Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2002-06 > 1024605775


From: "Jim Bowery" <>
Subject: Re: [Melungeon] Melungeon DNA Study Results
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:43:02 -0700
References: <76.1e0b83c2.2a437c04@aol.com>


Dogmatically presupposing a taxonomy isn't the way science advances.
"Melungeons" is a taxonomic term with historic roots that has its associated
limitations. If the data support multiple origins for people called
"Melungeons" then perhaps the proper statement isn't that "hard liners" are
wrong, but that the historic roots of the definition are correct -- it is
the attempt to avoid a more complex taxonomy, by lumping everyone that
happens to appear a bit swarthier than the surrounding populations under the
category of "Melungeon", that is erroneous. What if, for example, all the
theories are correct: There are people of the classic "triracial" origin,
there are people of Southwest Asian origin, etc. and all of them happened to
end up being labeled "Melungeons" for the not very good historic reason that
no one knew what else to call them but they had to call them something?

There are sound ways of proceeding to check the taxonomy and of constructing
more complex and more accurate taxonomies. Standard statistical procedures
should suffice.

----- Original Message -----
From: <>


> I oppose very strongly the definitions of "hard liner". I have always
> acknowledged that Melungeons are capable of having multiple ethnic DNA.
But
> I maintain that Melungeons ORIGINATED in the early to mid 17th century in
> tidewater Virginia as northern Europeans intermarried with West Africans
and
> native Americans of the Atlantic seaboard of the eastern US. I have
> repeatedly and constantly said that Turks, Portuguese, Spaniards, or
anyone
> else under the sun could have LATER merged with these Melungeon ancestors.
> If I am being lumped as a "hard liner" I protest.
...

This thread: