Bartlett (Y-DNA) - Revision history

MayflowerDNA1620: /* DNA results R-BY109876 */

2026-03-29T20:27:50Z

‎DNA results R-BY109876

MayflowerDNA1620: /* NGS/WGS testing */

2026-03-29T20:27:20Z

‎NGS/WGS testing

MayflowerDNA1620: /* NGS/WGS testing */

2026-03-29T20:25:47Z

‎NGS/WGS testing

MayflowerDNA1620: /* Third Generation */

2026-01-11T16:16:52Z

‎Third Generation

MayflowerDNA1620: /* Third Generation */

2026-01-11T15:46:05Z

‎Third Generation

MayflowerDNA1620: /* NGS/WGS testing */

2026-01-11T12:59:44Z

‎NGS/WGS testing

MayflowerDNA1620: /* Previous Y-DNA testing */

2026-01-11T11:35:23Z

‎Previous Y-DNA testing

Wing genealogist: /* Status summary */

2024-11-22T14:42:10Z

‎Status summary

Wing genealogist: /* Completed as of October 1, 2020: */

2024-11-22T14:41:11Z

‎Completed as of October 1, 2020:

Wing genealogist: /* NGS/WGS testing */

2024-11-22T14:34:54Z

‎NGS/WGS testing

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 <references />
-==DNA results  '''R-BY109876'''==
+==DNA results  '''R-FTH65483'''==
 ===Previous Y-DNA testing===
 As of 10 Jan 2026, the [https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BARTLETTDNA?iframe=ydna-results-overview Bartlett DNA Project] Subgroup: "RF Plymouth, MA & TN" has 35 individuals, all who are close STR matches with each other and 11 of the members state their Most Distant Known Patrilineal (all male line) Ancestor (MDKPA) was Robert Bartlett. FTDNA predicts they fall under R1b-M269 based on their STR results.

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ===NGS/WGS testing===
-Five individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876.<ref>One individual who states their Most Distant Known Patrilineal Ancestor (MDKPA) was William Brown of Dorset  (1735-1825) also has been found to be positive for BY109876. Thus this clade is not confined to solely the descendants of Robert Bartlett.</ref> Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while two other individuals claim descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> fall under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945<ref>>FTH65483. The fifth individual claims they descend from Bejamin (2), but he falls under the Joseph (2) subclade of BY142576.</ref> This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.
+Five individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876>FTH65483. Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while two other individuals claim descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> fall under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945<ref> The fifth individual claims they descend from Bejamin (2), but he falls under the Joseph (2) subclade of BY142576.</ref> This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.
 This last fact is key to the several Southern Bartlett families. The FTDNA project also documents three individuals descended from Joseph Bartlett of Virginia (c1765-c1836) and other Southern Bartlett lines falling under BY166945. This proves where these Southern lines must descend from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> Bartlett. As we have more patrilineal descendants of Benjamin Bartlett Big Y tested, we may be able to further refine the lineages of these Southern Bartlett families.

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ===NGS/WGS testing===
-Five individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876. Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while two other individuals claim descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> fall under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945.<ref>The fifth individual claims they descend from Bejamin (2), but he falls under the Joseph (2) subclade of BY142576.</ref> This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.
+Five individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876.<ref>One individual who states their Most Distant Known Patrilineal Ancestor (MDKPA) was William Brown of Dorset  (1735-1825) also has been found to be positive for BY109876. Thus this clade is not confined to solely the descendants of Robert Bartlett.</ref> Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while two other individuals claim descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> fall under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945<ref>>FTH65483. The fifth individual claims they descend from Bejamin (2), but he falls under the Joseph (2) subclade of BY142576.</ref> This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.
 This last fact is key to the several Southern Bartlett families. The FTDNA project also documents three individuals descended from Joseph Bartlett of Virginia (c1765-c1836) and other Southern Bartlett lines falling under BY166945. This proves where these Southern lines must descend from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> Bartlett. As we have more patrilineal descendants of Benjamin Bartlett Big Y tested, we may be able to further refine the lineages of these Southern Bartlett families.

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 [https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm] [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-22 Samuel Bartlett] was prob. born Duxbury abt 1662<ref>Estimate, from date married</ref> and died there bef 9 Dec 1713.<ref>Adm. of estate</ref> He married 2 Aug 1683 [[Priscilla Mullins (mtDNA)#Fourth Generation |Hannah Pabodie]]<ref>After Samuel's death, Hannah married Plymouth 4 Mar 1715 John Churchill.</ref> They had eight children (born Duxbury): Benjamin] (1684 never married), Joseph] (1686 m. Lydia Nelson & Sarah Simmons), [[Delano (Y-DNA)#Second Generation |Hannah]] (c1690), Samuel] (c1692 m. [[Hanson (mtDNA)#Third Generation |Hannah Churchill]]),  Ichabod] (1693 m. Susannah Spooner), Lydia (c1696), Elizabeth (1700) and Sarah (p1700).
-[https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm] [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-943 Ebenezer Bartlett] was prob. born Duxbury abt 1666 and died there bef 1 Mar 1697/8<ref>Inventory, which mentions wife, Hannah.</ref>. He married [[Hannah, wife of Thomas Delano (mtDNA)#First Generation| Hannah ''prob.'' Bryant]]<ref>Called Hannah, daughter of John Bryant in [https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm Bartlett Genealogy Database]</ref><ref>After Ebenezer's death, she married Duxbury 24 Oct 1699 [[Delano (Y-DNA)#Third Generation |Thomas Delano (II)]].</ref> and they had two children (born Duxbury): [https://pilgrimhenrysamsonkindred.org/geneaology/children-of-henry-and-anne-plummer-samson/ Ebenezer] (1694 m. Mary Rider & [[Allied Families (Y-DNA)#SAMSON |Jerusha Samson]]) and Nathaniel (likely never married).
+[https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm] [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-943 Ebenezer Bartlett] was prob. born Duxbury abt 1666 and died there bef 1 Mar 1697/8<ref>Inventory, which mentions wife, Hannah.</ref>. He married [[Hannah, wife of Thomas Delano (mtDNA)#First Generation| Hannah ''prob.'' Bryant]]<ref>Called Hannah, daughter of John Bryant in [https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm Bartlett Genealogy Database]</ref><ref>After Ebenezer's death, she married Duxbury 24 Oct 1699 [[Delano (Y-DNA)#Third Generation |Thomas Delano (II)]].</ref> and they had two children (born Duxbury): [https://pilgrimhenrysamsonkindred.org/geneaology/children-of-henry-and-anne-plummer-samson/ Ebenezer] (1694 m. Mary Rider & [[Allied Families (Y-DNA)#SAMSON |Jerusha Samson]]) and Nathaniel (never married).
 [https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm] [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-248 Ichabod Bartlett] was born bet Sep 1670 - May 1674<ref>Aged 14-21 when his father died (1691) as he chose his uncle to be his guardian.</ref> and is said to have died bef 1 Jan 1715/6. He married twice, first Marshfield 28 Dec 1699<ref>VRs p. 42</ref> [[Elizabeth Walker (mtDNA)#Fourth Generation |Elizabeth Waterman]] and second Duxbury 14 Nov 1708<ref>VRs p. 246</ref> [[(poss.) Susanna (Unknown) (mtDNA)#Fourth Generation |Desire Arnold]]. By his first wife, Ichabod had (born Marshfield): Josiah (1701 m. [[Hallett (mtDNA)#Third Generation |Mercy Chandler]]), Nathaniel (1703 m. Abiah Delano, no known children), Joseph (1706 m. Sarah Seabury) and Elizabeth (1708). By his second wife he had: Sarah (1710) and Seth (bp 1713 m. Charity Gullifer & Martha Bourne, but likely had no children by either marriage.)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ===Third Generation===
-[https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm] [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-21 Benjamin Bartlett (II)] was likely born Duxbury abt 1657 and died there between 10 Apr 1722 and 10 Apr 1724.<ref>Deed and oath of witnesses to his will.</ref> He married there Dec 167[8?]<ref>MD 8:232 VRs:217 partially illegible, last digit poss. a 6 or 8.</ref> [[Priscilla Mullins (mtDNA)#Fourth Generation |Ruth Pabodie]] and they had nine children (born Duxbury): Robert (1679, not in father's will), Sarah (1681), Rebecca (c1683), Ruth,  William] (1695 m. Sarah Foster), Mercy (c1694), [[Samson (Y-DNA)#Third Generation|Priscilla]] (1696/7), Deborah and Abigail (c1702).
+[https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm] [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-21 Benjamin Bartlett (II)] was likely born Duxbury abt 1657 and died there between 10 Apr 1722 and 10 Apr 1724.<ref>Deed and oath of witnesses to his will.</ref> He married there Dec 167[8?]<ref>MD 8:232 VRs:217 partially illegible, last digit poss. a 6 or 8.</ref> [[Priscilla Mullins (mtDNA)#Fourth Generation |Ruth Pabodie]] and they had nine children (born Duxbury): Robert (1679, not in father's will), Sarah (1681), Rebecca (c1683), Ruth,  William] (1695 m. Sarah Foster), Mercy (c1694), [[Samson (Y-DNA)#Third Generation|Priscilla]] (1696/7), Deborah and Abigail (c1702). His line eventually daughtered out so there are no living Y-DNA descendants from Benjamin (II).
 [https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cst/bartlett/team9a.htm] [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-22 Samuel Bartlett] was prob. born Duxbury abt 1662<ref>Estimate, from date married</ref> and died there bef 9 Dec 1713.<ref>Adm. of estate</ref> He married 2 Aug 1683 [[Priscilla Mullins (mtDNA)#Fourth Generation |Hannah Pabodie]]<ref>After Samuel's death, Hannah married Plymouth 4 Mar 1715 John Churchill.</ref> They had eight children (born Duxbury): Benjamin] (1684 never married), Joseph] (1686 m. Lydia Nelson & Sarah Simmons), [[Delano (Y-DNA)#Second Generation |Hannah]] (c1690), Samuel] (c1692 m. [[Hanson (mtDNA)#Third Generation |Hannah Churchill]]),  Ichabod] (1693 m. Susannah Spooner), Lydia (c1696), Elizabeth (1700) and Sarah (p1700).

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 11 January 2026
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Five individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876. Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while two other individuals claim descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> fall under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945.<ref>The fifth individual claims they descend from Bejamin (2), but he falls under the Joseph (2) subclade of BY142576.</ref> This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.		Five individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876. Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while two other individuals claim descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> fall under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945.<ref>The fifth individual claims they descend from Bejamin (2), but he falls under the Joseph (2) subclade of BY142576.</ref> This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.

−	This last fact is key to the several Southern Bartlett families. The FTDNA project also documents ~~two~~ individuals descended from Joseph Bartlett of Virginia (c1765-c1836) and other Southern Bartlett lines falling under BY166945. This proves where these Southern lines must descend from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> Bartlett. As we have more patrilineal descendants of Benjamin Bartlett Big Y tested, we may be able to further refine the lineages of these Southern Bartlett families.	+	This last fact is key to the several Southern Bartlett families. The FTDNA project also documents three individuals descended from Joseph Bartlett of Virginia (c1765-c1836) and other Southern Bartlett lines falling under BY166945. This proves where these Southern lines must descend from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> Bartlett. As we have more patrilineal descendants of Benjamin Bartlett Big Y tested, we may be able to further refine the lineages of these Southern Bartlett families.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ===Completed as of November 22, 2024: ===
 * Y-SNP tested to P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY166945
-* Separate Subclades for Benjamin and Joseph identified
+* Separate Subclades for Benjamin (BY166945) and Joseph (BY142576) identified
 * Recruiting patrilineal (all male line) descendants of Robert Bartlett to NGS/WGS test. Any male who believes they are such a descendant should [[Read me First|<big>'''Read me First'''</big>]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Status summary==
-===Completed as of October 1, 2020: ===
+===Completed as of November 22, 2024: ===
-* Y-SNP tested to P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY166945 (with some descendants falling under BY166945>BY142576)
+* Y-SNP tested to P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY166945
 * Recruiting patrilineal (all male line) descendants of Robert Bartlett to NGS/WGS test. Any male who believes they are such a descendant should [[Read me First|<big>'''Read me First'''</big>]]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ===NGS/WGS testing===
-Due to the fact the individual claiming to be descended from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> Bartlett cannot currently ''prove'' his descent, the information below is still speculative. As such, the Bartlett DNA Project is actively recruiting a proven Y-DNA descendant of Benjamin Bartlett to Big Y test to confirm or refute these findings.
+Five individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876. Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while two other individuals claim descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> fall under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945.<ref>The fifth individual claims they descend from Bejamin (2), but he falls under the Joseph (2) subclade of BY142576.</ref> This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.
-−
-Three individuals claiming descent from Robert Bartlett have taken a Big Y test which documents the haplogroup for Robert Bartlett himself was P312>>U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z145>BY1823>BY28794>PF6582>PF6577>BY3953>BY109876. Two testers (both descended from Joseph<sup>2</sup>)<ref>The shared lineage of these individuals is as follows: Robert<sup>1</sup>, Joseph<sup>2</sup>, Joseph<sup>3</sup>, Joseph<sup>4</sup>. Thus this mutation likely occurred somewhere along this lineage.</ref> fall under a subclade of BY109876>BY142576 while the other individual (who claims descent from Benjamin<sup>2</sup>) falling under a different subclade of BY109876>BY166945. This does not automatically mean that Joseph himself had the BY142576 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Joseph. In a similar vein, it does not automatically mean Benjamin himself had the BY166945 mutation, rather it means everyone who has this mutation must be a descendant of Benjamin.
 This last fact is key to the several Southern Bartlett families. The FTDNA project also documents two individuals descended from Joseph Bartlett of Virginia (c1765-c1836) and other Southern Bartlett lines falling under BY166945. This proves where these Southern lines must descend from Benjamin<sup>2</sup> Bartlett. As we have more patrilineal descendants of Benjamin Bartlett Big Y tested, we may be able to further refine the lineages of these Southern Bartlett families.