Culpepper DNA Project Results
As of May 13, 2008

By Warren Culpepper
DNA Project Manager

Membership and Testing Status. The table below details our number of members and the separate ancestral groups identified. Currently, we test new project members on only 12 genetic markers. If a tested individual matches most other Culpeppers on at least 11 markers, we upgrade the test to 67 markers.

A Single Progenitor for the vast majority of American Culpeppers. We have proven that most American Culpeppers are related to each other through a common progenitor: Henry Culpepper of Lower Norfolk Co., VA (1633 - 1675+). We also have identified unique haplotypes (genetic signatures) for a number of Culpepper family branches under Henry, as well as for two unrelated American branches and an unrelated International branch. Plus, we have identified a Culpepper "Modal" haplotype, where the value for each of its 67 markers equals the value most commonly found in the Culpepper DNA test results.

The Culpepper's Ancient Origin. A haplogroup identifies a person's major ancient population group and provides information about the origin of the male line. The haplogroup that includes the American Culpeppers descending from Henry of Lower Norfolk is designated as I1* and is estimated to have originated on the Iberian Peninsula during the last ice age. As the ice receded, descendants of the first I1 spread across Europe. Their children formed subpopulations, each having its own distinct history. While many I1 members trace their ancestry to Scandinavia, others find their roots in the British Isles, Germany, and beyond. Culpeppers, who first appeared in historical records in 12th century England, most closely match the subpopulation group called Ultra-Norse Type 1 (I1-uN1). Thus, the American Culpeppers probably descend from the Vikings, the Norse seafaring traders, warriors and pirates who raided and colonized wide areas of Europe from the late 8th to the 11th century.

* Recently, researchers led by Dr. Hammer, Family Tree DNA's Chief Scientist, published an updated Y chromosome haplogroup tree in Genome Research. This paper recommends a number of changes in haplogroup nomenclature. Among the changes, the American Culpepper Haplogroup, previously designated as I1a, became I1. As of May 5th, 2008, Family Tree DNA and the Culpepper DNA project have adjusted its haplogroup names to match the newer nomenclature recommended by this research. The Genographic Project sponsored by National Geographic will make a similar transition in late 2008.

The Culpepper Haplotypes. Combining our DNA knowledge with proven family relationships, here is the currently identified genetic structure of the family.

1. The Primary American Branch is headed by Henry Culpepper of Lower Norfolk. Henry had two sons, Henry Jr. and Robert:

   1. Henry Culpepper Jr., of Lower Norfolk. Henry Jr. maintained the haplotype established by his father. He had two sons, Thomas and Henry III:

      1. Thomas Culpepper of Norfolk. In general, the haplotype for the descendants of Thomas is identical to that of other Henry Jr. descendants except in the Thomas haplotype, DYS CDYb = 38 instead of 37.

      2. Henry Culpepper, III of Norfolk. Henry III maintained the haplotype exhibited by his father.

   2. Robert Culpepper of Lower Norfolk. With a mutation in DYS 442 from 12 to 13, Robert Culpepper defines the Culpepper Modal haplotype. Robert had three sons: Robert Jr., Joseph, and Benjamin, the first two of whom have unique haplotypes.

      1. Robert Culpepper, Jr. of Lower Norfolk. With Robert Jr., DYS 534 mutates from 17 to 16, and all other markers are the same as the Modal haplotype.

         1. James Culpepper, Jr., of Darlington Co., SC, son of James Culpepper of Nash Co., NC, and grandson of Robert Culpepper, Jr. With James Jr., DYS 439 mutates from 11 to 12, while all other markers are the same as Robert Jr.’s haplotype.

      2. Joseph Culpepper of Edgecombe Co., NC. With Joseph, DYS 464d mutates to 15 from 14, and all other markers are the same as the Modal haplotype. None of Joseph's four sons with descendant lines have a distinguishing haplotype, but one grandson and one great-grandson do.

         1. Benjamin Culpepper of Edgefield Dist., SC, son of Benjamin, son of Joseph.  The haplotype for the descendants of Benjamin Culpepper of Edgefield Dist., SC is identical to that of his father (Benjamin, son of Joseph) except in the son's haplotype, DYS 442 has mutated back to the progenitor's value of 12 from the modal value of 13 that was apparently introduced by Robert of Lower Norfolk.

            1. Andrew "Drury" Culpepper of Henry Co., AL, son of Benjamin of Edgefield, , son of Benjamin, son of Joseph. The haplotype for the descendants of Drury is identical to that of his father (Benjamin of Edgefield) except in the Drury haplotype, DYS CDYb = 38 instead of 37.

         2. Evan Alexander Culpepper, Sr. of Coryell Co., TX, son of Congressman John Culpepper of NC, s/o Sampson of Wilkinson, s/o Joseph. The haplotype for Evan and his descendants is identical to that of his great-grandfather, Joseph, except DYS 449 = 29 instead of 28.

      3. Benjamin Culpepper of Edgecombe Co., NC (and his son Benjamin the Ferryman and his grandson Erasmus Culpepper of Nash Co., NC). This line has no mutations down through Erasmus and even to some modern day descendants, and carries on the Modal haplotype established by Benjamin's father, Robert.

         1. Stephen Josephius Culpepper, son of Lemuel. We have identified a marker for the descendants of Stephen Josephius Culpepper: DYS 534 = 16 and not 17 as in the modal haplotype. However, based solely on paper-based research, we had once theorized that Lemuel was probably the son of Joseph of Norfolk or his brother John, each of whom is a son of Robert Culpepper, Jr. Yet DYS 534 has been established as having a value 18 in the Robert Jr. descendants, and not 16 as is found with Lemuel’s. Thus it is unlikely, although still possible, that a double mutation occurred in this marker between Robert Jr. and Lemuel’s son, Stephen Josephius. Since the only other incidence of the name Lemuel is in descendants of Benjamin Culpepper of Edgecombe, it seems more plausible that Lemuel descends from Benjamin through his grandson, Erasmus  of Edgecombe Co., NC. However, additional tests are needed to sort this out.

         2. Pleasant Jackson Culpepper of Jackson Parish, LA. In general, the haplotype for the descendants of Pleasant Jackson Culpepper is identical to that of other Benjamin Culpepper descendants except in the Pleasant Jackson haplotype, DYS 437 has mutated to 15 from 16. However, since no other descendants of Pleasant Jackson's father (Osborne Jackson), grandfather (Benjamin) and great-grandfather (Osborne) have been tested, this haplotype may extend as far up the ancestral line as Osborne. It doesn't appear to go back as far as Osborne's father, Erasmus, because other descendants of Erasmus do not have the marker of DYS 437 = 15. Erasmus is the son of Benjamin the Ferryman, son of Benjamin of Edgecombe Co., NC.

         3. Benjamin's Disconnected Branches. There are two branches whose exact ancestry is uncertain other than the fact that DNA suggests that they are Benjamin descendants. More DNA testing and genealogical research is needed for both of these branches.

            1. Sampson Culpepper of Norfolk Co. VA (born circa 1736), was previously thought to be a son of Robert Jr. However, a descendant in our project exhibits the modal haplotype of Benjamin and not that of Robert Jr.

            2. William Culpepper of Kentucky (born circa 1795) was previously thought to be a descendant of the Thomas who is a son of Henry Jr. However, a descendant in our project exhibits the modal haplotype of Benjamin and not that of Thomas. Our working theory now is that William is a son of Sampson of Norfolk (immediately above).

2. Other American Branches. These branches were previously thought to descend from Henry Culpepper, but hidden paternity exists. Most likely these branches are actually Henry Culpepper descendants through an unmarried Culpepper daughter.

1. James Monroe Culpepper Branch. Only two descendants of James Monroe Culpepper of Harris Co., GA (1823-1894) have been tested, and while neither is related to any other group of Culpeppers, they are related to each other. James had been believed to be a great-grandson of William Culpepper of Warren Co., GA, son of Robert Jr. However, we have now test from a descendant of William's son Daniel who does match the other Culpeppers. Currently, our best guess is that the paternity break occurred not with James, but with with his father, Joel. Most likely Joel was either born to an unmarried Culpepper mother, or was an orphaned child of a friend or relative of a Culpepper family who took him in and raised him. Test results are due by the end of June 2008 for several additional descendants of William of Warren, and these should help clarify where the break occurred. Even though James Monroe is not a paternal Culpepper descendant, it appears that his wife was probably the daughter of Joseph Culpepper. Therefore, one way or another, James and his descendants most likely descend from the American Culpepper progenitor, Henry, albeit through a female.

2. Allison Culpepper of Webster Co., GA Branch. Previously, Allison was thought to be a grandson of Joseph Culpepper of Edgecombe, and was perhaps a son of John of Jones Co., GA, or of John's brother, Joseph of Morgan Co., GA. However, two descendants of Allison have been tested who are not related to any other group of Culpeppers, but they are quite closely related to each other (67 out of 67 markers). Most likely Allison was either born to an unmarried Culpepper mother, or was a young orphaned child of a friend or relative of a Culpepper family who took him in and raised him. Neither of the two tests in this branch are a match to the tests for any other surname at the 37 or 67 marker levels.

3. William Culpeper of Hunton and Wigsell Branch
   (Culpepers and Colepepers, all outside of the USA)

   1. The Culpepers of Barbados appeared at about the same time in the mid 1600's as the Culpeppers of America. The first Culpeper in Barbados was the Rev. William Culpeper, a descendant of William Culpeper of Hunton and Wigsell. This branch persists today as the Colepepers of South Africa, and the Culpepers (2-p) of Puerto Rico, and Canada. We have DNA test results from two members of the Bajan (Barbados) branch, and while they match each other, they do not match the Culpeppers of America.

   2. Culpepers emerged in India in the mid 18th century in connection with the English-backed East India Company. It seems likely that the first Culpeper there was a descendant of the Hollingbourne line. This branch persists today with members in India, England and Australia. The only person from this branch to be tested so far is a match on 63 out of 67 markers with the Barbados project members mentioned above, so these two branches are definitely related and our theory that both branches descend from William Culpeper of Hunton and Wigsell is supported by the DNA results.

4. Pearson/Gradeless Branch. We have one non-Culpepper with the surname of Gradeless who has joined our project because he is a fairly close match to some of the mainline Culpeppers. He matches the Culpepper Modal haplotype on 60 of 67 markers, and the Progenitor haplotype on 61 of 67 markers. The earliest known ancestor of Gradeless is thought to be a Joseph Pearson, born say 1700, who was the father of Jesse Grayless (Gradeless) born out of wedlock. He lived in Dorchester Co., Maryland, on the east side of Chesapeake Bay and north of the Culpeppers who were on both sides of the bay in the Virginia counties of Norfolk and Accomack. The Gradeless project member has the mutation that we believe distinguishes the Progenitor’s haplotype from the Modal. He also has six other mutations (actually seven steps, since there is one two-step mutation), suggesting that his connection to the Culpeppers is ancient if it actually exists. It is also clear that he is not at all a match with the Culpepers of Barbados and India.

As we secure additional test results, we expect to identify the haplotypes for more branches of the family. It is also possible that with more test results, we will modify the names of some of the above haplotypes as well as change some of the speculative linkages within our family tree.

Confidentiality. In order to respect privacy, the test results and identities of project members are shown only in a password protected section of this website, and only if they have granted permission for their names and results to be revealed to others who are close matches. Under no circumstances will we reveal this information to those who are not project members.

Marker-by-Marker Detail. The underlying 67-marker detail from which we created our groupings above can be viewed at: Tabular Analysis of Allele Values (User name and password required. If you are a project member and don't have your log-in info, send an e-mail to Warren Culpepper).

DNA Project Home Page               DNA Concepts                         Join the Project