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.











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

                Children:

                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.

Addendum

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.

Mar. 27

I am going to discuss Shattocke results first and then more generally Shattocke and Parrish results. I call it my "state of the union" address.

Shattocke Results

Clive Shaddick's upgrade to 111 markers are back. Interesting because what they don't tell us is important as what they do tell us.

What they do tell us is that Clive is a confirmed member of the North Devon Shattockes. 

I have used Clive's results to create a new version of the Shattocke phylogenetic tree. See it here. It may help you sort through the narrative that follows. Here is the revised spreadsheet, which includes his results.

Clive has the Shattocke DYS444=12 signature marker for all Shattockes. 

Clive's ancestral membership in the North Devon Shattockes is confirmed by marker DYS452=32. 

Clive Shaddick's markers DYS452=32 and DYS712=23 clearly support the theory that he is very closely related to the Yarnscombe Shaddocks (founded by Richard Shattocke about 1640 in Yarnscombe). He shares these repeats with other Yarnscombe Shattockes, including myself. And his marker DYS643=10 shows that he is not descended from the common ancestor of the Burrington Shaddocks and Shaddicks who are descended from William Shaddock (1766-1856). This is consistent with the genealogical research, which identifies the founder, John Shaddick, as being born in Instow in 1745. 

But there is a problem. I have a paper trail for Mark Shaddick of the New Brunswick Shaddicks that identifies his common ancestor with other Yarnscombe Shattocks as Thomas Shattocke, born in 1680 in Yarnscombe. So presumably Mark Shaddick is more closely related to other Yarnscombe Shattocke descendants like me and more distantly related to Instow Shaddicks like Clive. The DYS576=18 marker is consistent with this theory. But the DYS452=31 and DYS712=22 markers are not consistent with his Yarnscombe heritage.  They are non-modal for Yarnscombe Shattockes.

Fortunately there are two Big Y tests in the works that will sort this problem out, one for Mark and one for Clive. We are going to have to push the resolution of the problem down the road to when Clive's and Mark's Big Y results are back and analyzed. If it turns out that I have Mark Shaddick's genealogical paper trail wrong, that won't be such a bad thing. It will give us a more distant Shattockes relative to help define the tree. I suspect though that the Mark is indeed a Yarnscombe Shattocke and I have fallen prey to the weakness of STR results. Thomas Shattocke's birth was a very long time ago, in 1680. That might have given his markers time to change back and forth among his descendants. This is why Big Y testing is so important. It acts as a check against the STR results (and vice versa for that matter).

State of the Union Address

I have two Big Y results in the works and commitments from three other people to upgrade to Big Y results. There are nine Big Y results already in. The additional test results are really going to help define the tree. The analogy is to rolling dice. If you roll the dice a thousand times you are going to get face values that average out evenly. But if you only role the dice ten times, you are going to get some face values that are repeated more often than others and some that fail to appear. The more Big Y test results we have to work with, the more confident we are that the branches and dates are accurate.

Right now the nine existing Big Y testers show that all the Shattockes, Parrishs and Byars (plus name variants and NPEs) descend from a common ancestor who lived about 1300. When the additional five results are compiled in, we should have a very high confidence in that date.

So the big question is why 1300? The oldest date for a common ancestor among Shattockes is 1400. The oldest date for the common ancestor among Parrishs is 1450. So the Shattockes were only three or four generations younger than the Shattocke - Parrish common ancestor. And the Parrishs are five or six generations younger. 

Is it possible we have just not tested enough distantly related Shattockes and Parrishs to push the date for a common ancestor further back in time? I don't think so for four reasons. One is that the next common ancestor (see the R-Z36 YTree) is 4500 years ago. The other is that the date of our common ancestor has been revising upward (from 1250 AD to 1300 AD) as we add more Big Y results to the calculation. The third reason is the etymology of the Shattocke name. It is considered by every etymologist that I have consulted to be a German name and not an English name. Fourth reason: the DNA shows us to be Celts. And contrary to popular opinion, it appears that Celts were relatively recent immigrants to England and Ireland. 

But it is still possible somebody in our family tree will come along and upset this theory. Or it is possible that all but one branch of our family died out by attrition: plagues, infertility, no sons, to name a few. But the fact is the people who have Big Y tested so far belong to very different lineages. So I would place a bet that the date for the common ancestor is correct, give or take a few decades.

There appears to be four main branches of the family in the results for the 30 people we have tested with STR markers so far: the Massachusetts Shattucks, the North Devon Shattockes, the Virginia Shaddocks and the Parrishs. (At this point the assumption is that the Byars are a Parrish sub-branch, through an NPE.) These branches are genetically distinct. It is certainly possible there is at least one other branch if not more. The Shattucks appear to be closely related by virtue of their descent from William Shattuck of Watertown, born about 1620. He is widely believed to have emigrated from Somerset. The North Devon Shattockes appear to be closely related, suggesting they are relatively recent immigrants to Devon, in the 14th century. It is difficult to determine where Virginia Shaddocks are from in England, since we have only one Big Y test to go on and only two closely related STR samples. If my theory that all North Devon Shaddocks and Shaddicks are closely related and have a common ancestor who moved to Devon around 1400, then it may be the case that the Virginia Shaddocks are from either Dorset or Somerset.

Again, it appears that 30 different YDNA Shattockes and Parrishs all lead back to a single individual alive in 1300 AD. 

Parrish descendants have such different genetic markers compared to the Shattocke descendants, especially with the DYS444=12 signature marker. This is confirmation that the date of their common ancestor is indeed 1450 AD. That is because 12 repeats is the ancestral value for this marker, so the Parrishs must have acquired an extra marker after their split from the common lineage with the Shattockes.  In other words, the Shattockes have an older version of that marker. Even Pete Parrish (shown as Harlan in the spreadsheet) is DYS444=13, despite having markers quite different from other Parrishs. Add to this the fact that Parrishs who are our genetic cousins (I call them Z-36 Parrishs), are only found so far in the southern U.S., suggesting a recent founder, i.e. in 1450 AD. Finally add to the evidence the fact Parrishs are not found to be numerous in the early parish registers of Devon or Somerset where the Shattockes originate from.

Curiously Pete Parrish and Steven Dale Byas have a marker that they share with Shattucks, DYS710=36. This is a signature marker for Shattucks. But Pete and Steven lack the Shattuck signature marker DYS444=12.  Does this make them the "missing links" between the Shattockes and Parrishs. Perhaps the origins of the Parrishs are in Somerset, like the Shattucks, or possibly further north, as far as London.  In other words are they descended from a common ancestor who lived sometime between the oldest common ancestor in 1300 and the common ancestor with other Parrishs in 1450? Pete Parrish is going to upgrade to a Big Y test, so maybe we will find out.  

The Experimental Phylogenetic Shattocke Tree I have published on the site properly only reflects the results of Shattocke descendants (and the same for the Experimental Phylogenetic Parrish Tree) we have sampled so far. It is a story that is unfolding. And I am sure there are twists and turns ahead.


Mar 26
There is a correction on my previous blog about Donald Edison Hall, the Shattuck descendant, now deceased. Kevin Tvedt (who administers Donald's account and has given me permission to discuss his genealogy here) corrected me on the relationship. Donald Hall was Kevin's mother 1st cousin. Apparently Kevin was been researching the Halls for 50 years, so my discovery that Donald is biologically a Shattuck was very, very exciting for him.

To reiterate, I discovered the connection when I put Donald into the spreadsheet.  (Click here to download the spreadsheet. Click here to read a page that tells you how to interpret the spreadsheet.) Kevin's kit is 272837. 

Donald's genetic markers indicated he was related to two other Shattucks. Donald has only had 67 markers tested but it is clear that he is a Shattuck because he has the DYS447=24 marker value for Shattucks and the DYS444=12 marker value for Shattockes. What makes him a descendant of a common ancestor with Arthur Shattock and Terry Lee Shadduck is the Y-GATA-H4=12 marker. He is also CDY=36-37, which he shares with other Shattucks, except for Arthur who is CDY=36-38. Kevin has said he is going to upgrade to 111 markers so we should get confirmation on this preliminary analysis.

The spreadsheet I have created is showing how useful and powerful it can be. 

Kevin has told me that the Shattuck NPE (non parental event) is most likely to have occurred in Massachusetts, where the founder of the Halls, George Hall (ca. 1721) was likely born. When I looked at the tree for the two Shattucks, I see that they have a common ancestor in John Shattuck (1696-1759). This makes John Shattuck a prime suspect. He was born in Watertown and died in Marlborough, MA. George Hall was married in Deerfield, MA, around 75 miles from either of those two towns. So he was in the vicinity. 

While we have narrowed our search for the father of George Hall down to a specific family, we do not know if the father of George Hall was a brother, cousin, uncle or even father of John Shattuck (1696-1759). That is because mutations of genetic markers are relatively rare as my recent discovery of identical  111 Y-DNA marker results from a fourth cousin 1X removes shows in the extreme. I am hoping that the upgraded 111 marker results will allow us to further narrow down the search of candidates, and Arthur Shattuck is going to upgrade to the Big Y test and that should help as well.

Isn't it odd though, that of the six Shattucks that have been tested so far, 3 we do not know which Shattuck branch they belong to, while the three others are all descended from John Shattuck (1696-1759). What are the odds of that? Patterns. It is all about patterns.

Addendum

Bruce Charles Hall also showed up in my DNA match results, so I wrote him. He agreed to join the Shaddock - Shattuck project at FTDNA. When I pasted his results into the spreadsheet, it turned out he is almost a perfect match for Donald Edison Hall. There is only one marker (DYS570=16) that differs between them, suggesting their common ancestor may be several generations back. It is possible that Bruce Hall's results could help pinpoint the biological father of George Hall if Bruce upgrades from 67 markers to 111...or better still upgrades to the Big Y test.

Mar 16

Kit# 537620, who is my 4th cousin 1X removed, has received the results for his YDNA 111 level marker tests.  Kit# 537620 is a Burrington Shaddock.

I have updated the spreadsheet with his results. 

Here is the biggest surprise. Quite astonishing really. Kit# 537620's 111 markers are identical to mine. There is only one other person among the Shaddocks that have been tested that has identical markers to me, my half-brother Robert J. Shaddock. Given that Robert has the same father as me, and Kit# 537620's common ancestor with us is six generations back, William Shaddock (1766-1856), the fact that there were apparently no new mutations in the subsequent 250 years is amazing. 

Kit# 537620's other closest relatives among the Shaddocks and Shaddicks that have been tested is Kit# 414501 and Kit# 414755. They are 5th cousins to Kit# 537620 and me. And they are a genetic distance of two from us, in others words two markers have mutated since our common ancestor (William Shaddock), which is what you would expect.

There are only a few explanations for this strange anomaly. The obvious one concerns the nature of random phenomena. Mutations are random and so by pure chance no mutations occurred in his lineage or in my lineage since William. The other possibility is that there were mutations but they reversed. A marker gained a repeat and than lost the repeat in the same marker. That is less likely, because the same marker would have had to have mutated twice and no others.  

Then there is the least likely explanation. Kit# 537620 and I have a common ancestor only a few generations back. This theory is unlikely because of the genealogical studies I have made. The paper trail is pretty solid all the way back to William Shaddock (1766-1856).  My line of descent from Thomas Shaddock (1834-1912), son of James Shaddock (1801-1865) is pretty solid. Kit# 537620's paper trail to his respective ancestors from Burrington is pretty solid.

Odds are the first explanation is the correct one. I would bet the cost of Kit# 537620's Big Y test that when the extended markers came back we would discover several markers that are different. (There is up to 500 markers tested by Big Y so the chance a marker would have mutated triples.)  So we most likely do not have identical Y chromosomes. If the test did come back showing all 500 markers were identical Kit# 537620 and I would probably be 1st cousins or even half-brothers. 

These results actually clear up an old mystery that has bedevilled me. Back when I was using genetic distance as my main tool, before I discovered the accuracy of markers, I asked every expert I could find why I was a genetic distance from Kit# 414755 and Kit# 414501 of only "two" while they were a genetic distance of "four" relative to each other. I never got a clear answer to that question. Now I know the answer. My line did not produce any mutant markers in the generations since our common ancestor. Their lines produced two mutations for each of their lines. Mystery solved. There were no mutations in my line when I should have had two...on average.

Perhaps the most interesting marker in Kit# 537620s results is DYS712. Like me and other Burrington Shaddocks or Shaddicks, he is DYS712=23. Kit# 414501, as a Burrington Shaddock, is an anomaly as he is DYS712=22. I think his lineage had a reverse mutation of that marker, from 23 to 22 repeats, sometime in the last hundred and fifty years. Mark Shaddick, who is our most distant Yarnscombe Shattocke relative, also is DYS712=22, so the marker must have gained a repeat sometime between 1680 (birth of Thomas Shattocke) and 1766 (birth of William Shaddock). However, when we go even further back to the birth of our common ancestor with Kit# 443452 (about 1400), we see that the marker previous to Thomas Shattocke in 1680 was DYS712=23. This volatility in the marker will make it useful to determine Shattocke lineages in the future. I am very curious to see what Clive Shaddick's value for this marker is going to be, since Clive Shaddick's common ancestor with us probably falls between 1400 and 1680. DYS712 will help us find the approximate birth dates of ancestors.

A really stable marker is DYS643. Kit# 537620, like the other Burrington Shaddocks and Shaddicks is DYS643=11. All other Shattockes and Parrishs, with the exception of Harlan E Parrish, are DYS643=10. So this is definitely a marker for Burrington Shaddocks and Shaddicks, although at some point in the future we may find that the extra repeat was gained in a previous generation to the Burrington Shaddocks. Again, a very useful tool for verifying our genealogical research or identifying the lineage of a tester who has lost their paper trail to the past. 

When Clive Shaddick's upgrade to 111 markers comes back I am going to revise the Experimental Phylogenetic Shattocke Tree. There are some other markers, like CDY, which will help me figure out how Shattockes branched. Kit# 537620's results are very, very useful, because they allow me to identify the markers that define the phylogenetic tree from the birth of William Shaddock (1766-1856). 

Addendum: A personal note.
On the 16th of March, 2016, I received the final definitive proof of the connection between Thomas Shaddock of Western Ontario (my 4th great grandfather)  and Thomas Mitchell Shaddock of Burrington, Devon. Sixteen months previously, I set in a quest to prove or disprove that Thomas Mitchell Shaddock (1834-1912), baptized in Burrington, Devon and Thomas Shaddock of western Ontario, who married Catherine Nichols (1843-1931) were the same person. There was no paper trail that connected the two. In fact the case I had for connecting the two was based on compelling circumstantial evidence but no hard evidence. The final proof came with my 4th cousin 1X results. Kit# 537620 is a Rochester Shaddock, and I am a Western Ontario Shaddock. I am a descendant of James Shaddock (1801-1865), son of the Burrington Shaddock founder, William Shaddock (1766-1856). Kit# 537620 is a descendant of James' brother Richard (1807-1881). When you compare the 111 markers (STRs) of our respective YDNA tests they are identical! That means that since our common ancestor, William Shaddock, there has been no marker mutations in the 111 markers tested. Other descendants of the Burrington Shaddocks, our 5th cousins Kit# 414755 and Kit# 414501 are at a genetic distance of 2 from me and Kit# 537620. The only way these four results can form this genetic relationship is if my documented ancestor, Thomas Shaddock of Western Ontario and Thomas Mitchell Shaddock of Burrington, Devon, are the same man. This is the power and utility of genetic genealogy.

Mar 14

The latest YFull tree is out and it shakes up the family tree a bit! You can see the YFull tree here

The first thing you will notice is that the there is a new estimate of the common ancestor between Shattockes and Parrishs. It is 1300 AD, an increase of 50 years from the previous estimate that has been hovering around 1250 for most of the year. That puts the common ancestor within range of the adoption of surnames in England. That casts doubt on the theory that Parrishs and Shattockes had a common ancestor before surnames were adopted. The Parrishs and Shattockes are a bit more closely related then the data was previously indicating.

What caused this change in the estimation was the addition of Kit# 443452's Big Y results to the YFull tree. Turns out he shares a distant common ancestor with me and the other Shattockes. This produced another big change. YFull created a new branch of the family, whose members include the Yarnscombe Shattockes (including myself) and Kit# 443452. It is called Y19716 and YFull estimates that my common ancestor with Kit# 443452 was about 1400. That pushes the origin of the Shattocke name back in time, closer to the date when the common ancestor between Shattockes and Parrishs lived, about 1300 AD. The year 1400 is also 50 years before the common ancestor among Parrishs, about 1450. Maybe a Big Y test of Pete Parrish's YDNA might give us a much more accurate estimate of the common ancestor between Parrishs and Shattockes.

I have revised the Shattocke Phylogenetic family tree, which you can view here.

I have adjusted the tree to give a rough estimate of the passage of time. You can see that the new branch Y19716 shows a common ancestor between me and Kit# 443452 about 1400 AD. There are only two test results determining Y19716, so we have to take the estimate as very rough. I am waiting for the addition of Mark Shaddick's Big Y results to YFull's tree. He is a Yarnscombe Shattocke so his addition to Y19716 will give us a good idea of how accurate that date is for the common ancestor between Kit# 443452 and the Yarnscombe Shattockes. I have been guessing that Shattockes came into North Devon late in the 1400s. But at this point I do not know if the Y19716 common ancestor was born in Devon or Somerset...or even Dorset or London for that matter. I am thinking of investing in Clive Shaddick's upgrade to the Big Y test, since he probably has a common ancestor somewhere between Kit# 443452 and me. He is not a Yarnscombe Shattocke, but he is a North Devon Shattocke. I'll bet his inclusion will generate a new branch of the tree. The more results we add, the more each of the tester's results mean.  

So the phylogenetic family tree has definitely taken shape. I am very pleased that it has so much shape given how few people who have Big Y tested. I have been careful to only invest in Shattocke upgrades that are distantly related to each other so that I get the maximum amount of information out of the results. 

At this point there are only two results outstanding, Kit# 537620 (who is a Yarnscombe Shattocke) and Clive Shaddick's upgraded YDNA 111 results. I am having difficulty finding additional Shattockes to test. And most of my genealogical research has come to a stop. I just have a few branches to document. So things are going to be a lot quieter around here in the coming months. Basically at this point I have to wait until a Shattocke or Parrish discovers our research project and asks to be included in the testing. You can help by actively reaching out to Shattockes and Parrishs wherever you find them, or posting on your surname forums around the net. Testing your nearest relatives won't be much help. Basically they have to be at least your fourth or fifth cousin, or totally unrelated to you or existing Parrishs or Byars or Shattockes. 

Mar 3

Clive Shaddick, who is a descendant of the Instow Shaddicks, has his 67 level Y-DNA results back from the lab. 

To see Clive's new results use the usual link to the family spreadsheet. You can get help interpreting my spreadsheet on the "Interpreting Y-DNA Results" page. There are links to a free spreadsheet program at the top of the page.

The Instow Shaddicks are a major branch of the family, well documented by Phil Mustoe, another of the descendants of its founder, John Shaddick (1747-1827). I have the Instow Shaddicks in my Ancestry tree attached to the Yarnscombe branch through a marriage. The DNA results confirm that the descendants of John Shaddick, born in Instow near the western Devon sea port of Bideford, do indeed belong to the ancient Shattocke family.  Clive has the family signature marker, DYS444=12. 

I am pretty sure that he is NOT descended from Richard Shattocke (1640-1706), founder of the Yarnscombe Shattockes, which makes the Instow Shaddicks a distinct but closely related branch to the Yarnscombe Shattockes. The marker CDY=35-38 is something he shares with the other Yarnscombe Shattockes, including me, Burrington Shaddocks and  New Brunswick Shaddicks. But the Yarnscombe Shattockes are DYS576=18 whereas Clive is DYS576=17. DYS576=17 is actually the ancestral value for that marker so that suggests he may be related to a common ancestor with the Yarnscombe Shattockes.  This theory is supported by the fact that Mark Shaddick is descended from Thomas Shattocke (born 1680) and he is DYS576=18. So Clive's ancestor was not Richard Shattocke, unless Richard was DYS576=17, which seems unlikely as this is a slow moving marker.   Isn't it wonderful the way you can read the STR values like a coded message about our family history passed down from our forefathers?

Clive shares DYS576=17 with Kit 443452, whereas the Yarnscombe Shattockes are DYS576=18. But Clive is CDY=35,38 like the other Yarnscombe Shattockes while Donald is CDY=36,38.  It will be interesting to see if Clive shares with Kit 443452 other similar marker values when his upgraded 111 markers come back. Once I get more marker results I think I will be able to use the additional markers to update the phylogenetic tree to show how the branching occurred among the South Molton Bristol Shaddicks (Kit 443452), the Instow Shaddicks (Clive) and the Yarnscombe Shattockes (me, and the Burrington Shaddocks and Shaddicks).

Because I only have data on 67 markers, I am going to have to wait until the upgrade to 111 markers comes back from the lab. There are some markers between 67 and 111 markers which might give me a better idea about Clive's ancestry and possibly allow me to add some new branches to the phylogenetic tree I have created. I want to keep this evaluation short and to the point because I think the 111 markers will tell a more complete story.

The more results I get back the more convinced I become that Shaddocks and Shaddicks of North Devon are relatively closely related. The suggestion is that they may have entered north Devon from Somerset around 1500. So I have renamed the cluster of results called 16884* Yarnscombe Shattockes, the 16884* North Devon Shattockes. 

Page Archive

The archive of this page is available to people who have provided test results to me. It is stored at the private blog http://dnadisscusion.blogspot.ca/ If you are in the DNA results spreadsheet and wish to access the archive, you must have a Google gmail account to access the account. Send the gmail address to me through the contact page or email and I will issue an invite.




Comments