishs are a West Somerset branch of the family that goes back to an NPE around 1585. Terry's oldest documented ancestor was John Shattocke born ca. 1518 in Milverton, not far from Taunton, home town for worldwide Shattockes. So his results are really going to help interpret the Parrish results.  

Well, the Devon Shattockes from North Molton or Yarnscombe branches probably also are from West Somerset, but they show up consistently as having more recent mutations. Some of the most distant relatives of Yarnscombe Shattockes do in fact have more ancestral values.  I think in the next several months their results from STR and Big Y tests are going to help us sort out how the family branched.

I have created a new version of the Parish Phylogenetic Tree. I have only updated the branch that includes Pete Parrish and Steven Parrish. There is a lot of new information coming for the Y19410 Goochland branch, so that will be updated later. The newest YTree did not separate out Gary Parrish or Joe Dell Parrish,  but we will be getting their extended STRs back in the next few months. Can't wait.

Here is the link to the new Parrish tree.

Notice that for the Pete and Stephen branches I have made the ancestral markers green and raised them higher in the tree than the same marker with a subsequent mutation. This will give you an idea of how the tree branched over time. The distance between an ancestral marker and a new mutant form of that marker is not proportional. It just tells you which came first.

I now think that Stephen Parrish belongs to an older branch of the Parrish tree than Pete Parrish. Up to now I suspected that Pete might have been the oldest branch of the Parrish tree. In fact I think the Y19410 Goochland Parrishs are an older branch than even Stephen's branch (the new tree does not yet reflect this). So the age of branches have been inverted by Pete's result. (Note that the common ancestor of the people tested may be a descendant of a branch that might have had other branches that wilted out over time.) The Goochland Parrishs have a lot more ancestral markers than the other branches. YFull gives us no date for the Pete and Stephen branches because they are the only ones in those branches. 

The new YTree that has just come out does not help us find the branching in the Y19410. But the extended STRs coming in the next few months are going to help me map out a pretty detailed and accurate history of how that branch of the Parrishs branched over time.

Sept. 8

For a very long time I have wanted to have YDNA test results back from a Shattock who traces their ancestry back to Somerset. Terry Shattock of New Zealand contacted me several months ago through this site and asked me why I did not have any information about Somerset Shattocks. Soon after he agreed to participate in our Shattocke family research program by having his DNA tested. Terry's ancestors go all the way back to Milverton, west Somerset, not far from Taunton. He belongs to  a branch of the Milverton Shattocks that moved to the small village of West Buckland, not far from Milverton and Taunton. There his ancestors were very successful farmers. Subsequently one of Terry's ancestors traded in ploughing shares for butcher's knives. A son moved to London and was once more a success at that trade there. And his son moved to New Zealand and became a successful butcher there.

Well, today Terry's initial results came back. My email inbox was deluged with emails from the Shaddock - Shattuck - Shattock - Parrish project I run at FTDNA, announcing matches to all my near and distant cousins. We only tested 37 genetic markers on Terry's Y chromosome, and we intend to test a lot more. But some really big insights can be dug out of those results. I have updated the spreadsheet with Terry's results. He appears on line 8 of the spreadsheet. 

The first thing you will notice is that his results are very similar to the 40 odd Shattockes and Parrishs in the spreadsheet. That explains the deluge of notifications I got announcing that he had relatives among all the Shattockes and Parrishs. The second thing to notice is that he does not have the DYS444=13 mutation shared by all Parrishs. This means that DYS444=13 is definitely a signature marker that identifies Parrishs as a separate branch of the family, which broke off about 1585 AD. This gives us more confidence that the Parrishs descend from a single individual who lived at that time. He has fewer genetic marker differences with the Parrishs then with anybody else, with the possible exception of the Virginia Shaddocks. So Terry may be more closely related to the Parrishs than to Shattockes. We will have to see if the other markers we test for Terry will bear this prediction out. 

The big surprise though is that Terry is DYS447=25. Since Terry is the only Shattock that I have tested, I will have to put a question mark beside this result. I badly need another Somerset Shattock to test their DNA to see if this result is consistent among Somerset Shattocks. But here is what is special about this result. He has the same number of repeats for that marker as the Parrishs, the Virginia Shaddocks, and the North Molton Shaddocks (that include my direct ancestors the Yarnsombe Shattockes). All the Massachusetts Shattucks, and the South Carolina Shaddocks are DYS447=24 for this marker. In other words they lost a marker. Why is this big news? First of all it may allow us to split the family tree between these two groups based on this marker. And it is additional evidence that all the Massachusetts Shattucks we have tested, and all the South Carolina Shaddocks we have tested, are descended from a single individual who broke off from other Shattockes, probably William Shattuck of Watertown (1622-1672). In other words, it is additional evidence that the South Carolina Shaddocks are very close relatives of the Massachusetts Shattucks. In fact the results do not contradict a theory that says the South Carolina Shaddocks are descendants of the Massachusetts Shattuck pilgrims. Terry's results give us more confidence that this indeed is the case.

This also has implications for the Virginia Shaddocks. It means we can probably rule out the possibility that they are descended from the Massachusetts Shattucks. Virginia Shaddocks appear to be more closely related to Terry than other Shattockes, including North Molton, Devon Shattockes. Terry and Peter Shaddock of the Virginia Shaddocks only have a two marker difference between them. Peter's uncle Bill Shaddock has agreed to invest in the Full Genomes Corporation Y Elite 2.1 test. This is the most thorough and most accurate test of the Y chromosome available, so it will be very, very interesting when his results come back. I told Bill that if he did the test we might be able to determine if the Virginia Shaddocks came to America directly on a ship from England, specifically from Somerset. And we might be able to estimate when that happened. That possibility just became very real. 

Once again I will reiterate that these are preliminary results because we are only looking at 37 markers. But I feel like these results have already filled in a big void in the study of Shattocke and Parrish origins. They shine a light on our very distant past, showing that all our genealogical paper trails ultimately lead back to west Somerset, and showing that we are all in fact Somerset Shattock descendants. Hopefully we will find other Shattocks to bring all our ancient familial connections into the light. In fact there is one in the works right now, a Birmingham Shaddock who is having their YDNA tested (thanks to Jennifer's dad). Are the Birmingham Shaddocks from Somerset or Devon? Perhaps we will find out. 

Addendum: New thought on the results. Based on the fact that Terry Shattock appears to be so closely related to the Parrishs (on a relative basis, if you will pardon the pun), and given that there is a single individual who is their progenitor, it would seem that the best place to look for him is in the same 135 square mile area (the Value of Taunton Deane) that all Shattockes come from.

Aug. 5

Alex Williamson updated his genetic tree with the latest addition of Paul Michael Shattuck's Big Y test. I had been lamenting to him about the lack of branches among the Massachusetts Shattucks, who arose from the emigration of Shattocke pilgrims to the Massachusetts Bay colony between 1635 and 1641. The family chronicler Lemuel Shattock in 1855 asserted all Shattucks were descended from a single couple (William Shattuck circa 1622-1672). That makes it difficult to get meaningful results from Big Y testing as the type of mutation that is tested (SNPs) only occurs randomly every 144 years. It was possible no new and novel SNPs would be found after 1622. Alex being a very generous and thoughtful man, responded to my lament by digging further into the BAM files of those Shattockes who had done Big Y testing.

You can see what he came up with by examining our family's section of the Big Tree: http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=425&star=false

Wow. Up to now there was only a single list of Shattucks (including a Hall and Pomeroy descended from a Shattuck) on the tree. Now the single branch of Massachusetts Shattocks (Y19751) was split into three branches. Alex had found two novel SNPs not shared by other Shattucks. 

One novel SNP (16660812-T-C) is shared between Bill Pomeroy (4128) and Lee Shattuck (508907). This means Bill Pomeroy and Lee Shattuck had an SNP mutation that none of the other testers have. And that means they share a common ancestor more recent that the common ancestor (William Shattuck) shared among all other Shattucks who have tested. This is fantastic news for Bill because it means the candidates for his ancestor has got narrowed down to a descendant of one of William Shattuck's sons, Dr. Philip Shattuck (1648-1722). We don't know when the mutation occurred, but it appears only a grandson of Dr. Philip Shattuck passed on the name to his descendants. Samuel Shattuck lived between 1716 and 1760. That gets us very close to the birth of Bill Pomeroy's ancestor Francis W. Pomeroy in 1807. Bill and his research team believes the child's father was a Shattuck who lived near the mother (Mary Ann Coe). That family of Shattucks are descendants of Samuel Shattuck. I think that evidence is pretty compelling. Lee Shattuck is Bill Pomeroy's closest relative among all the Shattockes and Parrishs who have DNA tested.

In a few days YFull will come out with a new tree as well. In the past Alex's tree has been a consistent predictor of what YFull will find with their analysis. Additionally YFull will provide an estimate of when the common ancestor between Lee and Bill lived. Since mutations are random, we cannot take their estimates too literally, although we can use them to definitively determine the order of the branches.

The second novel SNP (21924507-C-G) has divided off Terry Lee Shadduck (459079) and Paul Michael Shattuck (496614) from every other Shattuck. When I said "Wow" at the beginning of this analysis, it was because of this result. It comes as a complete surprise. The fact is Terry and Paul's Shattuck ancestry is unknown as the paper trail for each of them runs out in the early part of the 19th century. Nothing in my genealogical research so far has indicated these two find their closest Shattocke relative in each other. Up to now I was pretty sure both of them are descended from William Shattuck the founder's son John Shattuck (1647-1675) based on the Y-GATA-H4=12 marker. But that is a dangerous marker to play with as it is very volatile and unstable. Certainly the STR data seems to indicate a close relationship, although I only have Paul Michael's STR results up to the 37 marker level. It is going to be very interesting when the full 450 STRs come back for Paul Michael and when (or should I say "if") YFull confirms that they form a new branch of the Shattucks. Alex's analysis shows them as descended from a different branch of the Shattuck family then the other Shattucks. So it is very possible I have Terry Shadduck's genealogy entirely wrong. Perhaps I have been duped by the spelling of Terry's last name "Shadduck" instead of "Shattuck." I had assumed that he was a Pennsylvania Shadduck descended from Joseph Shattuck (1745-1813). But what if his ancestor was a totally different Shattuck who had moved to Pennsylvania in the early 19th century and had his name changed to "Shadduck" because of a local naming convention? That happens a lot in nearby New York state at this this time with the name "Shaddock." I am going to wait until the YFull results come in and possibly return to revise this paragraph. But right now, it looks like Paul and Terry are descended from a different son of William Shattuck than the other Shattucks. This shows you how powerful DNA analysis can be. You are blindly following the paper trail far off course, when the course correction comes in the form of a deep DNA result. 

Well I have another "Wow" for the remainder of the Shattucks, who find themselves strange bedfellows in the remaining branch. "Strange bedfellows" because all along I have had Bill Pomeroy and the South Carolina Shaddocks (Linda's brother Kenneth Dale Shaddock and her cousin Robert Shaddock) in the same branch.  I warned you last time that the STR data was predicting a family split. And it has happened. What do we make of the fact the Carolina Shaddocks have been moved into William's son John Shattuck's (1647-1675) branch? 

Well, Arthur Shattuck (462137), Bruce Hall (80144) and the South Carolina Shaddocks are shown to belong to the same branch, different from the other Shattucks. And they are shown by Alex to be independently descended from the common ancestor. And I believe Arthur Shattuck has a solid paper trail all the way back to William Shattuck the founder. 

Bruce Hall can probably assume that his common ancestor with Arthur Shattuck is John Shattuck (1647-1675). That helps to narrow down the possible paternal line to descendants of John Shattuck who lived in the same area as his Hall ancestors. (Although people did wander over wide distances in those days so we cannot be entirely sure.) When the extended STRs come back in four or five months we will have a better idea of when that common ancestor might have lived. 

We have to assume because of the evidence that the South Carolina Shattucks are descended from William's son John and not William's son Philip. This is a very important clue for the descendants of South Carolina Shattucks whose paper trail runs out either in 1702 or 1760 in South Carolina. They should look for their ancestor among John Shattuck's descendants. And it has to be an early descendant, because the founder of the South Carolina Shattucks, Samuel Shattuck, was born either about 1680 or 1760 or sometime in between.

Again, I am going to wait until the YFull results come in before I completely make up my mind about this. We have two west Somerset Shattocks in the lab right now. The significance of these results are that they are taken from descendants of Somerset Shattockes who are not William Shattuck descendants but rather they are descendants of William Shattuck's ancestors. I do have a nagging doubt about the descent of the South Carolina Shaddocks. What if they do not descend from William Shattuck but rather an ancestor of William Shattuck back in west Somerset, England? I am hoping that the west Somerset Shattock results will provide a final answer about this.  Of course the problem with this scenario is that Arthur Shattuck has a solid paper trail back to William Shattuck. So if that paper trail is solid, than the South Carolina Shattucks have to be descendants of William Shattuck. Damn DNA results. Sometimes they clear up a mystery at the same time they create three new ones. 

There is one more Shaddock that I discussed with Alex. The Virginia Shaddock result...that of Peter Shaddock. Alex was trying to determine if Peter Shaddock was a Massachusetts Shattuck or not but he tells me the area of the Y chromosome where the Y19751 SNP is located is missing data for Peter. That means he could not test Peter's data to determine if he is a Massachusetts Shattuck. I had assumed the Virginia Shaddocks arrived on a ship from west Somerset in England in the 16th century. But without a good paper trail and with a lack of DNA evidence, I guess it is possible they came down from Massachusetts. Everything is possible until the evidence begins to rule out many of the possibilities! I think another descendant of the Virginia Shaddocks should do a new Big Y test. This would probably clear things up.


On Aug. 6 the new YFull YTree came out: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z36/

Because the results for Paul Michael Shattuck and Lee Shattuck were not included in this month's edition of the YTree, and it is their SNPs that produced Alex's Y19751 tree branching, the new Ytree still has a single branch for the Massachusetts Shattucks. However here is something interesting about the new tree: the addition of last month's Shattucks to the branch moved the estimated date of the formation of Y19751 date to 1525 from 1625! That is a hundred years before the colony at Massachusetts Bay was founded. The more people that are added to the branch, the more accurate the date, although there is still lots of room for error. Does this mean that the male who had the Y19751 SNP mutation lived in Somerset two or three generations previous to the emigration of his descendants to America? Are the South Carolina Shaddocks emigrants from Somerset to South Carolina rather than Shattucks who moved to South Carolina from Massachusetts via North Carolina? The paper trail for Arthur Shattuck still stands in the way of that thesis. Well, as they used to say in the old tv culture before binge watching became the new model for watching tv....stay tuned...

July 10

A new YTree is out. I am going to divide this report into two sections, one about the Shattocke results and the other about the Parrish results. 

A) Shattocke Results

Unfortunately the three new Massachusetts Shattuck Big Y results (Arthur, Bruce and Terry) are not included in the tree. So we have to wait another 5 or 6 weeks to see how they branch. 

For the north Devon Shattockes, a new branch of the family has been declared. It is FGC43713, a refinement. You can see it on the updated Shattocke family tree. I have also updated the spreadsheet.

The new branch was propagated by the addition of Clive Shaddick's results. He is an Instow Shaddick. What this new branch confirms is Philip Mustoe's discovery of the birth place of John Shaddick b. 1851 in Fremington. (I posted on the facebook page on June 7 about this.)  In finding his birth place we were able to find a paper trail that ran from the north Devon towns and villages of Fremington, through Yarnscombe and back to North Molton, the entry point I think for Shattockes in north Devon. If you look at the new branching I gave the north Devon Shattockes in the Shattocke family tree you will see that the Yarnscombe Shattockes and the Instow Shaddicks are independent sub-branches of FGD43713. That is consistent with the genealogical work Philip Mustoe and I did showing that his Instow ancestors migrated from North Molton to Yarnscombe, then on to Fremington. And the fact that his Instow ancestors and my Yarnscombe ancestors belong to two separate but very closely related family lines, and both lived in Yarnscombe within a decade or two of each other, means that I now can be pretty certain that my ancestors came out of North Molton in Devon, not North Petherton in Somerset as I once thought. 

The fact that I recently discovered a lot of the same Christian names among Yarnscombe and North Petherton Shattockes makes it probable that the two villages share relatively recent ancestors. Will I be able to find out if that is true? Well, two Shattock descendants who track back to Somerset are going to do DNA testing which will possibly give me answers to that question. One of them may (I have not confirmed it yet) track back to North Petherton, the other in nearby West Buckland. These are going to be a very, very interesting DNA tests. In anticipation of these results I have renamed branches in the Shattocke tree. This reflects my uncertainty about where Donald Shaddick's ancestors came from. The new results seem to confirm that his ancestor Richard Shaddock baptized 1799 in Bristol was not born in South Molton as he declared on a census form. At this point it is less clear whether his ancestors passed through South Molton or were always living in Somerset.  It is possible the test currently underway with a descendant of the Birmingham - Dennington Australia Shaddocks might resolve this issue for us. We will see.

One of the things I am happy about the new version of the tree is that Mark Shaddick of the New Brunswick Shaddicks is in the same sub-branch as me and the other Yarnscombe Shattockes. His STR results differ for some important markers for Yarnscombe Shattockes, but the Big Y SNP results show he belongs with us rather than falling outside of our little sub-branch of the family. While me and the other Yarnscombe Shattockes (Cliff, the three Davids and two Kens) are Burrington Shattockes descended from a more recent common ancestor (1766), Mark is descended from a Yarnscombe ancestor born in 1680. Obviously his ancestors had several mutations that would have led me to believe he was more distantly related and not part of the Yarnscombe branch if he had only done the Y-DNA tests and not the Big Y. This shows the necessity of doing the Big Y test when STR results are ambiguous. And it gives me a lot of satisfaction that I got his paper trail nailed. The paper trail was itself ambiguous. I am often guilty of making leaps of faith in documenting the paper trail. But in there is no penalty for being wrong since the DNA results will confirm or rule out my paper paths.

The Massachusetts Shattucks are probably going to be disappointed to see they have not been sorted into branches in the current tree. We will have to wait to see if the guys at YFull find new branches for the next YTree. But even if they do not find new branches because the Shattucks descend from a single founder born recently in 1620 (from the perspective of genealogy), we will have the extended STRs to work out the branching in another couple of months. And I expect the Shattocks who are direct descendants of Somerset Shattockes to have a big impact on how we view the American Shattuck results. I am doing a lot of research in Somerset right now, and I am struck by the common Christian names with the north Devon Shattockes. I am also struck by how the two Shattocks I am researching are descended from ancestors who live in or near Taunton, a major Shattocke town in Somerset. I have had a lot of success using both genealogical and DNA evidence to figure out the migration path of north Devon Shattockes. I think this is going to be the same case for Somerset Shattocks and American Shattockes (South Carolina Shaddocks, Virginia Shaddocks and Massachusetts Shattucks and Shadducks). 

B) Parrish Results
The Parrish results include those of Joe Dell Parrish and Peter (Harlan) Parrish (and by association Dana Parrish). 

The new YTree does not have new Parrish sub-branches. Joe Dell and Pete were not moved from their initial placement in the tree. That might seem to be a disappointment at first, until you look at the results more carefully. I have updated the family tree to show how dramatically things have changed.

The first thing you will notice is that the Parrishs branch off of the Shattockes in 1524, not 1450, as I had it in the old version of the tree. Mutations are random so we cannot take 1524 as being definitive, but the addition of Joe Dell and Pete to the results moved the estimate much closer to the time when records began to be kept (1538). The caveat is that some villages did not start keeping records until a century later or more. 

So I think we just increased the chances of finding the village from which Parrishs emigrated to Virginia. Given that Parrish villages are very rare in Devon, that is great news. Indeed I just did a search for Parrishs in Somerset and Devon, beginning in 1500, and a John Parrish popped up in the Shattocke village of South Molton, born in 1621. (I have the paper record of his birth.) Unfortunately he died two days later. But his father Richard apparently was born in Yarcombe. There are other records of Parrishs in South Molton, making it a multi-generation Parrish village. I believe records did not begin to be kept in South Molton to around this time, so it is possible Parrishs were in this village in the previous century. Okay, it is a big leap of faith to believe Parrishs came from South Molton and we might even be able to roughly guess who the Shattocke father was. But then with more Parrish Big Y tests and more Shattocke tests, the possibility of narrowing our search down to a village and a family in that village becomes much more likely. Maybe the Parrishs should consider pooling their money and searching for and identifying living descendants who would really focus the research. I have done that with my North Devon and Somerset Shattock distant relatives and I am beginning to reap the benefit of such an approach.

