Samuel Ackley (1680-1745) and His Family

While I have made every effort to find reliable sources for the facts presented in this post, you will see that there are a few items for which there are no good sources. In such cases, I have identified the lack of reliable sources.

Samuel Ackley was the tenth of ten children born to Nicholas and Hannah Ackley. He was born about 1680; Find-A-Grave gives his birth place as East Haddam, Connecticut [2]. However, it is unlikely that he was born in East Haddam. It is more likely that he was born in Haddam; Nicholas and Hannah lived in Haddam in 1680, and the settlement at East Haddam was not begun until around 1685 [14]. Samuel's birth date could also be in question as well; probate records for Richard Piper of Haddam show that he gave "To John Ackly a mare; To Samuel Ackly a mare & colt, and all my Rights of Land East side of the Great River" when he died in 1678 [24]. This would suggest that either Samuel was born before 1680 or there was another Samuel Ackley for which no other records exist. 

Although Samuel was probably born in Haddam, it does appear that he lived most of his life in East Haddam; all of his children were born there, and he died there. According to probate records, he died 27 April 1745 in East Haddam [3]:

Samuel Ackley death date from inventory attached to will

At the time of his death in 1745, sons Samuel and Stephen were already dead, as were daughters Deborah and Lydia. Signed statements in the probate records from sons Isaac and Bezaleel and Samuel's widow Bethia acknowledge receipt of their portions of his estate. Son Simeon was administrator of the estate, and son Elijah also signed the will. Additionally, David, son of Samuel, Jr. was given a portion of the estate [3].

Samuel married Bethia Adams on 3 January 1700 in Haddam, Connecticut [15]. Samuel is sometimes referred to as Sergeant in some trees and in his will; so far I have not found evidence of military service for him. Samuel, Bethia, and their son Samuel were all baptized on 6 Oct 1706 at the First Congregational Church in East Haddam [21].

According to probate records, Samuel was chosen by two different young men to be their guardians. His nephew, Edward Purple, Jr. chose Samuel to be his guardian in 1729 [23], and Joseph Spencer, a minor 18 years of age, chose Samuel to be his guardian in 1730 [22].

Evidently Samuel did not know how to write. On every probate or land record I have found for him, he "made his mark" whenever his signature was required.

Land Records

Haddam and East Haddam land records reveal the following land transactions for Samuel:

• On January 23, 1699/1700, Samuel sold a piece of land in Haddam to his brother Thomas for 9 pounds [25].
• On May 27, 1717, Samuel sold a piece of land in Haddam to James Ray for 10 pounds, 10 shillings [26].
• On September 12, 1739, Samuel entered into some type of agreement with John Purple in Haddam. The image of the agreement was difficult to read, but it does appear to be a land transaction [27].
• On October 30, 1739, Samuel sold a piece of land in Haddam to Joseph Arnold [28]. The image was not clear enough to make out the sale price.
• On November 23, 1742, Samuel bought a piece of land in Haddam from Ephraim Griswould. The sale price was illegible on the image. On the same date, he also completed a land transaction in Haddam with Joshua Brainerd, Isaac Spencer, Mathew Smith, Jabez Chapman, and Thomas Gates [29].
• On March 8, 1744, Samuel gave a piece of land in East Haddam to his son Simeon Ackley [30].
• On April 25, 1744, Samuel gave a piece of land in East Haddam to his son Nathaniel [31].
• On December 18, 1744, Samuel sold a piece of land in East Haddam to Christopher Reed for 12 pounds [32].
• On April 25, 1745, Samuel gave a piece of land in Haddam to his son Bezaleel [33].

Given the timing of the last four transactions in relation to his death on April 27, 1745, it appears that Samuel may have been ill about a year before his death and was preparing for his death by disposing of his property.

Children

Fortunately, there are some fairly complete records covering the births of Samuel and Bethia's children and most of their grandchildren [4]. The East Haddam records shown below provide documentation for many of the vital dates that will be discussed. Each of the families to be discussed is enclosed in a different colored box.

Image 5 from Records of births, marriages, and deaths, 1687-1915.

Samuel and Bethia had seven sons and three daughters, all born in East Haddam, Connecticut (their information is enclosed in the red box above). Their ten children were:

1. Samuel Ackley was born 8 Dec 1703 in East Haddam, Connecticut [4] and died 18 January 1730 [5]. He married Hannah Hungerford on 22 November 1727 in East Haddam [4] (data is in the purple box on the top right of the image above). Samuel and Hannah had two children:

    a. Samuel Ackley was born 30 November 1728 in East Haddam [4].

    b. David Ackley was born 23 April 1730 in East Haddam [4].

2. Jerusha Ackley was born 29 March 1707 in East Haddam [4] and died in August 1736 [6]. She married Jedediah Graves in March 1728 in East Haddam [6]. Jerusha died in Aug 1736 in East Haddam [11]. Jerusha and Jedediah had three children:

    a. Jonah Graves was born 20 Jun 1728 in East Haddam [6].

    b. Esther Graves was born 9 Jan 1731 in East Haddam [6].

    c. Rachel Graves was born 2 Jan 1734 in East Haddam [6].

Note: Some online trees list a fourth child, Lydia, born in East Haddam in 1732. No sources are given, and it would seem odd for a child born in between Esther (1731) and Rachel (1734) not to appear in the same records.

3. Deborah Ackley was born 11 July 1709 in East Haddam [4]. Note: Other than birth and baptism records, very few records for Deborah can be found online. The following is reported in [16] with very little supporting documentation. Use with caution! 

Deborah married Edward Scoville, date unknown. She died around 1737 [16]. Deborah and Edward had four children:

    a. Micah Scoville, baptized 16 Nov 1735 [16].

    b. Benjamin Scoville, baptized 16 Nov 1735 [16].

    c. Lydia Scoville, baptized 16 Nov 1735 [16].

    d. Hannah Scoville, born after 1735 [16].

4. Lydia Ackley was born 14 August 1712 in East Haddam [4]. Note: Sources for Lydia Ackley's data are hard to come by as well. The following data is pieced together from several poorly documented sources. Again, use this data with caution! She married Thomas Fenn on 22 Mar 1731, and died in 1741 [17]. They had four children:

    a. Lydia Fenn was born 11 Jul 1733 [18].

    b. Thomas Fenn was born 1 Dec 1735 [18].

    c. Samuel Fenn was born 27 Dec 1737 [18].

    d. Hannah Fenn was born 24 Mar 1741 [18].

Thomas Fenn died in 1769, outliving both Lydia and his second wife Christian Baker. His will mentions all four children he had with Lydia Ackley and at least five children he had with Christian [3].

5. Simeon Ackley was born 10 January 1714 in East Haddam [4] and died 5 May 1791 in East Haddam [3]. Simeon was married twice. First, he married Alice Fuller in East Haddam on 8 Nov 1739 [4]. Her death date is unknown, but she must have died before 1747 because Simeon married again in 1747. Simeon and Alice had four children (data in blue box):

    a. Samuel Ackley was born 3 Oct 1740 in East Haddam [8].

    b. Lydia Ackley was born 18 Dec 1742 in East Haddam [8].

    c. Hannah Ackley was born 17 Jul 1744 in East Haddam [8].

    d. Alice Ackley's birth date is unknown, but she died on 6 Aug 1746 [11].

Simeon's second wife was Elizabeth Crocker. They were married 25 May 1747 in East Haddam [7]. Simeon and Elizabeth had six children:

    a. Elizabeth Ackley was born 25 Dec 1747 in East Haddam [8].

    b. Simeon Ackley was born 15 Apr 1749 in East Haddam [8].

    c. Stephen Ackley was born 25 Mar 1753 in East Haddam [8].

    d. Thomas Ackley was born 25 May 1755 in East Haddam [8].

    e. Isaac Crocker Ackley's birth date is not known for sure. One source reports he was baptized on 4 Nov 1760 [19]. He was probably born in 1760; his death record states he died on 3 Nov 1848 at age 88 [11].

    f. Bethia Ackley was born 22 Apr 1764 in East Haddam [9].

6. Stephen Ackley was born 27 July 1717 in East Haddam [4]. His death date is not known for certain; various trees give anywhere from 1720 to 1739 without references. He is not mentioned in Samuel's will. He probably died at a young age without marrying or having children.

7. Elijah Ackley was born 28 March 1719 in East Haddam [4], and died 3 Mar 1807 in East Haddam [10]. Elijah married Abigail Blakesley in East Haddam on 12 Oct 1741 [7]. Elijah and Abigail had seven children (data in green box):

    a. Stephen Ackley was born 19 Aug 1742 in East Haddam [8] and died 5 Dec 1749 in East Haddam [11].

    b. Elijah Ackley was born 23 Jun 1745 in East Haddam [8].

    c. Amasa Ackley was born 17 Feb 1747 in East Haddam [8].

    d. Abigail Ackley was born 28 Jan 1749/50 in East Haddam [8].

    e. Stephen Ackley was born 6 Sep 1750 in East Haddam [8].

    f. Bethia Ackley was born 31 May 1754 in East Haddam [8].

    g. Elizabeth Ackley was born 12 Feb 1756 in East Haddam [8] and died 20 Mar 1764 in East Haddam [11].

8. Isaac Chalker Ackley was born 6 October 1721 in East Haddam [4]. Isaac died on 17 Dec 1798 in East Haddam [11]. He married Ruth Gates on 25 Apr 1745 in East Haddam. Isaac and Ruth had nine children (data in yellow box):

    a. Demmis Ackley was born 16 Feb 1745/46 in East Haddam [8].

    b. Rhoda Ackley was born 10 Nov 1747 in East Haddam [8].

    c. Temperance Ackley was born 27 Sep 1749 in East Haddam [8].

    d. Ruth Ackley was born 23 Mar 1752 in East Haddam [8].

    e. Prudence Ackley was born 5 Aug 1754 in East Haddam [8].

    f. Lucy Ackley was born 9 Oct 1757 in East Haddam [8].

    g. Isaac Chalker Ackley, Jr. was born 16 Mar 1760 in East Haddam [8].

    h. Israel Dutton Ackley was born 1 Jun 1762 in East Haddam [8] and died 13 Oct 1764 in East Haddam [11].

    i. Olive Ackley was born 28 Aug 1764 in East Haddam [13].

9. Bezaleel Ackley was born 14 February 1723/24 in East Haddam [4]. His death date is uncertain; some online trees give 1776 without sources. Bezaleel married Bridget Champion in Lyme, Connecticut on 23 Nov 1748 [12]. Bezaleel and Bridget had five children:

    a. Deborah Ackley was baptized on 16 Jun 1754 in Hadlyme, Connecticut [20]

    b. Bezaleel Ackley was baptized on 16 Jun 1754 in Hadlyme, Connecticut [20]

    c. Lavina Ackley was baptized on 3 Sep 1758 in Hadlyme, Connecticut [20]

    d. Champion Ackley was baptized 6 Apr 1760 in Hadlyme, Connecticut [20]

Note: Some trees list a fifth child, James Erasmus Ackley, born about 1764, for this couple.

10. Nathaniel Ackley III (see this post about the three Nathaniels for an explanation of the "III" designation) was born 14 June 1726 in East Haddam [4]. He died 14 Mar 1794 in Millington, Connecticut [1]. Nathaniel married Lucretia Willey on 16 Feb 1756 in East Haddam [7]. Nathaniel and Lucretia had seven children (data in orange box):

    a. Ahira Ackley was born 22 Apr 1761 in East Haddam [8].

    b. Ithamar Ackley was born 13 Jul 1763 in East Haddam [8].

    c. Nathaniel Ackley IV was born 8 Aug 1765 in East Haddam [8].

    d. Huldah Ackley was born 6 Apr 1768 in East Haddam [8].

    e. Deborah Ackley was born 19 Feb 1771 in East Haddam [8].

    f. Mary Ackley was born 24 Feb 1775 in East Haddam [8].

    g. Irene Ackley was born 24 Feb 1778 in East Haddam [8].

Sources

1. Ferris, Mary Walton, Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines: A Memorial Volume Containing the American Ancestry of Mary Beman (Gates) Dawes Vol. II (Wisconsin: Cuneo Press, 1931), p. 50.

2. Ancestry.com. U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current [database online]. Memorial #177437120. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.

3. Ancestry.com. Connecticut, Wills and Probate Records, 1609-1999 [database online]. Original data from Connecticut State Library (Hartford, Connecticut).Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015.

4. East Haddam (Connecticut). Registrar of Vital Statistics. 1984. Records of births, marriages, and deaths, 1687-1915. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah. Film 1480163, Vital statistics v. 1 1687-1789, Image 5.

5. Manwaring, Charles William, A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records 1729-1750 Vol. III (Hartford, Connecticut: R. S. Peck, & Co., 1906), p. 1.

6. East Haddam (Connecticut). Registrar of Vital Statistics. 1984. Records of births, marriages, and deaths, 1687-1915. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah. Film 1480163, Vital statistics v. 1 1687-1789, Image 42.

7. Ancestry.com. Connecticut, Town Marriage Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection) [database online]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2006.

8. Ancestry.com. Connecticut, U.S., Town Birth Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection) [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2006.

9. Ancestry.com. U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current [database online]. Memorial #134646412. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.

10. Ancestry.com. Connecticut, U.S., Deaths and Burials Index, 1650-1934 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.

11. Ancestry.com. Connecticut, U.S., Town Death Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection) [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2006.

12. Ancestry.com. Early Connecticut Marriages [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.

13. Ancestry.com. U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current [database online]. Memorial #90504743. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.

14. Bayles, Richard M., "Town of Haddam", History of Middlesex County, Connecticut with Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men. Henry Whittemore. (New York: J.B. Beers, & Co., 1884), p. 370-371.

15. Ancestry.com. U.S., New England Marriages Prior to 1700 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2012.

16. Ancestry.com. A survey of the Scovils of Scovills in England and America : seven hundred years of history, and genealogy [database on-line]. Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data:Brainard, Homer Worthington,. A survey of the Scovils of Scovills in England and America : seven hundred years of history, and genealogy. Hartford: Priv. print., 1915.

17. History of Waterbury. Author, publisher, date unknown. p. 163. [Photocopy listed as source in many online trees, but no publication information included.]

18. Fischer, Carl W. Descendants of Thomas Horton of Springfield, and including some descendants of Phineas Pratt. (Interlaken, NY: I-T Publishing Corp., 1976), p. 93 [Accessed online on familysearch.org].

19. Crocker, James R. Crocker Genealogy. Unknown publisher. p. 22 [Accessed online on familysearch.org].

20. Ancestry.com. The Champion genealogy : a history of the descendants of Henry Champion of Saybrook and Lyme, Connecticut [database on-line]. Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data: Trowbridge, Francis Bacon,. The Champion genealogy : a history of the descendants of Henry Champion of Saybrook and Lyme, Connecticut, together with some account of other families of the name. New Haven Conn.: F.B. Trowbridge, 1891.

21. First Congregational Church and Ecclesiastical Society (East Haddam). Church Records 1702-1927. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1953, Image 12.

22. Manwaring, Charles William, A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records 1729-1750 Vol. III (Hartford, Connecticut: R. S. Peck, & Co., 1906), p. 115.

23. Manwaring, Charles William, A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records 1700-1730 Vol. II (Hartford, Connecticut: R. S. Peck, & Co., 1904), p. 424.

24. Manwaring, Charles William, A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records 1635-1700 Vol. II (Hartford, Connecticut: R. S. Peck, & Co., 1904), p. 350.

25. Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1668-1906; general index, 1668-1920. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1948, 1984, 1987. Film 4464, Land records, v. 1 (1673-1744), v. 2 (1704-1730), Image 95.

26. Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1668-1906; general index, 1668-1920. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1948, 1984, 1987. Film 4464, Land records, v. 1 (1673-1744), v. 2 (1704-1730), Image 313.

27. Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1668-1906; general index, 1668-1920. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1948, 1984, 1987. Film 4465, Land records, v. 3-4 1728-1759, Image 197.

28. Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1668-1906; general index, 1668-1920. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1948, 1984, 1987. Film 4465, Land records, v. 3-4 1728-1759, Image 201.

29. Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1668-1906; general index, 1668-1920. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1948, 1984, 1987. Film 4465, Land records, v. 3-4 1728-1759, Image 381-382.

30. East Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1704-1912; general index, 1704-1910. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949, 1984, 1987. Film 4097, Land records v. 2-3 1725-1749, Image 750.

31. East Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1704-1912; general index, 1704-1910. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949, 1984, 1987. Film 4097, Land records v. 2-3 1725-1749, Image 761.

32. East Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1704-1912; general index, 1704-1910. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949, 1984, 1987. Film 4097, Land records v. 2-3 1725-1749, Image 756.

33. Haddam (Connecticut) Town Clerk. Land records, 1668-1906; general index, 1668-1920. Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1948, 1984, 1987. Film 4465, Land records, v. 3-4 1728-1759, Image 663.

Link of the Day

This is a link to the East Haddam records on Family Search used extensively in this post:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/375312?availability=Family%20History%20Library

This reference has three separate sets of images that are useful for East Haddam research.

Quote of the Day

"Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn."

--Benjamin Franklin

The Parentage of Nicholas Ackley Revisited

I apologize up front if you are reading this post hoping to find some new revelations about the true parentage of Nicholas Ackley. So far, I have found nothing new about Nicholas's parentage, but I have discovered additional information discrediting what many have accepted as his ancestry.

Quite some time ago, I wrote a post about The (Supposed) Ancestors of Nicholas Ackley. In that post, I attempted to debunk the notion that Nicholas Ackley's father was John Hackley, from Hopton Castle, and that his ancestors reached back to Hughe de Hackluite in the 14th century. This pedigree, or some variation of it, appears in many, many online trees on Ancestry as well as WikiTree, and seems to have its origins in a pedigree that was published in the book The Life of Charles Henry Hackley, Drawn from Old Public and Family Records by Louis P. Haight [1]. Virtually all of the Ancestry trees cite other Ancestry trees as the only source for their information (which is like having no source at all), while WikiTree makes repeated references to what seems to be the Haight book in the profile for John Hackley, who is listed as Nicholas's father. This note in his WikiTree profile describes the Hackluite information:

"Descendants of Hughe De Hackluite. Mr. Haight had Gustave Anjoy, a Hasbrouck Heights, NJ, professional genealogist, trace the Hackley "family tree" back to Hughe De Hackluite in Herefordshire, England in 1377."

The name Gustave Anjoy (who it turns out is actually Gustave Anjou) is new information to me; I discovered it recently while assisting a fellow Ackley researcher who is writing a new book on Nicholas Ackley (which I will discuss in more detail in a future post). The two of us began independently looking into Gustave Anjou and learned that he is a notorious forger of genealogies who was cranking out pedigrees by the hundreds in the early part of the 20th century. Anjou originally pedaled his genealogies to well-to-do clients for the hefty price of $9,000 (which is equivalent to almost $300,000 today), but eventually began selling them for $250 through a mail-order business. Mr. Anjou's business even made page 1 of the New York Times in December 1927 [2]:

The article goes on to sing the praises of the work Anjou was doing to make genealogy affordable to the masses, with no hint of the fraud he was perpetrating that was finally fully exposed in the 1990s.

The first hint of Anjou's fraud came in an article by George McCracken in American Genealogist in 1976. McCracken's article was really just a short note in which he advocated starting "a list of genealogical authors whose works are so untrustworthy that they deserve general condemnation."[3] Without explanation as to why, the list included Gustave Anjou, Charles H. Browning, C. A. Hoppin, Orra E. Monnette, Horatio Gates Somerby, Frederick A. Virkus, and John S. Wurts. (Many of these authors plus a few others are mentioned in the article found at the "Link of the Day" below.) However, it wasn't until two companion articles were published in 1991 in Genealogical Journal that the full extent of the fakery was exposed. Gordon Remington wrote in detail about Anjou's carefully fabricated life story and the persona he invented to make himself attractive to his clients [5], while Robert Anderson used an example of Anjou's work to reveal the methods he used to produce the hundreds of bogus genealogies he sold to unwitting customers [4].

In his article, Anderson also published a list of 109 Anjou genealogies believed to be fraudulent along with their call numbers at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City. Other researchers have added to the list, and there are now over 300 genealogies produced by Anjou that are considered to be fakes; among them is the Hackley genealogy. For a complete list, see the forum entry by Nicole Wingate on genealogy.com [7].

In describing Anjou's methodology, Anderson wrote [4]:

A typical Anjou pedigree displays four recognizable features:

1. A dazzling range of connections between dozens of immigrants to New England; for example, connections far beyond what may be seen in pedigrees produced by anyone else.

2. Many wild geographical leaps, outside the normal range of migration patterns.

3. An overwhelming number of citations to documents that actually exist, and actually include what Anjou says they include and

4. Here and there an invented document, without citation, which appears to support the many connections noted under item 1 above

Without rehashing the points made in the original post, it is pretty clear that the Hackley pedigree presented in the Haight book fits the pattern laid out by Anderson. The pedigree includes references to Nicholas Ackley and is the apparent source of Nicholas's ancestry mentioned above; we now know it is not to be trusted. Much of the information about earlier generations is documented and verifiable, but there are too many leaps of faith required to connect the generations to each other. Likewise, bits of the data on Nicholas are correct, but most of it is just flat out wrong, and supporting sources are not provided.

It is hard to know which parts of the pedigree can be attributed to Anjou; in the opening paragraph of the chapter on Hackley's ancestry, Haight credits only H. Farnham Burke with the research on the pedigree. Sir Henry Farnham Burke (1859-1930) was a professional genealogist and held several royal appointments to positions related to English heraldry and genealogy. In 1826 his family established "Burke's Peerage", a guide to royal and other prominent families worldwide, and it is still published today. However, there are several clues that Haight engaged Anjou for help with the pedigree, and there was a long association between the two. There is a signed letter from Anjou at the front of the book, dated April 16th, 1906 (the book wasn't published until 1948), verifying the Hackley coat of arms that appears in the book. Additionally, in The First Two Hundred Years in Muskegon [6], author Frederic Read details Haight's efforts to honor his friend Charles Hackley and states that:

"To top if off, Mr. Haight had Gustave Anjoy [an apparent misspelling of Anjou], a Hasbrouck Heights, NJ, professional genealogist, trace the Hackley "family tree" back to Hughe De Hackluite in Herefordshire, England in 1377, and from then forward to the life of Charles Henry Hackley in Muskegon. According to Dr. Anjou's information, one ancestor, Sir Thomas Ackley, was mayor of London in 1511. Another was sheriff of Eaton in England, another a rector of Westminster."

Read's book was written in 1976, so Anjou's work had not yet been exposed as fraudulent. Whether Haight gave Anjou credit or not, it is apparent that the "research" on the pedigree in Haight's book was Anjou's work.

While I feel that the dismantling of the pedigree presented in the earlier post, which I wrote without knowing that Anjou was a fraudster, was pretty thorough and stands on its own, this additional information about the fraudulent nature of Anjou's work should be a red flag to anyone researching Nicholas Ackley. It is all the more reason to discount Nicholas's ancestry, which was based on that work, that has made its way to every corner of the genealogy internet. If you have included the Hackley information in your tree, I would strongly suggest either removing it or at the very least including comments/warnings for anyone who sees your tree that the information is definitely not reliable.

Sources

1. Haight, Louis P., The Life of Charles Henry Hackley (Muskegon, Michigan: Dana Publishing Company, 1948), p. 107-120.

2. "Sells Family Trees at a Cut-Rate Price." The New York Times, 12 Dec 1927, p. 1.

3. McCracken, George E. (July 1976). "Towards an Index Expurgatorius". The American Genealogist. 52 (3): 182.

4. Anderson, Robert Charles (1991). "We Wuz Robbed, The Modus Operandi of Gustave Anjou". Genealogical Journal. Utah Genealogical Association. 19 (1 & 2): 47–70.

5.Remington, Gordon L. (1991). "Gustave We Hardly Knew Ye: A Portrait of Herr Anjou as a Jungberg". Genealogical Journal. Utah Genealogical Association. 19 (1 & 2): 59-70. 

6. Read, Frederic. The First Two Hundred Years in Muskegon (Publisher and location unknown, 1976), p. 89.

7. Wingate, Nicole. "Fraudelent Lineages" on genealogy.com at Home > Forum > General > General Genealogy 

(https://www.genealogy.com/forum/general/topics/gen/37674/), accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Link of the Day

This is a link to a page at FamilySearch.com discussing known fraudulent genealogists:  https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Fraudulent_Genealogies

Like most genealogists, I have relied more than once on prepared genealogies to fill in earlier generations of my tree. After learning about Anjou and other fraudsters, I plan on consulting this link to make sure I haven't unknowingly used bad information.

Quote of the Day

"No legacy is so rich as honesty."

  -- William Shakespeare

 

Update on Ackley Surname Project Y-DNA Testing

This blog isn't meant to be about just DNA, although it may seem like it given the amount of time devoted to the topic lately. I promise there will be plenty of non-DNA posts in the future, but the Ackley Surname Project is on a bit of a roll right now and I wanted to report on the progress we've made over the last few months. The following representation of the family tree for the members of the project who have done Y-DNA testing will be referred to throughout this post.

The tree is a little busy, but I think it is a pretty good way to summarize the project in a single diagram. It shows the known ancestry of all project members (who are represented by their kit numbers to protect their privacy), as well as their testing status. The borders around the blocks representing each project member are color coded to indicate the testing level they have attained, and white boxes surrounding groups of members indicate the haplogroup to which they belong. Recall that haplogroups represent branches on the haplotree, or "tree of mankind".

The boxes in various shades of gray on the left of the tree are project members who have done Y STR testing that confirms they are descendants of Nicholas Ackley, but do not yet know how they descend from him. One of the goals of the project is to have some of these members do SNP testing to determine which of Nicholas's sons they descend from and help them complete their line of descent from him.

Evolution of Big Y Testing in the Ackley Surname Project

Bear with me for a few paragraphs here as I explain the evolution of Big Y testing in the Ackley Surname Project. I believe it will help explain how Big Y testing is being used to define the branches of the haplotree for the descendants of Nicholas Ackley.

I was the first member of the group to do a SNP test, back in May 2016. STR testing had given me a predicted haplogroup of R-M269, but SNP testing is needed to refine that prediction. Recall that SNP testing looks at single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs. A SNP is a mutation, which creates a new branch on the Y-DNA haplogroup tree. A haplogroup is a major branch on the Y-DNA tree that shares hundreds or even thousands of mutations that are unique to that group. The SNP test I took was not a full Big Y test, but rather tested a relatively small group of SNPs known to be common to Western Europe. From that test, my confirmed haplogroup was R-S1051 (orange arrow in table below). R-S1051 is estimated to have formed around 3,900 years ago, so that information is not particularly useful for genealogical research.

I wanted to know more, so I did the Big Y test in July 2016. Big Y tests a much larger number of SNPs and determines the tester's "terminal" haplogroup; i.e., the lowest (most recent) branch on the haplotree for which there is at least one other tester who is also positive for that SNP. As a result of that test, I was placed in haplogroup R-BY10450 (blue arrow in table below), which is estimated to have formed around 3,200 years ago. Closer to present time, but still not useful for genealogy. It is important to note that at that point I still had a number of what are known as private variants -- these are SNPs for which I was positive but had not yet been found in other men. Naming of private variants occurs when other men who are positive for these mutations test; this is how branches are added to the haplotree.

A genealogically relevant branch was added to the haplotree when another member of the project (kit number B313386) did a Big Y test in mid-2018. This tester was also positive for a large number of the private variants I had, and as a result we were identified as members of haplogroup R-FGC52286 (green arrow in table below). I had only six remaining private variants and the other tester had only two. This branch represents our most recent common ancestor, and since both of us are known descendants of Nicholas Ackley, me through his son James and the other tester through his son John, R-FGC52286 is effectively established as the "Nicholas Ackley" branch on the haplotree. All descendants of Nicholas Ackley should be on R-FGC52286 or a more recent sub-branch of R-FGC52286. Additionally, my private variants help define the "James Ackley" branch and B313386's private variants help define the "John Ackley" branch. This information will indeed be useful for genealogical research as will be shown below.

To completely define my own branch on the haplotree, I had my son (kit 934998) do a Big Y test. He was positive for all six of my private variants and had no private variants of his own, so all six of those variants were named and we were placed on the R-FGC52300 branch of the tree (yellow arrow in the table below). Tester B313386 has also done individual SNP tests on his first cousin and two sons to confirm that they are also positive for R-FGC52286. In addition, the Big Y test for one of his sons has just completed resulting in the naming of his two private variants, placing them on their own branch below R-FGC52286. As reflected in the family tree above, this branch has been named R-BY135594 and further defines the "John Ackley" branch.

Most Recent Ackley Big Y Tests

We recently had two Big Y tests complete that provided some very useful information for the project. One of the Big Y testers, kit 938816, is a known descendant of Nicholas Ackley's son Samuel. His results placed him as expected on the R-FGC52286 branch, and he had just two private variants. Another member, kit 938369, who was on one of the unknown lines of descent, also decided to do a Big Y test that finished just after 938816. 938369 was also R-FGC52286 and had three private variants. One of those private variants matched one of 938816's private variants, confirming that 938369 is a descendant of Samuel. This variant was given a name and these two men have now established the "Samuel" branch of the tree, R-FTA24085.

More recently, kit 947514's Big Y test completed. He was also among the group that did not know how he descended from Nicholas; his Big Y results also place him in R-FTA24085 and on the "Samuel" branch. Note that there is another Big Y kit in process at this time; kit 950608, who is known to be in the same line of descent as 947514, should finish soon and further refine the "Samuel" branch. Those two kits will likely form a new sub-branch under R-FTA24085. This is a prime example of Big Y testing helping uncover genealogy clues -- men who did not know how they descend from Nicholas Ackley have learned that they are descendants of Nicholas's son Samuel. Although they don't know all the details yet and in a sense are still searching for a needle in a haystack, the haystack has gotten considerably smaller.

Another way to visualize this information is the FTDNA block tree. The block tree is a representation of the haplotree that shows the relationship of closely related haplogroups. The current block tree looks like this:

 

New Zealand Ackley with UK Roots

As mentioned in a previous post, an Ackley man from New Zealand has joined the project and his Y-37 results are now available. Based on these results, he is not a close match to the Nicholas Ackley descendants in the project. He has decided to do a Big Y test to learn more; it is in the manual review phase right now and should be complete within a week or so. In the meantime, the search for our English connections continues!

Link of the Day

Join the project! If you are an Ackley man or a woman who has Ackley male relatives that you'd like to test, we'd love to have you join the project. Details on how to join and suggestions on what test to take can be found in this post.

Quote of the Day

"Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant."

 --Robert Louis Stevenson

 

Big Family Tree DNA Sale!

Family Tree DNA is having a big sale right now on all of their DNA tests. The sale runs now through April 19th, and you need a coupon code to take advantage of the sale prices. Below is a chart with the sale prices and coupon codes for each test. If you've been following along with the latest posts in this blog, you know that Y-DNA testing has been a major topic lately. If you have been thinking about doing a test and joining the Ackley Surname Project, now might be a good time to do it.

Family Tree DNA Sale Prices Feb 23-April 19, 2021

An Analysis of the Ackley Y-DNA Haplotype

This post is maybe a little geekier than normal, but hopefully those readers who have been following the Y-DNA articles will find this of interest.

Surname projects on Family Tree DNA exist in large part to help members answer genealogical questions about their surname. The main tools available are Y-DNA tests such as STR tests (Y-12, Y-25, Y-37, Y-67, and Y-111) and SNP tests (Big Y-700). One challenge for surname project administrators is to recommend testing options for members that will help answer their questions at the least cost. In general, the more STR markers tested, the better the information gained, but the cost for testing goes up as the number of markers increases. Some projects have identified markers and values that seem to uniquely define the haplotype for their surname and thus can recommend testing levels that have a high probability of identifying members who are likely to be related to others who share their surname.

The goal of this analysis is to determine if there are any Unique STR Patterns (USPs) [1] that help to identify Ackley men. The approach will be to compare the ancestral values for Ackley men to ancestral values for upstream haplogroups, specifically R-M269, R-L21, and R-S1051, to determine if any of the values are particularly more prevalent in Ackley men than in those larger groups.

Y-DNA STR Testing and Convergence

Before taking an in-depth look at individual markers, a short discussion about the various levels of testing is in order. As mentioned above, STR testing at 12, 25, 37, 67, and 111 markers has been available at various times from Family Tree DNA. Currently only 37, 67, and 111 marker tests can be purchased. Although 12 and 25 marker tests are no longer available, there were many men who tested at those levels in the past, so tools exist to look at matches for all levels. The reason for discontinuing the lower marker tests is that in many cases they just don’t provide enough information to draw useful genealogical conclusions. For example, there is a non-Ackley man in the Ackley Surname Project who has nearly 4,000 Y-12 matches. Not one of those matches has his surname, there are nearly 3,000 different surnames among his matches, and the most frequently occurring surname occurs only 52 times. Moving up to 25 markers, this man has almost 1,600 matches with almost 1,000 surnames, none of which are his surname. This information is decidedly unhelpful in answering genealogical questions.

One of the reasons for this issue is a phenomenon called convergence, which is the idea that “over long periods of time a series of markers can through random change adopt patterns that make them look more closely related than they actually are.” [2] Fortunately for members of the Ackley Surname Project, this does not appear to be an issue. Of the 15 men in the project, only one has more than three non-Ackley matches at the 12-marker level. The one man who does not fit this scenario has 55 non-Ackley matches, and he differs from the other 14 men in that he is the only one in the project who has a value of 30 for marker DYS389ii, while all other men in the project have a value of 31. At 25 markers, all of the 55 “excess” matches drop off of his match list, and for the other 14 men one of the three “excess” matches drops off. The two remaining “excess” matches show up on some of the match lists all the way up to and including 111 markers, suggesting that these two men might have an NPE somewhere in their ancestry and are in fact closely related to the Ackley men. Otherwise, all of the matches for every member at 37, 67, and 111 markers have the Ackley surname. This situation seems to indicate that the Ackley haplotype is unique enough even at 12 markers to be useful in answering Ackley genealogical questions, and a Y-37 test is likely to be sufficient to determine if an individual is related to Ackley men in the project.

The Ackley Haplotype

The following are the STR values for the Ackley men who have taken Y-37 (5 men), Y-67 (2 men), or Y-111 (8 men) DNA tests. For ease of presentation, the values are split up by panel. Given the numbers of men who have tested at each level of markers, the number of samples for each panel are:

Panel 1 – 15

Panel 2 – 15

Panel 3 – 15

Panel 4 – 10

Panel 5 – 8

  

Panel 1 - Markers 1-12

 

Panel 2 - Markers 13-25

Panel 3 - Markers 26-37

 

Panel 4 - Markers 38-52

Panel 4 (cont) - Markers 53-67

 

Panel 5 - Markers 68-82

 

Panel 5 (cont) - Markers 83-97

 

Panel 5 (cont) - Markers 98-111

 

The mode of a set of data is the most frequently occurring value. For STR markers it is assumed that the mode is the “original” value, i.e., the value of that marker for the common ancestor of the testers in a particular group. Modal values are also referred to as ancestral values. The values do not mean much by themselves but take on meaning when compared to other haplotypes for analysis purposes.

As mentioned above, Ackley data will be compared to data from upstream haplogroups. R-M269 data (also known as R1b) was captured from the “R_R1b ALL Subclades” haplogroup project at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) [3], R-L21 data was captured from the “R L21 and Subclades” haplogroup project at FTDNA [4], and R-S1051 data was captured from the “R-S1051” haplogroup project at FTDNA [5]. The relationships of these haplogroups are shown in the table below. Note that R-M269 is the oldest haplogroup, having formed about 13,000 years ago. R-L21, a subclade of R-M269, formed about 4,500 years ago, while R-S1051 formed about 3,900 years ago. Six of the 15 Ackley men who have done STR tests have also done SNP tests that place them in the last two haplogroups in the table, R-FGC52286 and R-FGC52300.

 

SNP Formation Dates [6]

As with the Ackley surname project, the number of men who have joined each of the haplogroup projects mentioned above have tested different levels of markers, from Y-12 through Y-111. As a result, the number of data points available for each marker can be different depending on how many men in the project tested at each different level. There were 25,631 members of the R1b project, 9,213 members of the R-L21 project, and 264 members of the R-S1051 project. It should be pointed out that there is some overlap between the projects – since there is a hierarchical relationship between the haplogroups there are men who joined more than one project. This was accounted for in the analysis, and only unique data points were used in the calculations that will be presented later.

A Closer Look At Some of the Markers

The table below gives examples of the data collected for each of the markers 1-111. The main part of the table gives the frequency of occurrence for the values for each marker for each haplogroup project. The ancestral value (mode) for each marker for each project is highlighted in green. The bottom part of each table gives the min, max, and mode for each marker for the Ackley men who have been tested for that marker. The numbers in the mode row give the difference between the Ackley ancestral value and the haplogroup ancestral values; 0 means they match, a positive number means the Ackley ancestral value is above the haplogroup ancestral value, and a negative number means the Ackley ancestral value is below the haplogroup value.

 

In these examples, the ancestral values for the haplogroup projects are well-defined, i.e., they are clearly the most frequently occurring value for that marker, and other possible values are much less frequent. This is not always the case, and some specific examples will be discussed later. For the first marker, DYS393, MIN=MAX=MODE, indicating that all 15 Ackley project members had the value 13. The Ackley ancestral value of 13 matches each of the haplogroup project ancestral values. This situation holds true for 81 of the 111 markers; these markers will not be analyzed further as they would not contribute to the stated goal of identifying USPs for Ackley men.

Marker DYS390 is an example where the Ackley ancestral value of 25 is 1 greater than the ancestral value for each of the haplogroup ancestral values. This situation, where the Ackley ancestral value differs from the haplogroup ancestral values (which are equal to each other), is considered a good candidate for further analysis. Of the 30 markers where the Ackley ancestral value differed from the haplogroups ancestral values in some way, 17 of them fit these criteria, and will be discussed further below.

The table below shows examples of markers where the Ackley ancestral values differ from the ancestral values for R1b and R-L21 (the more distant haplogroups) but are equal to the ancestral value for R-S1051. This pattern suggests that the mutation in this marker could be a USP for the R-S1051 haplogroup rather than the Ackley haplotype. As such, these markers will not be researched further.

There are four markers in the table below with a similar pattern, but the Ackley ancestral values differ only with the R1b ancestral value and are equal to the ancestral values for both R-L21 and R-S1051. This would indicate that the mutation in the marker could be a USP for R-L21, and the R-S1051 group and Ackley both stayed at that value. Likewise, these markers will not be investigated further.

The markers in the next example are interesting in that they show a somewhat unusual mutation pattern. In both cases, the Ackley ancestral value matches the ancestral value for the oldest haplogroup, R1b, and in the case of DYS712 also matches the ancestral value for R-L21 but does not match the more recent haplogroup R-S1051. This could be the result of a back mutation, where the Ackley men mutated from the more recent R-S1051 value back to the original R1b value. It is also worth noting that for CDYa, there is not a clear modal value; the frequencies for the values of 36 and 37 are very close in all three haplogroups. Even the Ackley men have some members with a value of 36 and some with a value of 37. For DYS712 the mode is a little more clear, but in this case the Ackley men have several values. There are two men at 19, five at 20, and 1 at 21. For this reason, these markers will not be analyzed further.

 

The final two markers that have not yet been discussed are similar to the above example in that the Ackley ancestral values are closer to the more ancient haplogroups (R1b and R-L21) than they are to the more recent R-S1051. In both cases, the Ackley values are +1 compared to the values for R1b and R-L21 and are +2 compared to R-S1051, and the +2 occurred because the R-S1051 marker mutated in the opposite direction from the Ackley marker. These markers would not lend themselves to the type of analysis discussed above and thus will not be included in further analysis.

Analysis

To summarize what has been discussed so far: the Ackley ancestral values are equal to the ancestral values for all three upstream haplogroups on 81 of the 111 Y-STR markers, meaning these 81 markers would not provide any insights into the Ackley haplotype. As discussed above, for various reasons 13 of the remaining 30 markers would also not be good candidates for further study. That leaves the 17 markers in the table below that will be the subject of the remainder of this study.

To reiterate, for all 17 markers in this table, R1b value = R-L21 value = R-S1051 value ≠ Ackley value, so the Ackley value likely represents a true variation from the value found in the rest of the upstream haplogroups. Note that the “Total Records” column gives the number of unique records having values for that particular marker; any tester who was a member of multiple projects was only counted once. The figures in the “No. at Ackley Value” column give the numbers of testers for which the value of each marker is equal to the Ackley ancestral value. Likewise, the figures in the “No. at Ancestral Value” column give the number of records for which the value of each marker is equal to the more ancient haplogroup values (which are equal to one another).

The approach for this analysis is to look for marker values or combinations of marker values that are present in Ackley men but appear to be relatively rare in the larger R1b population. An obvious example of this is marker DYS617. From the table above we can see that the Ackley value for that marker is 11, which is present in only 187 (.86%) of R1b men, while over 91% of R1b men have a value of 12 for that marker. Another way to look at this is to observe that while Ackley men make up only .04% of the R1b men who have tested to at least 67 markers (10/21647), they make up over 5% of the men who have a value of 11 for marker DYS617 (10/187). The practical implication of this situation is that in cases where a Y-37 test is not conclusive in determining whether a tester is related to the Ackley men but is “close”, a Y-67 test can be recommended to see if the tester has a value of 11 for DYS617. None of the other markers appear to be unique enough on their own, but in combination with other markers could provide some insights.

The table below shows the number of testers whose values were equal to the Ackley values for all possible pairs of the 17 markers being studied. Each cell in the table gives the number of testers who had the Ackley values for the intersection of the row and column that form the intersection. For example, 384 testers had a value of 25 for DYS390 (the row) and 15 for DYS19a (the column).

 

Note that these numbers are typically much smaller than the numbers for single markers presented in the previous table, implying that combinations of these marker values are much less common and could provide insights into the Ackley haplotype. Of particular interest are the values for DYS617; the combination of a value of 11 for this marker with the Ackley value for any of the other 16 markers in the study looks to be extremely rare when compared to the R1b population. For example, a value of 25 for DYS390 and 11 for DYS617 occurred in only 24 of the 21,647 men who had values for both of those markers, and 10 of those 24 men were Ackleys. As a percentage, only 0.1% of R1b men had a value of 25 for DYS390 and 11 for DYS617, and 41% of those were Ackley men. This situation seems to confirm that a value of 11 for DYS617 in combination with any of the Ackley values for the other 16 markers are good candidates for USPs. Again, the practical implication of this is that an upgrade from Y-37 to Y-67 would be a reasonable suggestion for a tester whose relationship to other Ackley men is “close” but over the FTDNA threshold of 5 for 37 markers (say 6 or 7).

While there is undoubtedly more that could be learned by further study of the Ackley haplotype, there are two main takeaways from what has been learned so far: (1) a Y-37 test is probably sufficient to establish relatedness for most testers, and (2) for testers who are “close”, a Y-67 test, with particular attention to the DYS617 marker, could provide more information to draw a more definitive conclusion.

A note of thanks

Thank you to Dave Vance for being kind enough to review this information before I published it. Dave is an expert in using Y-DNA testing for genealogy -- in fact he wrote a book on it -- and I appreciate his willingness to answer my questions and keep me straight.

Sources

1. Gleeson, Maurice. "How to group Surname Project members", DNA and Family Tree Research, 28 Jan 2021.

2. Vance, David. The Genealogist’s Guide to Y-DNA Testing for Genetic Genealogy. Self-published, 2020, p. 73.

3. Family Tree DNA. "R1b and Subclades Project for R1b (M343+ and M269+) Y DNA Haplogroup - Y-DNA Classic Chart", accessed online 12 Jan 2021.

4. Family Tree DNA. "R L21 and Z290 Subclades Project - Y-DNA Classic Chart", accessed online 12 Jan 2021.

5. Family tree DNA. "R-S1051 Project - Y-DNA Classic Chart", accessed online 12 Jan 2021.

6. Spencer, Rob. "SNP Tracker", a tool on the website Tracking Back: a website for the exploration of genetic genealogy and population genetics, accessed online 29 Jan 2021.

Link of the Day

This is a link to the results page for the Ackley Surname Project at Family Tree DNA:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ackley?iframe=yresults

Quote of the Day

“I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”

-- Albert Einstein