THE PETTIGREW-PETTICREW PEDIGREE PROJECT

-- E.J. Hurley –

Published in the Directory of Irish Family History Research

Number 35, 2012. pp. 36-41.

INTRODUCTION

            Beginningin the mid-seventeenth century members of several different Pettigrewand Petticrew families migrated from Scotland, England, and Ireland anddispersed throughout North America and other locations. Over time the various branches interweaved in overlapping geographic regions. Formany decades descendants speculated about their specific ancestral lines, butcensuses, wills, pension applications, family Bibles and letters, land records,and other tools of traditional genealogy proved insufficient to differentiateclearly among these branches.

Our genes today connect families whose descendants have emigrated aroundthe world. When traditional genealogy is unable to determine interrelationships or a finda common ancestor between various branches, genetic genealogy can provide hintsas to where elusive emigrants settled in North America and elsewhere. ComparingY-chromosome markers can clarify and corroborate traditionalgenealogy. In 2002 Pettigrew family members began tocollect Y-DNA samples in the hope that DNA analysis might add insight to theirpedigrees as derived from traditional genealogy research.

Now, a decade later, a computer application is availablethat can quickly compare all the Y-DNA results in a surname project and presentthem in an easy-to-comprehend tree-like diagramwhich also estimates the time frame of each branch’s “Most Recent CommonAncestor.” While the methodology can be applied to very large numbers ofparticipants, to illustrate some of the potential uses of the new geneticgenealogy technique this paper examines the comparatively smallPettigrew/Petticrew Y-DNA Project. Questions which mightbe asked by family researchers within many surname groups include (1) “Is theresome way to obtain independent corroboration of traditional genealogicalresearch, to convince my relatives this is all ‘real’?” and (2)  “How might more of my relatives become enticedto participate in genealogy?”

PETTIGREW AND PETTICREW PEDIGREES

“Pettigrew” isconsidered to be an essentially Scottish surname; “Petticrew” is a commonvariation.[i] Traditional genealogical research extensivelydocuments various Pettigrew and Petticrew lines. Both variations of the surnamehave many branches and both have some significant gaps in their records.[ii] An overarching question is, “Is there some way to discern if thePettigrews and the Petticrews are related?”

1. The Pettigrews of County Tyrone, Ireland have a long oral and written traditionof descent from James Pettigrew I, a French Huguenot who fled religiousprosecution and who became an officer in Cromwell’s army. If so, it wouldappear that this branch originally moved from southern Scotland to France andthen back again – perhaps because of religious conflicts both times. His son,James Pettigrew II, reportedly fought with William of Orange against theJacobites at the 1690 Battle of the Boyne and received land in Auchnacloy,County Tyrone, Ireland.

A. The eldest son of James Pettigrew II, William Pettigrew (born about1708 County Tyrone, Ireland – died about 1785 County Tyrone, Ireland), hadthree sons, James, Robert and William Jr. According to a letter written in 1835by Robert’s daughter, William’s son “Jamesat an early age entered the Army, served in the 10th Regiment, earned somelaurels, received knighthood from George the 3d, and died in Jamaica, where atomb was erected over his remains by his brother officers.”[iii]Evidence indicates Captain James of the Tenth Regiment (born about 1727County Tyrone, Ireland – died 10 December 1787, Spanish Town, Jamaica) fatheredan illegitimate son, William/Guillaume Pettigrew (born1768 in Quebec in present-day Canada – died 10 March 1831 inL’Isle-Verte, Quebec) [iv].

B. James Pettigrew II’s second son was also named James Pettigrew(born April 1713 Crilly House, near Auchnacloy,Country Tyrone, Ireland – died 24 December 1784 Abbeville County, South Carolina, United States). With wife and three children, the Abbeville Pettigrews(identified by their Revolutionary-era location in South Carolina) emigrated tothe American colonies. They initially settled in Pennsylvania in 1741 whereseveral more children were born. Early in the French and Indian War thefamily fled southward to avoid raids. They lived for years in the Americancolonies of Virginia and then North Carolina before finally settling inAbbeville County, South Carolina, where James died in 1784.[v]Descendants spread through the new American states of South Carolina, Georgia,and then westward, especially through Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas.

2. The male-line ancestors of otherPettigrew sub-branches lived in the Eastern United States during and just afterthe American Revolution. In particular;

A. AlexanderPettegrew (spelled with three “e’s”) (born 09 March 1718 in Linlithgow, WestLothian, Scotland – died 1758 in Grantham, Sullivan, New Hampshire, in theAmerican Northeast) fathered two sons, William and Stephen, born in theNew England state of Connecticut. The older son, William (1752-1816) fatheredeight sons, all born in Vermont. His grandsons migrated westward, particularlyto Indiana and Utah. It is noted that this branch did not live in Ireland before moving to the colonies.

B. SeveralPettigrew men were born about 1755-1800 in Orange and Granville counties in theAmerican East Coast state of North Carolina. Their ancestry is unknown.

C. JacobPettigrew (about 1800-1881) apparently lived his entire life inArmstrong and adjacent Westmoreland counties in western Pennsylvania. His ancestry is also unknown.

3. The progenitor of most of the American Petticrews(spelled with a “c” was David Petticrew (born 1713 Ireland (?) –died 1784 Hanover Township, Pennsylvania). David lived the same years as “Jamesof Abbeville” and, like him, David married in Ireland and immigrated toPennsylvania with his wife and several young children. David, however, remainedin Lancaster (now Dauphin) County in southeastern Pennsylvania. After David'sdeath, all his children eventually moved west and his descendants settled inseveral Midwestern American states. 

A. Prior tohis migration to the American Midwest, David Petticrew’s elder son, John FinleyPetticrew (1758 Ireland – 1838 Michigan in the upper Midwest), migratedsouthward and bought a tract in Rockbridge, Virginia.

B. James Petticrew Senior (unknown place and date of birth; died 1799Rockbridge County, Virginia lived Hanover Township in what was then LancasterCounty in southeast Pennsylvania until about 1794, then moved south toRockbridge County, Virginia. Proximity between this “James of Rockbridge” andthe family of David Petticrew of Pennsylvania led to the theory that James andDavid were close relatives, perhaps even brothers. Several descendant lines ofJames of Rockbridge moved to Ohio in the American Midwest, but one son, John(about 1767-1830), changed (or reverted) the spelling of his surname toPettigrew (with a “g”) and remained in Virginia.

C. Based on location and dates, the line of the above “James ofRockbridge, Virginia” possibly includes the descendants of George WashingtonPettigrew Senior (1801, Rockbridge County, Virginia – 1877 Madison County,Indiana, in the American Midwest).

4. Additional Pettigrews are known to have emigrated fromthe United Kingdom in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, not only to theUS but also to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

THEPETTIGREW/PETTICREW Y-DNA PROJECT

Genetic genealogy often can corroborate or contradict pedigrees derivedthrough traditional genealogical research. Geneticgenealogy can also offer clues that point toward additional research paths.Every male receives his Y-chromosome virtually unchanged from his biological father. While males who are closely related in their fathers’lines generally have identical Y-chromosome “markers,” because of random mutations Y-DNA does occasionally change veryslightly. Distantrelations are more likely to have additional genetic variations. A DNA test needs only a small saliva sample: a test participant gentlybrushes his mouth, on the inside of his cheek, and returns the sample kit backto the testing company. Overall consistency of results within close relativesmakes Y-DNA extremely useful in genealogical studies of surname groups.

In an attemptto verify and clarify traditional genealogical research, dozens of Pettigrewand Petticrew men have submitted Y-DNA samples to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA).[vi]While the initial motivation of many participants may have been to learn moreabout their own individual pedigrees, a second major purpose quickly developed:to clarify and corroborate relationships between family branches. FTDNA’s recentlyadded “Advanced Matching” feature has led to the discovery of many near-matchesbetween the members of the previously separate Pettigrew and Petticrew Y-DNASurname Projects. Upon request, in May 2012 FTDNA management reviewed the twoprojects and approved their merger based on genetic similarities and theoverlap in the history of the surnames.

Perhaps themost noteworthy result so far is that MOST OF THE PETTIGREW AND PETTICREWDESCENDANTS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN Y-DNA TESTING HAVE VERY SIMILAR Y-DNA, INDICATINGA HIGH PROBABILITY THEY SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS AGO,PRIOR TO EMIGRATION FROM EUROPE.[vii]

What about those few test participants whose Y-DNAvaries significantly from that of every other man in the Project? A significant Y-DNA variation within a surname group is indicative ofadoption, name change, infidelity, or other non-paternity event. Four PettigrewProject participants have Y-DNA results so different from those of everyoneelse that they appear to belong genetically to another surname group. The storybehind one such case: Matthew Pettigrew was born in 1776 in Abbeville County, South Carolina early in the American Revolution and died in April 1814in what is now Trigg County, Kentucky, United States. His widow gave birth to ason four and a half years later, on 3 November 1818, a boy she named JasonHarrison Pettigrew, but it is obvious that long-deceased Matthew Pettigrewcould not have been the father.[viii]

Analogous tosome men bearing the Pettigrew/Petticrew surname even though they are the genetic descendants of other surnamegroups, so also some apparently close genetic relatives[ix]of the Pettigrews/Petticrews bear other surnames. Several such men, whose Y-DNAis very close to the that of the large majority of men in thePettigrew/Petticrew Project, have been invited to join the Project. Thesurnames of the project’s 48 members include Brown, Eagleton, Hamilton, Harper,Hughes, and Scott.

Occasionallythe source of a surname change is known and their families are willing to sharetheir stories. A simple case is the Project participant who was adopted as ayoung boy by his stepfather. A more complex tale is that of Alexander WyliePettigrew (1880-1954) and Mary Josephine Harpur Lyne (1878-1960), who fell inlove in Ireland. However, Mary was already married and her husband, John Lyne,refused to agree to a divorce. Mary migrated to Australia by herself in 1928,leaving her husband and 3 children behind. Alexander Pettigrew soon followedMary to Australia. They could never legally be wed but they changed theirsurnames to Harper and lived as a couple, eventually having six children. Adescendant still remembers cheques in the name of Alexander Pettigrew comingfrom the United Kingdom to the Harper family home in Australia.

More oftenProject participants who have other surnames were surprised to discover theirclose genetic matches among the Pettigrew/Petticrew participants. While it ispossible that independent random mutations cause participants merely toappear to be closely related to the Pettigrew/Petticrewcluster, the probability is low. It is far more likely that thesedifferent lines shared a common ancestor about the time of the English Renaissance.

A NEWMETHODOLOGY

             Despite thetremendous value of genetic genealogy, new Y-DNA project participants mayinitially be disappointed with their particular results of their DNA tests.These results, called “haplotypes,” may appear at first glance to be “just abunch of numbers.” More user-friendly results could be extremely useful inconvincing more volunteers not only to participate in genetic DNA testing butalso to pay to do so.

A new tool has been created that makes genetic results far moreunderstandable to the average Y-DNA Project participant. An algorithm developedby Frederic Schwab and implemented by William E. Howard III creates “trees” from DNA results using Mathematica software.[x] Consistent with other calibration approaches, Howard’s analysisfacilitates the identification of clusters of related participants.[xi] In addition, the Howard methodology helps identify the approximatetimeframe of their Most Recent Common Ancestor.[xii]^,[xiii] While previous papers[xiv]have applied this technology to the origin of surnames over thousands of years,this study focuses on the Pettigrew/Petticrew families within the last fewcenturies. With its varied yet only partially documented branches, this Project provides an excellent case study to show implementation of the Howard methodologywithin genealogical times. Thirty-one Y-DNA kitresults, all tested to at least 37 markers,[xv] are represented in Figure 1, a Y-DNA “tree”that leads to a better understanding not only of relationships among Projectparticipants but also provides hints of possible timeframes of their commonancestors.

          Figure 1: The Pettigrew/Petticrew Y-DNA Tree

Pseudonyms are usedinstead of actual kit numbers to provide privacy for test participants. Thesetwo-digit codes are followed by each participant’seighteenth and nineteenth century patrilineal line (surname and location of known orassumed male-line ancestor, followed by first names and dates of birth of knownpatrilineal ancestors alive 1700-1900). To save space “Pettigrew” isabbreviated to “Grew” and “Petticrew” is abbreviated to “Crew”. Tofurther protect privacy of Project participants, only ancestors born before1900 are listed. Y-DNA participants 81, 82, and 83 are all surnamedPetticrew; participant 72 is surnamed Scott. However, for these specific Y-DNAparticipants, at this time eighteenth andnineteenth century paternal genealogical data are unavailable.

THE VALUE OF LINEAGES

The"known" lineages as indicated in Figure 1 may not always rise to thelevel of genealogical proof, but in cases where traditional genealogical proofhas not yet been found (and may not exist), Y-DNA can corroborate or helpdisprove theories and can lead to other paths for traditional research.[xvi]This Y-DNA tree presentation greatlyaidsvisualization of probable relationships among Y-DNA participants. The branches on the left and the arrangement of the rows are bothcomputer generated and are based solely on Y-DNA markers. The horizontal axis in the figure contains a timescale in Revised Correlation Coefficient (RCC) units where one RCC is approximately 43.3years. However, these times are only approximations. Y-DNA markermutations can occur between any father and son or may not occur at all forseveral centuries. The data are now in a form familiarto most genealogists: a “tree” that indicatesnames, dates, places, and relationships within and between clusters, and whichalso suggests approximate time to their “Most Recent Common Ancestor.”

The treegenerated by the Howard correlation approach indicates most Pettigrew andPetticrew participants share a common but unknown paternal ancestor. Italso indicates where surname switches may have occurred in the ancestral linesof various men who appear to be genetic Pettigrews or Petticrews.

1. The Pettigrewsfrom County Tyrone, Ireland

A. In regardsto British Captain James Pettigrew and his son William, born in Quebec, directmale line descendants have been located but they have not yet joined the Y-DNAproject.

B. Kits 11-15represent five descendants of James III of Abbeville. As indicated on thefigure, Y-DNA testing confirms traditional research that they are closelyrelated.

C. These fiveAbbeville descendants are genetically close to two Petticrews at the top of thefigure, kits 21 and 22, representing descendants of  “James of Rockbridge, Virginia.” As discussedabove, physical proximity to the family of David Petticrew of Pennsylvania ledto the theory that these two men were close relatives, perhaps even brothers.However, Y-DNA results of their descendants indicate less than a 25%probability of a common ancestor within the last ten generations (about 250years).[xvii]In contrast, the “James of Rockbridge” line appears to have a closerrelationship with the Abbeville Pettigrews (over 60% probability of a commonancestor within ten generations).

D. As noted earlier, based on location and dates, the “James ofRockbridge, Virginia” line possibly includes the descendants of GeorgeWashington Pettigrew Senior. This supposition could quickly be proved ordisproved via Y-DNA once a willing direct male descendant is located.

2. Kits81-98 at the bottom of the figure represent the descendantsof David Petticrew of Pennsylvania. As expected, their Y-DNY is similar, butnote should be taken of two particular anomalies.

A. The bottomtwo lines, kits 97 and 98, represent descendants of David’s grandson James A.Petticrew (1790, Hanover, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania - 1863, Fort Scott,Bourbon County Kansas). More Y-DNA mutations than average appear in thissub-branch, giving an erroneous impression of a more distant relationship inFigure 1 than is documented by traditional genetic research. This is an examplewhere genetic genealogy must bow to the more accurate result of traditionalresearch.

B. Kit 84represents a descendant of Jacob Pettigrew (with a “g”). Jacob’s own ancestorsare yet to be discovered, but kit 84 has an exact 37-marker match with kit 94,one of John Finley Petticrew’s descendants, indicating almost 99% probabilityof a common ancestor within the last ten generations.

3. In the middle of Figure 1 are resultsof other Pettigrew branches who do not yet know their exact connection to therest of the Pettigrews. Also represented in mid-chart are several apparentsurname switches that have been revealed by Y-DNA testing. The sources of theoriginal surname switches remain unexplained at present, but for thesebranches, genetic genealogy offers potential assistance to overcoming “brickwalls” in traditional genealogy.

A. Representedby his descendant’s kit 31, Alexander Pettegrew (spelled with three “e’s”)(born 09 March 1718 in Linlithgow, West Lothian, Scotland – died 1758 inGrantham, Sullivan, New Hampshire, in the American Northeast) fatheredtwo sons, William and Stephen, born in the New England state of Connecticut.William (1752-1816) fathered eight sons, all born in Vermont. His grandsonsmigrated westward, particularly to Indiana and Utah. It is noted that thisbranch did not live in Ireland before moving to the colonies.

B. Kit 61represents a surname switch to “Brown.” The progenitor of this line of Brownsappears to have lived in Greenbriar, Virginia about 1775-1800. As indicated inFigure 1, Y-DNA testing indicates close genetic ties with several Pettigrewsub-branches.[xviii]

C. Kits 41 and 42, whohave identical test results, represent a second as-yet unexplainedsurname change. The Y-DNA markers of these two descendants of David Eagleton,born 1748 in Tennessee, are identical, even though his line split with thebirth of his sons Alexander (born 1788) and James (born 1794). Here is anexample of the ability to determine the DNA of a man who died centuries ago:Since the Y-DNA of his line has not changed, David’s 37 markers can be inferredfrom that of his descendants.

The placement of these twokits within the Y-DNA tree illustrates one of the limitations of thismethodology. Their probability of a common ancestor within tengenerations is 83% with the Eastern North Carolina Pettigrew kit number 52, butit is also 83% with Petticrew kit number 93, seven lines up from the bottom ofthe figure.

D. Kits 51 and52 represent the line of an unknown immigrant ancestor who was theprogenitor of several Pettigrew men who were born about 1755-1800 in Orange andGranville Counties in North Carolina, on the United States East Coast. Thesetwo men have a 63% probability of a common ancestor within ten generations, andthey are clearly related to the other Pettigrews and Petticrews.

4. Kits 71-76 includeneither Pettigrews nor Petticrews but rather Scotts and Hamiltons who descendedfrom men who apparently experienced other as-yet unexplained surname changescenturies ago.[xix]These British Commonwealth and American men appear tobe genetically related more closely to the Pettigrews/Petticrews than to thevast majority of men in their own surname groups. As illustrated in the figure,they are even more closely related to each other.Traditional research reveals the ancestors of the Scotts in this Project nevermoved to Ireland but instead emigrated directly from the Lanark area ofScotland to England, Australia, or New Zealand.

The tree generated by the Howardcorrelation approach indicates most Pettigrew and Petticrew Y-DNA Projectparticipants share a common but unknown paternal ancestor.[xx] AdditionalPettigrews are known to have emigrated from the United Kingdom in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, not only to the US but also to Canada,Australia, and New Zealand. The search continues for direct malePettigrew/Petticrew descendants, particularly from sub-branches thus farunrepresented in the Y-DNA Project. Potentialparticipants may be more easily persuaded to join when presented with thisfigure, which can help them to visualize where their own ancestors might fit.

LESSONS LEARNED

As illustratedby this Pettigrew/Petticrew casestudy, traditional and genetic genealogy can reinforce each other, especiallywhen supported by an approach that facilitates a dated visualization ofcompiled results.

1. Men in the British Isles who participatein Y-DNA testing can greatly aid descendants of emigrants who are seeking topinpoint their origins. At the same time, they might learn where elusiveemigrants of their family line settled in North America and elsewhere. Inregards to the family discussed in this paper, Pettigrew and Petticrew men inScotland, Ireland, and England are urged to join the Pettigrew/PetticrewSurname Project at FamilyTreeDNA.com.

2. Genetic genealogy is more than numbers. Normally Y-DNA projectparticipants are asked only for their most distant “known” ancestor on theirdirect paternal line. However, this extremely limited and unverifieddata point is relatively useless in identifying genetic ties. Y-DNA Project Administrators can add tremendously to the value of theirprojects by:

(a) Obtaining paternal pedigrees, and not merely the names of the oldest“known” paternal ancestor and/or his presumed locations.

(b) Maintaining contact with project members and seeking alternativecontact data. When DNA Project participants forget to maintain current contactdata or become ill or pass away, new issues of privacy and the ability toupgrade existing kits arise.

 (c) Expecting surname switches,and considering and even seeking all closely matchinghaplotypes, not just those that share their Project’s surname.

3. At least initially, some participants neither like nor believe theirY-DNA results. Every potential Y-DNA subject should be firmly cautioned thathis results might disprove rather than corroborate previous traditional genealogicalresearch.

4. Someparticipants are satisfied with haplotype testing to only twelve markers, whichgenerally serves to indicate that their kits match or don’t match a cluster ofmembers in a Y-DNA project. However, for comparisons within a project to bestatistically reasonable, participants should be tested to at least 37 markers.More data are better and testing to 67 markers might well improve the accuracyof the positions on the Y-DNA tree.

5. Y-DNA data can reveal a non-paternity event or aperfect match - the Eagletons are examples of both. However, when dealing withthe relatively small genetic timeframe encompassed by most traditionalresearch, perhaps 500 years, traditional genealogical research is stillessential. 

(a) Example 1: Descendants of Ebenezer Pettigrew (born about 1797 in Georgia anddied 1832 in Tennessee). Kits 11 and 12 representdescendants of Ebenezer's sons Edwin (born 1820) and John Thomas (born 1832).Two of their genetic markers each vary by one marker. The actual relationship between these twolines is much closer than the second mutation might lead a casual viewer of thecomputer-drawn tree to assume.

(b) Example 2: Kits 98 and number91represent descendants of John FinleyPetticrew’s sons James A. (born 1790) and David (born1797). Between these two branches, genetic mutations have occurred in fiveY-DNA locations in a little over two centuries. Here again the actual genetic relationship between two ProjectParticipants is much closer than a casual viewer of the computer-drawn treemight assume.

6. Presentation of Y-DNA results can be made moreuser-friendly when viewed in a Y-DNA tree such a the one generated by theHoward correlation approach, which not only helps distinguish thebranch to which a particular individual belongs but also hints at when thesplit between branches occurred and the relationship his branch has withmembers of other branches. The figureincluded in this paper has already proved valuable in recruiting additionalY-DNA Project members and in convincing current members to upgrade to 37markers.

CONCLUSIONS

            Our genes today connect familieswhose descendants have emigrated around the world. ComparingY-chromosome markers can clarify and corroborate traditionalgenealogy. However, many surname project participants may initially bedisappointed when they perceive their Y-DNA test results to be a confusing setof numbers. Converting haplotypes into a readily understandablepresentation, such as a dated phylogenetic tree using the Howard correlationtechnique, could help convince more amateur genealogists to support,participate in, and pay for their own genetic testing and that of males closelyrelated to them. To obtain full advantage of these new techniques, Y-DNA kitsshould be tested to at least 37 markers and participants should send basicpatrilineal lineage data (names, dates, and places) to their ProjectAdministrators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paperoriginated with the offer of Dr. William E. Howard III to assist the author indisentangling the Pettigrew and Petticrew Y-DNA strands. The late Pat Pettigrewfounded the FTDNA Pettigrew Y-DNA Surname Project; the lateGeorge Ambrose Petticrew performed the same service for the Petticrews. Withoutthem and the cooperation of all Y-DNA Pettigrew/ Petticrew Projectparticipants, the Y-DNA data used in this paper would not exist. Collection ofthe traditional genealogical information began when nineteenth centuryrelatives collected family histories; many twentieth family members preservedadditional information reflected in the lineages shown in Figure 1. BeverlyKline provided invaluable assistance in sorting the descendants of DavidPetticrew (1713-1784). Of special note, for well over a decade RichardPettigrew has generously mentored all relatives interested in family history.