"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > "Richard A. Pence" wrote: > > > Like most other genealogical puzzles, the solution likely lies in > > carefully tracing each generation back. If you then encounter a > > person whose background might lead you to believe the person could > > be an Indian, then this is the time and the place to try to > > determine the details. > > How is one supposed to know that? I have a pile ... a large pile ... > of dead ends in counties created in Georgia and Alabama in the late > 18th and early 19th century as the Cherokee and Creek lands > dwindled. This alone says that while they might have come into > these lands from Georgia or the Carolinas or even (as we know is > true) Scotland, they well may have been there all along. The > question is, how do we find out? You at least have enough circumstantial evidence to suggest the posssibility of Native American ancestry. "How you know" is by diligently searching the records of the area - deeds, census, probates, marriage records (was there a different book for nonwhite marriges?). What were the laws of the state with regard to interracial marriages? How might that impact on your search? Can't remember the dates of the George land lotteries, but what might these reveal? This list goes on and on. You may not be able to "prove" Native American ancestry, but you likely will be able to rule as some branches as candidates. > > The essence of these discussions is that it is usually a > > losing strategy in genealogy to set out trying to prove your are > > related to some specific person - be he or she rich, famous, an > > Indian or a horse thief. > > Well, I tried that with Pocahontas and proved conclusively that one > of her grandchildren was my aunt unpteen times removed. One teensy > little generation off! Hmmm. Wasn't the aunt a sibling of one of your ancestors? If so, then surely your ancestor had the same heritage as his or her sister. (BTW, I don't think you express relationships to aunts in terms of "removed.") As far as "conclusively" is concerned, at least a portion of what you learned is based on whether or not you had an accurate accounting of Pocahontas' grandchildren. There are many skeptis that say she either had none or the ones that are claimed aren't necessarily her grandchildren. > And it's not terribly silly to try to prove connections with famous > people if you know for sure that there is only one missing > generation to prove or disprove. Not silly at all. That's the way most people would approach the problem. However, what I said was that you shouldn't try to trace down from the famous person to yourself. That's usually a losing strategy - filled with many deadends. Once you get your line within a generation or two of the noted prsons generation, that is indeed the time to look for the connection. Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>