2000-Kessler and Ball;3rd Melungeon Union Paper Presentation;”The Carmel Melungeons of Ohio”

North From the Mountains: The Carmel Melungeons of Ohio

by John Kessler and Donald Ball

Paper presented Saturday, 20 May 2000, Third Union, University   of Virginia’s College at Wise, Wise, Virginia.

Abstract. Recent research into the history, origins, and lifeways of   the Carmel Indians of Highland County, (south-central) Ohio, has produced the   most comprehensive study to date of this little known Melungeon-related   settlement since the studies of Berry (1963), Gilbert (1949), Morgan (1946;   1955), and Price (1950a; 1950b). This effort draws upon archival sources,   firsthand observations of the group as it existed in the 1940’s and early   1950’s, and more recent fieldwork. The present comments have been extracted from   a more detailed study of this group scheduled to be released by Mercer   University Press in late 2000.

Notice: The present summation of research on the Carmel Melungeon   settlement of southern Ohio is released and made available with the express   permission and authorization of Mercer University Press, Macon, Georgia. This   material is copyrighted and may not be reproduced in any manner for other   than personal use.

Introduction

Ladies and gentlemen, it is truly a pleasure to be here today   and share with you the results of a portion of our research on one of the   lesser known Melungeon settlements. By way of introduction, I am Don Ball,   archaeologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Louisville, Kentucky,   and with me is my collaborator and co-author, John Kessler, who was raised on   a farm near Carmel and interacted on an almost daily basis for nearly 20   years with the folks we will be discussing. The present observations represent   but an extended extract of the information presented in a book-length study   of the Carmel settlement scheduled for release later this year by Mercer   University Press in Macon, Georgia.

To the casual tourist and many area residents alike, the countryside   surrounding the small, sleepy crossroads settlement of Carmel nestled at the   very edge of the Appalachian foothills in Highland County, southern Ohio, may   seem an unlikely place to initiate research into an obscure group which   originated in the mid-Atlantic seaboard. As is the case with the majority of   the estimated 200 such mixed-blood groups recorded throughout the eastern   United States, relatively little scholarly attention has been specifically   directed to the study of the Carmel Melungeons. The earliest published   reference to this group appears to be but a simple, brief mention of its   existence in a general guide to the State of Ohio prepared by the Ohio   Writer’s Program (1940:509). Such historical and ethnographic information as   is available appears principally in the studies of Price (1950a; 1950b),   Morgan (1946; 1955), Gilbert (1949:426-427), and a scattering of comments in   other sources (e.g., Ayers 1971; Berry 1963; 1978; McBride and McBride 1990).   Though insightful, none were either intensive or systematic.

As will be discussed in much greater detail herein, it is a working premise   of this effort that the settlement commonly known as the “Carmel   Indians” is related to, and derived from, the better known Melungeons of   southern Appalachia, themselves the subject of some investigation and much   speculation since the late 1800’s. Tracing the long and winding route   traveled by the ancestors of the Carmel natives as they crossed the rugged   Appalachian mountains and ultimately came to settle in the Ohio hill country,   the present comments will focus on the history, lifeways, and current status   of this settlement. The Carmel group has been traditionally viewed as   “Indian” by area Whites and, indeed, made claims to Indian   inheritance on its own behalf.

For present purposes, it is more than appropriate to clarify the   identification of the Carmel enclave as “Melungeon”. A number of   scholarly and popular writers alike have restricted the area of occupation of   the Melungeons to a relatively limited portion of Appalachia generally   consisting of Hancock and Hawkins counties, Tennessee, and Lee, Scott, and   Wise counties, Virginia. Such a perspective ignores the residency of   genetically comparable and similarly named families throughout an area   covering at least 29 adjacent counties variously located in northwestern   North Carolina, southwestern Virginia, northeastern Tennessee, and   southeastern Kentucky. Accordingly, this paper takes the position that the   population scattered across this broad area is de facto Melungeon, be they   derived from the “core” area of Melungeon occupation or,   alternately, from the same source areas in the mid-Atlantic coastal region.   It is ill founded to presume that any given family named Gibson or Collins ­   two “core” surnames encountered within both the “classic”   Melungeon heartland and Magoffin County, Kentucky, the source area for the   Carmel population ­ are necessarily unrelated. Were, for example, one of   these families to move from Magoffin County to Hancock County, they would   promptly be deemed “Melungeon”. Merely living in an outlying county   within this region makes them no less so. Simultaneously, it would be   erroneous to assume that genetic variation of particular population pockets   did not occur within this region. Thus, the Melungeons living along the   Tennessee-Virginia border were genetically similar ­ but not identical ­ to   those living elsewhere.

Situated at the foot of Long Lick Hill, the small crossroads settlement of   Carmel (pronounced “Car’-mul”) is located in Brush Creek Township   in the southeastern corner of Highland County, (southwestern) Ohio. This   hamlet is literally at the edge of the Appalachian escarpment. To the south   and east, heavily dissected, forested hill country predominates. To the north   and west, the gently rolling topography is more influenced by till plain   formations. Hillsboro, the county seat, is approximately 50 miles east of   Cincinnati and an equal distance southeast of Dayton. It is situated less   than 30 miles due north of the Ohio River.

Never formally platted as a town, Carmel as a community has always been small   and rural in nature. Settled as early as 1823 by the holders of land grants   for Revolutionary War service, the community was granted a post office in   1856 (closed 1921). A mercantile store was established on the southwestern   corner of the crossroads as early as 1870. In addition to the post office, in   its “heyday” in the 1890’s and turn of the century, this trading   center had grown to a population of 80 persons and hosted four retail establishments   (grocery and general stores), a resident attorney, two blacksmith shops, a   Methodist Church, and a flour mill situated on nearby Rocky Fork Creek.

By the 1940’s, electricity and telephone service was available during this   period but many persons had neither. Water was from individual wells. The   store was the social center for the immediate area. Other local attractions   were the church on Sunday, the occasional tent revival which used the field   next to the school, and election day. The years have witnessed the continuing   decline of Carmel’s role in the affairs of the adjacent countryside. The   settlement’s population was estimated to be but 30 persons in 1970 (Ayers   1971:289).

Situated about 0.8 mile south of Carmel along SR 753 was a small settlement   referred to locally as Coon’s Crossing. This was an aggregation of houses and   shanties, many of which were occupied by Melungeons. This small settlement at   the proverbial “wide spot in the road” remains little changed with   the exception that many early “shanties” have been replaced with   used mobile homes.

II. HISTORY AND ORIGINS

The first concentration of persons classified as   “Mulatto” in Brush Creek Township appear in the 1870 census. As   recorded for that year, these residents consisted of six households varying   from 3 to 14 individuals in size with a total population of 40 individuals.   Three households represented two surnames each. The surnames present at that   time (with number of individuals) were: Gipson (17); Jackson (1); Matthews   (9); Nichols (5); Perkins (4); Philips (3); and Wairmine (1) (Breakfield   1995:1, 3-5). Both the appearance of multiple surnames within households and   the general proximity of these households to one another serve to suggest   that these persons represented extended families of related individuals.

 

The correlation of age and place of birth information as   extracted from the census schedules is of particular utility in documenting   the appearance of the group in Ohio. The general migration of the Brush Creek   mixed-bloods is clearly shown by virtue of six out of seven of the oldest   residents (50+ years) having been born in Tennessee or Virginia (the   implications of these states in the history of the group will be discussed   below) while 23 of 33 individuals under the age of 50 stated their place of   birth as Kentucky. Of the nine persons born in Ohio, seven were under the age   of 10 years while only two individuals over the age of 10 were born in that   state. The oldest of these, Margaret Gipson, was 21 years old. This   information suggests that various families in the group may have experimented   with living in other areas of the state as early as 1849 prior to moving to   Highland County. As shown by the census schedule, some families had   apparently moved to Ohio, returned to Kentucky, and once again decided to move   across the Ohio River. Within the cluster of young persons under 10 years   born in Ohio, the oldest child was six years old at the time of the census   further suggesting the likelihood that the group had settled in Brush Creek   Township as early as ca. 1864.

Though speculative and circumstantial, such a settlement date is supported by   the events surrounding the Civil War. Southern Ohio was little affected by   the comings and goings of clashing armies. Indeed, through the war years the   farm economy of Ohio prospered in response to feeding an ever increasing   Union military force (Jones 1962:5). The likely resultant need for farm labor   in Brush Creek Township (and other areas) and the point of origin of the   mixed-bloods in the mountains of eastern Kentucky, an area not known for   strong Confederate sympathies, served to foster an environment which would at   least tolerate their movement into the economically marginal hill country.

Their occupancy in the foothills of Highland County simultaneously afforded a   desirable juxtaposition of familiar rugged terrain of little economic use to   local farmers and access to construction material, food, fuel, and sources of   paid employment. Area farmers in turn gained a source of labor which did not   demand higher wages and, indeed, may not have sought or desired steady work   (Price 1950b:285). Price (1950a:193) estimated the population of this diffuse   group in the Carmel vicinity to be approximately 150 in the late 1940’s. For   the same time period, Beale’s examination of the 1950 Federal census   schedules revealed a total population of 450 individuals distributed through   three counties; specifically, this figure included Champaign County (60;   classified as White and Negro), Hardin County (260; classified as White,   Indian, and Negro), and Highland County (130; classified as White) (Beale   1957:194).

RELATIONSHIP TO MAGOFFIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY

Though the reasons for their migration specifically to   Highland County remain both obscure and conjectural, the roots of the Carmel   colony in Magoffin and adjacent parts of Floyd counties, Kentucky, are well   established on the basis of both documentary and oral historical evidence   (cf. Price 1950a; 1950b). As suggested by available census schedules,   marriage records, and interviews conducted by Price in the 1940’s, movement   between the two areas had long been prompted by a desire to seek employment   opportunities north of the Ohio River while maintaining their familial ties   to the Kentucky mountains.

Price’s examination of applicable census schedules and other records revealed   that the ancestors of the Magoffin County (established 1860) group were   present in Floyd County (which then included Magoffin County) by 1810. The   1820 Floyd County census listed several of these families as “Free Person[s]   of Color” while in the 1850 and subsequent schedules they were variously   enumerated as White, Mulatto, and Indian. In general, their racial mixture   was evidently a matter of long standing and had occurred prior to their entry   into Kentucky. As noted in the census schedules, these mountaineers were   variously born in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee (Price 1950b:288).

Within Magoffin County, the major concentration of the mixed-blood population   was formerly (1940’s) reported to reside along Big Lick, a branch of Middle   Creek in the eastern part of the county, and nearby portions of Middle Creek,   a tributary of the Big Sandy, which extends into adjacent portions of Floyd   County (Price 1950a:201; 1950b:286). In the past, other members of the group were   reported to live along Mason Creek (a tributary to the Licking River) about 2   miles (3.2 km) south of Salyersville, the county seat. Various Gibson,   Gipson, and Nichols families resided along Mason Creek.

The predominate names encountered along Big Lick were Cole and Perkins. Price   observed that: the Big Lick, in reality a short narrow branch, is the only   concentration of them. It contains six houses and some very poor sites for   farms, but a map of 1915 showed 16 houses in addition to the school. A former   teacher at the school said that it had 68 pupils in 1925, some of them grown,   but none advanced beyond the third grade; the school’s enrollment of 23 in   1947, over half of whom actually lived on the Big Lick, also indicated the   population decrease. This area was dominated by the Cole family and is yet   known as the “Cole Nation” (Price 1950b:286-287).

Aside from Price’s observations, the only other description of the Magoffin   County enclave encountered in the literature reviewed was a short commentary   by Jean Patterson Bible. She remarked that:

Of the Magoffin County Melungeons, a friend from Gifford, Kentucky, writes   that “All of the old timers here are of the opinion that the first   Gipsons came to Magoffin County from Virginia in the early 1800’s. There are   about two hundred in the county today [i.e., ca. 1975], I would guess. The   most prominent family name is Gipson and then there are the Coles, Mullinses,   Fletchers, and Nicholses. All of them are usually referred to locally as   “Gipsons” rather than Melungeons. They are still a very dark and   handsome people. They are clannish through necessity but warm up to anyone   who will treat them fairly and without prejudice Many have moved away and   intermarried. They go to Michigan and Ohio mostly, and some of them are very   skillful in trades of carpentry and bricklaying” (Bible 1975:31).

All of the areas discussed by Price (Big Lick, Middle Creek, and Mason Creek)   have become increasingly developed and reflect predominately modern   (post-World War II era) homes intermixed with sporadic small business   establishments. One vestige of the mixed-blood presence in the area is a sign   reading “Gibson Hollow Road” adjacent to Mason Creek Road about two   miles south of Salyersville.

During the 1940’s, Price estimated their numbers within Magoffin and Floyd   counties to be approximately 200 (1950a:200). However, based upon a surname   analysis of the 1950 census schedules for Kentucky, Beale (1957:193)   documented a total of 670 (classified as White and Negro) in Magoffin County   and 1,680 (classified as White) in Floyd County.

TIES TO THE MELUNGEONS

It is of note that the remnant “Indian” population   of Magoffin County is but one link in a long and virtually unbroken chain of   such groups spanning much of southern Appalachia and occupying parts of four   states. Numbering in excess of 15,000 individuals according to the 1950 census   (cf. Beale 1957), the Melungeons are broadly dispersed throughout many   Appalachian counties. Within Kentucky, their numbers reside in Lawrence,   Johnson, Magoffin, Floyd, Pike, Knott, Perry, Letcher, Owsley, Knox, and Bell   counties. In Tennessee, they have been recorded in Hancock, Carter, and   Sullivan counties. Virginia hosts their numbers in Lee, Scott, Wise, Russell,   Washington, Smythe, Giles, Patrick, and Henry counties. In North Carolina,   they reside in Ashe, Watauga, Surry, Stokes, and Rockingham counties (cf.   Beale 1957; Holliday 1998; Price 1950a:136a; 1951:257). Significantly, this   broad area encompasses Hancock County, Tennessee, and Lee, Scott, and Wise   counties, Virginia, long considered the heartland of the Melungeons.

Based upon his analysis of census data referable to the history and origins   of the Melungeons, Price observed many years ago that the early appearance of   a limited number of surnames ­ notably (but not restricted to) Collins,   Gibson, and Goins as early as the 1790’s ­ tended to “suggest that   several households with these names were involved in the original migrations   from North Carolina and Virginia” (Price 1953:141). In terms of reported   surnames, there is no clear one-to-one correlation between and among many of these   enclaves in general or the Magoffin County and Carmel settlements   specifically with the “classic” Melungeon settlement area. There is   a sufficient overlap of surnames within these groups ­ particularly in the   mountainous areas to the west of Hancock, Lee, and Wise counties ­ to surmise   that some areas in northeastern Tennessee and southeastern Kentucky were   simultaneously settled over an extended period of years by individuals from   both the traditional Melungeon heartland and related mixed-blood families   from the ancestral homelands of the Melungeons situated to the east along the   Virginia-North Carolina border and elsewhere in the mid-Atlantic coast   region. Research undertaken and recently published by Elder (1999:201-294)   has led her to separate typically Melungeon related surnames into three   broadly defined categories. Her studies suggest that the earliest   “core-group surnames” associated with the first settlers along the   Tennessee-Virginia border are Collins and Gibson/Gipson. These were   subsequently followed by those with the “secondary core-group   surnames” of Bell, Bolling (and variant spellings), Bunch, Denham (and   variant spellings), Goins (numerous variant spellings), Miner/Minor, Mullins,   and Williams. The third group of surnames including (but not limited to)   Barnes, Cole, Delp(h), Fields, Freeman, Gorvens/Gorvan, Graham. Hale/Haile,   Lawson, Maloney/Melons, Moore, Nichols, Noel, Piniore, Sexton, and Wright are   interpreted as families who later moved into the area and married members of   the “core” families or who were erroneously designated as   Melungeons by earlier researchers. Significantly, the association of the   Collins and Gibson/Gipson surnames with both the Tenneessee-Virginia border   area and the Floyd (later Magoffin) County settlements further strengthens   the familial and genetic ties between these two spatially removed   populations.

As it relates to a correlation between Magoffin County and the principal   Melungeon settlement area, the following surnames are held in common:   Collins; Gibson; Gipson; and (possibly) Barnett. Significantly, a comparison   of Melungeon surnames with the rolls of Cherokees residing on reservation   lands (cf. Blankenship 1992a; 1992b) prompted Price to observe: “there   is no reason to believe that the Melungeons are Cherokee Indians who left the   tribe” (Price 1950a:186) thus serving to reinforce the mid-Atlantic   rather than Appalachian origins of these widespread settlements.

MID-ATLANTIC COAST ORIGINS

Of the 33 known or possible Melungeon surnames examined in our   study, eight could be potentially linked to spatially removed mixed-blood   populations, predominately situated in the coastal states of Delaware,   Virginia, and both Carolinas. Specifically, these names are: Bunch, Collins,   Gibson, Goins, Harmon, Nickols, Perkins, and Williams. The geographic   location of the various groups with similar surnames is of note. The simple   fact that two or more groups bear a similar name does not necessarily   indicate a movement of people from one to another. Rather, it may suggest   that these groups received members from an outside source.

Indeed, an examination of but a sampling of surnames associated with numerous   mixed-blood populations in the southeastern United States generally (and   mid-Atlantic coast specifically) reveals many surnames held in common and   provides a reasonable foundation to interpret the westward dispersal of some   members of these groups as but a manifestation of massive pioneer movements   both preceding and following the American Revolution. Though the term   “Melungeon” has typically been restricted by students of the region   to those mixed-bloods localized in Hancock County, Tennessee, and Lee, Scott,   and Wise counties, Virginia, the numerous yet spatially dispersed mixed-blood   communities ultimately established throughout a broad and unbroken   multi-state region may be viewed as the interrelated products of both   westward migration and resettlement within the mountains of Appalachia.

The implications appear rather clear. Of the eight surnames presently   traceable to other mixed-blood populations, six (75%) are associated with   various, generally smaller, settlements within the mid-Atlantic coastal   states of Delaware, Virginia, and both Carolinas. Specifically, these names   are Bunch, Collins, Gibson, Goins, Harmon, and Williams. Proceeding for the   moment on the assumption that the core Melungeon population resulted in part   from direct migration by members of these groups, available evidence points   toward two surnames which stand out as restricted in their appearance to but   a single mid-Atlantic coast parent group: Gibson, associated with the   Occaneechi-Saponi of North Carolina, and Williams, also known among the Brass   Ankles of South Carolina. While this possible and indeed likely connection   between the Brass Ankles of South Carolina (cf. Berry 1945; 1963; Gilbert   1946:439; 1949:421-422; Price 1950a:293; Taukchiray et al. 1992) and the   Melungeon population at large deserves further attention, the present effort   will focus on groups which may have specifically contributed to the ancestry   of the Magoffin County, Kentucky, and Carmel, Ohio, enclaves. In this regard,   only one surname appears to be potentially traceable to a single point of   potential origin ­ Gibson, one of the more widely dispersed and frequently   encountered “classic” Melungeon family names. This name is known to   have been associated with the Occaneechi and Saponi along the Virginia-North   Carolina border as early as the 1750’s (Hazel 1991).

Based upon his analysis of documentary sources referable to the origins of   the Melungeons in Hancock County, Tennessee, Price studied the geographic   distribution of three frequently encountered group surnames: Collins, Goins,   and Gibson. Indeed, the observable concentration of these three names   associated with a sizable “free colored” population in the region   to the east of the Tennessee mountains, prompted him to remark:

on the basis of those [Melungeon surname] data and the Virginia and North   Carolina birthplaces of many of the Melungeons, I am inclined to believe that   the chief Melungeon source area lies in the Virginia-North Carolina border   counties of the Piedmont. Further study in this direction is strongly   indicated. The possibility that a general society of marginal mixed-bloods   circulated in the southern Seaboard states, touching most of the Piedmont and   Coastal Plain groups, cannot be rejected (Price 1950a:190; emphasis   added).

Indeed, between the years 1790 and 1816, an estimated 200,000 North   Carolinians alone joined the exodus into the newly opened western lands   (Cathey 1966:18). Mixed-bloods amongst this number were simultaneously   drifting with the western bound tide of humanity and, as suggested by Heinegg   (1997:1-26), attempting to escape from an ongoing series of increasingly   repressive laws passed by the state assemblies along the mid-Atlantic coast.

Though Price appropriately observed the concentration of these and many other   mixed-blood populations along the old colonial boundary line, he did not   attempt to explain the cause of this phenomenon. Historically, there was good   reason for such a peculiarly configured settlement area (recall the Goinses   being distributed over a 150 mile length of the border). In actuality, there   were two distinct borders between the colonies (later states) of Virginia and   North Carolina. Upon their creation, each colony had been granted a Crown   charter specifying its boundary. Though the error may plausibly be attributed   to the quality of the maps available to Crown officials, the mandated points   which established the legal border between the two colonies began at two   overlapping points some 30 miles apart on the Atlantic coast and extended due   west. This 30 mile wide “no man’s land” was claimed by both and   effectively administered by neither (the history of this long standing   dispute is discussed in greater detail in Boyd 1967). Throughout its length,   the area provided a refuge to many of the region’s socially displaced and   economically disadvantaged residents. The authority of sheriffs and other   public officials was heeded or not dependent upon whim and circumstance. An   excellent early account of this area and its occupants appears in William   Byrd’s report of a 1728 survey along the length of the border from the   Atlantic shore into the mountains (Byrd 1967). Indeed, even deep in Appalachia,   continued proximity to the Virginia-Tennessee (then North Carolina) border   may well have been a significant factor in the selection of an area for   settlement by the first Melungeons in the region.

While appropriately noting various well established surnames (Collins,   Gibson, Goins, etc.) within the Melungeons as a group, Price (1950a; 1951)   did not specifically attempt to account for their presence. Recent   significant research by Paul Heinegg (1997) has done much to explain the   origins of both these surnames and at least a substantial portion of the   parent Melungeon population. Drawing upon voluminous primary sources, Heinegg   has documented the genealogies of numerous free African American families   from the late 1600’s until ca. 1800. Indeed, a number of frequently   encountered Melungeon surnames and eight of the nine surnames specifically   associated with the Magoffin County enclave may be traced to free African   American families in Virginia, North Carolina, and other mid-Atlantic   colonies (Table 6). Heinegg’s research has clearly demonstrated that these   families not only grew rapidly but also tended to move extensively throughout   much of the mid-Atlantic coast region. It is this group that likely   constituted the “general society of marginal mixed-bloods [which]   circulated in the southern Seaboard states” hypothesized by Price   (1950a:190).

But be the result of such first generation unions Black-White, White-Indian,   or Indian-Black, they were increasingly little welcomed into   “proper”, racially segregated society in either the colonial (cf.   Morgan 1952; Watson 1975) or Ante-bellum (cf. Avirett 1901; Burwell 1895;   Hundley 1860; Page 1897) era south. Effectively unwanted by the economically   and socially dominate White society around them, such individuals had little   choice but to align themselves with Indians, freed Blacks, or form their own   communities based on mixed blood lines. The disputed border area offered a   place to do just that.

SUMMARY

The historical and anthropological evidence discussed herein   suggests that in general a significant portion (though not necessarily all)   of the ancestry of the Magoffin County, Kentucky, and Highland County, Ohio,   enclaves originated principally from an admixture of African Americans and   Whites in the early colonial period (from the late 1600’s until about 1800)   and secondarily from an admixture with presently unknown Native American   groups in the mid-Atlantic coast region. Though African American and White   ancestry is clearly demonstrated by the presently known genealogy of Stephen   Perkins (Table 7), one of the earliest mixed-blood arrivals in Floyd County,   Kentucky, the specific degree of genetic inheritance in any given individual   or family was likely subject to a high degree of variation (cf. Pollitzer   1972) but in general reflected (in this order) White, African American, and   Native American genes. As some of these families (e.g., Bunch, Gibson, Goins,   Moore, and Williams) are known to have originated as early as the middle to   end of the 17th century, there was ample time for their numbers to have both   increased and moved into the mountain homeland of the core Melungeon   settlement area as early as
1802 (cf. Everett 1999:361) and Floyd County, Kentucky, prior to 1810.

In light of eight of the nine surnames associated with the families   comprising the “core” of the Magoffin County enclave having ties to   known free African American families originating in the mid-Atlantic coast   region during the colonial era (cf. Table 6), there can be little doubt that the   classification of those families present in Highland County as   “Mulatto” at the time of the 1870 census was essentially correct in   accordance with the racial criteria of that period. This contention is   further supported by the undated (but likely late 19th century) burial of   “a colored child named Nichols” in the Mull family cemetery located   generally south of Carmel.

The specific degree of Native American genetic presence within the group   remains unknown but is likely minimal. Elder (1999:162-169, 180, 295, 352,   353) has attempted to tie the early Collins and perhaps Gibson families in   the Tennessee-Virginia border area to the Monacan/Saponi of western Virginia.   The relationship of similarly named families in Floyd and Magoffin counties,   Kentucky, to these or other tribes is presently unknown. There is presently   no evidence to support the origins of the Carmel settlement among any remnant   Shawnee which may have remained in southern Ohio nor does a comparison of   Cherokee and Melungeon surnames in general provide any evidence that either   the Magoffin County or Carmel populations received any significant degree of   genetic input from that tribe.

Established in Carmel about 1864, this mixed-blood settlement was always   rather small and maintained ongoing contact with the parent population in   Magoffin County, Kentucky, throughout its existence. At an unknown date ­ but   likely beginning relatively early in the 20th century ­ there was an   outmigration from Carmel to Hardin and Champaign counties, Ohio, and (later)   Michigan further to the north.

Historical data, however, is but a skeleton upon which is overlain the flesh   and blood of living people. John will now present a series of firsthand   observation drawn from his long association and personal observations of the   Carmel Melungeons.

III. A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE WAY IT WAS

Located at the edge of the Appalachian escarpment, the portion   of Highland County, Ohio, in and around Carmel was curiously insular and   atavistic with the effects of the depression continuing in the area until   well into World War II and beyond. For example, during that war one couple   (non-Melungeon) living in the hills between Carmel and Fort Hill, while aware   that the nation was at war, was under the impression that “Kaiser   Bill” was again the source of hostilities. The idea of Japanese participation   was completely outside their comprehension. Electricity and indoor plumbing   in many homes (including ours) was absent, education was generally eighth   grade or less, and with the exception of religion or superstition, activities   were pragmatically rather than abstractly motivated. A surprising percentage   of the roads were unpaved. Store bought bread was a treat; dry (soup) beans   and cornbread were staples; and most people went “to town” only   once a week (if then), usually on Saturday night. Law enforcement was minimal.   In consequence of this isolation, local mores, old stories, legends, and   associated lore tended to persist. It is noteworthy that the culture and   mores of the area were more southern than might have been thought to prevail   in a “Yankee” state and though the county seat (Hillsboro) in the   neighboring “flatlands” was a scant 15 miles west-northwest of   Carmel, little was known there of the Melungeons who lived in the area   including adjacent portions of Pike County.

Most of my childhood and adolescence – excluding a period during World War II   – was spent in the Carmel area. I lived on the family farm near Fort Hill and   Carmel or in the nearby village of Sinking Spring. My observations and   experience extend from the late 1930’s into the late 1950’s. My parents, both   born in 1893, were for all practical purposes lifelong residents of the   township as were their antecedents. This provided me with knowledge of the   group extending from the 19th century into the post-World War II era. Many of   my observations of the group are contemporaneous with the work of Gilbert   (1949), Morgan (1946), and Price (1950a; 1950b). The Melungeons were a   familiar part of my personal landscape as they were with my parents   (especially my mother during her formative years) and throughout their lives.

My mother’s familiarity with and knowledge of this group support the idea   that it had resided in the area for a long time and that its social status   had been established prior to her birth. Further, her tales and personal   recollections lend credence to Price’s (1950a; 1950b) proposal that the   settlement was established about the time of the Civil War.

My father once told me that members of the group were initially “brought   up here to build the Milt Cartright place”. Situated southeast of   Carmel, this house (now gone) was reputed to be a station on the underground   railroad. My father also said that when the original group was “brought   up” (indicating southern origins) they were considered to be Indians,   indicating Seminoles; I have no knowledge of the basis for his statement. It   is possible that, as his forebears were somewhat removed from the Carmel   area, his information was in error or skewed. Unfortunately, my mother, who   grew up more locally, never commented on the origins of the group.

Although mentioned by Price (1950a:195-197, 205-206; 1950b:284) as a   convention, I actually never heard of intercourse between the community of   Carmel and Salyersville, (Magoffin County) Kentucky, until the late 1940’s or   early 1950’s. This, however, is somewhat mitigated by the fact that at times   and to escape the results of some transgression one of the group would be   said to have “run off to Kentucky”. I suppose, granting Price’s   accuracy, this would have been Salyersville. Running off to Kentucky was not   necessarily confined to this group. Many of the area residents were from   Kentucky. Beginning about 1900 (or before), there had been an influx from   there of persons having varying degrees of respectability; thus, some of   those not considered to be members of the group also “ran off to   Kentucky”. It was rumored that certain of these people used the Ohio   River as a barrier to pursuit, either by interests in Kentucky or Ohio.

Racial Origins. The group was considered to be a mixture of Indian,   Caucasian, and possibly Negro. Those of the group who expressed a preference   opted for Indian. To the best of my knowledge, no reference was made to any   specific tribe. Interaction with the Black community (located primarily in   Hillsboro) appeared to be non-existent. Nothing I heard or saw indicated any   cultural relationships with Negroes.

Physical appearance of group members varied. The usual was dark (swarthy)   skin, dark eyes, straight dark hair, and (for males) slender to medium build.   The women were sometimes stocky. Cheek bones were often prominent and some   individuals had prominent noses. With some exceptions, male facial hair   appeared to be sparse. Light and wavy hair was also represented as was light   skin. For example, Robert Gibson with whom I spent considerable time was   slender, light skinned with light wavy hair and high prominent cheek bones.   He had green eyes. His wife was slim and dark skinned with dark eyes and   straight black hair. Norman Gibson, with whom I also associated, was slender   and swarthy. He had high prominent cheek bones, straight black hair, and a   prominent nose. His wife was lighter skinned and stocky with brown hair and   eyes. Her nose was less prominent and her face was round.

I never really discussed with or heard reference to origins from group   members. There were a few indications that the group considered themselves to   be Indian. Non-Melungeon residents variously used the terms   “Carmelite” and “half breed” as descriptive epithets for   group members. Discussions of Negro origin took place away from group   members. I really doubt, however, that locally anyone really believed there   was a preponderance of African ancestry in this group.

The gross physical characteristics considered to be Negroid by the layman   were minimal to lacking. It is my opinion that it would have been very   difficult for a group member to pass as Black and that if a portion of their   ancestry was Negro, the incidence thereof must have been minimal. Whatever   their genetic inheritance, these people simply were not phenotypic Africans.

Social Organization. Although they were most likely forced to be   cohesive due to their perceived ancestry, they appeared to be generally more   comfortable within their group than without it. The close knit nature of the   group was reasonably apparent. To exemplify, during the 1920’s a pig was   clubbed to death and stolen from our farm by persons unknown but group   members were suspected. According to family accounts, the group   “patriarch” (known to the community as “Sugar Grant”) was   jailed by the county sheriff with the result that three group members   confessed and produced the meat from the butchered hog.

The term “patriarch” as used herein is thought to be a reasonably   appropriate descriptor. So far as I know, the person so considered was not   chosen through ceremony. Rather, he (and in the case of one   “matriarch” within the group, she) was an older member whose   combination of family relationship, age, and experience conferred a degree of   status and informal influence which combined respect, mentorship, and   protection.

Social Position. Although group members were perceived to be different   primarily because of their ancestry, their economic status and folkways   guaranteed their position at the bottom of the social ladder. In many   instances, the core Melungeon group was the standard by which the actions of   others were measured – i.e., “no better than”, “worse   than”, or “the same as”. The group was always considered to be   a separate population similar, for example, to contemporary cultural colonies   of Vietnamese refugees in many larger American cities (though not with the   same degree of resentment at their presence). Persons who interacted on their   social level were still considered to be separate. If these persons   interacted on that level and with the group they were “the same   as”. This did not indicate identity, it merely indicated comparison.   This lends weight to the contention that the basis for comparison was   primarily ancestry.

Note on Folkways and Mores. It is difficult to isolate or restrict   activities to the local Melungeon group. Many of the activities, beliefs, and   vernacular ascribed to the Melungeons were, in fact, shared by others in the   area. Regardless, the group was probably the most atavistic in a generally   backwards area. However, of a certainty, such things common to the group as   subsistence living, thievery and other illegal activities, acceptance of   common superstitions, and illiteracy were neither restrictive nor unique. In   truth, I have often suspected that the only things truly unique to the   Melungeons were their origins and tendency toward cohesiveness. For every   action or belief of a Melungeon, I believe that I could have found its local   analog in a non-Melungeon individual.

Group Names and Population. The surnames firmly associated with this   group were: Nichols (established); Gibson or Gipson (both pronounced   “Gip’-son”; well established; these family represented the most   individuals); Perkins (established; two families); Gilmore (later, during my   experience – new arrival); and Fuget (later, during my experience – new   arrivals?). Of these, Gibson/Gipson, Nichols, and Perkins were the most   common and quite possibly represent the earliest migrants. I also heard the   name Jackson mentioned by members of my family. However, as I knew no   Melungeons so named, I suspect this was a family which disappeared locally   before my time. Although a few Wisecups and Crums were also included; these   names were primarily non-Melungeon. Their inclusion was the result of fairly   recent inter-marriage. Without recourse to census schedules, I would estimate   the population about 1950 as less than 100 individuals and probably less than   50. There were also some later arrivals from eastern Kentucky whose status   was unclear. They lived in the Carmel area, interacted with the group to a   slight degree, yet seemed to be economically and socially advanced compared   to the core group.

Speech/Folk Lexicon. The speech norm used by the group could only be   described as “southern hillbilly”. In addition to a brogue and   phraseology which seems to have been indigenous to the area (for example,   “crik” for “creek”), the group members tended to put   their own construction on common words exemplified as follows: ain’t /   “haint”; pretty near / “pertinear”; hair /   “har”; can’t / “caint”; if / “iffin”; haunt /   “hant”; flower / “flare”; wife / “wuman”;   yellow/ “yaller”; and ran / “run”. “Yell” and   “hollow” were both rendered as “holler”. Additionally,   there was a tendency to sound the vowel “I” as a nasal   “a”, a characteristic noted in persons from eastern Kentucky. Words   of this nature, however, were not restricted to the group; others – myself   included – used some or all of them. Use of the nasal “a”, however,   appeared to be restricted to some of the later Melungeons and other arrivals   from Kentucky.

Residences and Furnishings. In general, the cabins described by Price   (1950a:192-193; 1950b:282, 284) were typical of the Melungeon residences   found in the area. However, similar homes were extant in the Fort Hill area   and occupied by families other than the subject group. In either case, most   of these structures would have been considered sub-standard even by the   standards of that era. Log construction, while represented, was probably   atavistic; the more “modern” domiciles appeared to be of vertical   board and batten (probably poplar) construction and unpainted. There was also   a tendency for Melungeons to occupy Caucasian homes which had been vacated.

I was never personally inside a Melungeon home while same was occupied.   Business was usually conducted outside of the house in the “yard”   as a matter of course or at the visitor’s car. However, based on the   economics of the area and visits to similar but non-Melungeon dwellings I   would hazard the following observations. The cook stove was typically wood   burning. Some lucky individuals might have had a kerosene cook stove which   tended to produce less heat in the summer. The heating stove was also wood   burning. These were not elaborate in nature but rather were of relatively   simple cast iron construction or a lighter barrel type. I never heard much   about fireplaces but have little doubt that they were used in the 1800’s and   early part of this century. Most homes had but one or two kerosene (coal oil)   lamps.

Beds were typically of the iron bedstead variety. Depending on the number of   children, any additional beds were probably shared by as many as could be   crowded in. Sometimes children slept with parents as well. I also suspect in   some cases that bedding for some of the children was simply a “straw   tick” on the floor. Bed bugs were not unknown in those days and I truly   believe that they were to be found in many homes in the area. As they weren’t   hard to come by but were very hard to eradicate, there is no reason to   suppose that Melungeon households were not so blessed. As most cabins were   short of or totally lacking in closet space, free standing clothes presses   and/or bureaus were used. Tables and chairs/benches ranged from homemade to   cheaper, possibly hand me down, manufactured furniture.

Laundry, Bathing, and Sanitary Facilities. The washboard was a   functional aspect of most households but, contrary to contemporary images of   mountaineers, it did not serve as a musical instrument. I believe this device   was the predominate laundry contrivance in most Melungeon homes. The   implications in terms of type of clothing and bedding and cleanliness thereof   are fairly obvious. Wash water was heated and washings were done outside the   cabin. During the winter, smaller amounts of material might be washed indoors   and dried around the stove.

As there was no indoor plumbing, water had to be “packed in” from   the nearest source. This was done by the bucketful and the water bucket   served as the reservoir for potable and wash water. Thus, opportunities for   bathing and personal hygiene were limited. Toilets were generally non-pit   type privies.

Subsistence and Employment. The major forms of subsistence were hourly   labor, sharecropping, and foraging. These activities were not unique to the   group. Members of non-group families pursued largely the same methods.   Seining fish and poaching with gun, snare, and deadfall were not sole   Melungeon pursuits, nor were herb gathering, farm labor, sharecropping,   timber work, or (later) welfare. Missing articles (for example: corn,   gasoline, the contents of our fruit cellar, hunting dogs, and livestock)   typically generated heavy suspicion on the part of the locals. In all   justice, these suspicions were not without foundation; however, there were   others who were equally capable of such depredations.

Most work was associated with either agriculture or timbering. The   predominant occupation was agricultural labor which in my youth paid about   $.75 per hour. The primary crops worked were corn, tobacco, and hay, with   tobacco being the most labor intensive. Some individuals would raise tobacco   “on the shares”, in other words the landowner provided the land and   fronted some or all of the expenses and the tenant provided the labor.   Following the stripping and sale of the crop (November through January), the   proceeds were divided in accordance with the prior agreement. This meant that   the tenant would have a windfall of cash sometime in the late fall or winter   leading to a tendency toward profligate spending (“living high on the   hog”) followed by the more normal destitution. It was my personal   observation that with few exceptions they were good, cheerful, and dependable   workers (when supervised) and possessed significant endurance. Few of them,   however, actually operated farm machinery. To the best of my knowledge, going   “up north” to work in such places as the Urbana, Ohio, onion fields   as reported by Price (1950a:196; 1950b:284) did not achieve any significance   until the late 1940’s/early 1950’s time frame.

Insofar as entrepreneurship went, the only business known to me (by word of   mouth) was a bootlegging trade (i.e., illegal sale of liquor) engaged in by   the wife in one household. The veracity of this is not provable; it was a   “common knowledge” thing.

Recreation. Due to their position at the bottom of the economic and   social ladder, most recreational pursuits were low cost and many were   associated with subsistence. Fishing and hunting were popular. I suspect that   some of the pilferage which was done had a recreational component. Drinking   and “honky tonking” were desired activities but limited by income.   Religious revivals (often of the “tent” variety) were also popular.   Organized sports such as fast pitch softball (the number one outdoor game for   athletic males in the area) were not popular with the group.

Most members of the group used tobacco both for smoking and chewing. This   included many of the women as well as the males. “Alice” (aged 16   and married) was a confirmed chewer (she also smoked). Some of the older   women were pipe smokers.

For a time, there was a weekly auction at Coon’s Crossing just south of   Carmel. As I recall, it was held on Saturday night and the Melungeon   community was well represented. The articles sold, in retrospect, had little   value. The most expensive item I saw was a .22 caliber single shot rifle that   had definitely seen better days. Other items included used clothing, some   furniture (also used), old tools, and various bric-a brac.

Superstitions and Beliefs. Some individuals expressed belief in witches   (e.g., “so-and-so’s wife is a witch”), tokens (i.e., “signs   and wonders”, portents of dire happenings), ghosts, hair balls   (supernaturally accelerated weapons constructed by witches and used as   missiles), haunts, and various “things that go bump in the night”.   Of these, the hair (“har”) balls were the only manifestation which   appeared to be unique to the group.

Additionally, one of the group (Logan Gibson, a male of long residence)   always wore a string tied around his head. The story was that his skull had   been split in a fight (he was clubbed) and that it was permanently so, hence   the string to hold it together. Whether this is true, an individual   eccentricity, or acceptable in terms of group belief is unknown to me.

Health and medicine. Morgan (1946:29-30) makes note of a “doctor   woman” within the settlement who was particularly knowledgeable of   medicinal plants to be found in the surrounding hills. Otherwise, the   legitimate local medical people were few and mostly of doubtful competence.

Based on the medical services available and group use of them, it is my   opinion that any longevity of group members was the result of serendipity and   perhaps natural selection rather than the application of medical science.   Certainly the medical attention they received appeared to be of the   “rough and ready” variety and probably more reminiscent of the 19th   rather than the 20th century.

Religion. It is difficult to quantify the religious beliefs of the   group. By default, when they participated the choice was fundamentalist   and/or charismatic Protestant. They most probably all had a concept of an   afterlife involving reward and punishment. It is perhaps noteworthy that most   of the clergy to whom they were exposed were only slightly (if at all) better   educated or trained than their parishioners. Therefore, blind faith and fear   triumphed over intellectual or philosophical considerations.

Child Rearing. Children were viewed as a normal consequence of sexual   activity. With few exceptions, the vast majority of families had but one to   four children. Based upon limited personal observation, children were   typically undisciplined and parental guidance was manifest only if the child   became an irritation. I also noted that sometimes threats were made by   reference to a third party; “You’d better be good or the booger man will   get you” or “So and so will cut your ears off”. I suppose that   slaps and switches were also used but I never witnessed same. Breast feeding   was the usual method for sustaining infants and there was little to no   hesitation about doing so in public when the need arose.

Foraging. Several wild plants having economic, medicinal, or   nutritional value grew in the area and were foraged by members of the group.   My mother once described encountering women of the group foraging “wild   onions” (in actuality, this would have been wild garlic). The   explanation given was that the leaves were dried and used as a substitute for   pepper. The root bark from sassafras trees was also one of the plant   resources sought by the Melungeons. This was used to prepare a tea. At any   rate, foraging was in earlier times an apparently significant (and not always   legal) portion of their economy.

It is notable that the Great Depression, tradition, and perhaps other factors   (for example, perennial poverty) resulted in a locally jaundiced view of fish   and game laws and consequently “sportsmanship” took a back seat to   subsistence. This attitude was at least as true of the Melungeons as it was   with others in the area.

It remains a truism of our worldly existence that time is the most fleeting   commodity known to humankind. Don will now present some brief comments on the   current status of the Carmel settlement and some closing remarks.

IV. CURRENT STATUS

Fieldwork in and around the community of Carmel, Ohio, during   September of 1996, in concert with information furnished by local historians   and residents familiar with Highland County’s Carmel Indians, yielded several   useful insights regarding their status of the since the era recorded by Berry   (1963), Gilbert (1949), Morgan (1946), Price (1950a; 1950b), and personal   observations presented herein. Though still very rural in nature with several   active farms in the “flat” lands at the foot of the hill country (observed   crops included corn, soybeans, and tobacco but apparently diminished from   pre-1960 levels), field observations clearly revealed that the character and   face of the landscape in and around Carmel have changed dramatically in the   past half century. These changes include significantly diminished   agricultural activities. Development of the nearby Fort Hill State Memorial   and road improvements have done much to simultaneously reduce the area’s   relative isolation and facilitate the intrusion of the prosperity and   population of the era following the Second World War.

While sporadic older, more substantially built frame homes may yet be   encountered in the region, the ramshackled log and frame “shacks”   which traditionally served as homes to a relatively transient population are   nowhere to be seen. Homes all along the network of area roads have been   clearly and prominently marked with readily visible “street”   numbers to facilitate locating residences in keeping with contemporary   requirements for mail delivery and public services. Few mailboxes in the   area, however, displayed the names of their owners. Of those which did, none   were observed bearing the anticipated names of Gibson, Gipson, Nichols, or   Perkins.

Conversations with local historians and area residents familiar with the   group indicated that but a few families (apparently not over two or three)   yet remain in the hill country in the vicinity of Carmel. One of their number   is known to have moved to nearby Hillsboro and established a furniture store.   Some have reportedly moved to various other communities in the nearby region   (Chillicothe was specifically mentioned) seeking economic opportunities.   Specific population figures for the disperse remnants of the Carmel   “Indian” settlement are not available. An admittedly crude but   still suggestive approach to determining their current numbers was undertaken   by means of examining a commercially available electronic compilation (CD   format) of residential telephone listings in the United States prepared by   American Business Information (1995). A review of listings for the larger   communities in Highland and the adjoining counties to the east (Adams, Pike,   and Ross) revealed that a total of 98 households had published listings in   the names of Gibson, Gipson, Nichols, and Perkins.

Though the simple listing of a telephone number in one of these surnames does   not de facto indicate that all such individuals are related to the Carmel   mixed-blood settlement, the known outmigration of their numbers in concert   with reasonable proximity to the source area would reasonably argue that many   of these telephones are in fact associated with the residences of group   members. For present purposes, it is taken as a working assumption that   unrelated individuals in this count of households are offset by those group   members who do not have a telephone, have an unlisted number, or females who   have married non-group spouses and now bear other surnames. A conservative   estimate of three persons per household times 98 households yields a population   of 294 or approximately 300 persons distributed over portions of four   adjacent counties.

The matter of group identity poses several interesting questions. Among local   Whites with whom the authors spoke, the group continues to be generally   viewed as “Indian”. Further inquiry among area residents typically   elicited the response that the enclave was derived from the Shawnee though   few persons claimed any extensive knowledge of the group’s history.   Conversely, passing conversations with individuals living in and near   Salyersville, Kentucky, revealed that in that area the ancestry of the group   was traditionally perceived as Black. None of the persons with whom we spoke   in and near Carmel expressed any opinion or comment regarding Black genetic   influence within the group; rather, it appears that in recent decades the   Carmel population has been generally viewed by local Whites as reflecting   Indian and White admixture.

Beyond purely genetic identification and history, contemporary social   perceptions regarding the group varied widely. One lady in Hillsboro informed   us that the group constituted a “proud people” while another tended   to view at least some of their members personally known to her over a period   of years as malingerers and basically lazy. The truth is likely to be found   somewhere between these extremes. All area informants were in agreement that   few of their numbers remain in Highland County and none were aware of any   concentrated population of group members in or near Carmel or Brush Creek   Township. Though the remaining members of the group continue to be viewed as   genetically distinctive, culturally and socially they continue to be   perceived as similar to if not indistinguishable from many poorer Whites in   the same area.

It is worthy of note that a number of families with surnames associated with   the mixed-bloods (cf. Price 1950b:282, 286) yet reside in and near   Salyersville and adjacent Magoffin County. But a cursory examination of   contemporary area telephone listings (Table 9) reflects a total of 85 such   listings in the communities of Salyersville, Royalton, and Ivyton. In common   with the estimates reported herein for the area surrounding Carmel, a   conservative estimate of three individuals per household would yield a   population of at least 255 individuals. Additional members of the group   likely reside elsewhere in Magoffin County and adjacent Floyd County.

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The present comments have attempted to discuss but selected   aspects of the history, origins, and lifeways of but one of many poorly   documented Melungeon enclaves scattered throughout the vast expanses of   Appalachia. In common with the paths traveled by other such groups across the   landscape, the road leading the Carmel Melungeons to Ohio was long in the building.   A brief review of that journey is appropriate. As based in large part on   surname analysis as recorded in various public documents, available   information suggests that at least the majority of the families who were to   come to form the aggregate Melungeon and related mixed-blood populations   predominately originated in the Mid-Atlantic states of (primarily) Virginia,   North Carolina, and South Carolina as early as the mid- and late-17th   century.

Families bearing surnames long associated with the Melungeons ­ Bunch,   Collins, Gibson, Goins, and others ­ are known to have begun congregating   along the Virginia-North Carolina border at least as early as ca. 1750 and it   is likely that these families had begun to establish roots in that area   dating to at least ca. 1700 as evidenced by their sheer numbers and the   linear extent of their occupation along the disputed border land between   these two colonies. Available genealogical and historical information and   census schedule data supports their tri-racial (White, Negro, and Indian)   origins though the specifics of admixture between and among their widely   dispersed settlements would likely have exhibited marked degrees of variation   by virtue of topographic constraints and the historical circumstances which   likely brought together many unrelated mixed-bloods into a relatively   restricted gene pool.

With the opening of western lands for settlement soon after the early days of   the American Revolution, a flood of pioneers ­ including the numerically ever   increasing mixed-blood population ­ rushed into the vast mountainous domain   of Appalachia along the border in route to the Cumberland Gap. In light of   their social circumstances, it may be speculated that in their early   participation in the western movement maintaining physical proximity to the   border remained a very real consideration in their selection of the core   Melungeon settlement area. Though the exact date of their arrival in what was   to become Hancock County, Tennessee, is unknown, their presence in the area   was well established by 1790.

Data derived from tax records and census schedules suggests that mixed-blood   individuals had settled in Floyd County, Kentucky (which then included the   area which was to become Magoffin County in 1860), prior to 1810. Price’s   study of census records for several counties in southeastern Kentucky   suggests population movements between and among enclaves within the region as   well as the continued arrival (at least into the mid-19th century) of yet   additional mixed-blood families from the east coast source area during these   early formative years. Restless feet in concert with population pressure on   limited local resources appear to have prompted some members of the Magoffin   County group to explore the resources and job markets of Ohio at least as   early as 1849. It is known that they were established in the Carmel vicinity   prior to 1870 and possibly as early as 1864. Likely due to the availability   of at least seasonal employment on some of the larger farms in the area, the   locale selected as a place of settlement in Ohio effectively represented the   last, northernmost bastion of Appalachian topography. Such an edge area   environment afforded the opportunity to exploit both the natural resources   with which they were familiar and provided access to both cash employment and   manufactured goods in the immediately adjacent farm country.

The population pressures which prompted the establishment of the colony about   the time of the Civil War continued unabated for many decades. The marginally   productive farmsteads maintained in the mountains of Magoffin County could   ill sustain an ever growing number of sons and daughters with no prospects   for acquiring productive farms of their own in the area’s rugged, mountainous   topography. Despite the comparative economic advantages afforded by Carmel,   it, too, had a finite carrying capacity for an outflow of migrants for a   period in excess of 80 years.

By the late 1940’s, Gilbert generally and Price specifically note an outflow   of people from Carmel in the form of those individuals seeking employment not   locally available. The extent of this outpouring from Carmel is clearly   documented by Beale’s study of the 1950 census records which show but 130   members present in Highland County, a figure dwarfed by the combined total of   320 members residing yet further north in Hardin (260 members) and Champaign   (60 members) counties. The relative size of these outlying settlements   suggests a multi-generational emplacement of the group.

It may be speculated that the decline of the Agrarian Dominance era and the   following economic depression prompted members of the group to establish   these colonial outposts. This trend was probably exacerbated by an ongoing   increase in the adoption of mechanized farming at the local level. As Carmel   had apparently received the overflow population from its mountain homeland,   so these settlements actively received the overflow of people from two source   areas. Later in their history, members of the group are known to have settled   in Michigan. The role and importance of these outlying northern settlements   in the history of the Magoffin County and Carmel Melungeons has been   significantly understated in the existing literature and deserves more   detailed study.

Culturally, little but their physical appearance distinguished these racially   mixed settlers in the hill country of Ohio from any other arrival from the   mountains of Kentucky. In ways great and small, they were neither more nor   less than relocated mountaineers attempting to adapt previously learned   subsistence strategies to a piece of familiar natural environment while   surrounded by a very unfamiliar cultural environment. The demise of the   Carmel settlement may generally be attributed to two interactive sets of   circumstances: those caused by others and those brought about by themselves.   External factors such as the decline of agrarian pursuits and the impacts on   society during and after World War II generated circumstances which by their   very nature could only be coped with, not radically altered. Others, however,   were at least partially self-inflicted. The fluctuating nature of wildlife   populations coupled with increasing stress on habitat and depletion of local   floral resources such as ginseng produced undependable situations which could   not support unregulated exploitation to the degree that had perhaps   previously been the case. As neither the land nor local farmers could or   would support their numbers and they became increasingly aware of a   “better world”, there was little viable option but to relocate. As   they could not return to Magoffin County with any but meager prospects of   earning a living, the only place to go was further north.

Despite vague allusions on the part of the Carmel Melungeons to Shawnee and   Cherokee ancestry, available information reflects no firm, demonstrable   historic affiliation between the Carmel and Magoffin County enclaves to any   tribe currently recognized by the Federal government (cf. Bureau of Indian   Affairs 1998). There is no readily available evidence to support either any   social organization beyond the routine informal interactions of families   related by kinship and marriage or the multiple criteria required for formal   recognition (cf. Bureau of Indian Affairs 1994).

The central concept of racial identity rises paramount in the process of   examining the Carmel community. While there is little question that the   ancestry of the Carmel group is firmly rooted in the free African American   population which developed in the colonial era (cf. Heinegg 1997), it is   intriguing that such a background was patently ignored or understated both   internally (emicly) and externally (eticly). It is a distinct possibility   that the descendants of the earliest mixed-blood settlers in Carmel tended to   seek out the lesser of two perceived “evils” in opting to espouse   and emphasize their Native American genetic heritage as a means of social   survival in a day and age of racial intolerance. In simple terms, in the area   in which they lived it was better to be viewed as Indian than Black. By so doing,   as both individuals and as a group they could internalize at least a small   degree of the dignity and self-worth denied to them by their neighbors while   deflecting speculation as to the totality of their actual lineage.

For all practical purposes, the Carmel “Indian” settlement has   disbanded. Though minor numbers of the group apparently continue to reside in   the general area near Carmel, they are an ever declining minority on the   contemporary Highland County cultural landscape and represent but a pale   vestige of their former presence in the region. Available information   supports neither any degree of on-going social cohesiveness beyond the level   of normal family interactions nor is it known if group members yet residing   within the area have maintained their traditionally close ties with Magoffin   County, Kentucky. In light of the degree and extent to which their numbers   have dispersed across the Ohio landscape to as far afield as Michigan and   likely out-marriage to a degree never before experienced as a group, it is   reasonable to conclude that this small pocket of mixed-blood descendants is   being rapidly absorbed into the general population of the region. Though the   specifics of their genetic heritage may possess some continuing genealogical   interest on a family by family basis, their identity as a   “distinctive” group in the area has effectively drawn to a close   and with it a tradition of living off the land has been supplanted by one   which merely lives upon it.

We sincerely appreciate your kind attention and would be pleased to address   your questions. Should we run short of time, please see us after we adjourn.

 

Donald Ball is a native of middle Tennessee. He holds a B.S. degree in   history from Middle Tennessee State University, and an M.A. in anthropology   from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville, where he first became   interested in Melungeons. Previous publications have appeared in the Tennessee Anthropologist, Tennessee Folklore   Society Bulletin, Ohio Valley Historical Archeology (of which he serves as   editor) and other professional outlets. He works as an archeologist for the   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Louisville.

John Kessler was raised in the Carmel community of southeastern   Highland County, Ohio, where he attended school and worked with several of   the Carmel Melungeons. He holds a B.A. in wildlife conservation from Ohio   State University and worked for many years as a biologist for the Ohio   Division of Wildlife and for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He has done   private consulting work in the areas of endangered species and wetlands   ecology. He is currently retired.

REFERENCES CITED

American Business Information, 1995 88 Million Households   Phone Book (set of 3 compact discs/Windows version). Omaha, Nebraska.

Avirett, James Battle, 1901 The Old Plantation: How We Lived in Great   House and Cabin Before the War. F. Tennyson Neely Company, New York,   Chicago, and London.

Ayers, Elsie Johnson, 1971 Highland Pioneer Sketches and Family   Genealogies. H. K. Skinner and Sons, Springfield, Ohio.

Beale, Calvin L., 1957 “American Triracial Isolates: Their Status and   Pertinence to Genetic Research.” Eugenics Quarterly [now Social   Biology] 4(4):187-196.

Berry, Brewton, 1945 “The Mestizos of South Carolina.” American   Journal of Sociology 51(1):34-41.

_____, 1963 Almost White. Collier Books/Collier-Macmillan Ltd. New   York and London.

_____, 1978 “Marginal Groups.” In Handbook of North American   Indians: Volume 15 -­ Northeast (Bruce G. Trigger, editor), pp. 290-295.   Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Bible, Jean Patterson, 1975 Melungeons Yesterday and Today. East   Tennessee Printing Company, Rogersville.

Blankenship, Bob, 1992a Cherokee Roots ­ Volume 1: Eastern Cherokee Rolls   (2nd edition). Published by the author, Cherokee, North Carolina (covers   tribal rolls from 1817-1924).

_____, 1992b Cherokee Roots ­ Volume 2: Western Cherokee Rolls (4th   edition). Published by the author, Cherokee, North Carolina (covers   tribal rolls from 1851-1914).

Boyd, William K., 1967 “Introduction to the First Edition.” In William   Byrd’s Histories of the Dividing Line betwixt Virginia and North Carolina,   pp. xxiii-xxxix. Dover Publications, New York (originally published 1929,   North Carolina Historical Commission).

Breakfield, Genevieve (transcriber), 1995 1870 Census, Highland County,   Ohio. Southern Ohio Genealogical Society, Hillsboro.

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1994 25 CFR Part 83 ­ Procedures for   Establishing That an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe: Final   Rule. Department of the Interior. Federal Register 59(38; February   25):9,279-9,300.

_____, 1998 Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services   From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Register 63(250;   December 30):71,941-71,946.

Burwell, Letitia M., 1895 A Girl’s Life in Virginia Before the War.   Frederick A. Stokes Company, New York.

Byrd, William, 1967 William Byrd’s Histories of the Dividing Line betwixt   Virginia and North Carolina. Dover Publications, New York (originally   published 1929, North Carolina Historical Commission).

Cathey, Cornelius O., 1966 Agriculture in North Carolina Before the Civil   War. State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Elder, Pat Spurlock, 1999 Melungeons: Examining an Appalachian Legend.   Continuity Press, Blountville, Tennessee.

Evans, E. Raymond, 1979 “The Graysville Melungeons: A Tri-Racial People   in Lower East Tennessee._ Tennessee Anthropologist 4(1):1-31.

Everett, C. S., 1999 “Melungeon History and Myth.” Appalachian   Journal 26(4):358-409.

Gilbert, William Harlen, Jr., 1946 “Memorandum Concerning the   Characteristics of the Larger Mixed- blood Racial Islands of the Eastern   United States.” Social Forces 24(4):438-447.

_____, 1949 “Surviving Indian Groups of the Eastern United States.”   In Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution   for 1948, pp. 407-438. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Hazel, Forest 1991 “Occaneechi-Saponi Descendants in the North Carolina   Piedmont: The Texas Community.” Southern Indian Studies 40:2-29.

Heinegg, Paul, 1997 Free African Americans of North Carolina and Virginia   (3rd edition). Clearfield Company, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland.

Holliday, Mack, 1998 Troublesome Creek Cemeteries Located in Perry County,   Kentucky. T M C Printing Company, Paintsville, Kentucky.

Hundley, Daniel Robinson, 1860 Social Relations in Our Southern States.   Henry B. Price, New York.

Jones, Robert L., 1962 Ohio Agriculture During the Civil War.   Publications of the Ohio Civil War Centennial Commission No. 7, Ohio   Historical Society, Columbus.

Kennedy, N. Brent, 1997 The Melungeons ­ The Resurrection of a Proud   People (2nd/revised edition). Mercer University Press, Macon, Georgia.

Lerch, Patricia Barker, 1992 “State-Recognized Indians of North   Carolina, Including a History of the Waccamaw Sioux.” In Indians of   the Southeastern United States in the Late 20th Century (J. Anthony   Paredes, editor), pp. 44-71. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and   London.

McBride, David N. and Jane N. McBride, 1990 Cemetery Inscriptions of   Highland County, Ohio (reprint of 2nd edition; originally published   1972). Southern Ohio Genealogical Society, Hillsboro.

Morgan, Edmund S., 1952 Virginians at Home: Family Life in the Eighteenth   Century. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Morgan, Violet, 1946 Folklore of Highland County. Greenfield Printing   & Publishing Company, Greenfield, Ohio.

_____, 1955 Squaw Winter: A Love Story Based on the Indian Folklore of   Highland County (novel). Greenfield Printing & Publishing Company,   Greenfield, Ohio.

Ohio Writer’s Program, 1940 The Ohio Guide. Oxford University Press,   New York.

Page, Thomas Nelson, 1897 Social Life in Old Virginia Before the War.   Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.

Pollitzer, Williams S., 1972 “The Physical Anthropology and Genetics of   Marginal People of the Southeastern United States.” American   Anthropologist 74(3):719-734.

Price, Edward Thomas, Jr. 1950a “Mixed Blood Populations of the Eastern   United States as to Origins, Localizations, and Persistence.” Ph. D.   dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkley.

_____, 1950b “The Mixed-blood Strain of Carmel, Ohio, and Magoffin   County, Kentucky.” Ohio Journal of Science 50(6):281-290.

_____, 1951 “The Melungeons: A Mixed-blood Strain of the Southern   Appalachians.” Geographical Review 41(2):256-271

_____, 1953 “A Geographic Analysis of White-Negro-Indian Racial Mixtures   in the Eastern United States.” Annals of the Association of American   Geographers 43(2):138-155.

Taukchirey, Wesley Durant, Alice Bee Kasakoff, and Gene Joseph Crediford,   1992 “Contemporary Native Americans in South Carolina.” In Indians   of the Southeastern United States in the Late 20th Century (J. Anthony   Paredes, editor), pp. 72-101. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and   London.

Watson, Alan D., 1975 Society in Colonial North Carolina. North   Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History,   Raleigh.

You can read more about the Carmel Melungeons at https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3790/1/V50N06_281.pdf

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s