John Stevens, Sr.

Birth: 1682, England Death: 1737 Richmond County New York, USA

Immigrated to America at age 17, invested in land, married the wealthy Ann Campbell & became Port Collector at Perth Amboy. He was one of the thirteen original patentees of the Kayaderosseras tract, near Lake George, NY.

Chapter II: DNA Data Specific to the Stevens / Stephens Families of Staten Island, New York, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, Stamford, Connecticut and Elsewhere in America ♦

An addendum has been prepared entitled, DNA and Genealogy, to augment this chapter and to add to the reader’s general knowledge of the subject. Another study is in progress that follows the migration of the Stevens Haplogroup from its first appearance in Western Ethiopia 22,400 years ago, to England. It will be presented as an addendum, either incorporated into the body of this work, or as a stand-alone piece.

Victor Villarreal <vic.villarreal@gmail.com>, co-administrator of www.haplozone.net/e3b/project, Genealogy-DNA-L Archives on Rootsweb Ancestry.com, and a member of the International Society of Genetics Genealogy, provided a fairly concise explanation of DNA as it relates to genealogy in an email to the author dated 5 Feb 2011:

The Phylogenetic Tree of the Stevens Family’s Ancestors

[See Phylogenic Tree of the Stevens Family's Ancestors image in Media file on this page.]

This phylogenetic tree of haplogroup subclades is based on the YCC 2008 tree1 and subsequent published research.

1Karafet et al. (2008), Abstract New Binary Polymorphisms Reshape and Increase Resolution of the Human Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup Tree, Genome Research, DOI: 10.1101/gr.7172008

• Not to be confused with the Biblical Adam.
  • Haplogroups C, D and E are all subclades of Haplogroup B (Haplogroups C and D are not part of this family and other subclades in black are not known to be part of this family, with the possible exception of E-V23, as noted.).

Source: Haplogroup E (Y DNA), http://www.enotes.com/topic/Haplogroup_E_(Y-DNA)

“Contrary to what happens in all paired human chromosomes, there is a region in the male Y-chromosome that doesn't have an equivalent in the X-chromosome and therefore, during the process where both chromosomes recombine to produce a germinal cell, said region is replicated unaltered except for rare and random mutations that accumulate over time. The region is called the male specific region and that's where the markers we use in genetic genealogy are found. But there are two classes of markers with fundamental differences which are utilized for different purposes: the Short Tandem Repeats (STR) and the Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP). While both can be considered ‘mutations’ the mechanism by which each mutate[s] is different as well as the time frame where they happen.

[Males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, while females have two X chromosomes, one inherited from the mother and one inherited from the paternal grandmother.]

“STRs, which are also known as micro satellites, happen by what the textbooks define as ‘replication slippage’ and they are relatively frequent, say, once every few generation[s]. A fictitious example of Haplotype marker DYS 99: CATCAT CATCATCATCAT would be a trinucleo-tide micro satellite with 6 repeats, in other words, three nucleotides (CAT) are repeated consecutively six times and we would place a value of 6 for locus [location] DYS 99.

“In contrast, SNPs, also known as unique event polymorphisms, involve a change in a single letter or nucleotide and are the result of uncorrected mistakes during the process of genetic replication and happen very rarely, say once every thousands of years (at least those mutations that eventually get fixed in a population). SNPs are the kind of mutations that define Haplogroups, clades and subclades. These two last words are simply an-other way of saying branch and sub-branch. The tree analogy is very useful to understand how all human lineages have been branching out over thousands of years from a common ancestor.

“To browse the topology of our Haplogroup look at the latest E tree [on page one and at:] <http: //www.plosone.org/article/slideshow. action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073.g001>. [Unfortunately, the image from this site could not be reproduced in print.] You will see that M215 and M35 are distinct branches and not the same as we recently thought. What this means is that some individuals where [were] found who are positive for M215 but negative for M35. By contrast, all M35+ individuals are by necessity also M215+, that's why we speak of downstream or upstream mutations. Each terminal branch on the tree is a distinct subclade.”

The man who was believed – and still is, by many Stevens researchers – to be the father of John Stevens, born 1708 on Staten Island – the direct ancestor of the author – was John Stevens, Sr., born 1682 in England. Until recently, this writer had serious doubts about any relationship between these two men, largely because he was claimed to have been the father of two other John Stevens’ who were contemporaries of John Stevens (1708-1813). One John Stevens (1707-1707) died in infancy and John Stevens (1716-1792), both of whom were sired by John Stevens (1682-1737). John (1716) moved from New York, to Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and later founded the cities of Hoboken and Jersey City, in that state. A recent discovery (2010) of information relative to shared DNA between John, Sr., (1682) and John (1708) prove they’re definitely from the same family.

While their exact relationship remains undocumented, it’s now possible to state they are of the same family based on: 1) DNA evidence, shown left, 2) an opinion from geneticist Bruce Walsh, PhD, of Arizona State University, 3) published genealogies and 4) other historical publications that include John, Sr., (1682) and his progeny. Their relationship is still in question. John (1708) could have been an illegitimate child, or a nephew.

Walsh noted in an email to the author dated 1 January 2011 that the DNA of the two Johns, born in 1682 and 1708), was close enough to indicate the possibility of a father / son relationship, but this writer, who formerly entertained that notion, is now convinced they were probably not father and son. The differences between the two family branches in given names, occupations and locales, combined with the fact that the greater number of genealogies published in print and on the Internet accept John (1682) as the father of John (1716) and not John (1708), has lead this writer to conclude that John (1682) and John (1708) must have been uncle and nephew, rather than father and son – which potentially could be erroneous, allowing for a different, yet still close relationship, such as great uncle, or third cousin, for example. But for the purposes of this document, the writer will assume the uncle – nephew relationship, until documentation proves otherwise.

The father of John (1682) was Richard (born c. 1657 / 1658), evidenced by John’s 1699 indenture contract with Barne Cosans. Other Stevens researchers claim Richard was the father of John (1708). While it’s possible Richard could have been John’s (1708) father, the former is not known to have emigrated to America where John (1708) was born and the specificity of the indenture contract regarding Richard’s residence as, “the parish of St. Clement’s [St. Clement Danes] London in the County of Middx [Middlesex County],” suggests it was unlikely he had any immediate plans to move to America. The father of John (1708) was obviously a resident of New York at the time of John’s birth.

John’s (1708) father could possibly have been William, one of John’s (1682) named brothers, because the other brother, Thomas, remained in England, evidenced by John’s (1682) will of 1737. There’s also a possibility that Richard may have had a son named Richard as well, or a son with a different given name who could be likely candidates for John’s (1708) father, but if they existed, they’re neither documented, nor known by this writer at present. Based solely on current evidence, the only conclusion that can be drawn at this time is that William was likely John’s (1708) father, which is admittedly shaky at best, but more sound than some conclusions drawn by other family genealogists given similar circumstances. Until additional evidence is found which points to a different man, this writer will assume William is the father of John (1708) for the purposes of this genealogical record, but will remain open to change should evidence to the contrary be found. It’s unfortunate, indeed, that no Stevens’ or Stephens’ appear on the 1706 census of Staten Island, which could have provided a clue about John’s father, but people of that surname are known to have lived there in the late 18th Century and, if John’s date of birth is correct, certainly by 1708.

John Stevens’ (1682) will, dated 5 June 1737, names five sons, two daughters and one brother1, the latter of whom was Thomas, who lived on Arundel Street near the Strand in Middlesex County, England, in 1737. Source: 1The Will of John Stevens, dated 5 June 1737, from the New Jersey Archives, Recorded Wills, East Jersey, Book C, p. 183, a copy of which is in the possession of David N. Decker

All Stevens’ in Haplogroup E1b1b1, as reflected in the chart on page 4 [See Paternal Ancestor Name Image in Media file on this page], and the mutations thereof, which includes E1b1b1a, E1b1b1a2 and E1b1b1c1, are related The only question remaining is how far back is the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA), a phrase used by genetic genealogists. Among those related, Thomas (c. 1622 – 1658) is of particular interest. The lower half of the DNA chart includes Stevens / Stephens families that are not related to John Stevens (1708), or John Stevens, Sr. (1682), but was included here to dispel claims made by some researchers that this family descends from Airard Fitz Stephens who accompanied William the Conqueror in his successful 1066 campaign to seize England, among others.

The DNA evidence also links these John Stevens’ (1708 and 1682) to other Stevens families in the English Colonies and elsewhere in the United States, specifically: Thomas Stevens, who died in 1658, presumably in Stamford, Connecticut; Thomas V. Stevens of Culpeper County, Virginia, which was formed from Orange County, Virginia; Matthew Stephens of North Carolina and Mississippi; Jesse Stephens of Hancock County, Kentucky; Uriah Stevens, born in 1785 in Kentucky and who migrated to Louisiana; John Washington Stephens, born in 1776 in South Carolina; Marion E. Stevens (female) of Texas; John Marion Stevens, December 1807 – November 1909, and Isaac Stevens / Stephens of Mississippi, who was born between 1780 and 1790. This researcher has yet to find common ancestors (MRCAs, if you will) for these individuals that would unite these various branches into a single Stevens family, which they obviously are, as DNA evidence has determined.

The reader can see the striking closeness of the DNA test results for individuals whose oldest known ancestors were: John (1708) of New York and Virginia, John (1682) of England, New York and New Jersey and Thomas (c. 1622 / 1623) of England and Connecticut, in the comparison chart below, which includes complete test results. The chart was split into 3 sections by necessity to fit this space. The Row#, Kit# and Paternal Ancestor Name headers are repeated in Parts II and III for the reader’s convenience.

DNA Results Comparison Table for John (1682), John (1708) and Thomas Stevens (1620 – 1658) in Three Parts [See image of DNA Comparison Table for the two Johns and Thomas filed under Media on this page]

 ■	Light Blue represents an exact match of the results for John (1682) and Thomas (c. 1622) to John Stevens, (1708).

 ■	Pink represents an exact match between Thomas (c. 1622) and John (1682) in those loci where the two John’s don’t.

 ■	White represents no match to either of the two Johns, or missing data.

Note: The individuals in Rows 3- 5-in each section of the chart are actually the same person.
Thomas Stevens (c. 1622 / 1623 – 1658) of Stamford, Connecticut, was born in England, some researchers claim in Middlesex County, but his birth in that county is unconfirmed. The reader will note the DNA results for Thomas and John (1682) are precisely the same, which means that in spite of approximately 60 years having elapsed between their births, there are no discrepancies between their respective DNA patterns whatsoever, which means their kinship is irrefutable. The importance of this finding is that it allows more precise research, due to the deeper subclade definitions for Thomas as reported by Villarreal, below, which is vital relative to a more precise determination of the migratory path followed by the Stevens’, from their point of origin to England – which in itself should prove to be a most interesting saga spanning some 21 millennia.

Victor Villarreal’s insight relative to the relationship between Thomas and John (1682) and information about the deeper subclade definitions for Thomas were in the same email cited on page one, in which he wrote:

“Now concerning the particular Haplotypes in your chart, in reviewing their kit numbers I found that #64016 [for Thomas born c. 1622] is already a member of our M35 Project, where we have him predicted as belonging to subclade E1b1b1c1*-C, which is defined by SNP M34. That means that he was deep clade tested [and] he would be M215+, M35+, M123+ and M34+ (see the E tree) [on page 1]. These predictions are fairly reliable because they are based on comparisons made to similar Haplotypes from individuals who have ordered the SNP tests.

“Hopefully, the above explanations won't confuse you more. There are other haplotype databases, besides our own, where you can search for matches to your Stevens Haplotype. For example, there is ysearch.org, and there's the Sorenson's database, although this last one requires you to sign up in order to do your own searches (After you sign up click again in the link that I pasted above to see a list of Steven's matches and view their pedigrees). [The author found no satisfying results on the Sorenson site and very little of interest on the ysearch site.]

“Finally, I checked the Stephens-Stevens YDNA testing project and noticed that the admins have a number of individuals all grouped under the label E1b1b (M215). With the explanation above you will understand that not all belong to the same subclade. Basically, within this group there are some that belong to E1b1b1a2 and there's your group that belong to E1b1b1c1. While both groups share a common deep ancestry, for genealogical purposes you should concentrate on those who are also E1b1b1c1, amongst whom you should investigate not only the Stevens surname but also the Davis, Campbell, Marshall, Watkins and Shepard, among other[s], because these are the surnames that appear very closely to you on the Haplotype databases.”

The 900 year old Telle du Conquest or Toile du Duc Guillaume (better known as The Bayeux Tapestry) depicts the invasion of England by Duke William (the Conqueror) of Normandy in 1066. The large vessel in the center, with the lantern on the mast, is William's flagship, the Mora, commanded by Airard Fitz Stephen.

Many Stephens / Stevens family researchers have thought – perhaps hoped is a better word – that the Stevens family in this compilation was descended from Airard Fitz-Stephen, who was instrumental in the winning of the Battle of Hastings under the leadership of William the Conqueror in 1066. There is literally no hope that’s the case, based on the respective Haplogroups of this family and that of Airard Fitz Stephens. Furthermore, searching the descendant Ahnentafel reports for Airard Fitz Stephens on the Internet yielded no results for either of the two John Stevens’ (1708 or 1682), or for Thomas Stevens who died in 1658 in Connecticut. Some American Stevens families have successfully identified their direct ancestors among Airard’s descendants, but such is not the case for this family. Because Airard received lands in Gloucestershire from William the Conqueror-cum-King William I, many of his descendants are found in that county, but no connections between the Stevens’ of Middlesex County and those of Gloucester – the Gloucester families consistently spell their surname Stephens, rather than Stevens, while the opposite is largely true for this family – has been found to date, nor does the author expect any to be found.

Literally thousands of years after the Haplogroup E1b1b1 mutation first appeared in Western Ethiopia and after members of this group migrated at last to England, it surfaced within the Stevens family who lived in the now defunct County of Middlesex, between the London city wall and the village of Westminster in St. Clement Danes Parish, where Richard’s (c. 1630) grandson, John (1682), was noted as living on the Strand with his father, Richard, Jr. (c. 1657), the former of whom was indentured to Barne Cosans (aka, Cosens, Cozens) in 1699.

While the author suspects members of this family resided in and around London as early as the 1400s, definitive evidence proving a relationship between those earlier Stevens’ and this specific Stevens family is sadly lacking, therefore, Richard Stevens, Sr., (b. circa 1630) is the first known ancestor in this record, so it is with him that the genealogy of this colorful and distinguished family begins. Source: Excerpt from "Descendants of Richard Stevens of Middlesex England," David N. Decker, copyright 2012.