Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2003-01 > 1041555107


From: "Dennis Maggard" <>
Subject: Re: [Melungeon] Re: Melungeon-D Digest V02 #1034
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 19:51:47 -0500
References: <13.164c8c3b.2b45da18@aol.com> <001c01c2b293$1fc5f980$799a6444@nv.cox.net> <008101c2b2af$ddacb760$649650d8@main>


From: "Jack Goins" <>

> 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.

Since this is directed at me, I'll say again what I've said many times
before here: there is no DNA test for "Melungeoness" and that was not the
pupose of Dr. Jones' DNA study, which was a population study.

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.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If you accept the proposition that the
Melungeons formed a kinship group, it clearly did not encompass everybody
born and raised in Appalachia. On the other hand, that kinship group was
certainly larger than just those people explicitly identified in writing as
being Melungeons. Where you draw the line as to how much of the larger
kinship group you consider to have been Melungeons is a matter of
definition.

> 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

I think one very interesting thing that has been learned in the last ten
years, or was actually known before but has now been brought more clearly
into focus, is just how much "exotic" ancestry walked off the boats at
Jamestown. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I believe that all Southern
Appalachian families dating to before the Revolutionary War share that
ancestry, nor am I convince they are all share black and Indian ancestry.
Whether or not the Melungeons, as a population, had a distinctive ancestry,
is something DNA analysis should be able to tell us. The preliminary results
suggests they did, but that is certainly subject to further research.

Dennis

This thread: