Showing posts with label Brent Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brent Kennedy. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Ground Breaking or Pandora's Box ?

Sometimes I have to chuckle when I come across what I consider foolishness, concerning the people who were called Melungeon. It's usually on the internet and usually written by non descendants.

I just ran across this on a blog where the blogger states " While there was a boom in Melungeon-related nonfiction for about ten years after Brent Kennedy’s groundbreaking 1994 study, for several years now the great majority of new books about Melungeons have been fiction."

Groundbreaking ? The only 'Groundbreaking' that was done was to open a Pandora's box of unproven theory's , myths, poor genealogy and  misinformation.

After making this 'groundbreaking' statement, this blogger goes on to 'praise' an unproven theory, the newest 'fad' now popular with both the self identified 'one size fit all Melungeons' , and the 'Melungeon hunters'.  "Don't confuse me with facts" , theory should be stated as such, not as fact.  Read here: Theory

Update 6/18/2016 : This article has been scrubbed.

A message to this blogger....as Mahala Collins Mullins descendant, Jim Callahan states:
"History is being made with each new distortion. It behooves all those who respect history and their heritage to make every effort to control efforts of those who purposely or inadvertently exploit a proud people for their own self aggrandizement."

Back to Mr. Kennedy's book,which was printed in 3 different editions:

The Resurrection of a Proud People, An Untold Story of Ethnic Cleansing in America
Published by Mercer University Press; Macon, Georgia   published in 1994,1996, 1997

There have been several reviews written pertaining to Mr. Kennedy's book, I blogged about a few
of them, click on this link and find out how to go about reading them online:
JSTOR and The Appalachian Journal , Good Tools

The first review of this book was written by Virginia Easley DeMarce, Ph.D.. Please read it below.
Mr. Kennedy did respond to this review, which I will post at another time.


Review Essay: The Melungeons

By Virginia Easley DeMarce, Ph.D.

The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People. An Untold Story of Ethnic Cleansing in America

By N. Brent Kennedy, with Robyn Vaughan Kennedy.

Published by Mercer University Press; Macon, GA 31210; 1994. xviii,

156 pp. Appendix, illustrations index. Softback, $16.95. 

 
Mercer University Press has placed its imprimatur on a book that attempts to cross the disciplines of anthropology, genealogy, and history with genetics as a periodic refrain. However, the author does not apply the standard methodology of any of these disciplines. Racial prejudice and persecution, as the title implies, are the themes that meld all this together. A chronological leap over several centuries enables the author to propose an exotic ancestry for "200,000 individuals, perhaps.' far more" (p xv)-an ancestry that sweeps in virtually every olive, ruddy, and brown-tinged ethnicity known or alleged to have appeared anywhere in the pre-Civil War Southeastern United States.

Beginning with an account of his diagnosis with erythema nodosum sarcoidosis, a rare, serious medical problem to which certain ethnic groups are prone-Kennedy presents a deeply felt account of his immediate family. However, nothing indicates that he investigated whether this medical problem has appeared elsewhere in the extended families who descend from his ancestors or, if it does occur in a pattern, in which line(s).1

Any study centered upon genetics and ethnicity should solidly document all genealogical data and links. Yet Kennedy offers no evidence, not even census records. He outlines an ancestry that centers in the Virginia counties of Wise, Russell, and Scott, and the Kentucky counties of Floyd and Pike. Beyond that, he implies that his forebears are traceable only to the mid-to-late eighteenth century. at which time they were primarily in northwestern North Carolina, (particularly modern Ashe and Yancey Counties) and the region that became Greenbrier and Franklin Counties, Virginia. He arranges his pedigree in a series of "family lines," including (pp. 137-38) one claimed ascent to Pocahontas (which, if accurate, certainly would not have been a basis for social persecution) . 2

The failure to provide documentation makes it difficult to retrace the path by which the author determined his generational links and sorted forebears from others of the same name. This difficulty will deter many readers from the fact checking that good genealogists always perform. Those who do seek actual evidence and those who already have conducted solid research on these lines will be dismayed at the extent of the genealogical errors set forth in so few pages. Similarly, a great deal of unearned trust is expected of students and scholars in other disciplines. This review essay covers four major areas of concern: ethnic identification, prejudice, genealogy, and historical origins. 3

 
ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION

Kennedy does not use the term Melungeon in its anthropological sense-that is, the interlocking families who moved into, existed in, and dispersed from Hawkins and Hancock Counties, Tennessee. Rather, he coins a very loose definition, expanding it to cover essentially all colonial-era Virginians and Carolinians who (in whatever records he consulted) are not clearly stated to be European American or African American. Melungeon thus becomes a catchall description for dark- skinned individuals whose ancestry does not seem to be sub-Saharan African-as well as their lighter-skinned relatives and descendants, whom he presents as subjects of racial prejudice. The manner in which numerous individuals are "deduced" to be Melungeon is troubling. By surmising a connection when he cannot show it, he makes "Melungeons" of numerous frontier families whose ancestry appears to be wholly northern European, including those whose known origin is Scotch-Irish or German. Typical cases are the Ritchies (pp.23-24), Hutchinsons (p.27), Kennedys and Hornes (pp. 66-68), Powerses and Alleys (pp.69-70), and Counts, Jessees, and Kisers (pp.77-79). In discussing an unproved line of descent from Edward "Ned" Sizemore, a central figure in the famous attempt to cash in on early-twentieth-century Eastern Cherokee claims awards (p.56), Kennedy ignores extensive testimony indicating that Sizemore descendants were, for social and legal purposes, a white family claiming Indian ancestry not Melungeons or free nonwhites. 4

Illustrative of the problem is Kennedy's analysis of William Roberson's ethnicity, which strongly suggests inexperience in genealogical and historical research. Because this Revolutionary War veteran supposedly said he was Scotch-Irish and from London, and because his name is variously spelled as Robertson, Robinson, and Robeson, Kennedy concludes the man was a Melungeon who purposefully obscured his true origins. "Surely, if William . . . really did come from England, Scotland, or Ireland, he would have known how to spell his last name.... [His] early meandering in [the Carolinas] undoubtedly plac[ed] him within the geographical region ... known as 'Robeson' county. Could William I have 'borrowed' his surname from the name of the county?" (pp.25-26). Coincidentally, Kennedy proceeds to state that Roberson's son married the first cousin of President Andrew Jackson. Obviously, in his historical studies, Kennedy has not encountered Jackson's declaration that he "could never respect a man who knew only one way to spell a word."5

Kennedy often refers to the labels fpc (free person of color) and fc (free colored) informing readers that these were maliciously applied by the Scotch-Irish to their Melungeon neighbors in order to "strip the Melungeons of their lands" (p.12), and that "American antebellum census records consistently described those with Indian blood" as fpc (p. 89, italics added). Placing his family into this context, he says "they and we were 'free persons of color"' (p.5). In checking Kennedy's family lines, this reviewer consistently found the opposite-not a single instance in which his named ancestors, from 1790 through 1900, appear in public documents as anything but white. The legal acceptance of these lines as white by local officials contrasts curiously with the author's repeated statements that they were routinely labeled fpc. 6

As frontiersmen and mountaineers, his named ancestors repeatedly appear as white on federal censuses. Their marriages, where separate books were maintained for "white" and "colored," are entered in "white" books.7 In one case, when identifying the father of an out-of-wedlock child as "Melungeon" and "free person of color" (pp. 70-71), Kennedy does refer to a source-but misquotes the work he cites. The book is subtitled Free Black Population of Amherst County, Virginia, and it does mention (in other contexts) Kennedy's claimed ancestor, David S. Garland; but it does not identify' Garland as either Melungeon or fpc. In fact, it specifically indicates that he was white.8

 PREJUDICE

Kennedy alleges, but does not document, systematic, population-wide, race-based persecution of his ancestral families. His introductory assertion that Melungeons were "a people ravaged, and nearly destroyed, by the senseless excesses of racism and genocide" (p. xiii) begs for supporting evidence-as does his contention that Melungeon families were originally large landowners, deprived and marginalized by Scotch-Irish and other northern-European settlers (p.4). Similarly, the author offers no evidence for his statement that "being legally declared a 'Melungeon' meant losing one's land" (p. 125). He does not present one land grant, deed, or court case to show that his claimed Melungeon ancestral lines ever held large tracts of land or that they were deprived of them by whiter settlers. William Roberson is said to have "left Greenbriar County Virginia] at the same time the Melungeons were being 'evicted' "(p.25).
No evidence of any Melungeon eviction is offered In Wise County, Virginia, supposedly, "undesirable land [was] ceded to the Melungeons in exchange for the prime property they had originally held. .... land where the town of Wise now sits (and) the beautiful farm country of the Powell Valley were territories well worth stealing" (p.39). Yet no court suits, deed’s, tax rolls, or land grants are cited. In repeating the family legend that "William Nash III had once owned some 6,000 acres of land, but gambled it away," 9.Kennedy's opinion that it was, instead, "probably taken [from ..... But to cover the truth [of their persecution] the family had to turn William III into an irresponsible reprobate" (pp. 39-40). Again, the author offers none of the court or land records or newspaper notices of public sales that genealogists routinely cite in cases such as this.

Echoing a theme popular with some writers on Southern minorities, Kennedy contends (p.14 and elsewhere) that records are scarce because persecution caused Melungeon families to "avoid" census takers and other public officials. 10. That assertion is difficult to support in this instance, because many records concerning his ancestral families are readily available. Genealogists of all families suffer lacunae in the records, but most failures to find evidence can be overcome by applying improved research skills. Kennedy is not precise in his discussion of public laws. For example, he states that "by 1834 Melungeons had been stripped of most rights of citizenship in both Tennessee and North Carolina" (p.15) and that "Sarah [Adkins] and husband John Bennett left North Carolina with their children in the late 1830's, about the time that North Carolina declared Melungeons to be 'free persons of color"' (p.46, italics added).


North Carolina never "declared Melungeons" to be free persons of color; nor did a Tennessee statute single out Melungeons for persecution. Statutes did restrict the rights of persons who were legally classed as free persons of color; but the 1830s definition of that class, in both states, was the same definition established in the 1700s. In Tennessee, state law limited the term to those whose parent or grand-parent was a full-blooded Indian or Negro (i.e., descent to the third degree). North Carolina's law extended it to "all Negroes, Indians, and mulattos.... to the fourth generation, inclusive" (i.e., individuals with one-eighth-degree Negro or Indian ancestry). The laws of the 1830s did not affect farnilies who were legally white, they did not change anyone's classification, and they did not mandate anyone to be legally nonwhite once they passed the point that had been defined in the 1700’s. 11 Similarly, Kennedy reinterprets voting laws. "By a sweep of the judicial pen,,, readers are told, census takers arbitrarily ruled Melungeons to be fpc "and, presto! [they] became legally disenfranchised" (p, 12).12 


Returning later to that theme, Kennedy states that his ancestor Alexander Hall, son of Isham, rose to the rank of captain in the Confederate army but was not permitted to vote because of his status as a "free person of color" (p.33). Yet the 1830 census of Russell County, Virginia, labels Isham Hall white. 13 By the 1850 enumeration, Alexander had become a head of household-white, as were his wife, children, father, and father's family.14 Alexander's future son-in-law, Wickliffe Hendricks Nash, who also saw Confederate service (p.33), was similarly counted as white, both in his father's household in 1860 and in his own household in 1880.15 Kennedy provides no documentation for his statement that "well into the 1900s, the Nashes and Halls were not permitted to vote" (p. 40). If this was the case, the cause needs to be documented, because it does not appear to have been based on their racial classification in the census.16 


 GENEALOGY

Two sections, headed "No Place to Hide," briefly sketch Kennedy's maternal and paternal lines. Some genealogical problems are obvious, even without documentation. Other links, relationships, and conclusions do not withstand fact checking. The following illustrates the types of concerns that genealogists must address before deciding whether to add the author's conclusions to their family records.

Mullin
While writing of his multiple "shot[s] of Old Booker Mullins' genes" (p.73), Kennedy says next to nothing about the man, only that he was born 1762, died .1864, and was "apparently from Franklin County, Virginia" (p 47), 17 a county created in 1785. A variety of records actually exists to track this man and to sort him from numerous other contemporaries of the same name. Tax records that have been conveniently published since 1972 show this Booker to be a 1789 settler of Burks Fork and Greasy Creek of Indian Ridge, in Montgomery County, Virginia 18 (now the county-boundary area between Floyd and Carroll Counties, slightly above the North Carolina line). From here, Booker apparently moved south, as a subsequent census attributes to his son David a circa 1800 birth in North Carolina.19 From there, they trekked westward into Floyd County, Kentucky, where Booker's household is enumerated-as white-in l8lO. 20 . Other early-nineteenth-century censuses and land records (not discussed by Kennedy) place Booker and his grown children in both Floyd and its offshoot counties, Pike and Lawrence. 21 By 1830, this Mullins family had backwashed from eastern Kentucky into southwestern Virginia’s Russell County, where Booker is recorded as a free white male, aged sixty to seventy.22 He last appears, 1860, in Wise County-aged ninety-six, of Virginia birth, and still white.23

A more-serious genealogical problem, for which the evidence apparently confused Kennedy, is the identification of Booker's wife. She is said by Kennedy (without documentation) to be "Nancy Judith Stanley" in each of the four tables presented on pages 48, 49, 50, and 51. However, the text at page 48 discusses her as "Booker's wife, Nancy Stanley." At page 49, the text comments: "Old Booker may have had a previous marriage, possibly before his marriage to Nancy Stanley. The name Judith Bunch, or Bench, has occasionally been tied to Booker." Virginia's eighteenth- and nineteenth-century marriage records are highly incomplete. 24 Surviving records show that Judith Stanley married one of the several contemporary Booker Mullinses during 1803 in Franklin County, Virginia. However, this is not Kennedy's ancestral couple, because this Booker Mullins is shown consistently on the Franklin County censuses from 1810 through 1860.25 Meanwhile, the Booker Mullins from whom Kennedy descends obviously had married by 1790 or so, because he had a son James) who wed in 1812 and another (Sherwood) who married in 1813. 26

The only evidence this reviewer has found of a Booker Mullins to Nancy {-} marriage is the 1835 union of Booker Mullins, son Sherwood and grandson of "Old Booker," to Nancy Potter in Pike County, Kentucky. 27 Chronology suggests that Kennedy attributed to "Old Booker" born circa 1764 some of the post-1835 children of this younger Booker and Nancy Mullins 28 .There were also at least two, possibly three, other men named Booker Mullins in the area of eastern Kentucky and southwestern Virginia between 1790 and 186O - classed as white, yet another problem relating to the author's genealogical reconstruction of the Mullins family is his statement that the famed Mahala "Big Haley" (Collins) Mullins, of the Hancock County, Tennessee, Melungeons, "married into" the family of his own ancestor's son, Wilson Mullins; and he cited Wilson's birth in 1824 (p.48). Mahala herself was born in 1824; and the 1880 census shows that her husband, John Mullins (whose identity Kennedy appears not to know), was born about 1815. Kennedy does not show a relationship between her husband and his own family line. In any case, John was too old to have been a son of Wilson.

Mullins-Adkins-Hall
Pursuing the Mullinses through the federal censuses also yields evidence that Kennedy did not fully exploit the available sources. His genealogical table for the Hall family (p.36) cites two consecutive Hall-Mullins marriages: Isham Hall I (dates unknown) to Mary Mullins and Isham Hall II (1785-1856) to Jane Mullins. His only statement regarding the origins of either Isham is that the one born 1785 "claimed to be from Greenbriar County, Virginia" (p.30). For ancestor Henry 28 Clyde Runyon, comp., Marriage Bonds of Pike County, Kentucky, 1822-1865 (Belfry, Ky: p.p., 1984), 78, citing file no. 431. 


Kennedy apparently confused the 26-year-old Sherrard [Sherwood] Mullins (wife Anna i.e., Nancy-aged 22), in Booker's 1860 household, with the much-older Sherwood who was Booker's son. Certainly Sherrard and Anna cannot have been the parents of Andrew Jackson "BrandyJack" Mullins, who was born in 1834 (Kennedy, p.50) 29 Two were heads of households on the 1840 cens. of Pike Co., Ky one, age 40-50; another, 20- 30. See Jesse Stewart and Leah Stewart, comps., 1840 Federal Census of Pike County, Kentucky (n.p. n.p., Ca. 1990), 3. The 1850 cens. more fully identifies them as Booker Mullins (age 55, wife Mary; Floyd Co.) and Booker Mullens (age 31, wife Nancy; adjacent Pike Co.). See Barbara, Byron, and Samuel Sistle; 1850 Census, Eastern Ky. Counties of Breathitt, Caner, Floyd, Greenup, Johnson, Lawrence, Letcher, Morgan, Perry, and Pike (Nashville: Byron Sistler and Associates, 1994, 68, 301.

One Booker Mullins married Polly Johnson, daughter of William Johnson, 16 Apffl 1821; see Skeens, Floyd Kentucky, Consent and Marriage Book, p.136. A second Booker wed Polly Newsom, daughter of Harrison Newsom, 5 December 1829; see Runyon, Marriage Bonds of Pike County, 43, file no.235. Subsequently, there appears Booker Mullins Sr., age 68, b. Va., with wife Polly, age 60, b. N.C., on the 1870 U.S. cens., Pike Co., Ky., dist. 9, Robinson Creek, dwell. 26, fam. 26; and Booker Mullins, age 70, with wife Polly, 65, both born in Va., on the 1880 U.S. cens., Pike Co., Ky., 9th precinct, Upper Elkhorn Creek, dwell 16, fam. 16. All listings identify them as white. 30 Gowen Research Foundation, Electronic Library, file GOWENMS.OO2, closed stacks, printout dated 30 March 1996, unpaginated. Available to foundation members via sysop, 806-796-0456. For the foundation, contact Arlee Gowen, 5708 Gary Ave., Lubbock, TX 79413. Mahala Collins was the daughter of Solomon and Virginia Jane "Gincie" (Goins) Collins. Adkins, whose granddaughter married in 1851 the only stated origin is "1700s, North Carolina" (p. 70). Yet the 1850 census of Russell County, Virginia, is more explicit. It is one of the serendipitous enumerations on which the marshal recorded the county of birth for all persons born within the Cornmonwealth. Both Isham Hall and Henry Adkins are assigned a birth in Franklin County, Virginia-the place Kennedy speculates for Booker Mullins.

The Adkins family sketches, brief as they are, have several other problems. Census records state that Stacy was the given name of Wilson Adkins's wife, 32 not the surname, as Kennedy gives it (p. 45). Those census records also place Stacy's and
Wilson's births at circa 1817. Thus, it seems highly questionable that they were the grandparents of John Bennett Jr. who Kennedy says (without documentation) was born in 1836. Likewise, Sarah Jane Adkins, born about 1851, was probably not the great~granddaughter of "Henry Adkins and Sally Bowman" (p.70), because the sixtyfive-year-old Henry did not marry Sally (Bowman) Vance until 1857. 33 The fact that Sarah Jane was in their household in 1860 does not make her Sally's progeny. 34 If the author concludes that the relationship of Henry and Sally predated their marriage, this must be documented.

Colley
There are major problems in Kennedy's presentation of this line. Reconciling them would not only add another generation, but might also alter the direction of the line. Kennedy states that his grandmother, Tessie Colley, was born in 1899 as the daughter of Major Pelham Colley (no dates) and Hester Kiser, and granddaughter of James and Emma (Farrell) Colley (p. 77). Beyond this, he provides an 1815 birth year for Emma Farrell-a point that, if correct, would require Major Colley to be born no later than 1860-65 and easily before then. But Major does not look that old in the 1902 photograph Kennedy includes (p. 80).

A published study of the family reveals that in 1884, James Colley resided in Buchanan County, Virginia, which had been taken from Wise in 1858. The 1880 census of Buchanan identifies "Magor P" Colley as the seven-year-old son of Jasper and Margaret Colley, not James and Emma. Kennedy's claimed James and Emma Colley were in the same magisterial district, but in no census year does their household include a Jasper.

The marriage record of "M. P. Colley and E. H. Kier" confirms that Major's parents were indeed "J. S. and Margaret. "39 In turn, the marriage record for Jasper Colley and Margaret Sutherland, dated 1866, 40 identifies Jasper as a son of John and Anna Colley-not James and Emma. Extensive interviews with Margaret (Sutherland) Colley were published in Sutherland's

Pioneer Recollections of Southern VA. They, and other interviews in the same collection, indicate that in 1879, Jasper S. Colley was elected a delegate to the Virginia state legislature, as a Democrat. 41 That fact stands in marked contrast to Kennedy's statements regarding ethnic prejudice against his forebears.

Jasper's birth occurred, apparently in 1841. 42-making his father, John, too old to have been a son of James and Emma (Farrell) Colley, whose births are placed at circa 1826 by the previously cited censuses. Thus, the issue raised by Kennedy as to whether Emma Farrell's mother was "one of the 'Black Jacksons"' (p.77) is irrelevant to his lineage.

It would appear from the oral histories presented by Southerland that John Colley was a brother of James Hopkins. The Hopkins line is shown with no date - just question marks- for the three generations outlined prior to the birth of the 1899 ancestor (p.54). Yet there is no apparent reason for the omission. The author knew the residential location. A ten-minute check of the 1880 Soundex for Kentucky would have located the family households under consideration and provided at least an approximation of the needed data.© 43

Horne
Various inconsistencies appear in this family line. Kennedy states that Jesse Home supposedly was born in 1777 and Pleasant Horne in 1781, "which would have made him fourteen [sic] at his son's birth" (p.67). Since Kennedy provides no citation to the source of the information on Pleasant Horne's supposed parentage and Jesse Home's supposed age, the reader cannot decide whether the author's math is wrong or whether one of the dates is merely mistyped. However, there is no reason to assume that it represents deliberately "fabricated roots" to hide Melungeon origins (p.67). Pleasant Horne is counted as white on the Russell County censuses of at least 1830, 1850, and 1860, as are all other Horne family members in those counties.


Kiser
In the Kiser family, both generational confusion and incomplete research appear again. Kennedy shows the Reverend Elihu Kiser as a son of Joseph Kiser and Susannah Stacey, for whom he has no dates (p.79). Other, more explicit, family accounts place Elihu Kiser as a son of Abednego and Mary (Jessee) Kiser, and a grandson of Joseph Kiser and Susannah Stacey.45 For the Reverend Abednego Kiser and his wife Margaret Jessee (p.79), another direct ancestral couple, Kennedy's table shows only question marks for years of birth and death-although the couple appears regularly in the census records 46 Miscellaneous Problems Other statements indicate that the author is unaware of common genealogical factors. In addition to the suppositions of racial cover-up because of spelling variation in surnames, Kennedy asserts that Virginia residents marrying in contiguous Kentucky counties in the second half of the nineteenth century did so to avoid Virginia's supposedly more-restrictive miscegenation laws (pp.36-37). However, the published Wise County, Virginia, marriages reveal that the practice of marrying across the state line went both ways;47 and Pike County, Kentucky, marriage bonds indicate that the practice there was shared by many families Kennedy does not classify as "Melungeon." Cross-border marriages are commonly found in the course of genealogical research and often stem from such geographic factors as flooded streams, washed-out bridges, and impassable roads-or the ordinary convenience of an individual family's access to one courthouse over another.

Other errors should have been caught by more-thoughtful proofreading. Dick Colley's wife is said to be Christina (Crissa) Counts in one place and Lucretia "Crissa" Counts just eleven lines later (p. 77) .49 After two listings of "'Preacher' John Hopkin + (wed] Hannah Osborne," a third shows "'Preacher' John Osborne + Hannah Osborne" (pp.54-55). Kennedy states that Ida M. Powers Kennedy "died in childbirth bringing [his] tenacious grandfather into the world." Yet the same page offers a formal family photograph that, the caption says, shows Ida holding this same child-a large baby, already sitting erect (p.72). Kennedy comments that the photograph "shows the tired, battered face of a much older woman than the nineteen-year-old Ida supposedly was, and he attributes this to -the difficulties of Melungeon existence. IIt would seem more logical that the woman was someone else-perhaps a grandmother who helped to rear the children after the young mother's death.

Review Essay: The Melungeons

The index is seriously incomplete, particularly as to personal names of Kennedy 's ancestors. In the sixty pages that comprise the two "genealogy" chapters, the indexing covers only people who are not ancestor with just four exceptions: two Collies who were said to have had military experience earned an index entry, as did two Mullenses, to whose name the word gene is attached. It is inconceivable that the author considers all his forebears less worthy than the pirate Redbeard or El Cid (both of whom merited an entry). The appendix offers several lists of surnames associated with seven well-known triracial groups of the South. The source of the data is not referenced. Some were apparently taken from Gilbert's 1948 Surviving Indian Groups, but a number of other names are added without distinguishing them from those Gilbert documented.


HISTORICAL ORIGINS

Kennedy introduces his thesis (p. xiii) with an identification of Melungeons as a people of apparent Mediterranean descent who may have settled the Appalachian wilderness as early as 1567-some forty years before Jamestown" (p. xiij). In support, he refers to a post-Revolutionary report by John Sevier of a Tennessee settlement of Indians with unusual skin color-although his source for Sevier's account (the first of his often-irrelevant or unreliable footnotes to general history) is a 1963 newspaper write-up. Apparently, he did not consult a dependable version of Sevier's observations. His final two chapters-titled "Genesis: From Whence We Come" and "Putting it All Together"-survey six prevailing theories about Melungeon origins and add more of his own. They also demonstrate a lack of understanding of various cultures about which he writes. From the late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth centuries, to which he traces his family lines (however sloppy the presentation), Kennedy plummets back through time to the eighth century to discuss Spanish Moors, the Ottoman Empire, Turkish naval heroes, and early Portuguese explorers. To bolster the credibility of his proposed connections, he converts the given name of a well-known Melungeon, "Vardy" Collins, to the Arabic Navarrh (p.18), rather than to the solid pioneer Vardeman that the man actually was.51 After two Common British American surnames such as Bell, Collier, Collins, Moore, Osborne, Perry, and Rivers become Spanish and Portuguese. Common Southern given names such as Sylvester, Louisa, and-yes, even Elvis-are offered as evidence of Mediterranean ancestry.

Pursuing this theme, Kennedy contends that Melungeons were named for historic sites in Spain and quotes another confused writer's statement that Spanish and Portuguese settlers in America named children for cities or regions back home (p. 107). To the contrary, Catholic churches and settlements in Catholic countries traditionally have been named for saints; and Catholic canons historically have required that children be given saints' names at baptism. And among early Catholic immigrants to the New World, children commonly were named by and for their godparents, not by parents nostalgic over their own birthplaces. Amid these theories, Kennedy leaps around from Moorish pirates to Sir Walter Raleigh's "lost' colony," to "Moorish French Huguenots," to Berber captives in Brazil-with an excursus to New Amsterdam. Historical accuracy continues to suffer from careless interpretations of events unfamiliar to the author-for example, the assertion that "in the late 1780s [sic} a group of French Acadians escaped from their English captors in South Carolina and disappeared into the Appalachians" (p. 44) That date is three decades after the Acadians were shipped from Nova Scotia and were detained briefly on the beaches of South Carolina. From there, two small bands did escape, during winter and struck out-overland for French settlements in Ohio; only two individuals known have survived the hard trek. To assume that the majority simply abandoned their relatives along the way, to stay with the Indians, is to misunderstand gravely the piously Catholic, tightly intermarried Acadian families. In any event, white Acadians would not add swarthiness to Appalachian.52

In sum, Kennedy seems to conclude that Iberian settlers mingled with the Powhatan~Pamunkey~Moorish [sic] population" of pre- colonial Virginia, then with other racial groups, to create the "Melungeon characteristics of olive, ruddy, and copper- colored skins; blue and brown eyes... and wavy and straight black, as well as reddish-tinted, hair" (p.124). Phoenician seamen, shipwrecked Portuguese, Spanish soldiers, Arabic galley slaves of Sir Francis Drake, and a host of Indian tribes are added to the array of potential although undocumented-Melungeon ancestors. Kennedy also concludes that "tracking the movements of Melungeon families is not .... . we [sic] moved from region to region and intermarried with so many diverse cultures" (p. 142). In no way could his family's frequent migrations be considered out of the ordinary in comparison to other Southern frontier families-and his ancestors were definitely not from obscure or nearly invisible families. Many were prominent early pioneers of Appalachia. Some held public office. And skilled genealogists are demonstrating that the origins of these pioneers are traceable. Several lines have been published in local histories and historical periodicals.53 The sheer size of the families means that properly documented genealogies will be challenging undertakings. However, their region has experienced comparatively little record loss. Sound studies can be accomplished-if one focuses upon actual evidence, rather than exotic, far-flung myths.

The author's theme of ancestral persecution by other community settlers is difficult to uphold. The early families of which he writes were large ones, moving in groups to areas they thickly settled; their numerous children married into other pioneer families of Appalachia. After eliminating the collateral relatives, who was left to oppress them? Kennedy's own accounts of twentieth-century oppressions and slights reveal that members of these families who had risen in social rank were among those who discriminated against those of lesser social rank. The question arises whether the issue of prejudice was one of ethnicity or socioeconomics. If the motto of Romantic literature was "any time but now, and any place but here," then Kennedy's motto appears to be, "any ancestry is preferable to northern European." This leads to serious disconnects among his themes of one specific family, general Melungeon origins, and U.S. attitudes on ethnicity. While pushing extreme political correctness in lamenting how whites oppressed the Melungeons because of their dark skin, 54 he has-through his redefinition of the word Melungeon essentially invented a "new race" (p. xiii), a new and historically nonexistent oppressed minority that belies his own ancestry.



FOOTNOTES

1. This omission contrasts strikingly with T. Tipton Biggs, Knowing Mama: The Discovery of a Family (Omaha, Neb: privately printed, ca.1980), which painstakingly tracks the progress of Huntington. disease through an extended family from the 1820s until the present.

2. The claimed line from Pocahontas is said to have come through Benjamin Bowling born 1734)and wife Martha "Patsy" Phelps. This couple (although Kennedy does not state so) married 1751-53 in Albemarle Co., Va. See Families of Yancey County, North Carolina 5 (March 1988): 5; and "Osborne and Related Families," Pike County, Kentucky, 1821-1983; Historical Papers, no.5 (Pikeville: Pike Co. Hist. Soc., 1983), 61. Kennedy's connection depends on an assumption that the Benjamin who married Martha is the same one who later wed Charity Larrimore. This assertion was published in 1985 by W. W .Lake, "The Pocahontas Connection," The Mountain Empire Genealogical Quarterly 4 (Winter 1985): 214-7; but it has been challenged by David Risner, "Bolling Family Information," The Mountain Empire Genealogical Quarterly 7 (Winter 1988): 273-74, who presents contrary evidence. Kennedy points out that the ascending line of the Benjamin who married Martha Phelps is itself unproved, although often claimed-as in R. Marshall Shepherd, "John Rolfe Lineage," The East Kentuckian: A Journal of Genealogy and History 25 (September 1989): 34-35. For a general pro-and-con discussion of the limited evidence available, see Alexander R. Bolling Jr., The Bolling Family: Eight Centuries of Growth (Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1990), 114-17.

3. Because this essay is a book review rather than a full-fledged genealogical study, all of the author's families have not been comprehensively reconstructed. The present analysis is designed to indicate the direction that future research should take.

4. For a synopsis of this rich body of Sizemore oral history, see Jerry Wright Jordan, comp., Cherokee by Blood: Records of Eastern Cherokee Ancestry in the U.S. Court of Claims, 1906-1910, vol.1, Application’s to 1550 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1987), 126-81 Kennedy (p.24) cites 1725 as the date of Sizemore's birth. This is incompatible with the claims-case testimony, which holds that Ned's father fought in the Revolution and that two of his brothers were in the War of 1812. The oral histories may have been confused, but Kennedy does not cite corrective evidence or address the conflict. The testimony also does not document Kennedy's stated Sizemore connection to his Phipps family. Jeffrey C. Weaver, Eastern Cherokee Applications, Southwest Virginia Ancestors 4 (Winter 1990): 33, indicates that Edward ("Old Ned") Sizemore was a Loyalist, "hung by Col. Ben Cleveland on the Tory Oak in Wilkesboro NC." This must be a different generation from the "Old Ned" in the Sizemore testimony, who died in the 1850s. Regarding the ethnicity of this family and their census labels, consider for example, George and Owen Sizemore and their household members who are all considered white on the 1800 Ashe Co., N. C., census. See Eleanor Baker Reeves, A Factual History of Early Ashe County, North Carolina: Its People, Places and Events (Tex.: Taylor Publishing Co., 1986), 67. The 1820 census. of Ashe Co. similarly cites the households of George (Sr and Jr), Edward, and Owen as white. See Dorothy Williams Potter, 1820 Federal Census of North Carolina, vol. 2, Ashe County (Tullahoma, Tenn.: privately printed, 1970), 13. (ASHE COUNTY NC ONLINE CENSUS DATA )

5. Quoted by David Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed: Fou, British Folkways in America (N.Y: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), 718. Kennedy (p.67) also proposes a deliberate fabrication of origins to explain another common type of genealogical carelessness-- an alleged birthdate of 1781 for Pleasant Home, said to be the son of Jesse Home, born 1777.

6. As previously noted, this reviewer has not retraced the author's lines through every available record. However, for all sources consulted and all lines traced, results were consistent. As representative examples:

(1) The author repeatedly applies the term fpc to ancestral lines in Ashe Co., N.C. (pp.46.55-56. 69-70). While antebellum Ashe certainly had free persons of color, Kennedy's named ancestors were not among them. The 1820 census of Ashe (as a specific) lists six fpc house hold but Kennedy's Phipps, Swindle, White, Tolliver, and Osborn families were all classed there on as white. See Potter, 1820 Federal Census of North Carolina. . - Ashe County, 6, 11-12, 14-l6, 18-19.
(2) As late as 1860, Kennedy's Swindle line was classified as white in Western Virginia; see 1860 U.S. cens., Wise Co., Va., pp. 28O~1, dwelling 110, family 110.
(3) For 1870, Kennedy's lines of Kennedy, Kiser, Mullins, Nash, Powers, and Swindle (Russell and Wise Cos., Va.), were all considered white; the Hopkinses (found by the reviewer in Pike Co., Ky.), were deemed white there also.

7. For example, see Larry and Pat Taylor, eds., Wise County, Virginia, Marriage Register, 1887-19C0 (Clintwood, Va.: Southwest Va. Ancestors, 1994); and Dorcas McDaniel Hobbs and John Walter Picklesheimer Sr., comps., Pike County, Kentucky, Death Records, 1849-1909 (n.p.: p.p., ca. 1990).

8. Sherrie S. McLeRoy and William R. Mc LeRoy, Strangers in their Midst: The Free Black Population of Amherst County, Virginia (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 1993), 194,218.299. Garland is mentioned herein as administrator of the estate of John Redcross in 1802 and as the 1840 head of a white household that also contained 8 fpc and 40 slaves.

9. Nash's wealth extended considerably beyond land. The 1840 census credits him with 17 slaves. He is enumerated as a white male, aged 30-40, sharing his home with a white female, aged 20-30, and a white male, aged 15-20. See Elizabeth M. Carpenter, ed., 1840 Census, Russell County, Virginia (n.p.: p.p., Ca. 1991), 16.

10. The assertions of nineteenth century legal persecution in the adjacent counties of Wise, Russell, and Buchanan are also difficult to accept when one reads the 1880 census. entry for Kennedy's claimed great.great.grandparents, James Colley and Emma Farrel (whom he describes, p.77, as one of the 'Black Jacksons' W) Not only did the census taker label the family white, but he identified their son William as the county sheriff. See 1880 U.S. census., Buchanan Co., Va., Sand Lake Magisterial Dist., enum. dist. 16, sheet 45, dwell. 35, fam. 35.

11. For N.C., see Revised Statutes of the State of North Carolina, Passed by the General Assembly, 1836-37, 2 vols. (Raleigh: Turner and Hughes, 1837), chap. Ill, "An Act Concerning Slaves and Free persons of color." This source recapitulates prior laws. For Tenn., see Returnj. Meigs and William F. Cooper, eds., Code of Tennessee Exacted by the General Assembly of 1857-'8 (Nashville: E.G. Eastman and Co., 1858), 41, 687, which recounts prior acts; Joshua W Caldwell, Studies in the Constitutional History of Tennessee, 2d ed. (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke Co., 1907), 202-03; Robert. Shannon, ed., The Constitution of the State of Tennessee (Nashville: Law Book Pubi. Co., 1915), 374-76; and Thos. H. CoIdwell, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee during the Years 1868-9 (Louisville, Ky.: Fetter Law Book Co., 1902), 231-67.

12. Census takers, of course, did not wield a judicial pen. Their returns had no judicial authority. Again the author appears unfamiliar with record sources. Kennedy's theme of political discrimination against his ancestors is clearly at odds here with various evidences, for example, the subsequently discussed election of his ancestor to the Va. state legislature (as a Democrat) in 1879. If one cannot vote, one cannot hold office.

13. Elizabeth M. Carpenter, ed., 1830 Census of Russell County, Virginia (Clintwood, Va.: Mullins Princing Royalty, ca. 1991), 11.

14.1850 U.S. census., Russell Co., Va., pp. 323b-324, dwells. 1438-1439, fams. 1438-1439.

15.1860 U.S. census., Scott Co., Va., pp. 35~55, dwell. 816, fam. 815.1880 U.S. census., Wise Co., Va., enum. dist. 101, sheet 24, dwell. 249, fam. 249. Kennedy does not address the genealogical significance of the 1860 census., which shows Wickliff Nash in the home of his father, William Nash, age 59. At that time, William apparently had a much-younger wife, Virginia, age 29. The wife and mother cited by Kennedy, Margaret Ramey, was still alive that year, because she later appears as "mother" and "white" in her son's household; see 1880 U.S. census., Wise Co., Va., enum. dist. 101, sheet 24, dwell. 249, fam. 249. Other Rameys repeatedly appear as white on southwest Va. and eastern Ky. returns. The following 1850 enumeration entry also should be examined carefully for relevance: 1850 U.S. census., Scott Co., Va., pop. sch., p.422, dwell./fam. 967: Margaret Ramey, 28, female; Louisa J., 10, female; Wickliffe, 8, male; Sally, 60, female; and Worthington Brooks, 20, male, born in N.C. All the Rameys were said to have been born in Va. Presumably all were considered white, because they, like others on the page, have no entry to the contrary in the column for race.

16. For the turn-of the century racial status of this family, whose "darkness" is heavily treated by Kennedy, see 1900 U.S. census., Wise Co., Va., enum. dist. 123, sheet 3, fam. 4, dwell. 42, citing the widowed Louisa (Hall) Nash and her children as white.

17. This assumption may have been made on the basis of a birthplace provided for 67-year-old James Mullins on an 1857 marriage record. See John C. Mullins, wise County', Virginia, Marriage register, 1856-1886 (n.p.: p.p., 1981), 9, no.97. Franklin Co. was created from Henry and Bedford Cos. Prior to that, in the 1770s, family names associated with this Mullins line appear in Henry Co. See Lela C. Adams, Henry County, Virgina, Deed Book I and II Bassett, Va.: p.p., 1975), 30,44,82,91; and Lela C. Adams, 1778-1780 Tax List of Henry County, Virginia (Bassett, Va.: p.p., 1973), 16, 27-28, 41.

18. Nettie Schreiner-Yantis, ed., Montgomery County Virginia, Circa 1790: A Comprehensive Study-Including the 1789 Tax Lists, Abstracts of Over 800 Land Surveys ~ Data Concerning Migration (Springfield, Va.: p-p., 1972), 98.

19. 1860 U.S. census., Wise Co., Va., p. 325, dwell. 400, fam. 400. A Mullins line that went from Pittsylvania Co., Va., into Burke Co., N.C., and from there into Russell Co., Va., has been put into print also. See Gary M. Mullins, "The Ancestral Lineage of Ollie Cox Mullins," The Mountain Empire Genealogical Quarterly 7 (Winter 1988): 21~38. This article is most helpful in distinguishing the various Mullins lines that came into Russell Co. by different routes than the one taken by Booker Mullins.

20. 1810 U.S. census., Floyd Co., Ky., p.105. See also 1820 U.S. cens., Floyd Co., Ky., p.37.

21. In 1823, Booker Mullins was in the part of Floyd that had just been cutaway to create Lawrence; see Clayton R. Cox, "Pike County, Ky., Deed Book A, 1820-1828," The East Kentuckian 22 (March 1986): 16. Joe R. Skeens, comp., Floyd County, Kentucky, Consent and Marriage Book, 1808-1851 (Prestonsburg, Ky.: p.p., 1987), 21, shows the marriages of several Mullins men, including that of Kennedy's traced ancestor, David Mullins, to Jenny Short on 3 February 1820.

Pike Co. was created from Floyd in 1822. For more on the family's activities there, see Dorcas Hobbs, "First Tax List of 1823," in Leonard Roberts, Frank Forsyth, and Claire Kelly, eds., Pike County, Kentucky, 1822-1967, Historical Papers, no.2 (Pikeville: Pike Co. Hist. Soc., 1976), 4-12 (which includes Booker Mullins, John Booker Mullins, and ten other Mullins landowners on Shelby Creek).

22. Carpenter, 1830 Census of Russell County, 17-18.

23.1860 U.S. cens., Wise Co., Va., p. 325, dwell. 401, fam. 401.

24. See the 1844 affidavit on this point that was published by Mary McCampbell Bell as "Who Is to Blame'." NGS Quarterly 75 (September 1987): 193.

25. Marshall Wingfield, Marriage Bonds of Franklin County, 1786-1858; Transcribed from the Original Records, Annotated and Alphabetically Arranged (Baltimore: Genealogical Pubi. Co., 1973), 166. According to the 1850 enumeration (dwell. 1496, fam. 1490), this Booker was aged 71; his wife Judith, 67. In 1860 (dwell. 335, fam. 331), Booker was 80 and Judith was 75. See Karen Mann Robuck, comp., Franklin County, Virginia, 1850 6,, 1860 Censuses (Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1990), 131. A married Judy Mullins, aged 63 and born in Va., died in August 1849 in Pike Co., Ky.; see Dorcas McDaniel Hobbs and John Walter Picklesheimer Sr., Pike County, Kentucky, Death Records, 1849-1909 (n.p.: p.p., ca. 1990). She could not have been Judith Stanley, who married in 1803. If the death record's age is correct, it is doubtful that she bore the older children of Kennedy's Booker.

26. James Mullins married Agnes Little in 1812; see Julius Little, "Isaac Little and his Descendants," The East Kentuckian 21 June 1985): 4. The actual marriage record does not list James's father. However, Sherwood Mullins was named as son of Booker Mullins when he wed Mary Roberts in 1813; see Skeens, Floyd County, Kentucky, Consent and Marriage Book, 21.

27. Clyde Runyon, comp., Marriage Bonds of Pike County, Kentucky, 1822-1865 (Belfry, Ky.: p.p., .1984), 78, citing file no.431.


28. Kennedy apparently confused the 26-year-old Sherrard [Sherwood] Mullins (wife Anna-i.e., Nancy-aged 22), in Booker's 1860 household, with the much-older Sherwood who was Booker's son. Certainly Sherrard and Anna cannot have been the parents of Andrew Jackson "BrandyJack" Mullins, who was born in 1834 (Kennedy, p.50)

29. Two were heads of households on the 1840 census of Pike Co., Ky.: one, age 40-50; another, 20- 30. See Jesse Stewart and Leah Stewart, comps., 1840 Federal Census of Pike County, Kentucky (n.p.: n.p., Ca. 1990), 3. The 1850 cens. more fully identifies them as Booker Mullins (age 55, wife Mary; Floyd Co.) and Booker Mullens (age 31, wife Nancy; adjacent Pike Co.). See Barbara, Byron, and Samuel Sistle; 1850 Census, Eastern Ky. Counties of Breathitt, Caner, Floyd, Greenup, Johnson, Lawrence, Letcher, Morgan, Perry, and Pike (Nashville: Byron Sistler and Associates, 1994), 68, 301. Crie Booker Mullins married Polly Johnson, daughter of William Johnson, 16 Apffl 1821; see Skeens, Floyd Kentucky, Consent and Marriage Book, p.136. A second Booker wed Polly Newsom, daughter of Harrison Newsom, 5 December 1829; see Runyon, Marriage Bonds of Pike County, 43, file no.235. Subsequently, there appears Booker MuHins Sr., age 68, b. Va., with wife Polly, age 60, b. N.C., on the 1870 U.S. cens., Pike Co., Ky., dist. 9, Robinson Creek, dwell. 26, fam. 26; and Booker Mullins, age 70, with wife Polly, 65, hoth born in Va., on the 1880 U.S. cens., Pike Co., Ky., 9th precinct, Upper Elkhorn Creek, dwelL 16, fam. 16. All listings identify them as white.

30. Gowen Research Foundation, Electronic Library, file GOWENMS.OO2, closed stacks, printout dated 30 March 1996, unpaginated. Available to foundation members via sysop, 806-796-0456. For the foundation, contact Arlee Gowen, 5708 Gary Ave., Lubbock, TX 79413. Mahala Collins was the daughter of Solomon and Virginia Jane "Gincie" (Goins) Collins.©

31. 1850 U.S. cens., Russell Co., Va., p.25O dwell. 230, fam. 230, and pp.3231-324. dwell. 1438, fam. 1438.

32.1850 U.S. cens., Russell Co., Va., p. 247b, dwell. 393, fam. 393; 1860 U.S. cens., Wise Co., Va., p.311. dwell. 304, fam. 304; also 1880 U.S. cens. Wise Co., Va.; enum. dist. 101, sheet 18, dwell. 187, fam. 187, for Wilson and Stacy.

33. John C. Mullins, comp., Wise County, Virginia. Marriage Register, 1856-1886 (np.: pp., 1981), 4. The adult woman listed in the Adkins household on the 1850 census is also identified as Sarah, age 46, born in Tenn; see 1850 U.S. census, Russell Co., Va., p. 250, dwell. 230, fam. 230. In 1860, the Sarah in his household is listed as age 52, born in Tenn; see 1860 U.S. census, Wise Co., Va., p.296, dwell. 216, fam. 216. Possibly Sarah (Bowman) Vance was living with Henry, out of wedlock, in 1850; but it was not uncommon for men in this era to marry consecutive women of the same given name.

34.1860 U.S. census, Wise Co., Va., p.296. dwell 216, fam. 216.

35. Hetty S. Sutherland, "Colley Family Information," Mountain Empire Genealogical Quarterly 6 (Spring 1987): 27, based on contemporary manuscripts in the Lyman C. Draper Manuscripts, State Historical Society of Wis., at Madison

36. 188O US. census, Buchanan Co., enum. dist. 16, sheet 16, dwell. 131, fam. 131, which lists Jasper S. Colley, male, 37, farmer; with Margaret, female, 34, wife, keeping house; Sumpter, 12, son; Flora M., 10, daughter; Major P, 7, Rose B., 5, daughter; James L C., 2, son; Margarate V., 1/12, b. in May, daughter. All were born in Va. of Va. born parents.. All family members were white.

37. 1850 U.S. census, Buchanan Co., VL, Sand Lake Magisterial Dist., enum. dist. 16, sheet 45, dwell./ fam. 35, shows James Colley, male, 64, farmer; Emma, female, 64, wife; William B, male, 21, son, sheriff; Mary Church, female, 15, servant. All the Colleys were born in VA. of VA. parentage-and all were white.

38. 1850 U.S. census, Russell Co., Va., p. 252b, dwell. 426, fam. 462, lists James Colley, 34, male, farmer $2,000 real estate; Emma, 34, female; Orpha, 11; Martha, 9; Josephine, 7; Richard, 5; Jane, 4; and Lucretia, 2. All were born in Russell Co., Va.-and all were white. 1860 U.S. cens., Buchanan Co.1 Va., pop. sch., Grundy dis. pp.792-93, dwell. 233, fam. 233, shows James Colley, 45, male, farmer; with Emma, 45, Richard, 16; Jane, 14; Barbary, 10; Cosbey, 7; Unicy, 4; and William B, 2-again, all white. See also Jesse Stewart and Leah Stewart, comps., 1860 Census, Buchanan County, Virginia (Clintwood, Va.: John C. Mullins Royalty, 1984), 29, and 1870 Census, Buchanan County, Virginia (Clintwood, Va.: John C. Mullins, ca. 1986), 42. The Josephine of the 1850 James Colley household was roughly the same age as Jasper. However, Josephine" was not the enumerator's mis-rendering of 'Jasper" This Josephine married at "age 16," on 11 March 1858, to Jonathan Sifers. As Josephine "Scyphers," she was interviewed by local historians in 1921, 1922, and 1931. For the marriage record, see Rhonda S. Roberson, Marriage Register 2 of Russell County, Va.: 1853-1870 (Clintwood, Va.: Mullins Printing, ca. 1991), 19. For the interviews, see Elihu Jasper Sutherland and Hetty Swindall Sutherland, Pioneer Recollections of Southwest Virginia (Clintwood, Va.: Mullins Printing, 1984), 32~28.
39. Nancy Clark Baker; Dickenson County, Virginia,  Marriage Register, 1, 1880-1900 Wise1 Va.:The Southwest Virginia ca. 1986), 83.

40. On 22 December 1866, Jasper Colley, age 26, single, son of John and Anna, married Margaret Sutherland, 20, single, daughter of James and Nancy. See Otis R. Yates and Linda R. Yates, comps., Some Marriages Recorded m Buchanan Co., Virginia, 1858-1884; Some Deaths (n.p.: p.p., ca. 1990), 17.

41. Sutherland and Sutherland, Pioneer Recollections, 62-64, 67.

42. Jasper S. Colley, wife Margaret, and their younger children are on the 1900 cens. of Dickenson Co., Va., whereon he is said to have been born in Va. during December 1841, to be age 58, and to have been married 33 years. Both of his parents are said to have been Va. natives also. See Joan (Short) Vanover; Barbara Kendrick) Vanover; and Gregory Lynn Vanover,  Dickenson County, VA, 1900 Census (Pound Va, p.p., 1984), 22.

43. US census, Floyd Co., Ky., enum. dist. 35, sheer 24, dwells. 190-191, fams. 191-192.©

44. Carpenter, 1830 CENSUS of Russell, 12.1850 U.S. cens., Russell Co., Va., p.257, dwell. 520, fam. 520.1860 U.S. census, Russell Co., p.216, dwell. 1457, fam. 1457. There are three incompletely documented but nonetheless useful articles recently published on the Hornes: Emory L. Hamilton, "The Horne Family of Southwest Virginia,"Mountain Empire Genealogical Quarterly 4 (Summer 1985): 115-24; Robert D. Plumlee, "The Horn Family," Mountain Empire Genealogical Quarterly 7 (Spring 1988): 2-5; and Helen Peoples, "Horne Family Information," Mountain Empire Genealogical Quarterly 7 (Summer 1988): 123-31. Plumlee and Peoples trace this Horne line to Goochland Co., Va. From there, it passed through Louisa Co., Va., and Surry Co., N.C. Jesse Horn is a head of household in Stokes Co., NC., on the 1790 census.; so he was almost certainly older than thirteen at that date. He had settled in Scott Co., Va., by 1820.

45. Vivian Dickinson Bales, "Keyser/Kiser," The East Kentuckian 28 (December 1992Y: 4.

46. Margaret Jessee appears with her parents in 1850. See 1850 U.S. cens., Russell Co., Va., pp. 221b-222, dwell. 55, fain. 55. Abednego is also listed in his parents' household: p. 254b, dwell. 488, fam. 488. In 1860, they appear as a married couple; see 1860 U.S. census., Russell Co., p.51, dwell. 328, fain. 328. They are also listed for 1880 and 1900. In all years they are identified as white.

47. Mullins, Wise County, ~Marriage Register', 1856-1886, passim.

48. Runyon, Marriage Bonds of Pike County , passim.

49. The 1850 census entry for Richard Colley names the adult woman in his household, probably his wife, as Lucretia; see 1850 U.S. census., Russell Co., Va., pp. 252~253, dwell. 463, fam. 563. The context of the household raises the possibility that Lucretia was a second wife. Kennedy perhaps drew the name Christina from Mary D. Fugate, comp., Implied Marriages of Russell County, Va. Maiden names of wives mentioned in the wills and deeds of Russell County prior to 1860, and in the earliest records of Lee and Scott counties, formed from Russell in 1793 and 1814 respectively (Athens, Ga.: Iberian Publishing Co., 1991), 14. There, Richard Colley is said to be married to Christina or Christiner; daughter of John and Margaret Counts. However, Kennedy gives the name of John Counts's wife and Chrissa Counts's mother as Mary Magdalme' (p.77).

50. William Harlen Gilbert Jr. Surviving Indian Groups of the Eastern United States: From the Smithsonian Report for 1948, Pages 407-438 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949). The Melungeon surnames listed by Gilbert are Bolen, Collins, Denham, Fields, Freeman, Gann, Gibson, Goins, Gorbens, Graham, Lawson, Maloney, Mullins, Noel, Piniore, Sexton, and Wright.

51. For an introduction to the Vardeman family of Baptist ministers who left so many namesakes on the frontier, see). H. Spencer, A History of Kentucky Baptists, from 1769 to 1885, Including More Than 800 Biographical Sketches, 2 vols. (Cincinnati: J. R. Baumes, 1885), 1: 232-33. See also Gowen Research Foundation, Electronic Manuscript, 15 November 1994, p.8.

52. For a better understanding of the Acadians, see the various studies published by the leading Acadian scholar, Carl A. Brasseaux, particularly “Scattered to the Wind": Dispersal and Wanderings of the Acadians, 1755-1809 (Lafayette, La.: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana, 1991), and The Founding of New Acadia Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1957).

53. In addition to those previously cited, see The Heritage of Wise County and the City of Norton, 1856~1993, vol. 1 (n.p.: Wise Co. Hist. Soc., ca. 1993), 36~72; Ginger Rose Senter, "The Kennedys of Dickenson County, Virginia," The Mountain Empire Genealogy Quarterly 3 (Winter 1984): 253-; John C. Mullins, "Ancestry Chart," Southwest Virginia Ancestors 2 (Winter 1988): 6-1O; and Geneva Stamper, "Stamper Family," Southwest Virginia Ancestors 3 (Summer 1989): 33-38.

54. On this theme, Kennedy makes much (pp. S6-89) of a list of mixed-race names circulated in 1943 by W A. Plecker, M.D., State Registrar of Vital Statistics for the Commonwealth of Virginia-decrying that "this twisted human being" should not have been allowed such "brutal and punitive control" over Kennedy's people. Curiously, the Plecker list includes only one of the southwestern Virginia surnames that appear on Kennedy's family tree (Mullins); and in that case, Plecker specified that it referred to "chiefly Tennessee Melungeons" (italics added), not to Va. Mullinses. (A copy of this document is in the files of the reviewer.) To quote the common genealogical caution, "the name's the same" does not mean the family is. On the theme of ethnic persecution, readers should be aware that Plecker's attempt to "identify" light-skinned Va. families with African ancestry was not a rare incident directed at Melungeons or the Va. Indians whom Kennedy embraces. Similar efforts were conducted by various state registrars who certainly had no known Melungeons in their midst. The trend was an ill-designed and ill-fated offshoot of the eugenics movement that flourished in the early twentieth century but died out in the wake of World War II, as the public became aware of excesses such as those attempted by Plecker. For more on the subject, see Thomas H. Roderick et al., "Files of the Eugenics Record Office: A Resource for Genealogists," NGS Quarterly 82 (June 1994): 97-113.

Originally printed in the National Genealogy Society Quarterly
Vol. 84, No. 2, June 1996
Virginia Easley DeMarce, Ph.D
5635 North Twenty-fifth Road
Arlington, VA 22207
Dr. DeMarce is a historian in the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, Bureau of Indian Affairs and past president of the National Genealogical Society. Among numerous genealogical and historical studies, she has authored two prior essays in the NGS Quarterly (March 1992 and March 1993) treating Melungeons and other triracial isolate groups.
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Editor, National Genealogical Society Quarterly
PO Box 861406, University of Alabama Station
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

The Construct of the Myth..... Melungeon traits

Anyone who has read this blog, knows I'm not one to believe that there ever was a group of people in Southern Appalachia who identified as being 'Melungin'.  Not until Brent Kennedy and his "Melungeon Movement" came about in the 1990's, did this faux pas exist. More interesting is that the modern day 'self identified' Neo Melungeons more often than not, have no ties to the people who were historically called Melungins.

The opposite, the term Melungin  was an insult to these people, plain and simple. But yet, I find it interesting that the old myth's of so called 'Melungeon Physical Traits' are still alive and well on the internet, especially on social media sites, Facebook being the worst offender. Another is the myth of 'high arches' as a Melungeon 'trait', which I recently read on Facebook.

This nonsense sure is not a help to people looking into their family's history, in fact the very opposite.

These 'myth's have their roots in the early research of Brent Kennedy and his followers, the so-called "Melungeon Movement". Read further..........

Melungeon traits - the facts

"Anatolian Bump": Look at "Gray's Anatomy" (all libraries should have a copy) and go to the section on the skull (pages 56-57 of the unabridged Running Press reprint edition). That feature is not unique to Anatolian populations. Lots of people have it. It has several different names, but you won't find it called an "Anatolian Bump" except on Melungeon web pages. Its name in Gray's is "external occipital protuberance." Other books on anatomy or anthropology call it by other names. Some people simply have larger protuberances than others - having it doesn't prove you're of a particular ancestry. For more info, see, for example: "The Human Career" by Richard Leslie Aiello, 1999; "Human Evolutionary Anatomy" by Christopher Dean, 1990; and "Skull Shapes and the Map" by William W. Howells, 1989.

"Six fingers": Being born with 6 fingers is not a feature exclusive to Melungeons. It has been noted in many places, among people of diverse genetic background. For example, many Pennsylvania Amish people (of German descent) have been born with this. It appears that they are all descendants of one man, Samuel King. It also appears in West Africa, for example in Ghana. (See: pp 124,226 of "The Language of Genes" by Steve Jones, 1994.)

"Shoveled incisors": AKA "Sinodonty" (literally, "Chinese Teeth") really is a feature found among many (but not all) American Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Koreans, and occasionally among Europeans (and; not necessarily because of "Mongol" invaders!). Forensics specialists use it as one indicator of such ancestry. Does that mean that Melungeons are basically Indian?

No, not necessarily, because many of the people now calling themselves Melungeons who have this feature may not really be descended from people called Melungeons in the past. Some of the people who post to forums like this may actually be of American Indian descent, and have decided to self-identify as Melungeons because they've read that 'if you have scooped-out front teeth, etc...you might be a Melungeon.

 Also, I suspect that many people are misunderstanding what shoveled incisors really are like - some of the descriptions on Melungeon sites are a bit misleading. In any case, I don't think anyone is saying that there's absolutely zero 'Indian blood' in Melungeons, but the bulk of the evidence seems to point to that being a lesser component than African for most families known in the past by that or similar terms.

"Woolly Hair": Hmmmm....what dark-skinned people that have been living in America since the 1600s have wooly hair?? Hmmm...lemme think...

"Vampire Teeth"???: Good grief, where did THAT come from?

The list of so-called "Melungeon traits" is based on hearsay. No one has shown that a particular set of traits like these are statistically more common among proven Melungeon descendants than among the general US population. You can't count people who DECIDE they are Melungeon BECAUSE they have pointy teeth and a bump on their noggin.

http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/melungeon/4030/

The  next article is from the Melungeon Heritage Association's web site, this article has been scrubbed from that site, but can be found here on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine:

http://tinyurl.com/h8g5c27

Does The Bump on My Head Mean I'm A Melungeon?

Much has been made, in the press and on the Internet, about so-called "Melungeon diseases," or physical characteristics such as "shovel teeth" or "Anatolian ridges" on the base of the skull. Some reporters and writers have widely misinterpreted these traits as indicators of Melungeon ancestry. Many people involved with Melungeon research have been approached by someone who has said, “Feel the back of my head – am I a Melungeon?” Others, upon learning of one’s Melungeon heritage, will ask, “What is that disease you guys have?” Although these characteristics are significant in each individual's family and genetic history, they do not necessarily represent Melungeon ancestry.

The diseases most widely reported as relating to Melungeons include Familial Mediterranean Fever, thallasemia, and several other ailments. The only real significance of these diseases in relation to Melungeons is that some people of Melungeon descent have been diagnosed with these diseases, many of which tend to affect people of Mediterranean ancestry, and are relatively rare among the Anglo-Saxon or Celtic people of Appalachia. Those who have one of these diseases have reason to believe that someone in their ancestry had an ethnic disposition to this particular disease. However, it is a mistake to assume this ailment, in and of itself, is an indication that one is a Melungeon. Relatively few people of Melungeon descent have these diseases, but unfortunately several reports have focused on the disease issue to the point where many believe that having one of these diseases is a primary indication of Melungeon ancestry, or that all Melungeons are afflicted.

Shovel teeth, bumps on the back of the head, polydactylism (extra fingers), and other characteristics have likewise been often misrepresented as being "Melungeon" traits. Actually, "shovel teeth" are found among Native Americans and people from Central Asia. They are not, however, common among Europeans, so there is certainly significance to those who believe themselves of purely European ancestry. The same with the head bumps, which are also indicators of at least one Central European forebear. Many Melungeons have these traits, others do not. Melungeons are an ethnic mix, and each family and individual receives different genetic markers from their various ancestors.

These physical characteristics are not insignificant. They demonstrate that many "white" Americans had ancestors who were NOT "white" in the generally accepted sense of the word. Again, however, these traits do not necessarily indicate Melungeon ancestry. Brent Kennedy and others first began talking about these characteristics and their significance over a decade ago, and many of those who have reported on his work come up with the same mistaken interpretation -- that these are "Melungeon" traits. Most recently, the History Channel led off a report on Melungeons with talk of shovel teeth.

Another frequent query posted to the Melungeon Heritage Association concerns genetic testing to determine Melungeon ancestry. Genetic testing cannot establish a Melungeon heritage because the Melungeons are of mixed ethnic ancestry, and all of us show different results on various tests. The tests DO show some interesting things about our individual families, but don’t tell us much about Melungeons as a whole.

Discovering your possible Melungeon heritage all boils down to simple research – trying to find out as much about your ancestors as possible One strong indicator of Melungeon ancestry is ancestors who were in the Clinch River region of southwest Virginia/northeast Tennessee about 1800; this area seems to be the focal point of migration to other areas later (although it is important to remember that not all Melungeon families passed through this area). However, also remember that the families that settled in the Clinch River region circa 1800 came there from somewhere else, and many of the known Melungeon families have been traced to eastern Virginia and North Carolina.

Keep an eye out for census designations of “mulatto” or “fpc” (free person of colour); as far as is known, no one was ever designated “Melungeon” on census records. Keep in mind, though, that colour was often in the eye of the beholder, and lack of a “non-white” designation is not an indicator that an ancestor was NOT Melungeon.

The articles on this website are designed to bring you the widest possible collection of knowledge about the Melungeons. Please use these resources in your research, and good luck in your quest.

Here is another article written by researcher Joanne Pezzullo : There really is no 'Melungeon or Anatolian bump'


In conclusion, these debunked myths might work well for self identified 'one size fits all Melungeons',  but they certainly have nothing to do with the historical people who were called Melungins. Again, it's all about the genealogy, not unproven theory's and fairy tales..

That's my 2 cents....
 
 

Friday, June 3, 2016

Honest Abe

"Perhaps Nancy Hanks, the mother of Abraham Lincoln, was Melungeon. It somehow seems fitting that one of America's greatest Presidents should be of mixed race and probably Muslim heritage."
Brent Kennedy 
 
 

Monday, April 11, 2016

Melungeons: Anatomy of a Myth

I was going through my files and cache of links this afternoon and found this article, I thought I'd pass it on.

" It was political correctness that provided the inspiration for the work of Brent Kennedy, a self-styled melungeon "scholar" whose book The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People: An Untold Story of Ethnic Cleansing in America was published in 1997.  In this elaborately-titled work Kennedy -- who himself claims Melungeon ancestry -- argues that the Melungeons constitute a distinct ethnic group whose existence has been obscured for generations due to institutional racism, cultural assimilation, and scholarly neglect.

One the surface, Kennedy's argument is quite compelling. There is only one problem:  he presents absolutely no tangible evidence to support his claims.  The Melungeons is presented as a multi-disciplinary scholarly analysis of a lost culture; yet the book does not contain a single primary source reference, and aside from Kennedy's polemical rantings about cultural genocide, offers no new interpretations of the melungeon legend. His account of Melungeon history is merely a rehash of all the old theories and speculations on the group's origin;  his clumsy attempt at a genetic analysis is stymied by a total absence of evidence; and his anthropological arguments are based upon a definition of his subject group that is far broader than any used by the academic community and equally loose interpretations of census data. Yet as Dr. Virginia Easley DeMarce suggested in her review of The Melungeons, Kennedy's greatest failure was as a genealogist. DeMarce points out numerous inconsistencies in his genealogical analysis, a substantial number of which were in his own family tree."

Read more here:  Melungeons: Anatomy of a Myth

Monday, January 25, 2016

THE REINVENTION OF MELUNGEON ETHNICITY

Below is a educational article that was sent to me by another family researcher. This article was written by Paul Brodwin PhD  Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

I personally think it's one of the better 'scholarly' papers I've run across in some time, concerning the mixed blood people of Southern Appalachia who were called Melungins....


 THE REINVENTION OF MELUNGEON ETHNICITY
 Dr. Paul Brodwin

Geneticists, of course, do not always end up as the enemies of people providing DNA. In the case described below, members of a small, once-isolated group requested DNA analysis to validate their claims of collective ancestry. They were happy to find a geneticist willing to take on their project, but he eventually had serious misgivings about the entire enterprise. People asked him to provide evidence about cultural identity and descent, but he knows his science is irrelevant to their most pressing questions.
The rest of this article examines the use of DNA evidence to assert identity claims among the Melungeons, a multiracial group from southern Appalachia. Their demand for and reception of genetic studies have generated several conflicts, but not along the familiar fault-lines. This case featured few political disagreements about whether research should proceed.
Obtaining cheek swabs and hair roots, extracting the DNA, and growing cell lines did not provoke a popular outcry about imperialism or formal ethical self-scrutiny. Melungeons’’ demand for collective recognition proved in commensurable not with the politics of genetic research, but instead with the limits that researchers themselves place on the interpretation of their findings. This case turned on the conceptual vulnerability of human population genetics: the mismatch between scientific and popular views about the ability of genetics evidence to establish collective origins and identity.
A formal protocol such as the MEP, meant to adjudicate between acceptable and unacceptable research practices, cannot particularly help geneticists who face a conflict not with potential DNA donors, but instead with their own professional and intellectual commitments.
The geneticist who worked with the Melungeons was thus pushed into an even murkier ethical terrain than the HGDP defenders. He found it impossible to resolve the relevant conflicts without abandoning his fundamental dedication to his scientific craft.
For over 100 years, journalists, social scientists, and folklorists have written about the Melungeons of northeastern Tennessee and neighboring regions of Virginia and Kentucky. In a journalistic idiom, the Melungeons are a ""lost tribe,"" ""Virginia’’s mystery race,"" an ""almost exinct,"" or ""dwindling hill clan,"" to cite titles of popular magazine articles over the years.
However, attempts at a more accurate description quickly get caught up in the same identity politics that divide the group itself and that drive its current interest in genetic research. Until recently, most academic accounts classified Melungeons as an enclaved community of mixed black, white, and American Indian ancestry, one of several such groups living in the eastern and southern United States.
The anthropologist Gilbert (1946) included Melungeons in his detailed list of ""mixed-blood racial islands""——groups that are considered racially distinct by their white, black, and Native American neighbors——along with the Brass Ankles and Croatans of the Carolinas, the Red Bones of Louisiana, the Guineas of West Virginia and Maryland, and the Jackson Whites of New Jersey. Gilbert characterized all these groups as backward minorities, suffering from illiteracy and poverty, difficult to classify racially, and needing assimilation to improve their condition.
Other social scientists forgo the paternalism, but offer similar accounts of Melungeon origins. Price (1951) traces the Melungeons to a fluid mixed-race society living in the 18th century in Virgina and the Carolinas. For Beale (1957), they are a ""tri-racial isolate,"" one of 27 such groups found throughout the South. Such groups contain ""intermingled Indian, white, and Negro ancestry,"" and they persist as singular, bounded communities because of their geographical isolation and the legal or customary restrictions on marriage with both whites and blacks (see also Berry 1963).
Most recently, DeMarce (1992, 1993)——a professional historian and genealogist——has documented Indian––white, black––white, and black––Indian amalgamations among the historic source populations of Melungeons. She also traces the likely migration of major Melungeon families from west central Virginia into the core area of northeast Tennessee where most people who now call themselves Melungeon trace their lineage.
Until the early 1990s, these scholarly representations remained unchallenged by Melungeons themselves, simply because few people actually admitted to being one. Berry’’s informants told him only that he would find Melungeons ""across the creek"" or ""in the next hollow"" (Berry 1963: 17). Price learned how to identify typical Melungeon surnames and physical traits from individuals who specifically disclaimed the identity. Beale noted that in the 1950 Tennessee census,
Individuals locally known as Melungeon were most often marked by census workers as white, less often as Negro, and occasionally as Indian. He emphasizes that the designation of tri-racial comes from the outside investigator, not the groups themselves. In fact, ""the mixed-blood individual will usually insist——with vehemence, if necessary——that there is no Negro ancestry in his family . . . but that he is partly Indian"" (Beale 1957: 188). Cavender (1981) found the same situation during fieldwork in Hancock County, Tennessee, in 1979 and 1980.
People identified by others as Melungeon usually denied the very existence of the group. Most whites, moreover, used the term simply as an epithet for anyone who was poor or had a suspected black ancestor. People interviewed by the above researchers presumably did not self-identify as Melungeon for several reasons: to escape the term’’s lower class connotations (shiftless, backwards, thieving); to avoid the danger to one’’s rights and status from acknowledging black ancestry (see DeMarce 1992: 6––7); or simply because the term no longer existed as a meaningful ethnic marker.
""Melungeon"" during this period was an exonym, a term that outsiders used to identify the group, but that no one used to label themselves (see Puckett, 2001). The word reinforced the class hierarchy and racial boundaries of southern Appalachia.
However, the meaning and uses of the term began to change in the 1960s. In 1966, two economists, professors from Jefferson City, Tennessee, conducted a regional economic study of Hancock County, at that time among the ten poorest counties in the nation. They recommended the development of tourism and, in particular, suggested ""a drama featuring the mystery of the Melungeon settlement in the county . . . the natural spin-off from the drama would be an outlet for handicraft items"" as well as food and lodging services for tourists (quoted in Ivey 1977:102). The play Walk Towards the Sunset: The Melungeon Story——a sentimental narrative about two centuries of anti-Melungeon prejudice——opened in 1969 in the Hancock County town of Sneedville (Beale 1990).
The play produced a short-lived tourism boom, but it also inaugurated a deeper change in the value and significance of Melungeon identity. In 1973,Sneedville residents began for the first time to identify themselves as Melungeon or to acknowledge Melungeon ancestry (Ivey 1977). Only a few years later, a self-labeled insider to the group complained to Cavender that some of the people ""coming out of the closet"" as Melungeons were actually imposters (Cavender 1981: 32).
The next phase in this process of ethnic reinvention began two decades later with the publication of The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People (Kennedy1997, first edition published in 1994). In his book, N. Brent Kennedy, PhD, the vice-chancellor of development at Clinch Valley College, Virginia, describes how his struggle with sarcoidosis, a chronic inflammatory disease, led him to reconstruct his family genealogy, embrace his Melungeon heritage, and explore the origin and racial makeup of the group. Now in its second edition, the book serves as the first contact for many people entering Melungeon circles. Kennedy also enlisted academic support to find the Melungeon Research Committee (now the Melungeon Heritage Association [MHA]), and he organized the growing interest in Melungeon identity into a series of yearly meetings. The ""First Union,"" held in 1997 at Clinch Valley College with over 500 attendees, featured talks on genealogy and grantsmanship, along with Appalachian music and storytelling.
Subsequent meetings have been held yearly in Kentucky and Tennessee. People who consider themselves Melungeon regularly attend these meetings, and they also participate in a vast web presence of family associations and competing home pages that assert different origin theories or explore connections with African-American and Native American groups.
In the 1990s, therefore, thousands of people began to claim Melungeon identity or descent. The exonym became an autonym. Individuals who once shunned the label (or did not even know it existed) now claim it publicly and use it as an entr ´ee into new face-to-face as well as virtual communities. As with many emerging identity movements, conflicts over authenticity and the prerogative to define the group’’s essence and boundaries divide today’’s Melungeons.
First of all, people living in the Appalachians who have personally suffered from the stigma of poverty and suspected black ancestry have different reasons to proclaim themselves Melungeon than do those whose ancestors left the region three or four generations ago and securely enjoy white status. Even locally, the better-educated individuals who organize the yearly gatherings inadvertently separate themselves from the poorer majority, who often cannot afford the registration fees and the time off from work. In fact, the majority of people attending the Fourth Union held in 2002 were retirees, often from out of state, with a sprinkling of; white-collar professionals.
Finally, certain Melungeons privilege their Indian descent and seek legal recognition as a tribe, thereby alienating themselves from the MHA, which explicitly does not seek tribal status. The revitalization of Melungeon identity also participates in broader social changes. According to Darlene Wilson, a historian and long-time MHA board member, the Melungeon movement aims to reverse the economic and racial caste system of the United States (Wilson 1998). She believes Melungeon ethnic activities hasten the long-term retreat of American racism, a viewpoint echoed on the MHA web page:"
"We firmly believe in the dignity of all such mixed ancestry groups of southern Appalachia and commit to preserving their rich heritage of racial harmony and diversity."" Kennedy’’s book, a touchstone for many present-day Melungeons, adopts the common formulae of late 20th century identity politics: The restrictive choices of either quietly accepting our ""stigma"" [as Melungeon] or sweeping it under the rug in the pitiful self-delusion of ""being like everyone else"" were unacceptable.
To me there seemed to be a third, admittedly blasphemous option: to embrace our heritage——whatever it might be——and wear it like a banner . . . . My mother, at first uneasy over my decision to come out of the Melungeon closet, quickly came to understand. (Kennedy 1997:7)Intentionally or not, Kennedy’’s self-description recalls the shame of trying to pass as white or to normalize a physical disability, as well as the ordeal of acknowledging one’’s homosexuality to family members. As the Melungeons’’most well-known spokesman, Kennedy demands recognition in terms similar to those employed by many other groups in the national political scene. His calls to overcome internalized stigma, to make authentic contact with oneself, and to honor group distinctiveness in the face of pressures to assimilate are all standard ingredients in contemporary politics of difference (Taylor 1992: 38 and passim).
For many Melungeons, the right to establish their own origin story is the most public demand for recognition. Of all the speculations about origins that circulated in popular accounts, the claim of Portuguese descent has the oldest published history, dating to at least 1848.11 Academic and popular writers have long reported that individuals classified as Melungeon (when that term was still an exonym) would call themselves Portuguese, often pronounced ""Porty-ghee.""
Kennedy (1997) supports the Portuguese theory and adds to it ancestry claims about Turks and Moors who settled in the colonial southeastern United States. His complicated account comes wrapped in a demand to respect his Melungeon ancestors who, he says, were telling the truth when they described themselves as Portuguese. The ""tri-racial isolate"" theory, he writes, traces white ancestry exclusively to the British Isles. It is not only incorrect, it is also politically damaging, for it denies people ""the God-given right to claim their national or specific ethnic heritages"
" (Kennedy 1997: 100). For Kennedy and his supporters, establishing an authoritative origin story is an a priori right of the Melungeon community. This collectivity, like all others, deserves recognition in terms of its own choosing, even (or especially) in the face of outsider experts. Many Melungeons fiercely support Kennedy’’s ideas about Portuguese origins. They reject the standard scholarly opinion that the group arose from an amalgam of northern Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans.
They claim that calling Melungeons a ""tri-racial isolate"" connotes inbreeding, inferiority, and hence reproduces the elitist stereotype of Appalachian residents.
Claims of Portuguese descent generate polemics for a second and even more highly charged reason. Scholarly opinion holds that Melungeons (and other mixed-race groups) historically called themselves Portuguese to deflect suspicion of African ancestry.
DeMarce (1993) and Henige (1998) both cite an 1872 Tennessee Supreme Court decision that classified a Melungeon woman as a descendant of ancient Carthagenians who long resided in Portugal, and hence not Negro. The ruling legalized her marriage to a white man and enabled her child to inherit the father’’s estate (DeMarce 1993: 33). In general, many people insecure about their racial identity in the antebellum and Jim Crow South tried to pass as white by claiming Portuguese or other southern European ancestry (Everett 1999: 370).
According to Henige (1984), the label Portuguese is a contrived defense mechanism that reinforces one’’s endangered white status. Henige (1998: 280) applied this perspective to Kennedy’’s book, which he faults for its studied ambivalence about acknowledging black ancestry. Henige’’s critique as well as the long history of claims about Portuguese descent made by groups in the South raises the
stakes considerably.
For Brent Kennedy, proving the Portuguese origin story would not only vindicate the right of Melungeons to author their own history. It would also exonerate him and the Melungeons from charges of crypto-racism and of disguising the truth about group origins: serious matters in the current climate of identity politics.

IDENTITY CLAIMS AND POPULATION GENETICS

To convince others to accept his theory of Melungeon origins, Kennedy turned to population genetics:The call for DNA really came from outside the community, not within.
It really came from scholars who took offense at our writings, who criticized these outlandish claims that differed from the standard tri-racial accounts. They said that these claims cannot be substantiated, given the historical records that we have here in Virginia, where we think the core Melungeon population originated. They said that the only way you can prove these theories of Mediterranean, Turkish, Portuguese, or Jewish origin, or the possible source for the illnesses that people have, is through DNA (Brent Kennedy).
In the early 1990s, Kennedy had consulted several academic geneticists who told him that a proper population study——with DNA samples from both Melungeons and comparison populations in Portugal and Turkey——would cost over a million dollars. In the following years, however, advances in mapping the human genome brought the price down considerably. Thanks to PCR technology and new databases of regionally and ethnically labeled DNA, geneticists can now take DNA samples locally and make probabilistic statements about population history without collecting new samples from distant parts of the world (see Bradman and Thomas 1998, and for a popular account, Sykes 2001).
In 1998, Kennedy presented his ideas for genetics research to Kevin Jones——a British molecular biologist and newly arrived assistant professor at the University of Virginia College at Wise (the re-named Clinch Valley College). Although he had never heard of the Melungeons, Jones took on the project because he was intrigued by the patterns of unusual diseases (e.g., thalassemia and Familial Mediterranean Fever) typically associated with southern European ancestry that also occur among white, presumably Scotch––Irish, Appalachians.
Brent Kennedy, however, wanted the genetics research to authenticate certain ancestry claims, not to reconstruct disease patterns, and he essentially steered the research in his direction. Kennedy oversaw the collection of DNA samples from descendants of the historic core Melungeon population, and Jones genotyped the population (by calculating the frequency of particular makers on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the non recombining portion of the Y chromosome), and compared Melungeon frequencies to those recorded for various world populations. (Jones has not yet published the Melungeon data, but he says his approach parallels the work by Weale et al. 2002 and Wilson et al. 2001.)
The cultural politics of self-ascribed Melungeons interacted with the technical demands of population genetics to produce the ""rough edges"" of Jones’’s research: the zones of conflict between professional and lay expectations (see Bosk 1992). 
To begin with, this sort of research requires a clearly identified core population for sampling. However, the inclusion criteria for this group are essentially contested.
People who now call themselves Melungeon live both in southern Appalachia and across the United States show a range of complexions and physical types, and bear a number of surnames. Conversely, many people with the same residence, appearance, and surnames do not identify as Melungeons. By necessity, Jones relied entirely on Brent Kennedy to delineate the core Melungeon group.
I decided whom to sample. I think I know who are the original Melungeons, those who lived between 1725 and 1790. I asked myself, can we locate the descendants of those people?
Hence, we chose seven or eight people on the Virginia side and ten on the Vardy, Tennessee, side.We began with these people who everyone agrees are the original Melungeons. It was very easy to find their descendents. We all know who was related to whom; we just had to find the right cousin (Brent Kennedy).
At this stage, Kevin Jones’’s role was to ensure that enough samples were collected, that they came from independent lineages and that the descent was traced exclusively through the female or male line, a requirement for research with mtDNA and Y chromosome markers.
In contrast to the HGDP, the process of collecting Melungeon DNA did not raise any questions about group sovereignty or informed consent. Kennedy presented his plan for sampling to the Vardy Historical Society, a local community board of self-identified Melungeons. They immediately endorsed it, as did the people approached in Virginia. In fact, Melungeons began to request DNA testing in numbers that far exceeded the needs of research and the technical capacity in Jones’’s laboratory.
At least a thousand people requested that their DNA be included in the analysis. Kevin Jones often received unsolicited hair samples in the mail from people who had heard of the study but were not chosen as descendants of the core Melungeon group. In the end, Jones included approximately 120 mtDNA and 30 Y chromosome samples. To preserve the anonymity of subjects, each donor received a numerical code along with their collecting kit for hair roots and cheek swabs.The chief difficulty with DNA sampling came from people’’s racial anxiety.
During the study, both Brent Kennedy and Kevin Jones received death threats, and Jones told me he received several anonymous warnings by telephone as well as the accusation that Kennedy was sampling the darkest people he could find. Jones told me that the people issuing these threats were simply afraid that the DNA study would find a black in their family past, and my conversations with attendees at the Fourth Union ratify his interpretation. According to one woman long active in Melungeon affairs, many more blacks had come to the first few Melungeon gatherings, but the weight of opinion soon decreed that ""if you were colored, you were not going to be counted as a Melungeon."" Other attendees who were researching their family lines told me bluntly that people are afraid that information about their black ancestors will become public.
Their comments suggest that when participants in Melungeon activities talk about identity, they effectively portray themselves as white, despite the official rhetoric about mixed-race descent (see Pucket 2001). Even Brent Kennedy estimates that a third of self-ascribed Melungeons are afraid of the ramifications of finding black ancestry, although he says they would eventually accept the information.
Kevin Jones finished a preliminary analysis of the genetic data by early 2002.However, during the prior year, he often wondered about the wisdom of  beginning work with the Melungeons.15 First of all, he thought that the politics of  identity completely overshadowed any interest in legitimate science. Each Melungeon faction wanted something different from the genetic study. Kennedy and his supporters wanted evidence of Portuguese or Turkish origins. People seeking tribal recognition, or at least affirmation of their subjective sense of Indian ness, wanted to see Native American ancestry. At least a handful of individuals wanted to shut down the whole project for fear of any evidence of black ancestry.
Moreover, individual DNA donors were impatient to learn about their family lines, even though Jones was conducting a population study which is unsuited for questions about individual genealogy. Finally, in his dealings with the Melungeon community, Jones encountered both a broad suspicion that scientists were secretive and insensitive and the native faith that his particular project would provide definitive answers about family history. He knew his research could not satisfy these contradictory expectations. Jones publicly presented his data in a much-anticipated talk at the Fourth Melungeon Union in June 2002.
He first spoke about the open-ended nature of all scientific work and emphasized the anonymity of the samples and his own objectivity (as a British citizen and non-Melungeon). He described the analysis of the aggregate DNA sample into the categories of African, Native American, and Eurasian used by GenBank (the NIH database for all publicly available genetic sequences). Finally, he presented the numerical data: The numbers are relatively small . . . . But nevertheless, about five percent of people who claim to be Melungeon reflect a Native American ancestry on their female side, and about five percent reflect an African-American . . . . That leaves an awful lot of people who fall under the Eurasian category, and that is no real surprise . . . .Because populations have moved around Europe so much, that there are some sequences that you find anywhere in Europe. They don’’t tell us anything about likely origins. And when you look at those Eurasian Melungeon samples, an awful lot of them fall within that category. They are generic type sequences. They could be from England, Ireland, France, they could be from Spain, they could be from Turkey, anywhere within that Eurasian category.
He then described the few unusual (non-generic) sequences that he found: among the mtDNA samples, four sequences that matched with the Siddi (a North Indian people of East African descent) and couple of sequences that matched from Turkey; among the Y chromosomes, some matches from Anatolia and Syria.
Jones also tried to address the anxieties and expectations in his audience. He  explicitly used the term ""multiracial,"" instead of ""tri-racial isolate"" to describe Melungeons. He underscored the considerable genetic diversity that he found in order to dispel a common stereotype. This population, he said, is as diverse as just about any other human population, ""so, if anyone has ever said, ‘‘You inbred Melungeon!’’ they are lying."" Finally, he emphasized that genetics does not and should not affect the sense of Melungeon identity: If you are hoping for a DNA sequence or a Y-chromosome type that says ‘‘You are a Melungeon,’’ forget it. It doesn’t exist . . . You know what it means to be Melungeon or feel Melungeon or to be discriminated against as a Melungeon. It’’s a cultural identity which is real and important, but it does not reflect any genetic basis. And I hope that with the variability that exists, apparently, within this population, that’’s something to be proud of. Because that culture and that identity have been maintained in the face of input from all sorts of people. (Kevin Jones)
In his public performance, Kevin Jones tried to balance what people wanted to hear with what he could legitimately tell them. He knows there is no such thing as a definitional Portuguese or Turkish haplotype. He knows that the term tri-racial is just as meaningful (or meaningless) as multiracial, given the models of human variation in today’’s genetics. He also knows that the percentages he gave are probabilistic figures, subject to sample size, mathematical models, and the particular data sets used at GenBank and the Center for Genetic Anthropology, University College of London (which sequenced the Y chromosome data). His strategy thus involved providing enough details to please everyone without compromising himself. Speaking to a crowd of journalists (from Smithsonian, Discover, and Wired, as well as local media outlets) after his talk, he explained that calling the vast majority of genetic markers pan-European does not necessarily mean that
Melungeon ancestors did not sail from Portugal. ""All I’’ve done is contributed data,"" he explained, ""and people can make of that what they will. That’’s what I do as a scientist."" Intended for the media, his remark demonstrates a benign commitment to scientific objectivity. What he did not add publicly is that his science cannot answer the questions about collective identity that set the whole project in motion.
Reflecting on his performance a few days later, Jones told me that what bothers him the most is that the Melungeon community neither understands nor cares about population genetics. People are only interested in the most exotic ancestries or their own family lines, and Jones already heard them start to weave the discovery of Siddi sequences into stories about Gypsy relatives. Indeed, people in Melungeon circles are avid customers of commercial genetic web sites such as FamilyTreeDNA.com (which sent its CEO to the Fourth Union). Founded in 1999, this company performs various types of mtDNA and Y chromosomal analysis for a few hundred dollars each, and customers purchase them to verify relatedness between cousins and also to discover if they have certain markers (SNPs, or single nucleotide polymorphisms), indicating likely Native American or Cohanim (hence, Jewish) ancestry. Jones attributes the mismatch between popular expectations and his scientific expertise to people’s overwhelming devotion to genealogy through genetics.
The commercial web sites cater to people’’s desire to turn a trivial genetic fact into an appealing identity claim, Jones said, and the Melungeons approached his own project with the same desire. In the case of the Melungeons, a vast distance in world view and scientific fluency separates the geneticist from the people who want him to adjudicate their identity claims. That distance constitutes the rough edge of Kevin Jones’’s work, where lay and expert views diverge most sharply. In his public presentation, Jones managed to avoid open hostility by carefully stating what the data could support and what it does not deny. He allowed people to pursue their quests for recognition without undue impediment.However, Jones cannot so easily resolve the professional’s side of the rough edge. In our conversations, he stated the dilemma in the following terms. What is his responsibility as a scientist, when his expertise is so broadly misunderstood or ignored? Jones does not expect untrained people to master or even appreciate the complexity of population genetics. Is it more dangerous if population geneticists study a group searching for its origins, or if they do not study it? If they study the group, its members will inevitably distort the findings or get angry when they are presented in their legitimate but impenetrable complexity. If scientists do not study the group, people will use commercial genetic testing services and thereby satisfy their lust for definitive answers but not learn anything meaningful about themselves. In the end, Jones feels caught up in an impossible conflict between the role of scientist (addressing other experts) and arbiter of community origins (addressing Melungeons). By definition, fulfilling one role betrays the obligations of the other.

CONCLUSION

The HGDP and Kevin Jones’’s work with the Melungeons illustrate the political and conceptual vulnerabilities of human population genetics. The HGDP was a global undertaking with little direct benefit to the groups or individuals to be sampled. Indigenous rights advocates saw an opportunity to advance their sovereignty claims by opposing the HGDP in front of the highest international authorities. The HGDP personnel responded to the political firestorm by writing the MEP: a recognizable object of ready-made bioethics, produced by negotiations between professionals and their lay critics. The Melungeon case unfolded on a much smaller scale and in a different political landscape.
Brent Kennedy, an ethnic insider, led a genetics project that he thought would justify his claim of Portuguese descent. Many Melungeons then eagerly requested DNA sampling as part of their battle against the widespread mis-recognition or non-recognition of their distinctive identity.
The conflicts between Kevin Jones and the Melungeons grew not from a power imbalance, but instead from in commensurable truth claims about genetics data. The struggles that preoccupied Jones for over two years do not lend themselves to the terms of formal bioethics (e.g., balancing professional prerogatives against individual or group rights). The very circumstances that made his project possible——Brent Kennedy’s high profile among Melungeons and people’s strong motivation to donate DNA——meant that Jones did not control the goals of research or the interpretation of findings. Realizing that he had stopped doing science as usual, Jones improvised his response to the crosscurrents of Melungeon identity politics. At times, he was baffled by people’s disinterest in what genetics could legitimately say about population history. At other times, and in public, he confirmed the Melungeons’’ own assertion of ethnic pride. Most importantly, though, he became convinced of the incommensurability between how experts and non-experts interpret and use genetic data.
These cases suggest what drives professionals in human population genetics to turn to the vocabulary and procedures of modern bioethics. In both cases, routine scientific work was disrupted, and scientists labeled the problem as ethical as a strategy of conflict management (see Bosk 1999). Labeling a problem as ethical changes how professionals and lay-people respond to it, and inaugurates further (more or less) public negotiations. This rhetorical act does not dissolve the conflict, but nonetheless shifts how it unfolds and justifies different standards of evidence and modes of persuasion. This perspective applies chiefly to the political vulnerability of human population genetics: the unequal relation between researchers and people providing DNA samples. This inequality provoked the controversy over the HGDP, and the project planners tried to resolve it by inscribing more equal relations in their MEP. The field’s political vulnerability did not affect Kevin Jones’s work with the Melungeons, largely because Brent Kennedy, an ethnic insider, sponsored the project, kept control of its aims, and thereby guaranteed people’s enthusiasm to donate their DNA. The political crosscurrents which did plague Jones’s work were intramural concerns among different factions of Melungeons, but these typically do not drive ethical self-scrutiny among professionals.
Kevin Jones faced the conceptual vulnerability of human population genetics: the mismatch between expert and non-expert views about the relevance of genetics for cultural identity (see Elliott and Brodwin 2002). He grappled with this problem when he began the research and again when he announced his findings. Taking DNA samples from Melungeons logically presupposes, one knows who counts as a Melungeon in the first place, but the science of human population genetics cannot provide the answer. Geneticists cannot decree the inclusion and exclusion criteria actually used to decide group membership, for these are irreducibly social judgments. At most, geneticists offer laboratory data which support, or do not support, judgments that are historically contingent, politically contested, and nestled in a repertoire of symbols about descent, family, kin, community, and nation. Interpreting the data produced by genetics laboratories runs into the same problem.
According to Jones, his mtDNA and Y chromosome analysis say nothing about Melungeon claims to Portuguese identity, and not only for technical reasons (i.e., the probabilistic nature of population genetics data and the lack of a Portuguese haplotype). The urgency of Melungeons’ claims of Portuguese (or other Mediterranean) identity unfolds against a set of background assumptions and histories: the categories of black and white in the American racial system and the elitism of outsider discourses about Appalachia. Their assumptions are not even conceivable within the terms of human population genetics. At most, a geneticist could argue that American racial categories have no scientific justification, but the conversation would effectively end there. Population genetics data, once it leaves the laboratory, get inserted into wildly divergent interpretive schemes.
When population geneticists work in partnership with community members according to their stated needs (in a noble effort to escape the field’’s political vulnerability), they risk running into its conceptual vulnerability. They cannot offer the stable, objective definitions of group identity that people often demand (see Brodwin 2002). Their science threatens to become irrelevant and their obligations contradictory, but this produces private anxiety for the geneticist, not politicized and public debate. The end result is a feeling of futility about crossing the expert/non-expert divide. In the case of the HGDP, its centerpiece ethics protocol managed to restate at least part of the critics’’general concerns, even if it did not (and could not) fully address their political goals. However, in the case of the Melungeons, the incommensurability between scientific and popular truth claims about "genetic identity" reflects the American dilemma about race and identity, a set of concerns that runs skew to the stable representations and procedures of American bioethics. No final product of bioethics, therefore, emerged to cover over Kevin Jones’s bewilderment about professionalobligation and contradictory loyalties.
Finally, the two cases illustrate the ethnographic study of bioethics in action. Two main questions animate this approach. Under what circumstances does explicit talk about values, rights, and obligations break out among researchers or clinicians? In general, this occurs because other social actors interrupt their work routines, question their commitments, or oppose their interests and prerogatives. The ethnographic question concerns why, in a particular context, the old routines suddenly require explicit ethical justification.
What practical steps do researchers and clinicians take to survive the shake-up? In particular, why do they respond to the controversy by elaborating an explicitly ethical discourse? And when does their pragmatic response get transformed, after a suitable period of time, into a ready-made product of bioethics?
Bioethics in action, therefore, is a matter of muddling through: a real-time struggle to justify one’’s expertise, professional mandate, and actions in the world.
Occasionally, out of the struggle emerges a published text (like the Model Ethical Protocol for Group Consent), which later settles comfortably into the systematic discourse of professional bioethics, ready for future citation by researchers, clinicians, policy-makers, lawyers, and activists. A ready-made product of bioethics is thus the final stage of a particular struggle. But it tends to lose any trace of its construction at a given place and time (cf. Latour 1987). Indeed, the final products of bioethics are often self-consciously framed as a matter of transcendent principles and fundamental rights. The ethnography of bioethics in action peers below the rhetoric of moral necessity to find the earlier story of contingent moves and counter moves. It traces the complicated traffic (of professional
routines and their disruption, of competing ideals, interests and agendas) .
That drove the original controversy as well as people’s decision to frame it in ethical terms.

NOTES

1. To focus on the celebratory accounts by Jonsen and Callahan is not to reify bioethics, but to illustrate the major way the field justifies itself in recent interdisciplinary forums (e.g., Kleinman et al. 1999). Of course, people who study the ethical dimensions of medicine and life sciences carry on a lively debate about the boundaries and mission of bioethics. They argue over the relative importance of casuistry, transcendent principles, legal reasoning, narratology, feminism, empirical research, etc. Some prominent figures in the profession refuse to label themselves "bioethicists," and the field has yet to settle key questions about accreditation and the content of graduate study. Unfortunately, the diversity of opinion and approaches often fades away in the standard self-representations of the field made to social scientists as well as in the ""bioethics training"" offered to IRB personnel and clinician-scientists.
2. See important recent overviews by Reardon (2001) and Greely (2001), the latter defending the scientific validity of the HGDP and arguing for its revival. The HGDP generated an enormous literature in several genres: internal planning documents, reports of early meetings, activist manifestos and opinion pieces opposing it, responses by HGDP planners and supporters, critiques from other professionals (chiefly cultural anthropologists and ethicists), formal statements by bioethics commissions, and review articles about the entire controversy reflecting different disciplines and interests. From the perspective of bioethics in action, however, not all this literature is equally relevant. Reviews appearing long after the controversy died down and formal pronouncements by high-level organizations privilege stable summaries of ethical principles: the final product of earlier debates whose textual traces are more fragmentary and closely tied to immediate contexts. This paper focuses on the latter genre, especially correspondence between critics and defenders of the HGDP on Native-L, an indigenous rights list-serve (accessible at http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu). This is the lively and unsettled rhetorical exchange that produced, through many mediations and over several years, the Model Protocol for Group Consent, which exists as a stable artifact of today’’s ready-made bioethics.
3. For details about the WCIP, see http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/international/scipinfo. text; about CONIC, see nativenet.uthsca.edu/archive/nl/9309/0314.html, and about SAIIC,
see saiic.nativeweb.org/brochure.html (accessed March 2002).
4. The final planning workshop (held in Sardinia in September 1993),which established the formal organization of the global HGDP, expanded and restated this list into four "areas of ethical concern." (Human Genome Diversity Committee 1993) (also known as the Alghero Document). These four areas combine straightforward estatements of accepted research ethics with the anti-racist self-image of human population genetics (see Gannett 2001). The first and most detailed area concerns respect for individuals and cultural integrity and the need for informed consent and anonymity. The second area regulates property rights in DNA; it directs any profits from pharmaceutical patents to benefit the sampled population or individual, and it endorses a single database accessible to all scientists. The remaining areas focus on the interpretation and popular uses of the project’s findings, particularly the need to avoid misuse of genetic data to justify racism, xenophobia, and hypernationalism, and to publicize that genetic science does not support conventional notions of race.
5. Around the same time, at least two other organizations also prepared guidelines for ethical conduct in human population genetics research, UNESCO and the international Human Genome Organization (HUGO) (Greely 1997).
6. Gilbert used contemporary terminology in his list. The Jackson Whites now call themselves the Ramapo Mountain people; the Croatans now call themselves the Lumbee and consider themselves Indian (see Blu 1980).
8. Information which follows about present-day Melungeons comes from interviews with Brent Kennedy,WayneWinkler, current head of the Melungeon Heritage Association, and one other individual active in the Melungeon movement for over ten years, as well as fieldwork at the Fourth Union: A Melungeon Gathering, in Kinsgsport Tennessee, June 19––23, 2002.
9. In 1999, a group of Melungeons presented their claims to the Tennessee Commission on Indian Affairs, and they also called upon the broader Native American community to accept them as legitimate descendents of earlier tribes, even though for centuries they had hidden or denied their Indian features (Whitaker 1999).
11. Other candidates for Old World source populations include Basques, ancient Carthagenians,
12th Century Welsh sailors, shipwrecked Spanish pirates, Sephardic Jews, the Lost Tribe of Israel, the lost colony of Roanoke, and Turks (Elder 1999).
12. Many people active in Melungeon circles do not agree with Kennedy’s favored origin theory, but the full scope of the group’s internal politics are beyond thescope of this paper.
13. Interview conducted June 23, 2002, in Kingsport, Tennessee.
14. Kevin Jones was an invited guest at two meetings of the NIH grant "Ethnicity, Citizenship, Family: Identity After the Human Genome Project" (grant 5R01-02196) in August 2001 and February 2002.
15. Transcript of public talk, Fourth Union, June 20, 2002.
16. Population geneticists who routinely recruit DNA donors and report the results in popular media have come to anticipate the incommensurability (Sloan Williams, January 2002). Through the use of informed consent protocols and formal ethics evaluation, they design studies in order to minimize potential problems. Anticipating and resolving controversies in this way, however, constitutes the terrain of ready-made bioethics. Kevin Jones, whose work with Melungeons was his first project in human population genetics, and whose college had only recently formed an IRB, illustrates the earlier stage of bioethics in action.

REFERENCES

Barsh, Russel Lawrence 1993 A "New Partnership" for Indigenous Peoples: Can the United Nations Make a Difference? American Indian Culture and Research Journal 17(1): 197––227.
Beale, Calvin L. 1957 American Tri-racial Isolates: Their Status and Pertinence to Genetic Research. Eugenics Quarterly 4(4): 187––196.
Beale, Calvin L. 1990 Notes on Visit to Hancock County, Tennessee. In A Taste of the Country: A Collection of Calvin Beale’s Writings. P.A.Morrison, ed. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Berry, Brewton 1963 Almost White. New York: Macmillan.
Beskow, Laura M., Wylie Burke, Jon F. Merz, Patricia A. Barr, Sharon Terry, Victor B. Penchaszadeh, Lawrence O. Gostin, Marta Gwinn, and Muin J. Khoury 2001 Informed Consent for Population-Based Research Involving Genetics. Journal of the American Medical Association 286(18): 2315––2321.
Blu, Karen I. 1980 The Lumbee Problem: The Making of an American Indian People. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bosk, Charles L. 1992 All God’s Mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Pediatric Hospital.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1999 Professional Ethicist Available: Logical, Secular, Friendly. Daedalus 128(4): 47––68.
Bowman, James E.1999 The Human Genome Diversity Project as a Complement to Human Population Genetics. Politics and the Life Sciences 18(2): 289––290.
Bradman, Neil, and Mark Thomas 1998 Why Y? The Y Chromosome in the Study of Human Evolution, Migration and Prehistory. Electronic document, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ScienceSpectrapages/SciSpect-14-98.html , accessed May 27, 2002.
Brodwin, Paul 2002 Genetics, Identity, and the Anthropology of Essentialism. Anthropological Quarterly 75(2): 323––330.
Callahan, Daniel 1999 The Social Sciences and the Task of Bioethics. Daedalus 128(4): 275––294.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza 1994 The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi L., Allan C.Wilson, Charles R. Cantor, Robert M. 
Cook-Deegan, and Mary-Claire King 1991 Call for aWorld-Wide Survey of Human Genetic Diversity. Genomics 11(2): 490––491.
Cavender, Anthony P.1981 The Melungeons of Upper East Tennessee: Persisting Social Identity.
Tennessee Anthropologist 6(1): 7––36.
Cayuqueo, Nilo1993 HGD Project, SAIIC Response. Electronic document, http://www.
nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9311/0069.html, accessed January 26, 2002. Committee on Human Genome Diversity, National Research Council
1997 Evaluating Human Genetic Diversity. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Cunningham, Hilary 1998 Colonial Encounters in Postcolonial Contexts: Patenting Indigenous DNA
and the Human Genome Diversity Project. Critique of Anthropology 18(2): 205––
A4 233.
DeMarce,Virginia Easley 1992 ""Verry Slitly Mixt"": Tri-Racial Isolate Families of the Upper South——A Genealogical Study. National Genealogical Society Quarterly 80(1): 5––35.
DeMarce, Virginia Easley 1993 Looking at Legends——Lumbee and Melungeon: Applied Genealogy and the Origins of Tri-racial Isolate Settlements. National Genealogical Society Quarterly 81(1): 24––45. 
DeVries, Raymond, and Janardan Subedi,eds.1998 Bioethics and Society: Constructing the Ethical Enterprise. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Elder, Pat Spurlock 1999 Melungeons: Examining an Appalachian Legend. Blountville, TN:
Continuity Press.
Elliott, Carl, and Paul Brodwin 2002 Identity and Genetic Ancestry Tracing. British Medical Journal 325: 1469––1471.
Evans, John Hyde 2002 Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of
Public Bioethical Debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Everett, C.S. 1999 Melungeon History and Myth. Appalachian Journal 26(4): 358––409.
Foster, Morris W., Deborah Bernsten, and Thomas H. Carter 1998 A Model Agreement for Genetic Research in Socially Identifiable Populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 63: 696––702.
Fox, Daniel M. 1993 View the Second. Hastings Center Report 23(6): S12––S13. 
Gannett, Lisa  2001 Racism and Human Genome Diversity Research: The Ethical Limits of
"Population Thinking." Philosophy of Science 68(3): S479––S492.
Gilbert, William Harlen 1946 Memorandum Concerning the Characteristics of the Larger Mixed-Blood Racial Islands of the Eastern United States. Social Forces 24: 438––447.
Gillespie, John H.1998 Population Genetics: A Concise Guide. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Greely, Henry 1994 Status of the HGD Project. Electronic document, http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9402/0020.html , accessed January 27, 2002. 1995 Papua New Guinea, the Human Genome Diversity Project. Electronic document, http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9510.0225.html, accessed January 27, 2002. 1997 The Ethics of Human Genome Diversity Project: The North American Regional Committee’s Proposed Model Ethical Protocol. In Human DNA: Law and Policy.
B.M. Knoppers, ed., pp. 239––256. Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
1999 The Overlooked Ethics of the Human Genome Diversity Project. Politics and the Life Sciences 18(2): 297––299. 2001 Human Genome Diversity:What About the Other Human Genome Project? Nature Reviews Genetics 2(3): 222––227.
Harry, Debra, and Jonathan Marks 1999 Human Population Genetics versus the HGDP. Politics and the Life Sciences 18(2):303––305.
Hartl, Daniel L., and Andrew G. Clark 1997 Principles of Population Genetics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Henige, David 1984 Origin Traditions of American Racial Isolates: A Case of Something Borrowed. Appalachian Journal 1(3): 201––213. 1998 The Melungeons Become a Race. Appalachian Journal 25(3): 270––286.
Hess, David J.1997 If You’re Thinking of Living in STS: A Guide for the Perplexed. In Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies.
G.L. Downey and J. Dumit, eds., pp. 143––164. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Human Genome Diversity Committee 1993 Summary Document, Incorporating the HGD Project Outline and Development,
Proposed Guidelines, and Report of the International Planning Workshop held in Porto Conte, Sardinia (Italy) 9––12 September, 1993, Vol. 2002. Electronic
document, http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/summary93.html , accessed
August 20, 2002.
International Association of the Mataatua Declaration 1996 Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous People. Cultural Survival Quarterly 20(2): 52––53
Ivey, Saundra Keyes 1977 Ascribed Ethnicity and the Ethnic Display Event: The Melungeons of Hancock County, Tennessee. Western Folklore 36(1): 85––107.
Jacquard, Albert 1974 The Genetic Structure of Populations. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Jonsen, Albert R.1998 The Birth of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
2001 Beating Up Bioethics. Hastings Center Report 31(5): 40––45.
Juengst, Eric T. 1998 Groups as Gatekeepers to Genomic Research: Conceptually Confusing,
Morally
Hazardous, and Practically Useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
8(2): 183––200.
Kennedy, N. Brent 1997 The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Kidd, Kenneth K., and Judith R. Kidd 1999 Experience and Preliminary Results in Human Genome Diversity Research. Politics and the Life Sciences 18(2): 314––316.
Kleinman, Arthur, Renee C. Fox, and Allan M. Brandt, eds. 1999 Bioethics and Beyond. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and A5 Sciences 128(4).
Latour, Bruno 1987 Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewontin, R.C. 1985 Population Genetics. Annual Review of Genetics 19: 81––102.
Lock, Margaret 1994 Interrogating the Human Diversity Genome Project. Social Science and
Medicine 39(5): 603––606.
Mange, Arthur P., and Mange Elane Johansen 1990 Genetics: Human Aspects. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Mead, Aroha Te Pareake 1995 Re: Papua New Guinea Patents. Electronic document,
http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9510/0350.html , accessed January 27, 2002.
1996 Genealogy, Sacredness, and the Commodities Market. Cultural Survival Quarterly 20(2): 46––51.
Molnar, Stephen 1998 Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Mooney, Pat Roy 1993 Human Genome Diversity Project. Electronic document,
http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9311/0026.html , accessed January 27, 2002.
Mooney, Pat Roy, and Edward Hammond 1995 Re: Papua New Guinea Patents. Electronic document,
http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9510/0310.html , accessed January 27, 2002.
Mourant, A.E. 1983 Blood Relations: Blood Groups and Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Neel, James V. 1984 The Real Human Populations. In Human Population Genetics: The
Pittsburgh Symposium. A. Chakravarti, ed., pp. 249––273. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co.
NIGMS (National Institute of General Medical Sciences)
1999 Report of the Workshop on Population-Based Samples for the NIGMS Human Genetic Cell Repository. http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/reports/cellrepos.html, accessed May 22, 2002.
North American Regional Committee of the Human Genome Project 1997 Proposed Model Ethical Protocol for Collecting DNA Samples. Houston Law
Review 33(5): 1431––1473.
Price, Edward T. 1951 The Melungeons: A Mixed-Blood Strain of the Southern Appalachians. The
Geographical Review 41(2): 256––271.
Puckett, Anita 2001 The Melungeon Identity Movement and the Construction of Appalachian Whiteness.Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(1): 131––146.
Rabinow, Paul 1996 Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Reardon, Jenny 2001 The Human Genome Diversity Project: A Case Study in Coproduction.
Social Studies of Science 31(3): 357––388.
Resnick, David B. 1999 The Human Genome Diversity Project: Ethical Problems and Solutions.
Politics and the Life Sciences 18(1): 15––23.
Rose, Hilary 1999 Reflections on the Human Genome Diversity Project. Politics and the
Life Sciences 18(2): 328––330.
Rosenberg, Charles E. 1999 Meanings, Politics, and Medicine: On the Bioethical Enterprise and
History. Daedalus 128(4): 27––46.
Rothman, David J. 1991 Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics
Transformed Medical Decision Making. New York: Basic Books.
Rural Advancement Foundation International a(RAFI)
1993 Patents, Indigenous People, and Human Genetic Diversity. Electronic document, http://www.rafi.org/article.asp?newsid = 223, accessed February 4, 2002.
1994 The Patenting of Human Genetic Material. Electronic document, http://www.rafi.org/article.asp?newsid = 218, accessed February 4, 2002.
South and Meso American Indian Information Center (SAIIC) 1993 Human Genome Diversity Project. Electronic document, http://www.nativenet.thscsa.edu/archive/nl/9310/0273.html, accessed January 6, 2002.
Stevens, M.L. Tina 2000 Bioethics in America: Origins and Cultural Politics. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sykes, Bryan 2001 The Seven Daughters of Eve. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Taylor, Charles 1992 Multiculturalism and ""The Politics of Recognition."" Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Third World Network 1993 Call to Stop Human Genome Project. Electronic document, http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9307/0036.html, accessed January 6, 2002.
Weale, Michael E., Deborah A. Weiss, Rolf F. Jager, Neil Bradman, and Mark G. Thomas 2002 Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19(7): 1008––1021.
Weisz, George, ed. 1990 Social Science Perspectives on Medical Ethics. Dordrecht,
the Netherlands:Kluwer
Whitaker, Monica 1999 Melungeons, Others Seek Recognition as Indians. Electronic document, http://www.tennessean.com/sii/99/01/17/indian17.shtml , accessed July 8, 2002.
Wilmer, Franke  1993 The Indigenous Voice in World Politics: Since Time Immemorial. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Wilson, Darlene 1988 A Response to Henige. Appalachian Journal 25(3): 286––296.
Wilson, James F., Deborah A. Weiss, Martin Richards, Mark G. Thomas, Neil Bradman, and David B. Goldstein  2001 Genetic Evidence for Different Male and Female Roles During Cultural Transitions in the British Isles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(9): 5078––5083.
World Council of Indigenous Peoples
1994 WCIP Resolution on the HGDP. Electronic document, http://www.nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9401/0315.html , accessed January 7, 2002.


Department of Anthropology
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee ,WI 53201, USA

Please note: This paper was written before autosomal DNA tests had any practical use in genealogy and/or population studies. Dr. Brodwin's remarks and opinions concern only Y chromosome and mtDNA.

Hat tip to Jack Goins