One additional thought. In my DNA investigations of Shattockes found in Devon, it is becoming clear that most, if not all, of them are descended from Shattockes who migrated to Devon from Somerset through the town of North Molton, on the border between Devon and Somerset. Given that the origin of the Parrishs and the origin of the north Devon Shattockes is roughly in the same time frame, that makes South Molton (three miles from North Molton) a very strong candidate for the origin of Z36 Parrishs in England.  It makes the origin of Z36 Parrishs in other parts of Devon much less likely since there would be no Shattockes in those villages.

Now here is what is interesting about the current Parrish Big Y results. Steve Parrish and Pete Parrish have a common ancestor that goes back to ca. 1524. I have changed the tree diagram to make this clear. In fact there are three lines of descent from that common ancestor in 1524. This suggest there is a single family of Parrishs that lived about 1524 in a village in England's west country, probably a village that had Shattocke relatives. The fact that Pete and Steve are on separate lines supports the division among the Parrishs that I made in the previous tree, using the DYS439 marker as my dividing point. I have put the names of other Parrish descendants under Steve because I am more confident this is the way Parrishs branched. 

Note though that Gary Parrish's results are coming in the next version of the YTree and at some point R W Parrish's Big Y test will be done, so that is going to really help to define the branching of Parrishs (and their genetic cousins the Byars, Byas and Byers). Also the extended STRs will become available in the next two months from Pete, Steve, Joe Dell and Gary. The extended STRs are really, really important because the Parrish have such a recent common ancestor (1524) and SNP mutations (measured by Big Y) only happen on average every 144 years. 

Actually we are lucky that a mutant SNP came into existence causing the Parrish branch Y19420 to be declared. This is the branch that I have divided into two groups using the DYS557 marker as the division point. Again the big news here is the adjustment to the date when the common ancestor lived, ca. 1739. This shows the importance of people upgrading to the Big Y test to help the whole group get a better date and branching for Parrishs. The year 1739 is a lot closer to what Don Parrish has for the common ancestor (1672 I think). We will see where Gary gets placed in the next couple of weeks, but I believe it will be in Y19420. That might cause a new sub-branch to form, although I think his extended STRs are what is going to help us do the branching as the chances of another mutant SNP is slim. (And the benefit of being wrong about this is that his results will provide a huge insight into what the other branches did over time. Kind of cool to benefit equally from being right or wrong.) What is important to note is that Y19420 is a line that goes back to that family in the small village in England. There is no common ancestor with Pete or Steve in the intervening generations. 

Joe Dell obviously has a common ancestor with Don and Lisa's Uncle Charles around 1739. Maybe Don can comment on this as I am just not familiar enough with the genealogy to see clearly how this branch developed, when and where. Maybe Barbara can send me a link to her Ancestry tree. 

What a fabulous tool DNA is when it is combined with freewheeling genealogy research! You have precision and finality on one side and imagination and creativity on the other. There is no better combination than that.

July 1

YFull, the SNP interpretation service has a great tool for analyzing the advanced DNA data you get with Big Y testing. It identifies the STR markers that are associated with each branch (SNP) of the family. So for those people who have not done the Big Y, they have a way of identifying which branch they belong to. I have used the tool to generate the latest family tree, which now includes both Shattockes and our nearest genetic relatives, the Parrishs. I have done this manually before, but the YFull does it through computation, so it picked up some markers I had not notice, particularly in the extended STR area. 

I have also updated the spreadsheet. I have included notes at the bottom of the spreadsheet, which identify the STR markers that define how the family tree branches. For each branch I have noted which the mutations (STR values) that are particular to that branch. 

The biggest change has been to find a place in the tree for the Virginia Shaddocks. It turns out their closest relatives are actually Massachusetts Shattucks. They are not descended from MA Shattucks, but rather from a common ancestor with them back in England. I am not sure that they actually come from Somerset, but it now seems very likely that they did. 

You will see that I have listed the names of people you have been DNA tested under the branch they belong to. The ones that are missing are some Parrish DNA testers. I just am not sure about them. They need to have a Big Y test to find their place among the Parrishs. Notice that I have split the Y19410 Parrishs into two groups based on values for the DYS557 marker. We'll see if that holds up when YFull comes out with their new tree.

The same is true of the Shattucks. I am using some unreliable markers for dividing them up. We'll see if the new tree sorts that out. 

What is cool about the new tree is that you can use it to figure out right away what branch of the family a new tester belongs to. You just see if they have the same repeat value (e.g. DYS393=14) for a marker as that found in a specific branch.  I have listed with each branch the marker values associated with that branch (e.g. DYS393=14 for identifying Virginia Shaddocks).  The SNPs (in burnt red color) are the solid foundation of the tree. In the next few months I expect the tree to expand and stabilize.

June 21

A new Massachusetts Shattuck DNA test is back, that of Lee Shattuck. I have updated the spreadsheet with his results. He is on row 9. At this point he is only tested on 37 markers, which makes this analysis preliminary. He will be upgraded in the months ahead.

I have also updated the Experimental Shattocke Tree. It shows what the Shattocke family tree looks like when you combine genetic and genealogical data. What you will notice about the Massachusetts Shattuck branch of the tree is that I have the founder of the family, William Shattuck (1622-1672) at the top of the branch and only two sons branching down from him, John Shattuck (1647-1675) and Philip Shattuck (1648-1722). That is because we have only found and tested Shattuck descendants of these two brothers. William had five sons. If you know Shattucks who descend from one of the other three brothers, please encourage them to contribute to our project by getting DNA tested. Tell them to contact me on this site. 

Lee is a documented descendant of William Shattuck's son Philip Shattuck (1648-1722). The big news about Lee Shattuck's results is that he does not "contradict" our assumption that Bill Pomeroy (a Shattuck NPE), and Robert Shaddock and Kenneth Dale Shaddock of the South Carolina Shattucks are descendants of William's son Philip. The test does not necessarily confirm that they are Philip descendants. It just does not contradict that assumption. Hopefully when we upgrade all the way to a Big Y test we will be able to have a lot more confidence in that assertion. We have a good paper trail for Lee back to Philip, so this is a very important DNA result because we can use his markers as the reference against which to judge the other's results. 

Actually, I am beginning to think that the South Carolina Shaddocks ARE NOT descendants of Philip Shattuck. Examining the markers leads me to that suspicion.

The most important marker in this respect is Y-GATA-H4=11, which appears to set the Philip Shattuck descendants apart from the John Shattuck descendants, which are Y-GATA-H4=12. This represents a gain of a repeat for this marker among the John Shattuck descendants. What I would like to see is the value for the marker among the other Shattuck brothers. Did John Shattuck or one of his immediate descendants have this mutation? It seems likely. If that is the case then we cannot be sure that Bill Pomeroy and the South Carolina Shattucks are descendants of Philip Shattuck because they have the historic value for this marker and all the Shattuck brothers except for John Shattuck may have this value ( Y-GATA-H4=11) for the marker. 

The other marker that is of interest is DYS464c. Bill Pomeroy and Lee Shattuck are DYS464c=17 which appears to be the modal value (the historic value) for Shattockes and Parrishs going back hundreds or thousands of years. The South Carolina Shaddocks are DYS464c=16, representing a loss of a repeat. This is an unstable marker so we should be cautious in our assessment. If you look at the Experimental Shattocke Tree you will see I use this marker to separate the Shattuck into two branches, with the South Carolina Shaddocks on one side and Bill Pomeroy plus Lee Shattuck on the other. It may be, however, that the South Carolina Shattucks are descended from another brother entirely. That is why we need to find a documented descendant of another brother...or two...or three!

We are going to get a lot more information in a few weeks when the Big Y results for Terry Lee Shadduck (a John Shattuck descendant), Bruce Hall (a Shattuck NPE and descendant of John Shattuck), Arthur Shattuck (with a solid paper trail back to John Shattuck) are placed on the YFull YTree. We will see how they branch in relation to Bill Pomeroy and the South Carolina Shaddocks. And there is yet another John Shattuck descendant Big Y test underway. When we add Lee Shattuck's Big Y test results to this picture, we will see if my Experimental Shattocke Tree, based on STR data, holds up. The biggest finding we have as the result of the Lee Shattuck test is that Bill Pomeroy and the South Carolina Shaddocks have a parting of the ways...into separate branches.  

June 8

The new iteration of YFull's family tree is out. It can be seen at https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y16884/. We have grown a new branch of the family!

The big news is that the addition of Mark Shaddick (YF05451) and Clive Shaddick (YF06026) to the tree caused the existing North Devon branch (R-Y19716) to generate a new twig: R-FGC43716 ! It puts me (YF04007), Mark and Clive into that new branch and leaves Donald Shaddick dangling from the mother branch. That means that me, Mark and Clive have a more recent common ancestor than our more distant common ancestor with Donald Shaddick. 

Here is the updated Shattocke Phylogenetic Tree.

Yfull estimates our common ancestor with Donald Shaddick lived about 1488 AD. My common ancestor with Mark and Clive lived about 1500 AD. What is important here is not the estimated years, which can be somewhat inaccurate because the number of individuals tested are so few. What is important is that Clive Shaddick is shown to be more closely related to me and Mark than to Donald. We will have to wait another month and further analysis to see if yet another new branch is created that splits off Clive from Mark and me. I am prepared to be surprised if Mark and Clive are switched. It is possible, based on my study of the STRs that I have Mark's genealogy wrong. Possible. 

Here is why I think the DNA results support the theory that North Molton is the first village colonized by Shattockes in Devon. Clive Shaddick, the Instow Shaddick, is in the same branch of the tree as me and Mark Shaddick, both Yarnscombe Shaddicks. Mark and I have a common ancestor in Thomas Shattocke, born about 1680. His father , Richard Shattocke, was born about 1640. So the common ancestor with Clive was sometime before 1640. All the North Molton Shaddicks share a common ancestor about 1488. So the common ancestor between the Yarnscombe Shattockes and the Instow is between 1488 and 1640. That puts North Molton as the birthplace for the common ancestor squarely into the picture. 

The scientific name of the new group (R-FGC43716) is rather long! The "FGC" part of the name is an acronym for Full Genomes Corporation. That is another SNP testing company. They have apparently discovered this terminal SNP (used to define a split in the tree) previously. I am curious to know what person has tested at FGC and not submitted their results to YFull. Might be another Shattocke out there...

The other new addition to the tree is the Big Y results of Bruce Hall (YF06098), who is a Shattuck NPE. He was placed in the Shattuck branch R-Y19751. That was expected. Again in a month's time we may see a new branch form!

BTW I have always assumed that Shattockes are not interested in our genetic cousins Parrish / Byars and vice versa. If you are interested in them, there is a new facebook where I am posting these kinds of DNA and genealogical studies along with those of my Parrish / Byars friends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1191227207606139/ 

June 5

Priscilla Shattuck Acre's brother Paul Michael Shattuck had his YDNA tested and the results are back. Priscilla and Paul are what I call Macomb Michigan Shattucks. You can see the updated spreadsheet here. Paul is on line 12 of the updated spreadsheet. I provide a page that helps you understand the spreadsheet here. 

The test is only to the 37 marker level but it does confirm two things. One is that he is indeed a Shattuck, the necessary step to take before investing in more expensive and deeper tests. He is descended from William Shattuck (1622-1672), founder of Shattucks in the U.S. The second thing that his test confirms is that he is descended from William's son John Shattuck (1647-1675). 

What makes it very likely that he is a descendant of John Shattuck is that the Y-GATA-H4 marker has a value of 12 repeats, an additional repeat when compared to all other Shattucks, Shattockes or Parrishs. It is a very stable and rare mutation. This makes it very useful for determining paternity. Of course the caveat here is that marker could actually be shared with another son of William, but the fact is that Arthur Shattuck, who is descended from John Shattuck, is Y-GATA-H4=12 and his paper trail is reliable, makes this prediction very probable. 

This second finding is huge because Priscilla can only trace her ancestors back to Daniel Shattuck (1792-1864) of Macomb County, Michigan. Knowing that her paper trail goes back to a specific son of William Shattuck eliminates a lot of false paper trails. And what is even more encouraging is that the DNA of this branch of the Shattuck family is currently going through extensive advanced DNA testing using Big Y tests. This provides a huge amount of data to work with. We need to get her brother's test upgraded all the way to Big Y. Then, a couple of months down the road we will be able to compare her brother's results with those of Arthur Shattuck, Terry Lee Shadduck, and the two Halls, Donald Ellison and Bruce. All trace back to John Shattuck.

May 11

Clive Shaddick, who is a descendant in the Instow branch of the Shattocke family, has his results back.  I sent Clive's test results over to Alex Williamson, who builds and maintains the Big Tree, which diagrams out how people are related according to their Big Y results. Go to http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=28, look for our node on the tree and look for Clive's kit number, 452993.

In fact the results confirm the analysis of our relationship that I made using STR marker results. Take a look at this graphic I created:  http://www.shaddock.ca/experimental-shattocke-phylogenetic-tree and compare that to Alex's tree. Perfect match to the Big Y results. This might mean I can use the markers that I have identified in the my tree as a way to identify and date the STR results of other Shattockes. Isn't DNA analysis totally cool! Missing records? No problem, DNA results will fill in the gaps.

The earliest record shows that Shattockes were in North Devon around 1524. North Molton appears to be the first village settled by Somerset Shattockes. Alex's analysis shows that Clive differs from me and Mark Shaddick by one SNP. Since an SNP mutation happens once in 150 years, technically the common ancestor might have lived around 1500. But since SNP mutations are random, this is far from being a definitive number.  We will have to wait until YFull gives us a better number.  

If you look at my tree again and compare it to Alex's tree, you will see that we are again in synch with regards to the placement of Donald Shaddick's results. He is shown to share a common ancestor in the 14th century. So what you see is a "family tree" that shows how we branched over time.   

I have been developing a theory that Shattockes of north Devon are recent immigrants to North Devon from Somerset. If that is true than it has major implications. You would expect that Shattockes in Devon would have been there for a very long time, going back to the Dark Ages. But instead they are relative recent immigrants (i.e. sometime between 1300 and 1530). It also implies that Shattockes have not been that long in neighbouring Somerset, to the north. Was the common ancestor of all Shattockes, Parrishs (and Byars) in 1275 AD an immigrant to south western England? This theory would explain why the ancient form of our name has long been considered by etymologists to be decidedly not English...but rather Germanic. So far the evidence points in that direction...but there is always another test on the way that will either support the theory or deal it a death blow.

Another theory that I think has additional support. I bet the Virginia Shaddocks came from Somerset, not Devon. Alex has our single Virginian Shaddock test subject Peter in the same branch as the Massachusetts Shattockes who are from Somerset. YFull has Peter in the base of the entire Y16884 tree. I really need to find a descendant of the Shattocks in Somerset. I wonder who he will be more closely related to: the Massachusetts Shattucks or the Virginia Shaddocks?

May 7

Three developments encouraged me recently to take another deep dive into Shattuck ancestry. One is that Robert Shaddock asked me to write a synopsis of my research into the Shaddocks of South Carolina, who are Massachusetts Shattuck descendants. He wants to present the information at the Shaddock Reunion in Alabama at the end of this month. The second was an ongoing conversation with Jamie Johnson, who is a Salem Shattuck descendant, most probably from the famous "widow Shattock" of Salem. And the third was the arrival of new Shattuck descendants in our midst who are supporting our project by agreeing to have their DNA tested. 

Trying to find the answers to questions originally posed by the Shattuck's most accomplished and most respected chronicler, Lemuel Shattuck feels like a juggling act. You have to keep a lot of unanswered questions up in the air instead of forcing them to land where you want them to or accepting them in the place where you found them. When you read through the new Shattuck history I have written, I hope you will help by identifying those balls you think I might be dropping. 

I must say though, that it was Jamie Johnson's tree of descent from widow Damaris that finally made me think I was juggling the balls without dropping them. And it will be the results that come in during the next six months that determine where many of those balls in the air right now should land.

Here what you should read and in what order.

For new insights (at least to me) on how the Shattucks got to Massachusetts and where from. Also who are the original settlers?

Lemuel Shattuck, the chronicler of the Shattucks up to 1855 thinks the male descendants with the Shattuck name died out. This is a ball I toss back into the air from where I found it. 

It is this page that has the information that really threaded the needle for me, to change the metaphor entirely. I think Robert will be able to tell a coherent story, probably part fiction, but mostly fact. Sorry the metaphor changed again.

A sub page about a Shattuck who has no surviving Shattuck male descendants.

Let me know what you think on the Shaddock - Shattuck DNA facebook page or via this site's contact page.

May 3 

The upgrade from 67 markers to 111 markers for Donald Edison Hall (row 13 on the current spreadsheet, administered by Kevin Tvedt) has arrived, and what a surprise! I have uploaded the revised spreadsheet to its usual place. If you do not have the link, contact me.

The surprise is that Donald Hall, who is a Shattuck NPE, has almost the identical 111 results compared to Terry Lee Shadduck (Shadducks descend from Shattucks). There is only a difference of one marker (DYS505) between them.  Terry Lee Shadduck, Arthur Shattuck and the Donald Hall all descend from John Shattuck (1647-1675), son of William Shattuck of Watertown (1622-1672). There is another John Shattuck descendant we are currently testing.

Fortunately Kevin also has the DNA results of a cousin to compare his results to, Bruce Charles Hall. Y-DNA results indicate a close relationship between the two Halls, with only one marker (DYS570) different between them. Bruce has only 67 markers to compare but that will be rectified when his Big Y results come back with the extended markers. Terry Lee Shadduck is also going to get Big Y results back in a few months, which means we will be able to compare up to 450 markers between Bruce Hall and him.  The differences should be become clear at that point. Additionally we will have Arthur Shattuck's Big Y results to compare extended STR markers and SNPs with. And the Big Y tests of these three Shattuck descendants will tell us approximately when their common ancestors lived. That makes speculation at this point rather premature.

But it is hard to resist wondering because of what the genealogy tells us. Kevin Tvedt, who is a close relative of Donald Hall, pointed out to me that the Halls probably have a common ancestor that goes back to George Hall born in 1721. I say "probably" because the link to George Hall in the Bruce Hall lineage has not as yet been discovered. All we know for sure at this point is that the two Hall lineages are only separated by 1 marker, for a genetic distance of 1. If Kevin invested in a Big Y test for Donald Hall, he might get a better indication of when the common ancestor between the two Halls occurred. There is an example among our Parrish relatives where two descendants tested their genealogical work by each getting a Big Y result. Their paper trail said that common ancestor should have lived around 1800. Guess what the Big Y results indicated? That they had a common ancestor around 1800. There is no guarantee Kevin would get the same result from an additional test, because SNP mutations are random. 

It is puzzling that Donald Hall should have identical marker results with Terry Lee Shadduck and have only a single marker difference with Bruce. The two Halls obviously share the Shattuck NPE event. That means there would be no physical contact between the Halls and Shadducks after the NPE event. So we can use the date when the common ancestor of the Halls lived as the minimum period of separation between the Halls and the Shadducks. 

That had to have occurred at minimum two hundred years ago, perhaps as long as 300 years ago. That means the perfect match of 111 markers with Terry Lee Shadduck must be based on a common ancestor that lived 200 to 300 years ago. I would expect at least two marker differences in that time frame. My own 4th and 5th cousins vary between two and four marker differences, although I do have a 5th cousin that goes back over 200 years ago with no marker differences.

Maybe I am overestimating the rate of mutation for STR markers. Or I am underestimating the role chance plays in distorting DNA results. These are random events after all. Like a winning or losing streak at the casino, you can have unusual chance events.

The other factor that may have come into play is what is called a reverse mutation. Some time in the past a marker gains a repeat. Sometime later it loses it again. When we look at the results in the present those two marker changes are invisible. This is what makes analysis of STR markers an error prone process.

Thank goodness we will have Big Y results to look at in the months ahead. Comparing 550 markers instead of 111 markers reduces the role chance and reverse mutation plays in evaluating markers. SNP are much more stable and rare. The SNP results from the Big Y test will further reduce the role of chance and will probably even give us an estimate of when the common ancestors between the Halls and the Shadduck and Shattuck. We might even be able to identify when the NPE event occurred, narrowing down the hunt to a specific Shattuck family and eventually with additional DNA tests from direct descendants an individual. 

April 29

I have added a new branch of the Shaddock family to the site. In this case I am pretty sure that the Hurleyville, N.Y. Shaddocks are not genetically related to us. There was a Polish immigrant who arrived at New York in 1908 with his family and sometime between that date and the 1920 census his Polish name morphed into Shaddock. At least that is my theory, you can judge for yourself here. Ultimately a descendant should do a DNA test. 

I am also exploring another mystery. Last fall I tested a descendant of the Culmstock Shattockes. The results showed that the descendant was not genetically related to Shattockes. In fact the results were odd because they were extreme and unambiguous. It was not until I went back to my studies of the Culmstock Shattockes in the last few days that I came up with a very surprising possibility. A major branch of the Culmstock Shattockes may be descended from a female Shaddock who had a child out of wedlock. When I have written up the story of the Culmstock Shattockes you will see why I think at least one, and perhaps the only surviving branch of that family is related to the Thomas family, and to the Shattocke family through a female, not a male Shattocke. This was a fact staring me in the face all along. I just did not recognize it. Of course, as usual, further DNA testing is required before I can make it into an absolute. I should have the Culmstock Shattockes written up in the next few days. The "negative" result from last fall shows that bad news can be as useful as good news in the testing of paper trails. If I test another Culmstock Shattocke from the same branch and he turns out to be negative as well, then I will be twice as sure my paper trail back to a female ancestor rather than a male ancestor is correct. That's because the odds of any result being negative is about 3%. Two different negative results from different parts of a branch is more compelling than a single 3% chance.

Yet another mystery I am exploring is the origin of the South Carolina Shaddocks, who are having a family reunion in May. There is a possible ancestor in Samuel Shattuck born in 1689 in Watertown, Massachusetts. In looking at the source documents, the actual town records, I discovered that Samuel's recorded parents were not as Lemuel Shattuck the family historian had provided in his Descendants book. His parents were William and Abigail, not Samuel and Abigail. Did the town clerk in 1689 get the father's name wrong as Lemuel and all other researchers who have examined the source document assumed? Or is this a case where there was another family entirely who arrived in the colony sometime in the middle to late 17th century? There are three more Shattuck Big Y tests coming and another Y-DNA Shattuck being tested. But these four tests are of Shattucks whose paper trails all lead back to a son of the original settler William Shattuck (1621-1672) called John Shattuck. We need to find and test descendants of William's other sons.

The much-delayed Big Y results are being processed at YFull for Mark Shaddick, the New Brunswick descendant in the Yarnscombe branch of the family. He appears with the flag "new" in the R-Y19716 subgroup of our family tree, which is genetic name for a branch of the family that includes the descendants of Richard Shattocke (abt 1640-1706) See https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y16884/

It was a great relief to see him placed in the R-Y19716 branch of the family. According to my paper trail for him, he shares a common ancestor with me and other Yarnscombe Shattockes that reaches back to 1680 and the birth of Thomas Shattocke. He has some of the key signature markers for Yarnscombe Shattockes but is missing others. I was not quite sure I had his paper trail correct. But the fact YFull has placed him in the R-Y19716 branch means he definitely shares a common ancestor with me and other Yarnscombe Shattockes. This is very cool because the markers he does not share with other Yarnscombe Shattockes obviously came into existence after 1680. This allows me to date the markers he does share with other Yarnscombe Shattockes as being "pre-1680." Why is that important? If I test another person who is in this lineage, I will be able to date his markers, allowing me to not only to figure out where he is in the phylogenetic tree, but when his various ancestors lived. Very powerful tool.

When the YFull tree is updated about a month from now, I'll wager Mark Shaddick's DNA results causes a new branch of the family to be identified, with him on one side and all the other Yarnscombe Shattockes on the other. Thomas Shattocke was born approximately 20-40 years after his father, so it will mean we will be able to give the Yarnscombe Shaddocks their own genetic branch name.  

It will be interesting to see where the Instow Shaddicks end up on the tree, whose descendant Clive Shaddick is being Big Y tested. He is not a descendant of the Yarnscombe founder Richard Shattocke (1640-1706). At least that is what the paper trail says.  I am expecting him to show up descended from a common ancestor with the Yarnscombe Shattockes somewhere between between 20-100 years earlier. If it is close it will mean I will be able to make an educated guess about the shared ancestor and possibly find him in the records. I am betting that shared ancestor lived in North Molton. But then, this is DNA. People become married to their paper trails until they are blind to contradictory evidence. DNA results are an unprejudiced accurate pair of eyes.

Donald Shaddick, whose Big Y results I have discussed before, has the most distant common ancestor with Yarnscombe Shattockes. According to YFull that common ancestor lived in the 14th century. I just got back his extended STR results, a nice little bonus package when you upgrade to Big Y. Normally I am working with 111 markers, the extended markers up the ante to about 450 markers. The updated spreadsheet can be found at the usual link. I would save that link because I tend to remove the link from my Internet posts for privacy. I would suggest sending me an email so that I can send you out the link in the future via email. If you do not have my email, contact me through the contact page on this site and I will add you to the email list. 

Donald is currently at line 19 on the spreadsheet. I was actually quite surprised by his extended STR results, which you can see by scrolling to the right on the spreadsheet. The markers you see colored brown-orange are the markers Donald and I hold in common, while the other colored markers indicate those that we have different repeat values for. I see there are a couple of markers we share with Peter Shaddock who is a descendant of the Virginian Shaddocks. It is hard to tell if they are significant. According to YFull, Donald and I have a common ancestor who lived in the 14th century. That makes it all the more amazing that we share so many markers in common and so few with other Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars. How is it that I appear to share a common ancestor with the Virginian Shaddocks and Massachusetts Shattucks so far in the past as well?

I think the DNA results confirm that the early immigration of Shattocks to Massachusetts around 1635, the immigration of Shaddocks to Virginia early in the 18th or 17th century, the migration of Shattockes from Somerset to north Devon in the 15th or 16th centuries all speak to how isolated from each other the various branches have been for a very long time. We have six more Big Y results coming in the next few months, adding to the nine we already have. Plus we have several Y-DNA results to help us get a better picture of this family tree.

