not 40 families, 69 male lines, 8 female lines.
I recall a reference for 40 surnames of interest, whether in this version of the report or an earlier one. But some of those families turned out to have multiple lines, as you can see in the study.
DNA research has been going on for years, with the same results.
I know. I was interviewed by North Carolina Public Radio last summer on this subject, and stated precisely that. I am also one of the authors cited in the study. If you are interested in knowing more about this, we can communicate by PM.
The big problem is not with anything involve the DNA findings, but with an underlying confusion about descriptive vs. prescriptive use of language. It is perfectly legitimate to restrict the definition of "Melungeon" for the purposes of a single study, and then report the findings as descriptive of that population. But then to go beyond that and present the findings as definitive about THE Melungeons, is to elevate an operational definition into a PRESCRIPTION that everyone use the term in the narrower rather than broader definition. "Melungeon" didn't start out specifically assigned to a single group in Hancock County, as the report itself indicates-- it gradually more and more became focused on that group. But these same surnames are found scattered throughout the triracial populations, and genetic matches and genealogical relationships are being explored. From the 1970s onward, "Melungeon" again became less and less specific in its use. The AP author clearly states that this process has occurred, the usage has become more general about triracial groups, as a fact. Loller gives a neutral, objective DESCRIPTION of how the usage has evolved. Alas, between the lines, the study authors imply that this process is somehow illegitimate and fraudulent, and that the word either is or should be restricted to smallest possible group of people. That mars the study to some extent because if it's science it is descriptive-- decreeing that people stop using a word in a particular way is prescriptive, and betrays an hidden agenda of exclusiveness. (So bizarre for some people to be dissing others as "wannabes" over a designation that until recently NO ONE WANTED.)
Historical & genealogical research supports the DNA findings:
The historian Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce, former president of the National Genealogical Society and author of several articles on the Melungeons, said in a 1997 interview with NPR:
"It's not that mysterious once you...do the nitty gritty research one family at a time...basically the answer to the question of where did Tennessee's mysterious Melungeons come from is three words. And the three words are Louisa County, Virginia."
The DNA findings actually disprove that extremely narrow and simplistic statement. The families now in the Newman's Ridge area-- and long called Melungeon-- converged from several different directions.
= new reply since forum marked as read
