Melungeon-L Archives

Archiver > Melungeon > 2007-03 > 1173025144


From: "ERIC GOETHE" <>
Subject: Re: [MELUNGEON] The Meluneons - According to Joanne
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:19:04 -0500
References: <030320071630.7295.45E9A2AF000D38D800001C7F22007340760104049A96960A9F@comcast.net><4j9ju25jkik5k6j8bderfvh34too1tfpsn@4ax.com><7b8bf84c0703031254r5d518e73s9bad86515527b8a9@mail.gmail.com><c3bku2prtvrea51mt2qng97cja9nh7urji@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <c3bku2prtvrea51mt2qng97cja9nh7urji@4ax.com>


Dennis and Don,
I am sorry if I came off as combative, that was in no way my intent. My
goal was simply this- to lay out in a digestable way for members who do not
understand how to interpret DNA evidence exactly what IS KNOWN up to this
point.

This in no way precludes future evidence arising, but MR. Goins has pretty
courageously developed a lot of information available right now. I have
seen people here getting sidetracked on ancient court cases, and speculation
from early mountaineers who told a newspaper-man what they heard about
`newmans ridge melungeons` and all of this may be historically interesting
from a bystanders viewpoint, but it is far from the most convincing evidence
available.

In the interest of fairness and (my own) total disclosure, I will give you
what I believe is the best evidence for some portugese involvement, at some
point, with *SOME* of the ancestors of the Newmans Ridge colony (but
probably not direct ancestry), and it comes out of Mr. Jack Goins
*already* accumulated
DNA evidence.

In one sample Mr. Goins collected, the participant was projected as an
``L``. This is found often in India and Pakistan but also in *Sri Lanka*.
The early portugese explorers set up posts at intervals along the coast of
India, and set up a base on Sri Lanka. The ``L`` is just *too* unusual to
ignore*,* it really should *not* be found among North American early
settlers*.* It *cannot* be easily explained in a small random sample of
african or british isles dna types expected in that area during settlement,
and must be viewed in the conext of the portugese - melungeon legend. I
would get that person SNP tested as soon as possible to be certain that is
what you really have, but even a cursory veiwing of the few `L` Y-dna
samples at FT-DNA here,...

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-L/

..Shows that your `L` individual is most similar to the L2b individuals,
many of whom are portugese surnamed, unlike the other clades of `L` in the
study that have no portugese surnames. We know that the Dutch invasion of
coastal Sri Lanka caused the sinhalese allied with the portugese to flee
inland- maybe some of them also made it through portugese shipping lanes to
the new world?

http://lakdiva.org/codrington/chap08.html

These folks, unlike Brazil bound african slaves, would have
been culturally portugese with portugese language skills altough likely not
that ethnically intermixed if they are stil carrying the ``L`` paternal
haplotype.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Burghers

Those, in America, who were travelling and/or intermarrying with the `L`
y-dna carrying, portugese speaking sinhalese (sri lankans) would possibly
adopt the tale of portugese ancestry that had been offered by the
genetically Sri Lankan , but cuturally portugese, parents of their wife or
son. The Sri Lankans would have the straight black hair but nearly
african dark skin, coupled with the non-african, fine facial features often
reported in Melungeons. These folks, although they never had set foot in
Portugal would be telling the truth that they came from a culture which was
for all intents and purposes, portugese.

Even if this turns out to be the case however, this `L` carrying gentleman
appears to be a remant, at this point. I would assume it more likely that
the ongoing, generational `portugese` explanantion was `borrowed` by those
intermarrying / interacting with the Sri Lankans, but carrying european or
african y-dna. The portugese were meticulous record keepers as it directly
impacted on their profits. I would would think some records of the
evacuation of Sri lanki would be archived, unfortunately probably in
Portugal.





