1. How do I define Melungeon?

2. Are there Melungeon Diseases?

3. What will the DNA Study Show?

4. Are there "Melungeon" Anthropological Traits?

5. What is the Melungeon Movement?

I'm not suggesting the above nomenclature is the only way to go, but it works for me. Others have an absolute right to their own positions and definitions. 

Finally, the term "Melungeon" was used broadly by academicians long before I came along. If there is a problem with broader application, that argument needs to be taken directly to the earlier scholars who termed so many populations "Melungeon" or "Melungeon-related." Folks like Beale, Price, Gilbert and others had a reason for this: migration patterns, surnames, and oral traditions led them to conclude - correctly in my opinion - that these populations were somehow related. The publications of the 1950s and 1960s would be a good place to start for those who are unaware that these kinships were proposed - and accepted - by academia a half-century ago. Furthermore, to those who claim that only a handful of families in Hancock County, Tennessee were ever referred to as Melungeons, I can tell you that thousands of people in Wise and Dickenson Counties, Virginia would disagree. Long before I was born, the so-called "Ramps" of Stone Mountain and Coeburn Mountain were also referred to as "Melungeons," probably a term that followed their ancestors there from earlier stopovers in Hancock County, Tennessee. I personally knew of our County's Melungeons as a child, long before I knew of those wonderful folk in Hancock County. This is not to say that our locals were correct in their nomenclature, but instead only to say that the term was in use, correctly or incorrectly, pre-Brent Kennedy. 

But whatever you call these people, the important story here is the untold diversity of our early settlers - far beyond just a few families that may have settled here or there. This truth - not the name - is what is important here. Bottom line: I have no problem in classifying the Hancock County folk as the "Historical Melungeons." But I do have a problem in denying their kinship to other human beings and in denying the nomenclature to anyone not residing on a particular mountaintop. Intended or not, this relegates these marvelous people to a sub-human class or, in the words of an early reporter lacking a broader view of humanity, a "singular species." I like to think we've come further than that in the last one hundred years. 

2. Are there Melungeon diseases?

No. Let me say that again: No. First, "Melungeon" is a term whose origin is still debatable. No one knows with certainty where and how the term arose, and perhaps we never will. "Melungeon" is a culture and cultures do not have diseases - people do. However, certain diseases and conditions do seem more common than the norm among Melungeon, or self-defined Melungeon, populations. If studies underway prove that these diseases are equally common among all Appalachians, then the story is even bigger than we thought: that being, that the Appalachian people themselves are possibly far more ethnically diverse than historians have heretofore believed. I expect this latter scenario to be the case, frankly, for I do not accept all historical and genealogical records at face value. A such, I see the Melungeons of Hancock County (and other mountain locales) as merely the more identifiable tip of a much bigger story. I have always believed - and always will unless someone can convince me otherwise - that we truly are looking at a re-writing of the ethnic history of our nation. That, contrary to what we were taught in school, we have been multi-cultural and ethnically diverse from day one. 

"Documentation" is absolutely essential but documentation alone cannot tell the whole story. The written documents are only as accurate - and honest - as the people writing them. W. A Plecker proved that even in this century documents can be politically - and legally -  created to say or "prove" anything. But this does not mean that we ignore the records and toss them out. On the contrary, the written record is one of the most vital pieces of the story. My concern has never been with the genealogical records, but instead our blind acceptance of them as indisputable proof of ethnicity. Settlers from England and Scotland were not always English and Scottish. Settlers from Spain and Portugal and France and Germany did always represent the ethnic make-up of their "homelands" either. I can take you into southwest Virginia cemeteries where my documented "German" ancestors (and, yes, they DID come from Germany) preserved their heritage via Stars of David carved into their nineteenth-century tombstones. This has been my continuing contention, though my critics have tried to show how I obviously "overlooked" the records in my own family research. I did NOT overlook the records and I do NOT question well researched, documented genealogical records. But I do sometimes question the accuracy of what those records say, especially in a colonial, racist society in which "people of color" or of the "wrong" religious bent were doing all they could to be "English" or "Scots-Irish." I'm sorry if my questioning of the written word gives some folks heartburn, but that's just the way it is.

Virginia DeMarce and Pat Elder have contributed much to our genealogical understanding of the early Melungeons. Where I disagree with them - and continue to strongly disagree - is with their blind acceptance of racial and ethnic classifications based purely on the written word. According to Virginia DeMarce, the Melungeon claim to have Portuguese heritage was fiction, simply an effort to hide African blood. While I am proud of the African blood that I am convinced I have, I disagreed early on with this contention. I believe the old folks were telling the truth, at least to the best of their knowledge. That there was, however it may have occurred, at least some "Portuguese" ancestry in their background, whatever the race or ethnicity of those Portuguese. I still unwaveringly believe this. Virginia DeMarce likewise proclaimed that, based on genealogical records, my Mother and every line of her family were "white." Virginia DeMarce never met my late Mother or, as far as I know, set foot on Coeburn Mountain. My Mother's face - and her and her family's on-the ground, life experiences - said something very, very different. And so did their genes (for those unfamiliar with my family, below is a link to a photo of my Mother).

No amount of "documentation" can change this reality. Contrary to the "records" my Mother does not look northern European. Nor did she grow up feeling a part of that heritage. Native Americans were legally "documented" out of their lands, their heritage, their culture, and nearly out of existence in the Commonwealth of Virginia and elsewhere. Melungeons and their kin suffered a similar fate and we're deluding ourselves to think otherwise. As sociologists have shown, "documentary genocide," the legal, paper driven effort to destroy an ethnic culture and erase all vestiges of its existence, did indeed occur in our colonial period. More recently, it has occurred in places like Nazi Germany and Bosnia and only our victories there forced the truth to be revealed. Genealogists who will not recognize this fact are doing a great disservice to themselves and to their clients. They are potentially impacting, in a negative fashion, not only the knowledge of our full human diversity, but the very real benefits that this knowledge can bring to healthcare and related areas.

Given the likely mix of heritages that are to be found among the Melungeons and Melungeon-related people, certain diseases of a non-northern European origin could - and likely do - exist. To say that because we "haven't found them" that they're not there, is to miss a critical point: that being, that we're not likely to find them if we've never looked for them. As a healthcare administrator I can attest - sadly - to the fact that our communities in the more remote mountain regions have not historically been the recipients of quality medical sleuthing, to say nothing of quality medical care. A lot of illness and suffering have gone undetected for decades. I was diagnosed with "arthritis" and Irritable Bowel Syndrome before my FMF was found. I was the first case of sarcoidosis diagnosed in Wise, Virginia, but now there are more than forty documented cases of which I'm aware (a staggering number for a town of less than 3500 people). Educating our medical community is important and that cannot occur when our agenda is to selfishly bury or dismiss any information that might run counter to our own personal agendas. How in good conscience anyone can do this is beyond me, but it's being done.

There's a great deal of misinformation floating around out there - from all sides and points of view. No side is totally blameless in this. The bottom line is that these studies are on-going with NO CONCLUSIONS YET REACHED. As an FYI, Dr. Chris Morris has identified more than 30 cases of what appear to be FMF among people identifying as "Melungeons" and showing traditional Melungeon ancestries from east Tennessee and southwest Virginia (i.e., possessing the traditional Melungeon surnames and self-identifying as such). One of the key diagnoses of FMF (and what distinguishes it from the much rarer familial Hibernian fever) is a positive clinical response to colchicine. This is what's happening, as it happened with me. But remember, even if we find FMF (or a mutated version) among Melungeon descendants this does NOT make it a "Melungeon" disease. FMF is most commonly found among Armenians, Turks, the Arab Druze, and non-Ashkenazi Jews (particularly Sephardim of North Africa, Spain and Portugal). Also, it is entirely possibly that I - and others - may have inherited the genes for this disease from non-Melungeon ancestors who simply married into Melungeon lines. So we need to wait until the studies are completed before drawing any conclusions or blindly and unfairly criticizing those doctors or patients involved. And incidentally, there ARE Vardy/Newman's Ridge/Hancock County residents involved in Dr. Morris's study, so statements to the contrary are false and irresponsible. Once the study is completed they may or may not decide to go public, but that will be their decision. But either way, these studies are important for improved healthcare in our region and I support them 100%. 

3. What Will the DNA Study Show?

As stated before, the DNA study will look at population, as opposed to individual, results. This has been said over and over again from day one, but the criticisms from a select few continue to target the limitations of individual sampling. This is, in my opinion, purposefully misleading. It is indeed impossible to tell from a single individual's DNA sequences anything of importance about a broader population, or even one's own recent national origins. People migrate and move around, taking their genes with them (one exception would be Native American DNA - if this shows up in your DNA testing you can rest relatively assured that it did NOT come via Europe or Africa). But when a larger number of individual sequences from that population are examined, trends often can be seen that might be meaningful. For example, if a population that is supposedly "purely northern European" in its origin shows, say, 20% Native American sequences, then this would be considered statistically quite meaningful (i.e., something else is at play and needs a closer examination). At this point, genealogical records become critical: do the paper trails for these lines truly lead back to England, etc., or do they simply disappear into North Carolina, or wherever? If the latter is the case, then we may be on to something. Not all Native American genes will show up, of course, but we only need a few - of any origin for that matter - to help us along on our search. Dr. Jones' study is taking this approach. Depending on the results, further research might be warranted, or at least a more careful look at the genealogical and historical records to understand how discrepancies between DNA and the written record, if any, might have occurred. There should be no fear in doing this, if we're truly seeking truth. However, my understanding is that Dr. Jones has no interest in further pursuing this line of research and it will be up to individuals to pursue their own family genetics.

Dr. Jones will likely publish his study in the next six to nine months, AFTER it has been through peer review like any other scientific study. However, Dr. Jones was kind enough to present a preliminary summary of his findings, not once, but TWICE at Fourth Union in June. Some of the most vocal critics of the DNA study were at Fourth Union but, for whatever reason, chose not to attend either of these presentations. For those who could not attend but would like to judge Dr. Jones' work by his own words, CD recordings of both presentations are available through MHA for a nominal charge covering the cost of the CD and production.

Under no circumstances will individual results be released publicly by Dr. Jones. While one list critic in particular has called repeatedly for such disclosure, Dr. Jones will not violate his professional code as
a researcher. It will be the prerogative of each participant to determine how - or if - they wish to disclose their DNA results. Additionally, Dr. Jones has provided his services as a volunteer and individual participants have not had to pay for this sequencing. DNA analysis is now available from a variety of reputable companies and costs, on average, less than $250 per sample sequencing (or around $350 for both Y and mtDNA). There is absolutely nothing prohibiting anyone from taking advantage of these services and settling any questions they may have on their particular lines. My understanding is that some study participants have already done so, and they are certainly free to release their results in advance of anything that Dr. Jones might release in his population study. Remember, his report will not link results with individual names and thus individual release could be of immense value in tracking our various ancestries and determining true family kinships. 

Three basic populations are being examined in Jones' study: (1) the Vardy/Newman's Ridge/Hancock County, Tennessee populations, (2) the Stone Mountain/Coeburn Mountain/Scott and Wise County, Virginia
populations, and (3) "extended" Melungeons - descendants of Melungeons from both these areas who no longer reside in the area. A handful of samples were also collected, primarily from local residents, who felt that they might possess Melungeon heritage, but their sequences were NOT included among the three populations listed above (in essence they could conceivably serve as a beginning for a "control group"). The results of the study can be broken down and compared by subgroup (i.e., the east Tennessee results versus the southwest Virginia results, and so on). Possible kinship between groups (or the lack thereof) can also be
determined. This study can verify certain heritages but cannot dismiss any. Just because a specific sequence isn't found doesn't mean that it's not there somewhere in the population - it simply means that it wasn't found in this sample. For example, I'm positively certain that "Portuguese" is a part of the ancestry but early comments from Dr. Jones did not confirm this. Not finding it, however, does not disprove it. It simply means that none of the Y and mtDNA samples in this particular population definitively showed "Portugal."

Also, while DNA sequences can give us hints at the origin of the earliest settlers, on an individual basis it cannot tell us much about "race" or "ethnicity." For example, I have a good friend who is 15/16ths Choctaw Indian. However, his GG Grandfather was a white man. As such, my friend's Y chromosome shows him to be "European" but his culture and his physical appearance are most definitely Native American. My wife's Grandfather was born on a Reservation in Minnesota. My wife is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Ojibwa and is, thus, a federally recognized Native American. However, because
of intermarriage, her mtDNA and her father's Y both yield European sequences. The same thing holds true with the Melungeons. One can have a European or a sub-Saharan African or a Siddi DNA sequence - Y or mtDNA- and still identify culturally and physically with the Melungeons, or Native Americans, or Irishmen or whomever. There is no conflict in this, regardless of what some may tell you. Whatever my final DNA
sequences show (and I suspect they will be a real mix), I can promise you that it will not change my cultural self-identity: I am - and will remain - an Appalachian hillbilly who loves bluegrass music, the Tennessee Vols, and fishing the TVA lakes. 

In essence, the study will simply give us a hint at the "origins" of at least some of the earliest Melungeons but cannot tell us the whole story. Solid genealogical and historical work must also occur (and much good work has already occurred). But, again, DNA findings can sometimes give us insight as to why some of our family members with clearly non-European appearances (and so-called "family origin myths" of so-called "exotic" origins) have held so tightly to what conflicts with the paper trail. A prime example is the recent Sizemore Family DNA study. The Sizemores, mine included, have always claimed a Native American heritage through the MALE Sizemore line. The written record has been used to counter this claim, and my own early contention that Native American heritage might indeed be valid was dismissed out of hand by many genealogists, based, again, on the documented record. Well, DNA sequencing of a large sample of male Sizemore descendants (Y chromosome) has shown something very interesting: at least nine of the sixteen male Sizemore descendants in this study show indisputable Native American Y-chromosomes. However it came to be, those old Sizemores who claimed - in vain - to be Native American were indeed telling the truth. But an inflexible insistence on "documentation" coupled with a total dismissal of oral tradition squelched that truth - for both the original families and the generations that followed.

Also, lest we forget, the opponents of the earliest Melungeon claims to be Portuguese, Native American, etc. are why this study was undertaken in the first place. For the past decade and a half, the continuing chorus from those who discounted the old Melungeon claims of origin - based on the "written record" - was, "Show us the DNA." Well, we - and others - are doing just that.

Finally, Kevin Jones has provided his services as a volunteer. A select few seem to have forgotten this. He deserves our thanks, regardless of whether or not we're pleased with the results. I expected more definitive proof of a "Portuguese" ancestry and more solid evidence that men played the key role in creating the  Melungeons, two of my major premises. Neither of those expectations was borne out, but this doesn't mean that I shoot the messenger. I am extraordinarily disappointed in those few who choose to criticize rather than contribute. It's much easier to criticize a DNA study than it is to organize one; it's much easier to criticize a book than it is to write one; it's much easier to criticize a festival than it is to sponsor one; it's much easier to criticize efforts at filming and documenting the last remaining vestiges of our culture than it is to organize such efforts and seek the funding to make them happen. And it's much easier to make disparaging and slanderous comments under a false List name as opposed to using one's real identity.

4. Are there "Melungeon-specific" anthropological traits?

Absolutely not. "Melungeon" is a culture, not an ethnic group, so across the board, definable "Melungeon" physical characteristics do NOT exist. However, there ARE various ethnic traits that at least some Melungeons do possess, as do others who share similar ethnic origins, which demonstrate our connections to certain ethnic groups and - by virtue of this - ALL other human beings. In my presentations I talk about these traits (e.g., the central Asian cranial bump/ridge, which the Turks call an "Anatolian bump", shovel teeth, epicanthal eye folds, etc.) to show people that - whatever race or ethnic group they may believe themselves to belong to - that they likely possess anthropological traits tying them to other groups. Thus, racism is based on ignorance and our inability to see the kinship connections in front of our own eyes. One prime example I use to get this message across is my re-telling of an experience at a local (Kingsport, Tennessee) elementary school. Three fifth graders - a "white," a "black" and a "Korean" child - all came to the front of the auditorium following my presentation to excitedly announce - while holding hands - that they were "cousins." Each had discovered a number of mutual "ethnic" traits that, for the first time in their lives, drove home their kinship. This is the importance of the anthropological traits and its incorporation into my presentations - NOT a physical litmus test for "Melungeonism." There is no such test, with Melungeons encompassing individuals of all colors and shapes and sizes. But understanding that we possess such "ethnic markers" is of critical importance in teaching that we all belong to one human family. And that's my major focus.

5. What is the "Melungeon Movement?"

Again, contrary to what some have said on the lists and elsewhere, the "Melungeon Movement" has nothing to do with championing one theory of origin over another. Those who see it this way once again miss the broader picture. The "Movement" is entirely about accepting diversity and recognizing human kinship, regardless of skin color or hair texture or DNA results. It emphasizes a global, versus tribal, view of humanity. One need only look at Afghanistan to grasp the ultimate chaos of unbridled, narrowly defined tribalism, where a few families on one mountaintop somehow constitute a nation - and ethnic group - unto themselves. Once this occurs, it becomes far simpler to separate oneself from others and, yes, to commit acts of prejudice and worse. This is NOT what the earliest Melungeon families were about. The Melungeon Movement draws its name in honor of these early pioneers - a prime example of a multi-ethnic population which put aside its racial and cultural differences, came together and survived as one people (literally, the source of the slogan, "One People, All Colors"). The "Movement" is not concerned one bit with who - or what - the Melungeons were, are, or will become. Instead, it honors their dignity as human beings and presents these early settlers as a model for others in this strife torn world on how human beings ought to behave toward one another. I feel pretty confident that the "Historical Melungeons" would have approved of this message. If this is offensive or trite to some, then so be it. The Civil Rights Movement and other efforts to bring people together have also engendered ridicule and animosity. I think we can deal with that. 

Finally, let me make an important point.

No one - not me, not you, not anyone - exclusively "owns" the Melungeons. It is not "my" Melungeons" or "our" Melungeons" or "your" Melungeons - it is, simply, the Melungeons. The freedom to celebrate the richness of one's heritage cannot - and will not - be infringed upon by those seeking to exclude. The evidence of broad kinship is too heavy to permit such foolish and counterproductive divisiveness. When I announced at 4th Union my intent to disengage from research-related activities and asked all parties to work together, I did NOT say that I would no longer defend the great good that's been accomplished over the past fifteen years. The increasingly abrasive and disruptive activities of a small minority have convinced me that I need to "hang around" quite a bit longer. And that's just what I'm going to do

.Top of page