One of the artifacts that my family has had in their possession is a one page document hand written in German. It is a document written in the late 1800’s. The document appears to contain brief statements with dates and names. The hand written document has been a mystery through time and generations within the family. It was assumed to have been a document written by one of the members of the Sperber family. The document was kept with a number of other documents in an envelope by John Wolfgang Sperber. I assumed that it was written by John Sperber.
The Handwritten Sperber Document
The one page document was kept with John Sperber’s marriage certificate and his naturalization papers.  As important as these two documents were to John Sperber, the one page hand written document was perhaps equally special but an enigma. Perhaps it was John Sperber’s handwriting.
John Wolfgang Sperber was the maternal grandfather of Harold William Griffis. John Sperber married Sophie Fliegel. They had six children: Rose, Anna, John Frederick, Kathryn, Louis, and Ida May. Ida, the youngest of the six children, was Harold’s mother.
The Family of John Wolfgang Sperber and Sophie Fliegel Sperber
Throughout the years that I had the document in my possession, I would periodically seek out someone who spoke or could read German and ask if they could translate the document. The typical response I got was, “It’s not modern German”, “I can’t decipher the handwriting”, or “The letters on some of the words are unintelligible”.
I had high hopes of success with giving a copy of the document to a dear friend who was Austrian. He basically came back with all three of the aforementioned typical responses.
The German Language and Writing German in the 1800’s
The German language has evolved over time and has many dialects. It is also a language that has been written in many styles. By the time the 16th century rolled around, there were numerous variants and standards in the German language. Slowly, they united. From the 16th to the 18th Century, the southern and central German dialects came together to form Neuhochdeutsch, otherwise known asNew High German, the version of German that is spoken today with small modifications.
German was the language of commerce and government in the Habsburg Empire, which encompassed a large area of Central and Eastern Europe. Until the mid-19th century it was essentially the language of townspeople throughout most of the Empire. 
German Language in 1850 
Until the early 20th century, German was printed in blackletter typefaces in Fraktur, and in Schwabacher; and was written in corresponding Kurrent and Sütterlin style handwriting. 
“Making sense of German historical documentation can be a challenge because the old German cursive alphabet kept changing. For those of you working on your family tree, reading the old German cursive alphabet is an exercise in frustration. Digging into genealogical records with aids to help you read them is almost impossible. Even if a person wrote Kurrent, individual writing styles, can make ledger entries frustrating to decipher.”
Kurrent is an old form of German-language handwriting based on late medieval cursive writing, also known as Kurrentschrift (“cursive script”), deutsche Schrift (“German script”) and German cursive. Over the history of its use from the 15th into the first part of the 20th century, many individual letters acquired variant forms. The Kurrent alphabet is loaded with sharp angles and strange changes in direction. For example, there are three different “s’s”, depending on where the letter falls in the word. It is also confusing since the letters may look like completely different letters in modern writing. German writers used Kurrent cursive style as well as the Latin cursive style. 
Seeking Assistance on Facebook
I found a Facebook group, Germanic Genealology, Heritage, Language & Culture.  The group is a global support community focused on Germanic genealogy, heritage, language and culture and accepts members by request. I thought I would take a stab at posting the document on the group’s discussion thread to see if anyone could aid in translating the document.
I quickly received a comment from one of the group members. The individual proffered the results of a Google translation service that was generated by a software platform named Transkribus.  Transkribus helps you to convert old letters, documents and chronicles from old German scripts such as Kurrent, Sütterlin, Fraktur or Antiqua into readable text. Transkribus software uses artificial intelligence capabilities to translate documents.
While artificial intelligence is making notable advancements, the results of using on-line translation software, even for software that proclaims to be sensitive to historic contexts, are not perfect. As the support person indicates after providing the results of the translation, “there is much manual work to be done”. Translation, regardless of whether it is a mere letter or a literary piece, is an art form and requires the human touch. 
For privacy, I have not revealed names of those who assisted me in the translation. The following was the initial thread of discussion involved with producing a translation of he document.
Facebook Threaded Discussion on the Sperber Document– Part 1
While I truly appreciated the assistance and the effort provided by the fellow discussion group member, I was hoping to receive additional ideas or personal attempts at a translation.
I perused the group’s discussion threads and came upon an individual who had translated a two page letter that was hand written in the 1800’s. I thought I would reach out to this individual to see if I could receive assistance.
Facebook Threaded Discussion on the Sperber Document – Part 2
The reply was quick, within hours, and the person was so polite and apologized for not immediately responding! The individual proceeded to transcribe the handwriting on the one page document and then provide a translation, all within one response!
Facebook Threaded Discussion on the Sperber Document – Part 3
The ability to not only transcribe the hand writing but then provide a translation was amazing!
Since I assumed it was a document written by John Sperber, the individual who provided the translation assumed the individual was male and indicated that the last sentence was a bit puzzling. Perhaps the writer of the document used the wrong term “stepfather” and also references the “mother” as Joann.
Reading the first part of the translation lead me to believe the document was actually written by John Sperber’s wife, Sophie Fliegel. It made more sense that it was written by Sophie. “Our mother Julie” was certainly not referring to John’s literal mother. While John might have affectionately referred to his mother-in-law as ‘our mother’, it makes more sense that this was a letter written by Sophie Fliegel. The document also refers to “father Kristof Fliegel”.
Facebook Threaded Discussion on the Sperber Document– Part 4
Hence, I believe the English translation of the ‘mystery document’ is as follows:
A Family Discovery Based on the Document
While the first two statements written by Sophie Fliegel Sperber, document the dates of death for her parents, the third statement found in this document raises a question of fact regarding the kinship structure of the Sperber family. The last sentence of this translated document raises a question regarding who is the father of Rose Sperber. The document indicates:
“Rose was 1 year and fourth months old when I got married to Johann he is her stepfather. ”
Looking at the following word ‘Johann’ in the document suggests it is a hand written variant of Johann, not Joann as the translation originally suggested:
Based on a reference cited by FamilySearch.org  you can type in a word in a German on-line form and it will produce a Kurrent script version of the word.
Example of Producing Kurrent Scriptfor the Name Johann
The “o” is not apparent in the written version of Johann in the document but the “J” and “h” are similar in Kurrent script. It appears as if Sophie may have simply produced a downward stroke from the “J’ and then wrote an “H”. As the Facebook group translator indicated, “There are many writing mistakes” in the document.
“When people write in a hurry, details and clarity are often sacrificed. Hence, one misses distinctive features… . There are other features when hurried script is involved, such as merging letters…”
It is apparent that Sophie Fliegel Sperber is referring to her husband, ‘Johann’ or ‘John’ Sperber as the stepfather of Rose.
Another Piece of Evidence
An old paper pamphlet that was used to record family births, deaths and marriages were part of the artifacts of Harold Griffis. The pamphlet originally was used to document the births, marriages and deaths of Sperber family members. It appears that the pamphlet in time came into the possession of Rose’s youngest sister, Ida Sperber. The names of Harold and Evelyn and their first three children were then added to the bottom of the list of the Sperber family. On another page, the birth dates, marriages and deaths of maternal relatives of Evelyn Griffis, The Platts family, were also added to the pamphlet. It became a living written family testament of vital statistics for the Sperber, Platts, and Griffis families.
Births of Sperber Family Members
Rose Sperber is listed on the third line from the top of the page. A close examination of the brith years for Rose Sperber, her younger sister Anna and her brother J. Frederick indicate that their respective birth years have been altered on the paper. It appears that Rose’s brith year was changed to 1857. Anna’s birth year was initially changed to ‘1857’ and then to ‘1858’. Frederick’s birth year was changed to 1859. Based on how the revised numbers were written, it appears that the original author of the list made the changes. It is obvious an erasure was used to change the dates.
Close Up of the Birth Years
A closer look at the change of Rose’s birth year suggests that it was originally written as ‘1855’, which would have accurately reported her birth year as stated by Sophia Sperber on the one page document. The day of October 19th, fits the information found in the one sentence description of Rose’s birth and her relation to Johann Sperber.
It appears that whoever wrote the list of births did not want to correlate the birth dates with John and Sophia’s wedding date of February 2, 1857, which were found on another loose page of the same pamphlet. This would have suggested that Rose’s brith was before the date of the marriage between John and Sofia.
Dates of Marriage for Sperber Family Members
Rose Sperber: An Example of Premarital Sexual Practices in the 1800’s
One basic fact about the Sperber family that stands out is the birth date of the oldest child, Rose Sperber, and the date of marriage of John or Johann Sperber and Sophie Fliegel. I had assumed that Rose was born out of wedlock. It is important to use multiple records to learn if someone was born out of wedlock or ” illegitimate”.
“Using indirect and direct evidence will help conclude the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a person. Sometimes it is not plainly stated, but oftentimes analyzing each record and using them together will make one capable of making a conclusion.”
Based on simple math, if Sophie and John were married Feb 2 1857 (see footnote ) and the one page document written by Sophie states that Rose was “one year and four months old” when Sophie and Johann were married, then Rose was born around October 1855 and was conceived around the beginning of 1855.
With the absence of birth records for Rose Sperber, based on various Federal and State Census tabulations, Rose Speber’s birth year has been identified as either 1855, 1856 or 1857. 
It appears that Rose Sperber was conceived around the time of Sophie’s arrival to the United States, at the beginning of 1855.  Sophie arrived in the United States from Germany with the family on January 26, 1855. There is no mention of an infant or a child under one year old on the ship manifest list. It is not evident that Sophie had a prior marriage. She still had her maiden name when she married John Sperber in 1857.
What was perhaps common knowledge in one generation is not necessarily passed down to the next generation or two. This makes sense. While out of wedlock births may have been commonplace and possibly accepted in various communities, it was and still can be a very sensitive topic and not one generally talked about openly.
In the Late Middle Ages, a third of the population was probably born extramaritally. From 1400 to 1600, the illegitimacy ratio dropped markedly, but from 1650 to 1850, it seems to have gradually risen from around five to nine percent in most European states. 
For the community, unmarried pregnancy was less a moral issue than a practical one of arranging support for the child. Most of the women in the colonial times and in the 1800’s married the father before the child was born, but for those who remained single, the process of establishing paternity was straightforward. The woman told the midwife the name of the father during delivery. If the situation lead to formal proceedings, the courts, on the assumption that a woman would not lie at such a time, then held the man responsible for the economic support of the child. 
Regardless of the sensitivity of out of wedlock births, Sophie and John lived within a time period where illegitimacy rates were high and in many communities out of wedlock children were accepted and treated equally. The reason for the increased illegitimacy rates in Europe and the United States are subject to academic debate but they nevertheless existed.
“The illegitimate fertility rate soared between 1750 and 1850, from one end of Europe to another.. In all but a handful of villages and cities for which data are available, illegitimacy rose, departing from modest plateaus of one to three percent of all baptisms, to often ten or fifteen per cent. Also prebridal pregnancy, women who are already pregnant when they marry, climbed dramatically. The percentage of first children born less than eight months after marriage in parish register data also rose along with illegitimacy in most places.”
I have not discovered any census records in 1860 that capture the young family of John and Sophie Sperber. It is not known who Rose’s biological father is. It is assumed that Sophie lived with her daughter in her father’s home. Within a year, she met and had a short courtship with John, they fell in love, they were married and started their family. Rose was accepted as John’s own daughter.
The One Page Document
Before Sophie passed away in 1897, she wrote this undated short note composed of three events that were important to her. John kept this note along with his marriage certificate and naturalization paper. It was an important document to him and perhaps was significant in many ways.
Feature image: Alphabet in Kurrent script from about 1865. The next-to-last line shows the umlauts ä, ö, ü, and the corresponding capital letters Ae, Oe, and Ue; and the last line shows the ligatures ch, ck, th, sch, sz (ß), and st. Kurrent (German: [kʊˈʁɛnt]) is an old form of German-language handwriting based on late medieval cursive writing, also known as Kurrentschrift (“cursive script”), deutsche Schrift (“German script”) and German cursive. Over the history of its use into the first part of the 20th century, many individual letters acquired variant forms.Source: Kurrent, Wikipedia,This page was last edited on 5 January 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurrent
 The other two documents kept with the one page handwritten document were John Sperber’s marriage certificate and his naturalization paper:
 There is a reference to a German based website that produces a Kurrent script based version of a word or series of words that you type into a web form. Similar to an on-line translation service but instead of producing a translation, the form produces a script version of the typed German word.
The website in the following FamilySearch.org citation no longer exists but a version of of the website was found at:
Year: 1920; Census Place: Brooklyn Assembly District 20, Kings, New York; Roll: T625_1177; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 1302, Line 46
Year: 1930; Census Place: Brooklyn, Kings, New York; Page: 6B; Enumeration District: 0402; FHL microfilm: 2341269, Line 73
Year: 1940; Census Place: New York, Kings, New York; Roll: m-t0627-02610; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 24-2421, Line 6
Census of the state of New York, for 1865. Microfilm. New York State Archives, Albany, New York., Fulton County, Johnstown, Page 387, Line 35
Census of the state of New York, for 1875. Microfilm. New York State Archives, Albany, New York. Fulton County, Johnstown, E.D. 02, Page 428, Line 32
New York State Archives; Albany, New York; State Population Census Schedules, 1905; Election District: A.D. 20 E.D. 26; City: Brooklyn; County: Kings, Page 12, Line 22
1892 New York State Census. New York State Education Department, Office of Cultural Education. New York State Library, Albany, NY., Kings County, Brooklyn Ward 18, E.D. 50, Page 10
Index to New York City Deaths 1862-1948. Indices prepared by the Italian Genealogical Group and the German Genealogy Group, and used with permission of the New York City Department of Records/Municipal Archives.
 New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island, 1820-1957, The National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, D.C.; Ancestry.com. New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island), 1820-1957 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010; January 26, 1855 arrival, Ship: Zurich, Lines 3-7.
 Lee, W. R. “Bastardy and the Socioeconomic Structure of South Germany.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 7, no. 3, 1977, pp. 403–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/202573. Accessed 3 July 2023.
Shorter, Edward. “Illegitimacy, Sexual Revolution, and Social Change in Modern Europe.”The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 2, no. 2, 1971, pp. 237–72. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/202844. Accessed 4 July 2023.
Shorter, Edward. “Female Emancipation, Birth Control, and Fertility in European History.”The American Historical Review, vol. 78, no. 3, 1973, pp. 605–40. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1847657. Accessed 4 July 2023.
This is part four of a story on utilizing Y-DNA tests to gain knowledge or leads on the patrilineal line of the Griff(is)(es)(ith) family. This part of the story focuses on the analysis of Y-STR test results to possibly locate genetic ancestors.
Working with Y-STRs (and Y-SNPs) and the various types of tests and Y-DNA tools requires covering the topics of genetic distance, modal haplotypes, ancestral haplotypes and the Most Recent Common Ancestor.
Most Common Ancestor: A Peculiar Concept
A number of genetic studies argue that all humans are related genealogically to each other over what can be considered as surprisingly short time scales.  Few of us have knowledge of family histories more than a few generations back. Moreover, these ancestors often do not contribute any genetic material to us  .
In 2004 mathematical modeling and computer simulations by a group of statisticians indicated that our most recent common ancestor probably lived no earlier than 1400 B.C.and possibly as recently as A.D. 55. Additional simulations, taking into account the geographical separation of continents and islands and less random patterns of mating in real life suggest that some populations are separated by up to a few thousand years, with a most recent common ancestor perhaps 76 generations back (about 336 BCE), though some highly remote populations may have been isolated for somewhat longer 
The most recent common ancestor of a group of men and the most common ancestor of man are concepts used in genetic genealogy. Their definition and explanation are not entirely intuitive. They can be difficult to comprehend and what do they actually mean. For most of us it is a bit difficult to accept or even comprehend concepts that rest on mathematics or statistics and not hard data. Archaeologists, genealogists, or historians will never uncover ancient artifacts or documentation that identify your most recent common ancestor.
The idea of a genealogical common ancestor resists attempts to demonstrate its existence with a genetic, DNA equivalent. As special as either of ‘these recent individuals’ are within our genealogy, it is very likely that most living people have inherited no DNA from these individuals at all.
This may seem like a paradox: a genealogical ancestor of everybody, from whom most of us have inherited no DNA. It reminds us that genetic and genealogical relationships are different from each other. Many close genealogical relatives are nonetheless genetically and culturally very different from each other. Fifth cousins are not far apart genealogically, but they sometimes share no DNA from their common genealogical ancestors at all. 
The following video provides an excellent overview of the interplay between different concepts of genealogy and their implications. The video also touches on the concept of common ancestor, identical ancestors point (IAP), or all common ancestors (ACA) point, or genetic isopoint, and the most recent ancestor. 
While I brought up the concept of most common ancestor for discussion, our main concern is really with something that is more manageable to comprehend in terms of genetic distance: genetic distance based on the most recent common ancestor. It still might be confusing but not mind blowing.
Genetic distance, is a concept used more as an operational concept by FamilyTree DNA (FTDNA). It is a concept that ranks individual test kits according to how close they appear to be to each other based on the number of allele differences on designated short tandem repeats (STRs).
Genetic distance can also be calculated using Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) by comparing the time distance between different haplogroup branches. For the most part the concept is used in the context of comparing genetic test results between two or more Y-STR test kits to determine if they are genetically ‘closely related’. 
Genetic distance is based on the analysis of STR data, is the result of calculating the number of mutation events which have occurred between two or more individuals in their respective haplotypes. The more STR’s sampled and compared, the more reliable is the estimate of genetic distance.
Most Common Recent Ancestor
In genetic genealogy, themost recent common ancestor (tMRCA) of any set of individuals is the most recent individual from which all the people in the group are directly descended.  Estimating TMRCAs is not an exact science. Because it is not an exact science, questions and answers regarding TMRCA should be phased in general terms. For example, is the MRCA likely to be within the time of surnames or is the MRCA more likely to be in the 1`700’s or the 1600’s. Generally, TMRCA concept can be used to give a working theory or hypothesis about which general time frame the common ancestor may have lived.
The results of various type of analyses that calculate genetic distance will point to the most recent common ancestor of a group of men.
The information in Table One was introduced in Part Three of this story and will be used as a basis for discussing my path of discovery for genetic ancestors using the concept of genetic distance and tMRCA. The table displays Y-Chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) STR results for testers in the L-497 Haplogroup project. As reflected in Illustration One, twelve test kits were grouped together based on how they tested for specific SNPs associated with branches in the haplotree.
Illustration One: The One Two Punch of SNP then STR Analysis
Specifically, Table One provides STR data on my haplotype (STR signature), which is highlighted in the table, for 111 sampled STR values. My results are grouped with eleven other men based on our similarity in our respective STR haplotype signatures. We also share similarities in SNP tests and have been grouped in the G-BY211678 haplogroup.
Table One: 111 STR Results for G-L497 Working Group Members within the G-BY211678 Haplotree Branch
The table provides the modal haplotype for the twelve individuals (re: third row) and the minimum and maximum values for each of the STRs listed in the table. FTDNA uses the concept of genetic distance(GD) to compare and evaluate genetic resemblance of two or more STR haplotypes. It is at this point we start to compare STRs among potential test kits.
Genetic Distance: What Does It Mean, How is it Used & How to Portray It
Unlike other chromosomes, Y chromosomes generally do not come in pairs. Every human male (excepting those with XYY syndrome) has only one copy of that chromosome. This means that there is not any chance variation of which copy is inherited, and also (for most of the chromosome) not any shuffling between copies by recombination. Unlike autosomal haplotypes, there is effectively not any randomization of the Y-chromosome haplotype between generations. A human male should largely share the same Y chromosome as his father, give or take a few mutations; thus Y chromosomes tend to pass largely intact from father to son, with a small but accumulating number of mutations that can serve to differentiate male lineages.
Haplotypes in Y-DNA testing typically compare the results of Y-25, Y37, Y-67, or Y-111 STR tests. Table Two is an example of my haplotype for the Y-111 test. The haplotype basically represents the unique string of values for each of the STRs that compose the test. They number essentially do not mean much by themselves. They take on meaning when you compare them with other testers or pool my results with others to concoct dendrograms and higher level statistical analyses.
Table Two: Example of the Y-111 Haplotype for James Griffis
A modal haplotype is an ancestral haplotype derived from the DNA test results of a specific group of people, using genetic genealogy. Within each FTDNA work group that is based on haplogroups, surnames, geographical area, or other categories, typically test results are grouped on the basis of the most recent common ancestor that is based on a modal haplogroup. 
The modal haplotype is found on the third row of the table One. My results are found on the fourth row of the table for Kit number 851614. Click on the image for a viewable version. The table also provides the minimal allele values for each STR marker and the maximum allele values for each marker for comparison.
The ancestral haplotype is the haplotype of a most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) deduced by comparing descendants’ haplotypes and eliminating mutations. A minimum of three lines, as distantly related as possible, is recommended for deducing the ancestral haplotype. This process is known as triangulation. For FTDNA testing, ancestral haplotype basically refers to the haplotype of the tMost Recent Common Ancestor (tMRCA). In genetic genealogy, the Most Recent Common Ancestor (tMRCA) is the ancestor shared most recently between two individuals. 
For Y-DNA, the Most Recent Common Ancestor(tMRCA) is defined as the closest direct paternal ancestor that two males have in common . One of the questions all genealogists seek to answer is when a mutation occurs. We want to know when a mutation occurs and how closely we are related to others that have similar SNP or STR mutations. Unfortunately, that question, without traditional genealogical ancestral information, is very difficult to answer.
For the past two decades, many researchers have attempted to reliably answer that question. The key word here is ‘reliably’. The general consensus is that the occurrence of a SNP is someplace, on average, between 80 and roughly 140 years. The topic is hotly debated, and many factors can play into SNP age calculations. 
Since STRs mutate faster than SNPs and can also have a likelihood of mutating back to an original configuration, the estimate of the age of a STR mutation is challenging and depends on the specific STR since they each mutate at different rates. Given the nature STRs, the strategy for locating tMCRA with STRs relies on the concept of genetic generations (e.g. genetic distance). Translating genetic distance to years relies on statistical probabilities based on (a) the specific STR markers tested and (2) the number of STR markers used in calculations.
FTDNA Genetic Distance and Y-DNA STRs: Individual Matches
The main feature of FamilyTreeDNA’s Y-STR tests (Y-37 through Y-111) are finding Y-DNA matches. Like most DNA tests for genealogy, the test is most useful when compared to other people. The key question is, “When was the last common ancestor with this match?” When that is not obvious from comparing known genealogies, the genetic distance is the metric used to compare and estimate how far back in time the connection goes to identity the Most Recent Common Ancestor (tMRCA). Is the connection in recent times, just behind that genealogical brick wall, or in ancient, prehistoric times?
The FTDNATiP™ Report (TiP for Time Predictor) translates the Genetic Distance (GD) statistic into a time unit in predicted ‘years ago’. Depending on the average rate of mutation for sampled marker STRs, the number of differences between two samples (individuals) grows larger as the number of generations back to a common ancestor increases. FTDNA uses this idea to limit the number of matches shown in their match reports. As reflected in Table Three, if you have a 12 marker test (Y-12 STR test), their cut off is a genetic distance of one (one mutation difference), for their Y-37 marker tests the report cut off is at a genetical distance of 4, at 67 markers it is 7, and at 111 markers the report cut off is 10. 
Table Three: FTDNA Limits on Genetic Distance Based on Level of STR Test
GD Limit for Matches
0 or 1 if they are in the same working group project
In general, the closer the match in haplotypes between two individuals, the shorter the time back to a most recent common ancestor. For instance, if two individuals share the allele values for 35 out of 37 STR markers, they almost certainly share a more recent common ancestor than two individuals who share 25 out of 37 markers.
When it comes to calculating the genetic distance of a common ancestor, which STRs are different between the two individuals is more important that how many differences there are. This is due to the fact that STRs can behave differently from their expected mutation rates and because some STRs mutate faster than others. Regardless of whether one takes a 12 37, or 111 STR marker test, a distance of four matters more based on the mutation rates for each of the four markers that are different.
The following tables indicate the mutation rates for each of the STRs that are used for the various STR tests. 
Table Four: Mutation Rates for STRs 1 Through 37
Table Five: Mutation Rates for STRs 38 – 67
Table Six: Mutation Rates for STRs 68 – 111
As mentioned earlier, calculating the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor is based on probability and is not an exact science. We can identify the most likely time that a common ancestor might have lived, but there will always be a degree of uncertainly. It is better to think of “the Most Recent Common Ancestor” (tMRCA) as a range of time rather than a point in time. 
The following four charts show (noted by the dark line) the average number of generations that Y-DNA matches will share a common ancestor based on genetic distance. The statistical confidence levels are based large population samples and the two lighter lines show a band or range in which 95 percent of the matches will fall. The charts indicate where the FTDNA ‘cut off’ occurs. Notice that as you test more STR markers, the genetic distances also go up for the same number generations. For the Y chromosome these rates assume a 31 year generation and basing years ago from a 1955 “present date”. 
As illustrated in the following four illustrations, the statistical variabiability in determining the range of generations based on the concept of genetic distance can vary widely. Even comparing genetic distance with 111 STR test results, one will have a wide statistical variance. A genetic distance of 2 for a Y-111 comparison will mean that the match is within a 95 percent confidence interval of 2-10 generations. If a generation is around 31 years, then the match is equivalent to 62 – 320 years. Translating this range to ‘years before present would be 1955-62= 1893 CE and 1955-320= 1635 CE. That can be a wide range if you are looking for genetical matches. 
Illustration Two: Relationship of Genetic Distance to Generations at Y 12
Illustration Three: Relationship of Genetic Distance to Generations at Y37
Illustration Four: Relationship of Genetic Distance to Generations at Y67
Illustration Five: Relationship of Genetic Distance to Generations at Y111
Up until very recently, there were two methods to determine the GD.: the Step-Wise Mutation Model and the Infinite Allele Model.  In 2022, FTDNA released Age Estimates based on the Big Y-700 test. test results The millions of slow-mutating Y-SNP markers tested by Big Y together with the faster-mutating but fewer Y-STR markers derived revised the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) estimates of each branch on the Y-DNA haplotree.  Also in 2022, FTDNA updated FTDNATiP™ Report using Big Y haplotree TMRCA estimates from hundreds of thousands of pairs of Y-STR results from Big Y testers and built models to predict the most likely TMRCA ranges for each Y-STR marker level and genetic distance. 
Most mutations only cause a single repeat within a STR marker to be added or lost. For these markers, the Step-Wise Mutation Model is used. For example in Table Seven, comparing my results (Kit Number 851614) with Kit number 125476, who also lists a William Griffis as a Paternal Ancestor, the values of two STR markers differed by one value (see below), which means our GD is 2.
Table Seven: Comparison of Two STR Markers
DYS389ii Allele Value
DYS576 Allele Value
In some cases, an entire marker is added or deleted instead of a single repeat within a marker. This is believed to represent a single mutation in the same way that the addition or subtraction of a repeat is a single mutation event. For this reason, FTDNA uses the Infinite Allele Model in these cases. When an STR simply does not exist in an individual, this is called a null value. When a marker is missing, the value is listed as 0.
Multi-copy STR markers appear in more than one place on the Y chromosome. These are reported as the value found at each location, separated by hyphens. For example, in table one you may see DYS464= 12-13-13-13 or 12-12-13-13-13 or 12-13-13-13-13-13 . This means that the STR marker DYS464 has a unique number of repeats in each location. These locations are usually referred to as DYS464a, DYS464b, DYS464c, etc.
An example of this situation is illustrated in Table Eight by comparing my STR results in Table One (Kit Number 851614) with Kit Number 31454 (whose Paternal Ancestor is William Wamsley) and 285488 (whose self reported paternal ancestor was George Williams).:
Table Eight: Comparison of Multi-Copy STR Markers
Within multi-copy markers, there are two types of mutations, or changes, that can occur: marker changes and copy changes. Marker changes (changes in how many repeats are within a marker) are counted with the Step-Wise Mutation Model. Copy changes (changes in the number of markers, regardless of how many repeats are in each) are counted with the Infinite Allele Model.
In the example illustrated in Table Eight, if we compare Kit 31454 to my kit 851614, the allele value for DYS464b is different by one (marker change) and also 31454 has an additional copy (DYS464e), which totals to a genetic distance of 2. Comparing kit 285488 with my kit reveals no marker changes in DYS464a-d but two additional copy changes (DYS464e-f), which totals to a GD of two.
Adding together the GD for each marker in two people provides the overall GD for those two people. When a GD becomes ‘too great’, it is unlikely that the two people share a common ancestor within a ‘genealogical timeframe’, so FTDNA establishes a upper level limit for reporting matched based on GD.
Table Nine provides a practical example of FTDNA’s strategy of comparing the differences between haplotypes of individual test results based on similar haplogroups. I have listed the surname of each of the testers and the STR test they completed (re: Y-37, Y-67, Y-111, or Big Y 700 test. The table also provides information on the most recent haplogroup branch their respective tests were able to document. A Big Y 700 test provides results for 700 STR and therefore can provide the most granular test results for haplogroup designation. The table also indicates the self reported earliest known paternal ancestor for the tester.
Table Nine: STR Haplotype Matches with James Griffis Based on Y-37 Test
STR Markers Tested
Genetic Distance (GD)
Likely Common Ancestor (Genera- tons) 
MRCA Based on GD 
Earlest Known Ancester
Source: FTDNA myFTDNA Y-DNA Match Results for James Griffis
As illustrated in Table Nine, although the tester whose last name is Griffith (first. row of the table) only tested for the Y-37 test, his test results are 2 steps different from my test results. If we look at Illustration Three above, this means I and Mr. Griffith share a common ancestor around 8 generations ago or between 2 to 20 generations.. Eight generations would be around the revolutionary war period.
There is another test kit that is 2 steps different from my test kit results. The test kit 39633, who has a surname of Compton appears to be as close as Mr. Griffith. I do not have any traditional genealogical documentation that references an individual with the last name of Compton. Rather than dismiss the results, one needs to look ‘outside the box’ in terms of critically analyzing the results. I may need to reach out to this gentleman to see what potential connections we might have. Also, based on the statistical confidence levels associated with the Y-32 STR tests, the MRCA may be as far back as 20 generations or 620 years ago which is around 1400 CE.
The remaining six testers are four steps different from my test results. While I know there are no individuals who are related in the past three generations, perhaps 15 to 22 generations back there might be a common ancestor. The outer range would be around 682 years ago or around 1340 CE. which would be before the use of surnames.
Based on the results, further research into the background of Mr. Griffith, whose earliest known ancestor was a ‘William Griffis from Hungton, NY” may lead to promising results! 12 generations would be around the early colonial era (1650). It may also be worthwhile to look into the Williams’ connections!
Phylogenetic Trees: Graphic View of Genetic Distance at the Lineage Level
In addition to analyzing and providing Y-DNA test results, FTDNA provides a wide platform of ways in which DNA results are analyzed and the results are packaged for consumers to identify possible genetic matches. There are also a number of analytical tools that have been developed by individuals that compliment or enhance the ability to assess genetic distance.
I can complement the second stage of an analysis by reviewing the results of genetic distance that we just discussed in a number of program generated mutation history trees. These types of programs give a pictorial representation of how the different members of a lineage may be related.
The branching pattern derived from the DNA mutations may very well correspond to the branching pattern that one might see in a traditional family history tree if we were able to trace it all the way back with documentary evidence to the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor). The Mutation History Tree can give us important clues regarding which individuals are likely to be on the same branch of the overall tree, and who is more closely related to whom. This in turn can help focus further documentary research.
One type of mutation history tree has been developed by David Vance that uses FTDNA data that creates a Y-DNA phylogenetic tree. The program is relatively easy to use and graphically provides an intuitive approach to visualize the possible genetic relationships between various DNA test results. The program is referred to as the SAPP analysis (Still Another Phylogeny Program). The current version that was used in my analysis was SAPP Tree Generator V4.25. 
The program uses STRs from any of the STR tests (e.g., Y25, Y37, Y67, Y111), to construct a Y-DNA phylogenetic tree. It also has the ability to incorporate the SNPs found in BigY tests to fine-tune the genetic links and estimated times to the most common recent ancestor. The program can also incorporate known names and birth dates of ancestors to further fine-tune the analysis.
The program provides:
STR Table. This table is included to verify the STR input. It starts with the calculated Group Modal Haplotype for your input set followed by all the input kits with the off-modals colored.
Original Genetic Distance Table. This table calculates genetic distances (GDs) from the input STR results. It should match closely with GD calculations from other tools and commercial companies.
Adjusted Genetic Distance Table. This table re-calculates the GDs based on the tree that SAPP has just calculated. It will correct for any convergence that may have occurred in the calculated tree.
Kit to SNP/Genealogy Cross-Reference. This table summarizes the input SNP and Genealogy data showing the +. -. or ? status against the various kits.
The Image or Web version of the Tree File. The program creates a downloadable file containing the phylogenetic tree. Normally the tree is drawn as a graphic, as indicated in Illustration Six.
Illustration Six: Explanation of the SAPP Phylogenetic Tree
Utilizing the STR results, SNP data, and self reported paternal ancestor information for the 12 tests kits found in Table One, the following phylogenetic tree was created (click on the image of the thumbnail of the tree to be able to actually see the table). I have provided a PDF version of the Phylogenetic Chart which allows you to enlarge the image to get a better view.
Illustration Seven: Phylogenetic Tree Results for FTDNA STR Test Results for Individuals within the G-BY211678 Haplogroup (Click for Larger View)
The phylogenetic tree reveals three major genetic groupings of the 12 test kit results. One of those groupings tie my results (FTDNA Kit Number 851614) with an individual whose surname is Griffith (FTDNA Kit Number 285458) and claims the same paternal ancestor, William Griffis see Illustration Eight.
Illustration Eight: Close Up of Phylogenetic Tree
The following are the original and adjusted genetic distance tables generated by the SAPP program. The number of STRs tested are listed on the diagonal in blue. Cell colors refer to the number of STRs tested – cells of different colors are not directly comparable. Red numbers indicate where adjusted genetic distances are different from original calculation.
Table Ten: SAPP Generated Original Genetic Distance between the 12 Test Kits.
Table Eleven : SAPP Generated Original Genetic Distance between the 12 Test Kits.
Based on the SAPP results, consistent with the FTDNA analysis, it is estimated that the most recent common ancestor between me and Mr. Griffith is approximately 8 generations or 248 years ago (estimating a generation to be 31 years) which would mean the MRCA was born around 1772. The birth date of William Griffis was 1736.
The results of the SAPP analysis suggests that there possibly may be an additional three haplotree branches, based on differences between STR haplotypes among the twelve test kits.
The phylogenetic chart indicates that the MRCA for all of the twelve test kits is estimated at 23 generations. The MRCA was born around 1500 CE for the G-BY211678 haplogroup. The Node #13 of which I and Mr. Griffith are representatives has the strongest connection in the tree. M=Test kits that indicates the ancestral person as William Williams or William Walmsley appear to have a MRCA 3 generations ago (born around 1850).
Genetic Distance at the Macro Level: Distance Dendrograms
The creation of dendrogram is another tool to use when analyzing STR data. Dendrograms can provide insights into macroscopic patterns in Y-DNA genetics and possible genetic matches of present day Y-DNA testers. The diagram based approach of a dendrogram is visually intriguing. Distance dendrograms are software-generated diagrams that convey relationships based on distance measured either in years or generations. Statistically, the dendrograpms used in the present context for genealogy are constructed by hierarchic clustering and the UPGMA method and are more focused on macroscopic genetic patterns. They complement other tools that focus on family level matches. 
Up until this point in the story we have discussed computing tMRCA based on the concept of genetic distance (GD). This sort of pairwise tMRCA analysis is subject to a signfiicant range of statistical uncertainty (as reflected in the above tables for generational distance).
A tMRCA can also be calculated between a single DNA tester and the estimate pattern of a chosen ancestor using a modal haplotype. If you have a large enough set of DNA test kits to sample, the ancestral haplotype will be close to that unknowable MRCA. However, this type of averaging still creates a wide level of variance for individual contemporary testers to compare their results with this ‘statistical archetype’.
The dendrograms generated in Rob Spencer’s model is based on a ‘whole-clade’ estimation of the MRCA. The MRCA for an entire clade (haplogroup branch) can be determined based on a common ancestor or a target SNP. The distribution of pairwise MRCA’s for a number of selected DNA kits in a given clade can be fit into a statistical curve fitting process (e.g. lognormal distribution). This curve fitting process is done on a specific group of DNA kits using statistical methods that are way above my pay grade. 
The scale of the data and graphics can reveal large scale, high-level patterns of when one person became the descendant of all others (single founder clades), patterns of descent from a single colonial founder in the America (typically one person is the descendant of all in America), and other demographic patterns that are not apparent using other methods of presenting DNA test results.
Dendrograms are ‘close cousins’ to family trees. The Y-STR Dendrogram is a diagram similar to a family tree. Individual DNA testers are the dots at the right (if the dendrogram is horizontal) or at the bottom (if the Dendrogram is vertical). Time moves backward to the left (if horizontally depicted) or down and up( vertically presented). On a traditional family tree, branch points are actual ancestors. In the dendrogram the branch points are generally not specific people but points in time when genetic mutations or changes occurred. In some cases, with good paper genealogy, branch points can be matched to specific ancestors. 
Looking at dendrograpm from another angle, they are graphic renderings of a statistical analysis which compares the differences of STR allele values between a group of DNA testers to determine the most recent common ancestors (tMRCA) between a group of testers. One of the key properties of a distance dendrogram is that if the input distances are accurate and consistent, then the graphic will completely and correctly represent a family tree. If we had a sufficient set of testers who had done DNA tests and tMRCAs could be calculated for all pairs with complete accuracy, then the dendrogram would be an accurate family tree.
You can demonstrate the relatiohsip between dendrograms and family trees for yourself with the Distance Tree Introduction interactive tool, and also for larger and more realistic family trees with the Family Simulator, both created by Rob Spencer.
The major limitation to the accuracy of the dendrogram trees is the statistical and random nature of STR mutations. In general, dendrograms constructed from Y12 or Y37 data will be reliable, while those built with Y111 or Big Y700 data data will be sufficient to see large-scale patterns (“macro genetics”) and in many cases can be close approximations to the true family tree. 
One important difference between a dendrogram and a family tree is that a dendrogram defines only the “leaf nodes”. A dendrogram does not “know” that there are other nodes that represent people on the diagram. The joining nodes or points are mathematical constructs. Every joining-point or “T” junction in the diagram corresponds to a specific genetic ancestor.
“(Dendograms) are very reliable for exclusion: you can say with very high confidence that two people are not related if there is a strong mismatch of their STR patterns. This is the forensic use of DNA: it’s very powerful in proving innocence while less decisive about proving guilt.”
“Most of us use Y STR data locally to explore personal matches and to help in building family trees. But STRs can tell us much more when we sit back and take a long look. In this talk we use an efficient way to visualize thousands of kits at once. The large-scale patterns explain “convergence”, illuminate ancient, feudal, and colonial expansions, pick apart Scottish clans, identify American immigrant families, allow accurate relative clade dating, let us see the onset of surnames, and reveal the power law distribution of lineages.” 
Utilizing STR and SNP data, dendrograms can spot American Immigrant families based on the shape of the dendrogram. Typically there is a gap of 10 plus generations to the next ancestor and an expansion around 5-15 generations ago.  Similarly, the advent of surname usage can appear in dendrogram renditions of Y-DNA data. You should expect a common surname only for branches with a tMRCA 25-30 generations ago. Otherwise connections between branches with surnames are essentially random. 
Illustration Nine provides a dendrogram of the entire group of FTDNA test kits for the L-497 Haplogroup work group. It includes testers who have minimally completed a Y37 STR test. The L-497 subclade, of which the Griff(is)(es)(ith) paternal line is a part, genetically branched off around 8900 BCE, the man who is the most recent common ancestor of this line is estimated to have been born around 5300 BCE. There are about 1,760 FTDNA based DNA tested descendants, and they specified that their earliest known origins are from Germany, England, United States, and 53 other countries. I included the entire group of test results to show the general shape and patterns revealed in the dendrogram.
STR distance dendrograpms usually contain clear and distinct clades, which are sets of men with a common ancestor. Such clades are characterized by a curved top boundary. in the dendrogram. This is what gives the dendrogram its characteristic ‘slope shape’. If we had test results of all family members the dendrogram would be more square shaped and resemble a family tree. Since that is impossible, there are obviously gaps and the sloping tops for respective clades of the dendrogram is due to the statistical range of the STR mutations and the history of a given haplogroup. .
While the G haplogroup was one of the dominant lineages of Neolithic farmers and herders who as a second wave into Europe, migrated from Anatolia to Europe between 9,000 and 6,000 years ago, they were overtaken by the R Haplogroup as part of a third wave of human migration into Europe and are consequently are presently a minority genetic group in Europe. The male lineages represented by the G haplogroup line are diminished and this is represented in dendrograms with long thin lines through time representing fewer male descendants.
Illustration Nine: Dendrogram of FTDNA Y37 to Big Y Test Results for Members of the L-497 D-DNA Group
If we look a bit closer at the results that are roughly highlighted in Illustration Nine, we can still see the “slope of an approximately family genetic clade structure” for individuals that have a Williams surname. This is reflected in illustration 10. My line of patrilineal descendants have a MRCA with this Williams clade around 14 generations ago. This MRCA was born would be about 434 years before present or about 1488 CE.
Illustration Ten: Dendrogram of FTDNA Y37 – Big Y Test Results for Members of the L-497 D-DNA Group – Blow-Up Portion Where My Test Kit is Located
The dendrogram reinforced the connection with Mr. Griffith’s test kit. The dendrogram shows that we have a common ancestor about 8 generations ago. I highlighted our two kits in the dendrogram.
An alternative view of the dendrogram in Illustration Ten is provided by tightening the generational time scale, is provided in Illustration Eleven. It is the same data but the horizontal scale of the dendrogram has been shortened.
Illustration Eleven: Dendrogram of FTDNA Y37 – Big Y Test Results for Members of the L-497 D-DNA Group – Blow-Up Portion Where My Test Kit is Located, Shortened Time Horizontal the scale
Comparing the SAPP and dendrogram results with the Genetic Distance results reveal similarities. They both point to a genetic relationship with Kit 285458 (Griffith) with my Kit (285614). Both analyses point to a MRCA between our kits at 8 generations.
The next part of the story provides the results of corroborating a Griff(is)(es)(ith) relative, Henry Vieth Griffith, through the analysis of Y-DNA STRs!
Feature Image of the story is a dendrogram of comparing test kits results of Y-STR tests. Dendrograms are software-generated diagrams that convey relationships based on distance measured in generations. The dendrogram graphically portrays th genetic distance between individuals who are genetically related to me in the past 20 gnerations (e.g. the past 660 years). It is a graphic and mathematical confrmation of my conneection with Henry Vieth Griffith.
 Chang J (1999) Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals. Advances in Applied Probability 31: 1002–1026.
Rohde DLT, Olson S, Chang JT (2004) Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature 431: 562–566.
Shigeki Nakagome, Gorka Alkorta-Aranburu, Roberto Amato, Bryan Howie, Benjamin M. Peter, Richard R. Hudson, Anna Di Rienzo, Estimating the Ages of Selection Signals from Different Epochs in Human History, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 33, Issue 3, March 2016, Pages 657–669, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv256
Kun Wang, Mahashweta Basu, Justin Malin, Sridhar Hannenhalli, A transcription-centric model of SNP-Age interaction, PLOS Genetics doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009427 , bioRxiv 2020.03.02.973388; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.02.973388
Zhou, J., Teo, YY. Estimating time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA): comparison and application of eight methods. Eur J Hum Genet24, 1195–1201 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.258.
For specific information on history of the haplotree and related nomenclature, see also: International Society of Genetic Genealogy, Y-DNA Haplogrouptree 2019 – 2020, Version: 15.73 Date: 11 July 2020, https://isogg.org/tree/
YFull has a documented system to estimate SNP ages. This is how to get their estimate:
Go to YFull’s SNP search page; 2) Enter a SNP name and click the Search button; 3) A green hyperlink, labeled with a haplotree branch name (e.g., “R-L47”), should be displayed. Click on it; 4) You should now see a branch of the haplotree. Typically, this branch will have two dates: (a) The “formed” date is an estimate of when this branch began to diverge from its surviving siblings. (Extinct siblings are unknowable and therefore ignored.) (b) The “TMRCA” date is an estimate of when this branch’s surviving children began to diverge from each other. (Again, extinct lineages are ignored.)
 The GD estimates and estimated number of Generations is based on FTDNATiP™ Reports, Most Recent Common Ancestor Time Predictor based on Y-STR Genetic Distance
 “The original FTDNATiP™ Report was based on research by Bruce Walsh, Professor at the University of Arizona, and his 2001 paper in Genetics. Walsh used a theoretical approach to model STR mutation rates and estimate when two people’s’ paths diverged in the Y-DNA haplotree. He used an infinite allele model, which theoretically accounts for markers mutating more than once, which can obscure the true mutation rate.”