The Stiles Family of America DNA project got started in July of 2007. As of September 20, 2009, there have been over 80 participants in our study. Out of that number, only 49 have the Stiles/Styles surname. The rest have other surnames – mostly unrelated men, although some have maternal Stiles descent. For the purposes of this discussion, I will only concentrate on the 49 Stiles/Styles surnamed men as it is their DNA that has the most meaning for the surname of Stiles/Styles.
Of the 49 Stiles/Styles participants, 13 have believed they are descendant of Robert Stiles (1637 – 1690) who died in Boxford, Massachusetts; 11 have believed they are descendant of John Stiles (1595 – 1662) who died in Connecticut; while the remaining 14 had various lineages of descent not from Robert or John. The lineage was based on paper data gathered over the years from census, tax lists, bible records, documented histories, etc. One participant has not provided any type of paper lineage for himself which makes it hard to do a full comparison, although it will be noted that his DNA does not match anyone else’s in the study.
The DNA evidence has proven 10 distinct groups of relatives out of the 49 who have had their DNA tested so far. One of those groups is actually a group of 12 totally unrelated men – they are not related to anyone else in our DNA study at present time (not even related to each other). I have grouped them together only because it makes looking at the data a little easier.
Those who believe they descend from Robert Stiles (1637-1690) of Boxford, Massachusetts, actually fall into 2 distinct groups. Ten men are clearly related to each other, while the remaining 3 are related to each other, but not related to the other ten men. The three men who are not related to the others all descend from Robert’s grandson Israel (1716 – 1791) and Israel’s son John (1736 – 1785). The DNA however, has not told us if it was Israel or John who was adopted since there has not yet been a participant from a descendant of any of Israel’s other sons (Moses, Isaac, Samuel or Robert). If one of those descendants were to have their DNA tested, that could indicate if it was Israel or John who was adopted.
There are 11 DNA participants that traced their lineage to John Stiles (1595 – 1662 CT). Of those, 1 traces descent from John’s son Henry, 6 trace to John’s son Isaac and 4 trace to John’s son John.
Of those who trace their descent to Isaac, 1 traces to Isaac’s son John and 5 to Isaac’s son Jonathan “Long Jonathan”. The one who traces to Isaac’s son John is unrelated to any other participant. Could this John, the son of Isaac, be adopted? Hard to say as we would need more descendants of this John to test.
Of those who trace their descent to Jonathan “Long Jonathan”, 2 trace to his son Jonathan Jr (and also Jonathan III and his son Jacob). The descendants of Jonathan happens to match the DNA of descendant of Henry the son of John (1595-1662). So, either the Jonathan that was Jonathan “Long Jonathan”’s son was really a descendant of Henry, or the descendant of Henry was really the descendant of Jonathan II. It’s hard to say which for sure because we don’t have any other descendant of Henry in the DNA study. By the way, the descendant of Henry is one that had his lineage just revised to be a descendant of Henry rather than a descendant of a William (who doesn’t even factor into this study yet).
Of those who trace their descent to Jonathan “Long Jonathan”, 3 trace to his son Stephen. Of those 3, 2 trace their descent to Stephen’s son Aaron and one traces to Stephen’s son William. Interestingly, the 2 who trace their descent to Aaron match according to the DNA and the one who traces to William does not match anyone else in the DNA study. This leads me to believe that William may have been adopted, but again, we need more DNA data from William’s descendants to be sure.
Of those who trace their descent to John son of John (1595-1662), 3 trace their descent to Ephraim Sr (grandson of the immigrant John born 1595) and 1 traces to John III. Interestingly, the one that traces to John III matches DNA with those who trace descent from Joseph (b 1648 Eng). So, could John III be adopted? Hard to say until we get more DNA evidence.
Of those who trace their descent to Ephraim Sr, 2 trace their descent to Ephraim’s son Ephraim and one traces to Ephraim Sr’s son Isaac. The 2 that trace their descent to Ephraim Jr, one traces to Ephraim Jr’s son Eli and the other to Ephraim Jr’s son Simeon. Now, none of these three men match any other participant. This leads me to think that perhaps Isaac – son of Ephraim Sr was adopted. In addition, I’m thinking that either Eli or Simeon were adopted by Ephraim Jr – but which one? It’s hard to say for sure because we don’t have enough DNA evidence.
In conclusion, the DNA study has proven that what we thought was accurate in the paper genealogical trail is inaccurate as there are clearly some adoptions (or more correctly “non-paternal” events) that happened somewhat frequently. It has allowed us to connect some long-lost relatives together (consolidating some of our missing link families) and shown us that we need to keep searching the paper records. One thing that is clear from this analysis is that we need more DNA tested – and for the participants to share their genealogical lineage with us so we can further examine the paper records. Only through active participation and collaboration will we start to unravel the mysteries of the Stiles/Styles lineages.
