Co-Administrator: Kenneth Lee Stark

Page 1

Introduction

Between 1695 and 1725, three men with the surnames Stark and Starke arrived in New Hampshire and Virginia. Their names were Dr. Richard Starke of York County, Virginia, James Stark of Stafford County, Virginia, and Archibald Stark of New Hampshire (father of General John Stark of Revolutionary War fame). The genealogical research has not been able to determine if these three men were related. However, independent research of each of these men has suggested the ancestral home of each could have been in or near Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland. Many of the early Stark family researchers had claimed the Aaron Stark family and these three men were somehow related. Y-DNA comparisons of members of Group 1 — descendants of Aaron Stark — to members of Group 2, have revealed Aaron Stark was not related to these three later arrivals to America. 

The following summarizes from whom the members of Group 2 descend:

Descendants of Dr. Richard Starke [1668-1704]: N21529.

Descendants of James Stark [1695-1754]: 74402, 76284, 76964, 84342, 115170, 115705, and 136832.

Descendants of Archibald Stark [1693-1758]: 25347, 94630, and 95073. 

The usage of surnames did not become common until the 13th and 14th centuries. By the year 1500, surname usage had become common practice. Considering that one generation is about 25 years or more, then the year 1500 or before would be the approximate equivalent of about 20 generations back from the present generations. As a general rule of relatedness, the following will discuss the probability that two individuals shared a common ancestor within 20 generations. A conservative probability of 85% or greater — for the purposes of this discussion — will be considered sufficient to declare that any two individuals compared; having the surname Stark or one of it's derivatives; most likely have a common ancestor that lived approximately within the last 500 years.

Members of Group 2 have been variously tested over Panel 1 (Markers 1-12), Panel 2 (Markers 13-25), and Panel 3 (Markers 26-37). A haplotype is a collection of marker values over each Panel or any combination of these three Panels. For the purposes of this discussion, a genetic profile will be defined as a unique haplotype that occurs within Group 2. One or more participants within Group 2 can have a unique genetic profile. The most common genetic profile within the group will be referred to as the First Genetic Profile or Profile 1. Other lesser occurring genetic profiles will be numbered 2 thru N (Profile 2, Profile 3,..., Profile N). All genetic comparisons of lesser occurring profiles in this report will be compared to Genetic Profile 1.

Y-DNA Results Summary

Table 1 records the Y-DNA results of all of the Group 2 participants. For the purpose of this report, a mutation occurs (cell highlighted with yellow background) in a column when an allele value differs from the most common value in that column. For example, in Panel 1, all of the values at Marker 1 are 13 resulting in no mutations in this column. However, in column 2, the value 24 occurs more often than the value 23. Therefore, the participants having the value 23 at Marker 2 have been highlighted. This method results in a Minimum number of mutations for those in Group 2. Any other arrangement would result in more mutations than those observed in Table 1.

According to FTDNA, those markers labeled in RED are more likely to mutate in a Y-DNA transition from father to son than those that are not shown in Red. For the markers observed, Marker 2 is the only column with mutations associated with the descendants of Archibald having a low rate of mutation between father and son. All of the other observed markers with mutations have higher rates of mutation.

Table 1: Summary Table of Y-DNA Results

Page 2

Panel 1 Haplotypes

Table 2 identifies three genetic profiles that occurred in the participants Panel 1 haplotypes. 

All members of Genetic Profile 1 were a perfect match to each other and this profile occurred the most often. The lesser occurring profiles will be compared to this group of haplotypes defined as Genetic Profile 1.¹

Page 3

Panel 1, 2, & 3 Combined Haplotypes

Table 4 identifies the following genetic profiles when the markers of Panels 1, 2 & 3 are combined.

Referring to Table 1, two participants in Group 2 had no mutations over all 37 markers and are a perfect match. This repeating Haplotype has been assigned Profile 1 as presented in Table 4. When 74402 and 115170 are compared to each other, there is a 99.99% probability they share a common ancestor who lived within the last 20 generations. Profiles 2 through 7 will be compared to this profile.

Profile 1: Profiles 2 through 7 were compared to this profile which had no mutations over 37 markers. The participants with this profile are: 74402; 115170. 74402 is a descendant of  James Stark. The lineage of 115170 is not known at this time.

Profile 2: Comparison of the participant with Profile 2 to Profile 1 results in a 99.86%% probability they share a common ancestor who lived within 20 generations. The participant with this profile is: 84342. This further confirms the relatedness of this descendant of James to another descendant of James, as suggested by the genealogical research.

Profile 3: Comparison of the participant with Profile 3 to Profile 1 results in a 99.83% probability they share a common ancestor who lived within 20 generations. The participant with this profile is: N21529. This participant is a descendant of Richard. This further confirms the relatedness of this descendant of Richard to a descendant of James. This genetically confirms that James and Richard were most likely related, although the genealogical research has not been able to confirm how they are related.

Profile 4: Comparison of the participant with Profile 4 to Profile 1 results in a 99.33% probability they share a common ancestor who lived within 20 generations. The participant with this profile is: 76284. This participant is a descendant of James. This further confirms the relatedness of this descendant of James to another descendant of James, as suggested by the genealogical research.

Profile 5: Comparison of the participant with Profile 5 to Profile 1 results in a 99.33% probability they share a common ancestor who lived within 20 generations. The participant with this profile is: 136832. This confirms 136832 is related to the other members of Group 2 and most likely is a descendant of James Stark of Stafford County, Virginia.

Profile 6: Comparison of the participant with Profile 6 to Profile 1 results in a 96.78% probability they share a common ancestor who lived within 20 generations. The participant with this profile is: 25347. This participant is a descendant of Archibald. This further confirms the relatedness of this descendant of Archibald to a descendant of James. This genetically confirms that James and Archibald were most likely related, although the genealogical research has not been able to confirm how they are related.

Profile 7: Comparison of the participant with Profile 7 to Profile 1 results in a 96.24% probability they share a common ancestor who lived within 20 generations. The participant with this profile is: 115705. The participant with this Profile is a descendant of James.

These comparisons confirm descendants of James Stark of Stafford County, Virginia, Dr. Richard Starke of York County, Virginia, and Archibald Stark of New Hampshire are genetically related to each other. 

Conclusions

Genealogical research suggests 74402 is a descendant of James Stark. The perfect 37 Marker match of 74402 and 115170 suggests 115170 is most likely also a descendant of James; but his genealogy is not known at this time. Over 12 markers, 74402 is a perfect match to 76964, 84342, 115705, 115170, and 136832. Therefore, all of these participants are genetically related as suggested by the genealogical research. The 37 marker haplotype comparison of 74402 (Profile 1) to 76284 (Profile 4) was required to genetically confirm 76284 was genetically related to 74402 — therefore, confirming all of the descendants of James Stark in Group 2 are related as suggested by the genealogical research.

The 37 marker comparison of 74402 (Profile 1) to N21529 (Profile 3) genetically confirms descendants of James Stark are genetically related to a descendant of Dr. Richard Starke. Therefore, all of the descendants of James Stark are related to descendants of Richard Starke — the genealogical research unable to determine the nature of this relationship.

The 37 marker comparison of 74402 (Profile 1) to 25347 (Profile 6) genetically confirms descendants of James Stark are related to a descendant of Archibald Stark. The 12 marker haplotype comparison of descendants of Archibald Stark revealed they were a perfect match to each other (see Table 2, Profile 2) — confirming all of the descendants of Archibald are related to each other. If 25347 is related to the descendants of James Stark, then 25347 is also related to the descendant of Richard Stark. It then follows that if 25347 is related to descendants of James and Richard; then 94630 and 95073 are related to these same descendants.

The 12 Marker comparison revealed the Profile 1 haplotype could be a genetic profile identifying future participants who descend from James Stark of Stafford County, Virginia. Profile 3 (76284) may be a genetic profile identifying descendants of John Carter Stark, a grandson of James Stark. The mutation at Marker 439 could have occurred with the birth of John Carter or with the birth of any direct males from John Carter to 76284. More descendants of John Carter Stark will need to be tested to confirm in which generation this mutation occurred.

The above analysis has shown all members of Group 2 are genetically related to each other. This suggests James, Richard and Archibald most likely have a common ancestor who lived previous to their generations (at least before 1668, the approximate birth year of Richard). Genealogical research will be required to identify this common ancestor of all members of Group 2.

Earlier genealogical research (undocumented) suggested Archibald and James were brothers and Dr. Richard Stark was their Uncle. In her publication entitled "The Family of General John Stark of New Hampshire, Jane Elizabeth Stark Maney¹ had this to say about "Other Stark Families in America."²

 "Some genealogists have suggested that James Stark may have been a brother of Archibald, our immigrant ancestor. In 1998, the Scottish genealogist, A. R. Bigwood, failed to find this relationship, in fact, indications are that they were not brothers.

Another early Stark family settled in York County, Virginia in the early 1700's, Richard Stark, who had been a physician in Glasgow, Scotland. He was a surgeon for a Scottish regiment of soldiers. He was born in Scotland before 1668, and is related to the James Stark and Archibald Stark families in some way. Some have suggested that he may have been an uncle of Archibald Stark." 

Using the genetic results of specific descendants in Group 2 tested over 37 markers, a "Genetic Genealogy Report" has been prepared to address the issues presented in the Maney publication.