Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2003-01 > 1041547190


From: "Jack Goins" <>
Subject: Re: [Melungeon] Re: Melungeon-D Digest V02 #1034
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:39:50 -0500
References: <13.164c8c3b.2b45da18@aol.com> <001c01c2b293$1fc5f980$799a6444@nv.cox.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Maggard <>
To: <>
> It wouldn't prove much to the other half; however, the situation is really
> not that bleak because the commonly used definitions are not disjoint. As
a
> practical matter, there are some historical people all authorities
recognize
> as having been Melungeons and the narrow definitions are lesser included
> definitions to the broader ones. So, we start by looking at the DNA
results
> tracing back to the Melungeons everyone agrees on; that tells something
> about Melungeon origins no matter which definition we use.
> Then we test the DNA tracing back to people we don't all accept as having
been Melungeons.
> If it's dissimilar, that would suggest the narrower definition is the more
> useful definition; if it's similar, that would suggest the broader
> definition might be the more useful definition. In that way DNA evidence
> might shed light on which definition is more useful. But it is not a
matter
> of who is right and who is wrong; it is, quite literally, a matter of
> definition.

#### The only way to have a legitimate DNA test worth it's salt is to use
the method
the Mormons use, they require a five generation pedigree chart. Then
families could use
that to find relatives, but if you are not to lazy you can find them through
genealogy. DNA
is useless when trying to prove you are a Melungeon. For example if we had
ole Vardy Collins
bones and run these test. He would no doubt have common ancestors who never
came to American, so I guess they would be Melungeon. If the Melungeons are
a culture
like Brent says then everybody born and raised in Appalachia is a Melungeon.

Anyone who can trace 3 or 4 family surnames back to colonial times and
follow them using land and tax records can see they were mixed with all
those nationalities who were in their company. They married who every was
available in their group. The race they were most concerned with was the one
who scalped them. You know I hate to admit this I have a record where my 6th
generation grandfather Abraham Bledsoe was paid 5 schillings for 2 Indian
scalps, so much for the Indians starting that procedure.
Looking at those old records can you believe this: Marion Nugent's Cavaliers
and Pioneers, these old land patents and and grants tells who ever will read
them that a vast number of indentured servants were not English. John a
"Frenchman" in Lancaster County, 16 June 1662 (Vol 1, p, 437) and "Patrick a
Highlander" in Rappahannock County Jan 9, 1662 page 440, "Peter a
Frenchman listed with "Ned a Welchman" page 536. Then you have the Celts Ven
Cunagky, Morkun Chunaghan, Moragha Donell, Brin Grangrave, Don Grecheare,
William Brovek and Teague Neoly just to name a few page 306, then on page
338 you have John a Irishman and William an Irishman of Nansemond County 5
Oct 1658, Now can you believe this the EXOTIC; "Tony an EastIndian" and Tony
a Turk both on page 24. Now you can see the mix on documented records, so
the Exotic found by Dr. Jones did not surprise me one iota. Now picture all
this crowd coming west, so yes the records prove we are mixed, those of us
who have foreparents back prior to the Revolutionary war. I have six
g,g,g,g,g, Grandfathers that I can prove were in the Revolutionary War, two
were at Yorktown at the surrender of Cornwallis. I am probably all of the
above plus an Indian or two, but none of this makes anyone including me a
Melungeon. Who are the Melungeons? I answer this by the same documented
records, ask yourself this simple question. Why are we discussing Melungeons
today? Jack






This thread: