1 August 2022

New Y-DNA results have come in for a descendant of Peter Pettit (1744-1813) a grandson of Joseph Pettit II (1689-1765). This lineage has long been thought to be of the Thomas Pettit lineage via Joseph Pettit I (1636-1725) and Margaret. But the Y-DNA has told an entirely different story, largely firmed up by tester #951633 whose descent Joseph I > Joseph II > Samuel 1710. This has some real implications for the traditional Thomas Pettit tree.

Pettit R1b-FT58002 Y-DNA Project

Janet Wood brought this interesting conundrum to my attention. An NPE has been suspected as an explanation for the Y-DNA mismatch, but I think we're quite close to ruling that out. To wit (I learned that from all the wills I've read!), did Joseph Pettit I or Joseph Pettit II have father other than a Thomas Pettit descendant? The SNPs themselves never, of course, verify an ancestor's name. Identity is matched through the Y-DNA signature. However, we do know by our work that the John Pettit I lineage dates well before him and, therefore, is not at all connected to Thomas. (Witness the collateral Robert Pettit lineage that remained in England.) There's something like 3,000 years separation between John and Thomas. An NPE would have to go back that far and wouldn't be relevant to our study. So, we know from these tests that the two families didn't have a genetic paternal connection. Still, clearly, they had a social connection, and perhaps even an intermarriage or two, although the latter is yet to be discovered.

In an attempt to make the significance of this test a bit clearer, I've created a more than usual narrowly-defined hybrid tree, FTA57533 Hybrid Tree. You might want to pull it up to follow along.

That Joseph II 1689 was of the FT380561 subclade is proved by the fact that descendants of two of his sons, and Samuel 1710 and Joseph III 1715, had the same SNP. The question, now is, Was Joe II a grandson of Thomas I or of John I? We're left with few choices for an NPE to have snuck in -- in not Joseph II, then Joseph I. Thomas I isn't an option as sons Nathaniel and Thomas prove he was of the BY200368 haplogroup. Frankly, to determine whether the FT380561 SNP came in with Joe Sr or Jr is rather academic at this point. It's certain that Joe II's grandfather was John I and that his father, Joseph II (regardless of name), was a brother of John II. Frankly, I can't see a good alternative other than that we have John I > Joseph I > Joseph II. Genetically, it's a perfect match.

None of the other FT380561 lineages are complete. It's possible, in fact, they all descend directly from Joe II rather than from any brother. Genetics may or may not tell us that, but note that the Pettit/Burger and Pettit/Silverthorn lineages both have second testers who have not Big Y tested. There are four known novel SNPs in play. Finding matches for any of those markers might help us through that. And, remember, FTDNA initially reports only SNPs with ten or more reads. There can be matching lower-read SNPs hiding out.

Regardless of which of the Josephs was first born with the FT380561 mutation, things are really quite tight. I wouldn't say we're at 100%, but if I were a betting man, I'd say, as outlined, Joseph I 1636 was a brother of John II 1638. We have a bit of a way to go yet, but we've come a long way since the first test by kit #974016. Indeed, I made some mention back then the we could make a lot of hay out testing, find new connections and correct others. And we've done that -- and that with a lot of help from Janet Wood who has done a lot of recruiting and genealogical research.

One more point I want to make. Far too often, I'd ask someone in the genealogy community whether they're sure the genealogical connection they've indicated is true and they respond, "Well, I read it somewhere." I think we've demonstrated that we can be sure, and that the way to that is the near-miracle of Y-DNA analysis.

I often miss things and might have done so here. I'm always up to conversations about any of this.

Best,
Michael Cooley