April 12
This is a report on a study of the more distant relatives of Shattockes and Parrishs that I found as 67 level YDNA matches on FTDNA.

Of the fifteen or so people I contacted, six have responded so far. I have added their genetic markers to the spreadsheet, at the bottom, in a group titled "Z36 Matches (before 1300 AD)." The spreadsheet can be downloaded using the usual link. (Contact me if you have lost the link.)

I have highlighted the genetic markers (STRs) that are different than those of my close genetic cousins in my spreadsheet,  who I define as descended from a common ancestor ca. 1300 AD. (They are the Shattockes and Parrishs.) The orange colored highlighted markers are genetic markers the seven FTDNA matches share with some but not all Shattockes and Parrishs. The dark grey markers are those they do not share with Shattockes or Parrishs. The green highlighted markers indicate signature markers.

I have built a phylogenetic tree from the DNA results. The phylogenetic tree shows the familial relationships suggested by the genetic markers.

The first assumption I make is that the matches belong to the same human family as the Shattockes and Parrishs: Z36. I think that is a safe assumption. They are 67 level matches with us and we know through Big Z testing that we belong to the Z36 branch, which formed about 4500 years ago. In fact I think they belong to the same sub-branch of Z36, Y16889. The assumption is based on the fact they show up as 67 level matches and have a significant number of matching STRs that they share with Shattockes and Parrishs.

Z36 are celts who once inhabited the region around Switzerland and just north. A good part of the Origins page on this site applies to them. 

The seven distant relatives can check to see if they are Celts by taking the advanced test for the SNP at a cost of $39 at FTDNA.

The second thing I am sure about is that they do not share a common ancestor with us in the time frame 1300 AD to the present. It may be 300 hundred years previously (1000 AD) or as many as 4500 years earlier. But because they are 67 level matches with us, it is more likely our common great grandfather lived closer to 1000 AD than 2500 BC. The reason why I think the common ancestor with them is before 1300 will be explained shortly.

Many of the orange markers might seem to suggest a close relationship, but I think this is a case of parallel mutations. In other words, by chance their ancestors had some of the same mutations as we did. In other words most of the markers highlighted in orange were not inherited from common ancestors with us.

This is not true of DYS390=24. All seven of these distant genetic relatives are DYS390=24 while Shattockes and Parrishs are DYS390=23. This genetic marker is the key marker. The Shattocke and Parrish common ancestor lost a repeat for this marker sometime before 1300 AD. The other reason that makes me sure they do not share a common ancestor before 1300 is because they do not have the signature markers held by Shattockes and Parrishs.

Important to note is that YFull identifies DYS390 as a Z36 marker. This strengthens the case for our new distant relatives being Celtic! 
DYS458 is also a Z36 marker according to YFull. 

I have indicated the markers that I think segment our new (or rather old!) distant relatives into separate branches. Of course, if I add additional results to the table in the future, the branching may be refined or corrected. 

So there you have it. An expanded family of fellow Celtic warriors. Unfortunately I can only base my analysis on 67 level STR markers. Only one of the samples has been tested to the 111 level. If some or all of our distant relatives invested in the FTDNA Big Y test, then we would be able to more confidently lay out the tree and have estimates of when the common ancestors lived. 

The most useful part of this exercise is that it identifies the markers subject to generating bad matches and identifies those markers that play a defining role in segmenting the family into branches.

April 4

Robert Shaddock's extended STRs came back from YFull. These are the "extra" STRs that you get when you buy the Big Y test, expanding the number of genetic markers you can use for comparison with other people's results from 111 markers by up to four times that number. Practically though, in terms of markers that I have found useful for our family, it actually doubles the markers from 30 to 60. That is huge.

The extended STRs are found on the right side of the spreadsheet. You can download the spreadsheet here. Information on how to interpret it is here.

Robert is a Y19751 Shattuck, a branch of the family I have long suspected is descended from Shattocks in Somerset. This weekend I added a lot of Somerset Shattock and Shattocke historical references to my "Shattocke Births Marriages and Death" Word document. I suspect that somewhere in the Somerset section of that document is the family that the Massachusetts Shattucks are descended from. I might be able to find evidence for the Somerset origin of Shattucks in a little promotion I am running on the site of a Somerset genealogist to find a Somerset Shattock to DNA test. Presently, I do not have a single DNA sample of a Somerset Shattocke, unless the Shattucks fit that criteria. The Shaddicks I have tested have so far shown to be from Northern Devon. There is one Somerset Shattock in particular we are hoping to test. He actually lives in an area that has had a very long term Shattocke presence.

You can visit the Somerset genealogy site where my quest for a Shattock to test is announced: here. The site is run by Ursula Martin, an accomplished genealogist. If you need a Somerset genealogist with her feet on the ground in Somerset, I recommend her.

Robert's extended STRs certainly support a theory that says North Devon Shattockes and Somerset Shattockes belong to two separate branches that diverged before the 17th century, possibly as early as the 15th century. When you compare the genetic markers of the Y19751 Shattucks to North Devon Shattockes, Parrishs, Byars, or Virginia Shaddocks it is obvious that the lines diverged sometime before the 16th century. (We will get a better sense of that when Clive Shaddick and Donald Shaddick's extended STRs come in. There is also Shattuck - Hall and Arthur Shattuck Big Y tests coming in the months ahead.) 

The non-modal markers in the extended STRs that Robert, Kenneth Dale and Bill Pomeroy hold in common (DYR6, probably DYR60, DYR88.2, DYS491, DYS518, and DYS719) are a strong indication of their close relationship. There are also five markers in the extended STRs that the three Shattucks share while none of the other Big Y testers share these non-modal markers. Does the fact that Bill shares six non-modal markers with Robert and Kenneth Dale, while he is different in the other five markers suggest that their common ancestor might be quite far into the past (mid-18th century?). I think so. There are two other Shattuck Big Y tests coming this year, so we will probably get some good perspective on this. Will the same 50-50 ratio (shared versus not shared markers) hold for the Big Y results of other Shattucks? What will the addition of the other two North Devon Shattockes to the extended results area do? 

What will be really interesting is to see how a Somerset Shattock's DNA results compare to Shattuck DNA results. 

Robert Shaddock is 4 or 5 generations apart from Kenneth Dale Shaddock. In comparing their results to those of Bill Pomeroy, we see the value of doing such a comparison. We can now identify the markers that the common ancestor of all three had and those that came into existence after the lineages diverged from the common ancestor.  The new results will help us further refine this and help generate a new family tree. Plus the SNP results will allow us to find approximately when the common ancestor lived and which markers to ignore because they were due to chance and were not inherited.

There are also two Parrish Big Y tests and a few 111 level tests in the works. A big one is a Big Y test of Pete (Harlan on the spreadsheet) Parrish. I have a hunch the results of this test is going to tell us a lot about the family tree.