On 3/3/07, Dennis Maggard <> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:54:17 -0500, ERIC GEOTHE wrote:
>
> [A lot of stuff]
>
> Eric, I don't substantially disagree with you. As you can perhaps
> tell by the way Joanne bristled at me, I have long maintained that
> Melungeons had black ancestry, going back to the time before there was
> DNA evidence to support that assertion. However, your combative,
> "they were black, so stop talking about Portuguese" tone is one side
> of what I was trying to get at in my exchange with Joanne. (The other
> side being to dismiss or minimize black ancestry just because they
> said they were Portuguese.)
>
> >*To get to Dennis` argument*, you have to ignore the FACT that virtually
> all
> >of these `melungeons` he refers to as of `black` origin are already
> heavily
> >intermixed-mullatto-caucasian to begin with, FROM the early times of
> >relocation to east tenessee, etc. Most if not all input from that time
> to
> >today is virtually all scots-irish or english.
>
> I'm not so sure of that, but...
>
> >If you consider that you are only 50% biologically related your own full
> >sibling today, 12.5% related to your own full cousin in your own
> generation,
> >and extrapolate that out from a relatedness standpoint, either of these
> two
> >arguments leads you back to the same place. Whatever admixture there may
> >have been in some cases now being lumped into the same `tent` as
> >`Melungeons`, the subsequent genreations are largely no different than
> the
> >surrounding society unless reinforced by continuing admixture.
>
> ...I think that's essentially true.
>
> >Thus, any claim to portugese nationality, indian, black ancestry, is at
> this
> >many generations removed, a TINY portion of most folks overall personal
> >ancestry.
>
> Of course it is, but do note that Joanne and I were discussing
> Melungeons of nearly two centuries ago. They were then much closer to
> their black and Indian roots. Any Portuguese ancestry, however, would
> have been a century and a half in the past even then.
>
> > In relation to its proportion of your current personal ancestral
> >origins, its basically a footnote. Not something to reject or dispell,
> but
> >THIS is the important point, not something to unduly fixate on either.
>
> I basically agree, but Portuguese or, perhaps a bit more likely,
> Spanish ancestry may have been important at the founding of the
> Melungeon core group along with black and Indian ancestry which
> continued to be replenished in the Melungeon gene pool into the 19th
> century where Portuguese or Spanish, or whatever, was not.
>
> > If
> >you have significant personal black or native indian ancestry, you
> already
> >know it, probably visibly. If you are largely caucausian with some
> >ancestors who likely have some non-caucasian elements, then you are...
> not
> >much different than every european who has never left european soil.
>
> As I've always said, Scots Irish is as valid and important a Melungeon
> ancestry as any other.
>
> >Many thanks to one of the true scholars I have seen on ths list, Mr Jack
> >Goins, for his web site, from which all the following information is
> >presented....
>
> Jack has indeed done good work.
>
> >*TO the FACTS-*
>
> You know, you aren't the only person in the world who cares about
> facts. Ironically enough, Joanne does this same "I'm a serious
> researcher (and you're not) so I (unlike you) only care about facts"
> number, and it's equally annoying when she does it.
>
> >But... It is also a fact that as an individuals, most of these folks are
> >primarily caucasian, and of a caucasian phenotype, with a vast majority
> of
> >caucasian ancestors. Could someone have been portugese?... never say
> never,
> >BUT the DNA proves african admixture.
>
> I agree that DNA supports black Melungeon ancestry while
> Portuguese/Mediterranean ancestry remains conjectural....
>
> > Those generations eager to profess
> >portugese ancestry never acknowlegded african ancestry, although we know
> its
> >in those lines. This *has* to cast doubt on the veracity on the
> >``portugese`` claim.
>
> ...but I think you do a disservice to 19th century Melungeons here.
> There is ample evidence that they truly believed -- and many around
> them believed -- that they had Portuguese ancestry, whether they
> really did or not. Therefore, it was not just a cover story 19th
> century Melungeons concocted as a way of denying black ancestry,
> although it was used for that purpose.
>
> You have to ask yourself if they would have had such a belief and
> maintained it for generations had there not been something to it as
> some point in the past. I think it's certainly possible, and if true,
> I think it would be a matter of importance to Melungeon history no
> matter how diluted it was by the mid 19th century, let alone today.
> Indeed, it *might* have been the seminal event in the formation of the
> Melungeon core group not matter how slight its genetic imprint on
> Melungeons descents is today.
>
> Then again, it might not, and it might just have been a figment of
> someone's imagination. The burden of proof is on Joanne, but don't
> dismiss the possibility and its importance out of hand just because we
> now know -- thanks to DNA -- that they had substantial black ancestry.
> And don't forget their Indian ancestry either.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> MELUNGEON Mailing List Archives:
>
> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=melungeon
>
> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Ethnic-Mixed/Melungeon.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9ev8a
>
> http://www.jgoins.com/
>
> For list problems contact Janet Crain at:
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: