GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-06 > 1056935543
From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] mixed Creek
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:12:23 EDT
In a message dated 6/29/03 5:50:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
writes:
> What is your evidence for this? If it's DNA Print results, that's just
> circular reasoning, isn't it?
>
Steve,
I was probably one of the first people on this list to say the DNA Print was
useless. I think you and I are in agreement on that. I've never had one done
even though I spent thousands of dollars on DNA testing on all four on my major
lines. My knowledge of the intermarriage comes from reading about contact
between Europeans and the indigenous tribes in the Southeast.
I actually started this research years ago because my great-grandmother was
named Dorah Francisco Middleton, born in AL, 1867.
Do you ever wonder why people think they are part Cherokee but rarely think
they are part Mohawk or part Cree? It is because the colonial English did not
intermarry as often as the early Scot traders.
Maybe the English in the colonies brought their wives. The tribes in the
Southeast adopted blacks and whites. They took on English names. By the time of
the Trail of Tears the chief of the Cherokee nation was 3/4 Scot. I just take
exception to your blanket statement that there was not much intermarriage in the
US.
Grant Johnston
This thread: