Pre-Contact DNA

The Goins

In the recent Melungeon paper published by Estes, Goins, Crain and Ferguson giving the history of the Goins family they wrote;

Goins

Goins or similar names are found in early colonial records.  John Gowen, "Gowen the Indian" was born about 1615 and by 1640, described as a "negro", had been freed by William Evans in York County, Virginia.  He had a son by an African woman named Margaret Cornish about 1635 and in 1641 he purchased the son, Michael's (Mihill) freedom.  Mihill had a son William born of a negro Prossa who patented land in James City County in 1668.     [167]

They give the source [167]  as Linsay O. Duvall but I could not find anywhere on the internet where Duvall or anyone else claimed that "John Gowen" was the same person as "Gowen the Indian".  This is the actual record for "Gawin the Indian" which I presume they are referring to - found here:

Decoding the Documents: "Indians" in Selected Seventeenth Century Documents & Secondary Sources

McIlwaine 1979B:233

Gawin, Indian & Mr. Thomas Bushrod

Order

18 Oct. 1670 court

Servitude for 6 more years

Gawin

Gawin, servant to Bushrod, is to serve his master for six more years before he is set free.

From the above paragraph it appears these four researchers are trying to convince us that Bushrod's "Indian" was the same man as John Gowen', called a "negro" in 1640. William Evans freed John Gowen by 1640 - John Gowen had a son by an African woman, and then proceeded to  purchase 'his son' in 1641.

THEN poor "Gowen the Indian" but called "John Gowen a negro' becomes a slave again to Thomas Bushrod for the next 30 years.  Maybe I am missing something here.

In an ARTICLE written by Jack Goins he writes;

"A Goins researcher must consider and investigate all Goins, Going possibilities and there was another William Gowin in the same neck of the woods who was not the son of Mihil because his son was born 1655. "

It would appear these four researchers when writing this paper on the "early Colonial records" investigated records of the Goins, Gowens, etc, but did not "consider" all possibilities.  

Following the above paragraph on Mihill found above, they write;

"On  August 6, 1635. Thomas Going, age 18, was transported to Virginia. On August 7, 1657, another Thomas Gowen was transported from London and in 1671, a third Thomas Going was transported to Maryland.

Another early Goins record is that of Agnes Going of Louisa County, Virginia who in 1754 had a bastard child, Joseph, bound to James Bunch.  Agnes had other children as well, all bound out by the church wardens in 1770, but their names aren't mentioned.  We also don't know who the father was and if the father's were the same.  In 1775, Dudley Miner marries Anne Goine, daughter of Agnes Goine.

In 1735, a John Goins is found in Hanover County, Virginia.

There were several potentially different Goins genetic lines in colonial Virginia.

In the Melungeon project there are three primary Goins groups, two of which are haplogroup E1b1a, but don't match each other.  The third is haplogroup A.  All three haplogroups are of sub-Saharan African origin.  There is one participant with no additional Goins matches, but who matches the Collins E1b1a7 group."

These four researchers for some unknown reason neglect to mention Wm Gowin transported in 1654 by William Hoccaday of York County.  In this ARTICLE by Jack Goins he mentions this "Wm Gowin" and "Gowin an Indian" as men who should be considered in the Goins, Gowen, Going research but fails to include them in the  research of the African DNA in their published paper.  

“MR. WILLIAM HOCCADAY, 1,000 acres Yorke Co., 14 April 1653, page 89 of Patent Book No. 3 Near the head of Ware Creek, North West by North upon a former devident and North West by North towards Waraney Creek. Transportation of 20 persons: Alexander Watson, Wm. Mackgahye, Andrew Sharpe, Jane Johnson, Randall ______, Isabell Grace, Mary Reeise (?), Tomasin Madero (or Maders), Mary Graham, James ______, Edward Hodge, Richard Gillman, Willm. Moline, Fra. Peppett, Richard Jones, Michaell Barrow, Richard Moore, Joane Rivers, Ja. Nicholson,* Wm. Gowin. Renewed 20 November 1654.”  18 Oct 1670 p233 Bushrod -Gowin It is ordered that GOWIN an INDIAN servant to Mr. Tho Bushrod serve his said master six years longer and then be free.   So basically we have; William Gowan, son of Mihill born 1655 a negro of York Co.,Virginia, William Gowin born at least 1630, English or Irishman 1653 to York Co.,Virginia ---Gowin freed about 1676, an Indian of York Co., Va."

Mr. Thomas Going was 'transported' in 1635, Mr. Wm Gowin was 'transported' in 1654 and "Gowin the Indian" was freed in 1676. Were these three men 'investigated, considered' and included, when these four researchers wrote their paper?  Did they think they didn't matter in the grand scheme of things because surely these men who were transported could not possibly have carried the African haplogroup to Colonial Virginia could they? And "Gowin the Indian"could not possibly have carried his African DNA  here by deAyllon in 1527 could he?  

In an article written by Roberta Estes she writes that the single most haplogroup found among the tribal Cherokees tested is the European haplogroup R1b. How this is possible she explains is; 

"There is some level of R1b admixture in the Native Population that preceded contact with Europeans that we have not yet identified."

Well surely if it is possible there is an admixture of European DNA in the Native Population there might also be an admixture of African DNA in the Native Populations as well, wouldn't there?  Yet nowhere in the paper did I find the possibility that "Gowin the Indian" may have been a descendant of those African slaves who had contact with the Native South Carolina tribes as early as 1527.