My line supposedly by Pocahontas' niece, Nikitti, Martha Davis, Eliz. Venable,,,Mary Morton, to my mom is T2b2!.

+3 votes
in Genealogy Help by
retagged by Maggie N.
I do not recall seeing anything in the form of documentation, history etc about the family of Pochontas other than mentin of her father and husband, John Rolfe. and I doubt seriously that anyone knows her mtDNA haplogroup. Much less being able to track it through  9, 10, 11 generations.

It seems that almost every family, south of the Mason Dixon line, has in it some myth about an Indian ancestor. Including mine. I was told that there was an "Indian Princess" in my family tree.

Well the Indians did not have Kings, Queens, Princess's, and leadership stations were not inheritable, they were conferred by councils based on competency and trust. Pocohontas was not a Princess, anymore than her father was a King, but Europeans used their culture references and apparently still do.

Anyway neither DNA nor intense genealogical research has proven that there is even on small segment of native American DNA in the family.

Then again my fathers side of the family, including myself, manifest physical evidence that would lead one to believe such. But it is not backed up by DNA or research.  Then again there are a number of dead ends with 2nd great grandparents on my fathers side. Mom's side is "yankee" and definitely not even had the opportunity to intermarry with natives.
Yes, the red Indians did (and still do) have kings and other nobility.  They are condescendingly called "chiefs" by oligarchic "republican" modern Americans who don't want what God gives them by primogeniture to be their ruler but, who want to install their own henchman ("chief" being sort of like "Alpha males", like of a dog pack, etc.--though the white attempt to debase the Indians to the "level" of animals, reflected in such recent usage of the term "range" for Native countries, fails to offend on the Indian level since the red Indians would consider animals to be "elevated" to the level of fellow, only foreign, people!).  The Native terms for what the whites insist on calling "chief" are correctly translated as "king", "lord", etc.  They may or may not have been subject to any "election" (and that not usually by the majority of the common people of a tribe, nation, etc.) just as were English kings before primogeniture was established as the rule of succession (and, considering the "Acclamation" required for Coronation, they still are "elected").  All the stuff about "yeah, every Southerner has a 'Cherokee princess for a grandmother' disdain of overwhelming family testimonies that should be taken as evidence to be considered for inquiry, rather than just un-scientifically dismissed out of hand as being "myth" is, in itself, what has all the telltale marks of being the real myth.  The uncomfortable revelations that anything other than the established "scientific" dogma raises is what the "scientific" community seems to be hell-bent on silencing.  Nevertheless, for real scientific inquiry, those who do have documented (though, of course, even the documentation will be rejected by those who don't like having to accept the implications of its results) maternal descent from the Pamnkey/Powhatan Royal lineage--yes it is a Royal lineage, no matter how much that hurts the "republican" paradigm of oligarchic "democracy"--will have to come forward with dna results for those with objective minds to know the truth, yea or nay, about the actual haplogroup that is Pau Pawiske's maternal descent.  I, myself, would like to know the actual truth, instead of just being condescended to by the extremely un-scientific "myth" mantra about whatever uncomfortable questions I do bring up.  (I see the "I'm not a robot" "Verify" test has been upped to ban me from posting my uncomfortable questions as well by making me pass, over and over again, the same test--often with very ambiguous choices that most people would flunk, by the criteria required of them)
Belly laughs here. God given right of primogeniture and royal rule?

That which we call Royalty are merely the descendants of men who via force and fraud, were able to kill off enough opponents, to claim the respective land as their personal property (aka allodial rights), Nothing "God given about it". And Chiefs were elected, or removed, by consensus of the elders, and amongst the Iriquois nation it was the women who who elected leaders, call them chiefs or whatever, a rose by any other name is still a rose, but royalty, hereditary royalty, Kings. Well Kingship, Kings Royalty, hereditary inheritance is and was a Eurocentric concept, but at the time that was their only reference point.
It is truth that early settlers of the 1600-1700s did indeed marry or have children by American Indians. Many Chief’s daughters were matched with White men as a form of Peace & Trade until Treaties were broken. These matches may be were the nickname “Indian Princess” began. My own father told me that I also Descendant from such. In our earliest history, many men left the Colony to join the Indians rather then starve. It is also true that All Races were mixing at the time, which caused Laws Against this to form. Yet this did not stop. When you study the Surnames of Known Confirmed Indian Bloodlines, you will find White Names such as Cox, Evans, Chavis, Palmer, and many others. Do Not dismiss oral history stories without truly investigated them first. Many American Indians have DNA of European, Sub-Saharan African, and Others!  Many White Americans also have DNA of same, and also that of American Indian. When uploading your DNA to GedMatch, you may find further Nationalities as I did. A True Genealogist must keep an Open Mind when doing their Genealogy. Do Not Judge or Dismiss our Ancestors. Please Do Not Argue Against Others, but Help Eachother Discover the Truths. Thanks.
Interesting. As regards Peace and Trade. That phrase is new to me. I will have to research it.

As regards Indian and African DNA showing up in autosomal DNA. Not much chance of that unless a 4th great grandparent was 100% (not half and half, but 100% Native American or African.

Is such ancestry is not confirmed by DNA then we are in the realm of myth and wishful thinking. Given that it might indeed be a fact that a lineage has at some distant point an Indian or African ancestor, but it just can't be confirmed by DNA. And that upsets the marketing cart of and 23andme.

As regards helping others. That is what I do when I link profiles to ancestors and I have done a lot of that, however one is not helping anyone by humoring them or helping them to perpetuate a fantasy.

Then again there is a lot of that going around today.

Most important thing of all is stay factual and provable, that way you avert heartburn and disappointment.
"Red Indians"! Can we not refer to people by their tribal designation, or failing that by Native, Indigenous or Indian? Red Indian makes me feel like I'm watching Disney's racist Peter Pan movie.

Many people are determined to believe they have NA ancestry. If neither science nor history mean anything to you, then believe what you want. You can be the secret 5th generation love child of Pocahontas and John Smith if you want. I believe these Cherokee princess myths were created and propagated by Americans who prefer to imagine that they inherited this continent, rather than conquered it. I've known real Native Americans who've been treated like scum and called slurs, right here and now in the 21st century, then I come on Wikitree to find people waxing poetic about their Indian maiden progenitor that is somewhere on their Pa-paw's mother's mother's side, who was of the blood of chieftains mind you, not some rank and file Indians.
Well obviously it's guilt-avoidance.  You too can be a victim.  Because let's face it most Americans are mostly descended from the bad guys.

So they fiddle the algorithms to tell everybody they're 0.6% Native American, and the customers get what they wanted and are happy.

If Cherokee victimhood weren't conveniently available, people would have to remember the family tradition that gave them a droplet of African blood and victimhood.  But Pokie has spared them that.

Perhaps when a slave-descendant becomes President.
It's always a maiden Indian, not a male, like Quannah Parker

Heavens forbid that a pretty young white girl would willingly cohabit with a savage indian.

Also buried in popular history is the fact that white female indentured servants would marry or cohabitate with African Indentured servants or slaves.

Or that the mistress of the plantation would "lay with" a slave, as many of  their husbands did.

Can't have those idea's popping up in genealogy can we?
Indeed the Races we’re Mixing then & from World Beginnings. Both Males & Females. Many of which (Depending where they moved or blended in with) can be found as White, Black, Mulatto.  Not all moved to Reservations. Many lost their Indian history Or dropped it due to discrimination. There is No Pure Race!  Please keep our Trees Open to All Possibilities & Free of Prejudice  

I am Proud of my Ancient Ancestors No Matter What Race, Color, or History. No matter what side of the Wars they fought. Yes, American Indians fought in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, French Indian War, World Wars.....
Any woman who lived in the south for whom no surname at birth can be determined must therefore be a Cherokee Princess.
LMAO. Hilarious

3 Answers

+4 votes
And your question is...? You did post this in Genealogy Help, and we would love to help!
by Ros Haywood G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
My information can be a question, if this is like "Jeopardy".
I just posted it in "Post/Ask Question".  It's just information.
+9 votes
T2B2 mtDNA originated in the Near East, it is not a Native American mtDNA haplogroup. Five base haplogroups make up the Native American mtDNA haplogroups: A, B, C, D and X.
"T2b from the Middle East...."  Yes, that's the standard dogma.  And, yes, it did arise in the Middle East!  Yet, there are claims of dna being extracted from around 4,000 year-old remains in Peru having the T2b haplogroup (a haplogroup, along with some others that are "not supposed to be in these populations" attested in several if not many Southeastern Native populations but, of course, incongruously dismissed as being Euro "admixture" though the contorted "explanations" of that admixture fail an Ockham's Razor test for probability far more than ones that the academic community simply don't want to accept).  No independent researchers ("official" academia) want to verify this since it flies in the face of that "standard dogma" on which many their other beliefs are propped up.  The presence of "Mexican", Caribbean or South American dna in Southern U.S. Natives also can be linked to migration from those regions--not just that Natives from what would become the Eastern U.S. had been sold into slavery in the Caribbean, as some mention (which did also appear to occur for sure).  The peopling of the "Americas" isn't necessarily how the "authorities" pontificate that it was.  Polynesia and/or, connections with the Western Old World should not be ruled out--just because the "authorities" dismiss evidence of it.  We'll have to wait for further (probably many, many) maternal-line descendants to come forth with attested or "proven" maternal lineal descent from the Powhatan (especially the Pamunkey) to see if T2b may indeed be a haplogroup of those Natives--in spite of being unscientifically dismissed out of hand by "scientists" because it doesn't fit their favorite paradigms.  The likelihood, of course, will be that even then, with indisputable evidence (if it's even acknowledged by "the authorities" in the matter), the interpretation of that evidence, as so often is the case, will be against what the evidence most logically proclaims and, instead, will be forced to "support" (stretched to fit) the standard dogma.  We'll see....  In the meantime, all cookie-cutter "academic" claims about Native anything (or other things, for that matter) have to be viewed with much skepticism by the public.  Academia have much too much of their preferred politics riding on their dogmas to allow any other than their interpretation to prevail--since prevalence, not inquiry, is the apparent name of their game.
Mtdna haplogroup X is also Middle Eastern.  It's found in Anatolia in ancient times.  How did it get to eastern North "America" in pre-Columbian times?  (Solutrean Hypothesis?, Maybe, though the "iceberg" voyage theory itself seems wildly unrealistic)  I won't even mention ydna haplogroup R (found in Algonquian and Iroquoian peoples without the European R1a or b subclades--though unscientifically "presumed" to be "R1b", and therefore, by implication, as--and virtually replacing any other at that!--colonial "admixture" rather than the uncomfortable reality of the Native "American" R being paternal to the Eurasian R1(a and b) and R2 subclades, as well as being the closest human male relative haplogroup to Q, the majority and only known other ydna haplogroup of the Natives of the "Americas").

New DNA studies have been finding that not all Native Americans share the same traditional findings. Some ancient burials have been linked to East Asia, North Western Europe, Iberian, Middle East and Africa

Egyptian findings were discovered in the Grand CanyonThis indicates that there may have been more likely several Migration Routes & Dates. Perhaps a larger or newest Migration occurred during last Ice Age, but this was certainly not the first. Ancient discoveries have found that Natives were in North America & South America over 10,000-15,000 years ago!  

Now, as far as American Indian DNA not showing up from over 6 or more generations ago, this would be frequent. We all don’t inherit the exact same mixture as our siblings or ancestors. 

Therefore, some who have an “American Indian Princess or Prince Story” from 1600s may not ever know with DNA if their ancestors married Whites since. You can Upload to GedMatch for World Reports. I believe DNA will improve as information & new discoveries continue, as long as it is not suppressed. The results may be surprising. Perhaps Guilt may want us to be linked to Native Americans, but I feel that Oral History is what makes me want to dig up the Truth! 

The fact is, the skin color & features still are being passed down! 

I read somewhere that Pocahontas’s niece Nikitti, married a White man Hughes. 

Look up Powhatan Surnames from Virginia. There are Many White Man’s Surnames associated with Native Americans! One can not be sure about those brick walls without investing. I have found a few History books worthy of a read.  

The Powhatan Tribe did indeed mix with Whites (Males & Females).

 I suggest you look up the “White” Surnames associated with each Tribe. 

Check out Davis Floyd Genealogy & Hughes DNA Project. Perhaps you should start your own Project for the Female side.  Don’t give up your search!

+4 votes
I would first and foremost direct anyone who cares about the governmental structure and what it meant for the North Atlantic Tribes to read the Federation of the 5 Nations.  Thomas Jefferson had a copy of it in his library and Ben Franklin quoted from it.  Many historians believe parts of our Constitution were pulled from it while others refute that idea.

 There are some interesting parallels.  Yes Jefferson Europeanized (is that a word?) it but you can see the parallels.  Now,  move south...  the Cherokee have a different governmental structure.   Every tribe had its own as did the Seneca... it was not a one size fits all and some of the tribes had more maternal based rules and some more paternal based rules of inheritance so to speak.  But many tribes had very complex governmental structures.  So yes they had rulers who could in the European mind translate into King or Princess.  It may not be a literal one of one translation but most translations generally leave room for different interpretations.  

Language is imprecise for native speakers (native means people born to the land they are in so Europeans speaking English, French, German are native speakers just as an Iroquois speaking the North Atlantic languages would be a native speaker)  so let's not get hung up on language.  

Every group of humans has some form of governmental structure.  Some are more rules based, some more social based, some based on power and tyranny.  All "Native Americans" were neither good nor bad just like all Europeans were neither good nor bad.  We are all human and that means we are all a weird mixture of saint and sinner and will work like the devil to be "right" even if we are objectively wrong.  That is called rationalization and has gotten humans in trouble for most of our history.

Fact:  There were intermarriages among indigenous people and immigrating populations from all over the globe.  

Possible fact:  There are records in China and Europe and South America and California that allude to a voyage made by Asians from China (and the crews were likely mixed ethnicity) to the new world before Columbus got to the Caribbean in 1492.   There were also rumors of earlier voyages not proven.  Scraps of maps, some artifacts found point to this as more of a maybe than a myth.

Myth:  Indigenous people were savages without traceable history.  Oral traditions are amazingly handed down in many of these populations with accuracy that can be as reliable as some written histories.
by Laura Bozzay G2G6 Pilot (670k points)

Related questions

+11 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
2 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
214 views asked Mar 15, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Lance Martin G2G6 Pilot (101k points)
+5 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
2 answers
+14 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
7 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright