About us
In South Carolina we have 5 documented Compton/Crumpton families living within a hundred miles of each other in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Four of the five families in are also "brick-walled"; they have no further paper trail to follow. In Phase I of testing one volunteer with solid documentation has represented the DNA of each of these ancestors.
Luke and James M. are related, but most likely do not have a common ancestor until the 1600s (9 generations).
Henry, Thomas, and Ralph are loosely related to each other, and likely not have a common ancestor until the 1400s.
These two groups of Compton families moved to SC and lived within 100 miles of each other. All Compton/Crumptons who's ancestors did not pass through SC, have results that differ from the SC DNA marker signatures. It should be noted that the two SC groups have DNA signatures that are dramatically different from each other.
It can be concluded that any DNA match or near match to these SC lines, for a participant who does not have a documented ancestry, should look to the group of SC families that he matches for potential ancestry first. For example, one participant with documentation back to only the 1860s, matches exactly with Luke Crumpton. This is a 37/37 match!! He should be looking seriously at Luke as a common ancestor.
Luke Crumpton b. abt 1760 Greenville Dist, SC
James M. Compton b. 1810 Laurens Co, SC
Henry Crumpton b. abt 1730 VA to Fairfield, SC
Thomas Compton b. abt 1754 England to SC
Ralph Compton b. 1779 Laurens Co, SC
Introduction
When the Compton Surname Reconstruction project was started in November 2003, it was with the hope that a small set of common ancestors would be isolated. Each unique Compton line would be definitively grouped and associated with a common paternal ancestor. As new candidates have joined, a surprisingly high number of unique lines have emerged. DNA-wise, there are more unique Compton lines than originally expected. This is actually a helpful outcome, as it breaks the puzzle into smaller pieces.
Summary of Results
The following table as of May 25, 2004 sumarises the genetic diversity. The names are grouped into families, that is the DNA matches but there is no paper trail yet to a common ancestor.
Luke Crumpton may be the ancestor of P. T Crumpton, but James M. Compton most likely converges to a common ancestor no sooner than the late 1600s. Henry Crumpton has a well documented line back into the 1600s but the DNA results are not yet back for him.
Thomas Compton and Ralph Compton are more closely related to each other than to anybody else in any database.
John Compton actually has ancestry documented for several more generations, but DNA validated this expected relationship between two of our members.
Aquilla Compton has DNA different from John Compton as some have determined, a second matching kit will validate this is not the case DNA-wize.
Name of earliest common ancestorBirth DateBirth Location# of kits
Luke Crumptonb. abt 1760Greenville Dist, SC2
P. T. Crumptonb. abt 1856Ponotoc, MS1
James M. Comptonb. 1810Laurens Co, SC1
Henry Crumptonb. abt 1730VA to Fairfield, SC1
Thomas Comptonb. abt 1754England to SC1
Ralph Comptonb. 1779Laurens Co, SC1
John Comptonb. 1725Amelia, VA2
ReubenArchibald
Aquilla Comptonb. 1724St Mary’s, Frederick, MD1
William Comptonb. 1767VA1
James Comptonb. 1798NC1
Detailed discussion
There are two participants whose DNA matches identically at 37 out of 37 markers (37/37). The problem is that there is so very little documentation to corroborate the DNA evidence of a near common ancestor. A third test is about to report, a match there will further refine the next search direction for the correct paper trail. Since the existing paper trail seems to converge in South Carolina from MS and AL, any evidence of other Compton lines in these regions would help limit the possible candidates. For example there are two other unique DNA test results that are dramatic mismatches to the Luke Compton Clan. But the Compton lines of these are documented through SC. So all the Compton’s associated with these families could not possibly be part of Luke Crumpton Clan.
The participant representing Thomas Compton (b. abt. 1754, England) compiled an extensive genealogy that shows a large presence of this Compton family in SC in the second half of the 1700s. Through multiple circumstantial evidences, it was thought that Ralph Compton (b. 1779, SC) could be a son of Thomas Compton. DNA results proved that to be unlikely. Ralph Compton’s father would be contemporary with Thomas and Luke, all in South Carolina in neighboring counties, but all unique DNA-lines. Since each family line should be validated by at least two tests additional candidates related through Thomas and Ralph are being asked to participate.
The Aquilla Compton (b. 1724, MD) line is well known and documented. His children were raised in North Carolina, Many of them stayed in NC through the end of the 1700s. One participant has results back. These results do not match any of the SC Compton families. There is another Aquilla descendant who has DNA in for testing and results will be back by the end of June, 2004.
Two others came back a (25/25) match. Their common ancestor was determined to be John Compton (b. 1725, Amelia, VA). These match through two different sons of John, Reuben and Archibald. Additional son names are Caleb, Joshua, Joel, Michajah, Richard, Jeremiah, Zachariah, and John. It would be good to obtain testing results from cousins through each one of these sons. Obtaining exact matches would prove the correct placement of these sons into the John Compton (b. 1725) family.
There are two other participants. They are not related to each other or to any of the other families in the study to date. This is what one had to say:
I've had no 12 or 25 yDNA matches yet but am still hopeful that other Compton searchers will enter the DNA testing and perhaps get a match.
My brick wall is William Compton b. 1767 VA, died 1846 Nashville, TN., married Susannah Mullen, 1799, Nashville.
This is what the other had to say:
farthest Compton found....
James COMPTON b. about 1798 NC
died about 185?-6? LA.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Each conclusion must be established by at least two DNA tests. That there are so many potentially validated Compton lines indicates the number of participants must increase. The following summary table shows the common ancestor and the number of participants used in validation. For each ancestor with less than two participants, an additional candidate must be recruited. One of two things will occur, either of which will move the project forward. First, the two results would match establishing a validated Compton line by providing a second set of results. Second, the new test results do not match any of the other results, thus establishing a new potential Compton line. By continuing this process over time the odds of being part of a unique Compton line diminishes and the opportunity to contribute to further documenting an existing Compton family increases. If the foundation of establishing DNA validated unique Compton lines can be fashioned, the dilemmas presented in the Colonial South of the 1700s can be sorted through. After that, additional testing will clearly identify a participant with one of the previously validated Compton lines.
February 13, 2004
To appreciate what is learned with an exact Y-DNA match, it is helpful to know what is learned by non-matching results. When Y-DNA results do not
match it is absolutely certain that there is not a near common paternal line ancestor. For example, research showed that it was plausible that Thomas Crumpton (m. Rachael) could be a common ancestor between two members of the FamilyTreeDNA Compton/Crumpton Surname Reconstruction Project. Upon comparing the markers it was clear that they did not match, thus proving that the two participants did not share a common paternal line ancestor.
The plausible assertion of Thomas Crumpton was proven false. There will never be a common paternal line ancestor between participants with non-matching DNA. These mismatches always guide researchers to focus on separate lines.
Exact matches and close matches on the other hand indicate that the lines cannot be proven to be unique. When other evidence, such as similar surnames or proximity in time and location of a plausible common ancestor, accompanies an exact match it is guidance that this plausible common ancestor should be investigated to its fullest. The DNA analysis did not prove them to be unrelated.
This surname project has results for three participants: Two exact matches and one clear mismatch. Ralph Compton (b. 1779 Laurens, South Carolina) is the ancestor of the non-matching Y-DNA test, and therefore not related to either James M. Compton (b. 1810 Laurens, South Carolina) or Luke Crumpton (b. 1760 Greenville, SC). These last two are the ancestors of the two participants with matching Y-DNA.
Since the number of matched markers is an indication of probable nearness of a common ancestor, the participants with matching Y-DNA have opted to upgrade to the 37-marker test. Exact matches at this refined level would indicate a high probability of a common paternal ancestor in the 1700s.
As more men join the Compton/Crumpton Surname Reconstruction Project it is expected that the matching and non-matching DNA results will further refine the ancestral picture by isolating and highlighting potential common paternal lines. Although the present analysis is for South Carolina,participation has already expanded. Test kits of two additional participants are at the lab and will be reported on as soon as results are in. Men from all nations and of all Compton/Crumpton spellings are wanted in this surname reconstruction project to enable the complete resolution of all Compton/Crumpton lines.
Luke and James M. are related, but most likely do not have a common ancestor until the 1600s (9 generations).
Henry, Thomas, and Ralph are loosely related to each other, and likely not have a common ancestor until the 1400s.
These two groups of Compton families moved to SC and lived within 100 miles of each other. All Compton/Crumptons who's ancestors did not pass through SC, have results that differ from the SC DNA marker signatures. It should be noted that the two SC groups have DNA signatures that are dramatically different from each other.
It can be concluded that any DNA match or near match to these SC lines, for a participant who does not have a documented ancestry, should look to the group of SC families that he matches for potential ancestry first. For example, one participant with documentation back to only the 1860s, matches exactly with Luke Crumpton. This is a 37/37 match!! He should be looking seriously at Luke as a common ancestor.
Luke Crumpton b. abt 1760 Greenville Dist, SC
James M. Compton b. 1810 Laurens Co, SC
Henry Crumpton b. abt 1730 VA to Fairfield, SC
Thomas Compton b. abt 1754 England to SC
Ralph Compton b. 1779 Laurens Co, SC
Introduction
When the Compton Surname Reconstruction project was started in November 2003, it was with the hope that a small set of common ancestors would be isolated. Each unique Compton line would be definitively grouped and associated with a common paternal ancestor. As new candidates have joined, a surprisingly high number of unique lines have emerged. DNA-wise, there are more unique Compton lines than originally expected. This is actually a helpful outcome, as it breaks the puzzle into smaller pieces.
Summary of Results
The following table as of May 25, 2004 sumarises the genetic diversity. The names are grouped into families, that is the DNA matches but there is no paper trail yet to a common ancestor.
Luke Crumpton may be the ancestor of P. T Crumpton, but James M. Compton most likely converges to a common ancestor no sooner than the late 1600s. Henry Crumpton has a well documented line back into the 1600s but the DNA results are not yet back for him.
Thomas Compton and Ralph Compton are more closely related to each other than to anybody else in any database.
John Compton actually has ancestry documented for several more generations, but DNA validated this expected relationship between two of our members.
Aquilla Compton has DNA different from John Compton as some have determined, a second matching kit will validate this is not the case DNA-wize.
Name of earliest common ancestorBirth DateBirth Location# of kits
Luke Crumptonb. abt 1760Greenville Dist, SC2
P. T. Crumptonb. abt 1856Ponotoc, MS1
James M. Comptonb. 1810Laurens Co, SC1
Henry Crumptonb. abt 1730VA to Fairfield, SC1
Thomas Comptonb. abt 1754England to SC1
Ralph Comptonb. 1779Laurens Co, SC1
John Comptonb. 1725Amelia, VA2
ReubenArchibald
Aquilla Comptonb. 1724St Mary’s, Frederick, MD1
William Comptonb. 1767VA1
James Comptonb. 1798NC1
Detailed discussion
There are two participants whose DNA matches identically at 37 out of 37 markers (37/37). The problem is that there is so very little documentation to corroborate the DNA evidence of a near common ancestor. A third test is about to report, a match there will further refine the next search direction for the correct paper trail. Since the existing paper trail seems to converge in South Carolina from MS and AL, any evidence of other Compton lines in these regions would help limit the possible candidates. For example there are two other unique DNA test results that are dramatic mismatches to the Luke Compton Clan. But the Compton lines of these are documented through SC. So all the Compton’s associated with these families could not possibly be part of Luke Crumpton Clan.
The participant representing Thomas Compton (b. abt. 1754, England) compiled an extensive genealogy that shows a large presence of this Compton family in SC in the second half of the 1700s. Through multiple circumstantial evidences, it was thought that Ralph Compton (b. 1779, SC) could be a son of Thomas Compton. DNA results proved that to be unlikely. Ralph Compton’s father would be contemporary with Thomas and Luke, all in South Carolina in neighboring counties, but all unique DNA-lines. Since each family line should be validated by at least two tests additional candidates related through Thomas and Ralph are being asked to participate.
The Aquilla Compton (b. 1724, MD) line is well known and documented. His children were raised in North Carolina, Many of them stayed in NC through the end of the 1700s. One participant has results back. These results do not match any of the SC Compton families. There is another Aquilla descendant who has DNA in for testing and results will be back by the end of June, 2004.
Two others came back a (25/25) match. Their common ancestor was determined to be John Compton (b. 1725, Amelia, VA). These match through two different sons of John, Reuben and Archibald. Additional son names are Caleb, Joshua, Joel, Michajah, Richard, Jeremiah, Zachariah, and John. It would be good to obtain testing results from cousins through each one of these sons. Obtaining exact matches would prove the correct placement of these sons into the John Compton (b. 1725) family.
There are two other participants. They are not related to each other or to any of the other families in the study to date. This is what one had to say:
I've had no 12 or 25 yDNA matches yet but am still hopeful that other Compton searchers will enter the DNA testing and perhaps get a match.
My brick wall is William Compton b. 1767 VA, died 1846 Nashville, TN., married Susannah Mullen, 1799, Nashville.
This is what the other had to say:
farthest Compton found....
James COMPTON b. about 1798 NC
died about 185?-6? LA.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Each conclusion must be established by at least two DNA tests. That there are so many potentially validated Compton lines indicates the number of participants must increase. The following summary table shows the common ancestor and the number of participants used in validation. For each ancestor with less than two participants, an additional candidate must be recruited. One of two things will occur, either of which will move the project forward. First, the two results would match establishing a validated Compton line by providing a second set of results. Second, the new test results do not match any of the other results, thus establishing a new potential Compton line. By continuing this process over time the odds of being part of a unique Compton line diminishes and the opportunity to contribute to further documenting an existing Compton family increases. If the foundation of establishing DNA validated unique Compton lines can be fashioned, the dilemmas presented in the Colonial South of the 1700s can be sorted through. After that, additional testing will clearly identify a participant with one of the previously validated Compton lines.
February 13, 2004
To appreciate what is learned with an exact Y-DNA match, it is helpful to know what is learned by non-matching results. When Y-DNA results do not
match it is absolutely certain that there is not a near common paternal line ancestor. For example, research showed that it was plausible that Thomas Crumpton (m. Rachael) could be a common ancestor between two members of the FamilyTreeDNA Compton/Crumpton Surname Reconstruction Project. Upon comparing the markers it was clear that they did not match, thus proving that the two participants did not share a common paternal line ancestor.
The plausible assertion of Thomas Crumpton was proven false. There will never be a common paternal line ancestor between participants with non-matching DNA. These mismatches always guide researchers to focus on separate lines.
Exact matches and close matches on the other hand indicate that the lines cannot be proven to be unique. When other evidence, such as similar surnames or proximity in time and location of a plausible common ancestor, accompanies an exact match it is guidance that this plausible common ancestor should be investigated to its fullest. The DNA analysis did not prove them to be unrelated.
This surname project has results for three participants: Two exact matches and one clear mismatch. Ralph Compton (b. 1779 Laurens, South Carolina) is the ancestor of the non-matching Y-DNA test, and therefore not related to either James M. Compton (b. 1810 Laurens, South Carolina) or Luke Crumpton (b. 1760 Greenville, SC). These last two are the ancestors of the two participants with matching Y-DNA.
Since the number of matched markers is an indication of probable nearness of a common ancestor, the participants with matching Y-DNA have opted to upgrade to the 37-marker test. Exact matches at this refined level would indicate a high probability of a common paternal ancestor in the 1700s.
As more men join the Compton/Crumpton Surname Reconstruction Project it is expected that the matching and non-matching DNA results will further refine the ancestral picture by isolating and highlighting potential common paternal lines. Although the present analysis is for South Carolina,participation has already expanded. Test kits of two additional participants are at the lab and will be reported on as soon as results are in. Men from all nations and of all Compton/Crumpton spellings are wanted in this surname reconstruction project to enable the complete resolution of all Compton/Crumpton lines.