Blue Sky "Mary" Cornstalk - Revisiting the mtDNA “disproved” Blue Sky ancestry

Re: “Now I can’t say that Blue Sky’s great great great grandmother wasn’t an English captive who became a chief’s wife. Can anybody here? ”

You’re in the realm of the speculative & improbable with this one ...

Of course genealogy needs a paper trail as well as mtDNA. There is no story or documentation to support this take on the known evidence.

No speculation. This statement is simply not true:

“meaning Charity's mother was a white woman with mostly English and Irish ancestry“

That’s all I’m saying. A comment about a false conclusion based on mitochondrial DNA results.

No speculation. This statement is simply not true:

“meaning Charity's mother was a white woman with mostly English and Irish ancestry“

That’s all I’m saying. A comment about a false conclusion based on mitochondrial DNA results.

Kind of nit picky about phrasing, isn’t it? The point is to combat the “Indian Princess” legend with the hard fact of mtDNA test results. If someone writes a science paper I suppose they should write it up with probabilities and caveats. For the purpose of a quick read on a Geni profile, “associated with English / Irish origins” should do.

Arghh. Mitochondrial DNA is not usable to draw any conclusion about ethnicity across a single generation. Sorry for being picky about the term “proof”. Thanks, over and out!

We've heard that sort of song before, usually from people who are desperate to keep their "family legend" in the teeth of the evidence. They nitpick and twist and warp, and when all else fails, deny the validity of DNA testing (or worse, totally misrepresent what the results mean).

DNA doesn't lie - paper trails can, and "family legends" often do.

The one glaring question that no one seems to ask: Why hasn't the owner of the Parker Adkins and Blue Sky blog ever been asked to provide the full and complete test results for the Charity test subject -- the test results upon which she bases her claims? They've never been posted ANYWHERE. Shouldn't the owner of that blog be held to the same standards which you are holding others? In all fairness, shouldn't those test results be subject to peer review?

https://thecaseforblueskyandparkeradkins.com/

Dorene Private User That’s a question for the person whose DNA was tested, not anyone else; nor does it mean anything other than the tester’s privacy was protected, which I find entirely appropriate.

Erica, respectfully, have you taken the the time to read the entirety of my blog to learn about the other side of the argument; to weigh the facts objectively?   I haven't received any acknowledgement, questions or comments from you. 

My family and I have been trying for years -- some even before the blog was posted -- to point out errors and inconsistencies to that blog owner.  Numerous comments have been made by my family members and I to her blog that she chooses not to publish...or, as I experienced, post(s) a(n) inquiring comment(s) which she later removed.  The same has happened on other websites.  I have documented some of these in the "Recent Developments" section of my blog: https://thecaseforblueskyandparkeradkins.com/recent-developments/

I must ask, have you or others working on my family's profiles had outside communications with the owner of the Parker & Blue Sky blog?  If you have, undoubtedly, she'll claim that I am trying to discredit her or I am being "irrational."  It is not true.  She has used this tactic on other blog sites.  (Please see the "Recent Developments" section of my blog for my response to this allegation.)  If you or others managing my family's profiles on Geni are having communications with the owner of that other blog outside the public forum, that creates the impression of bias. If you are, please stop.  Please let her answer the questions in the public forum for all to see.  What I am requesting is not unreasonable or "irrational."  We are asking for transparency.

Further, my family and I would like to know what are your and your fellow curator/profile managers' qualifications to make these decisions about our family?  Are you professional historians?  Are you professional geneticists?  What are your qualifications to make decisions about DNA or DNA companies?  Are you/they up to speed with the current DNA developments in the scientific/academic literature?  (I'm not talking about FTDNA.  I'm talking about other resources.)  What are your qualifications to pass judgement as to who is and who is not Native American or part Native American or any other ethnicity for that matter?  Are you a member of our Adkins and the intertwined families?  Do you have an in-depth knowledge of our family, their relationships and our traditions?  Have you interviewed members of my family? 

Speaking of family, the owner of the blog claims her husband is a member of my Adkins family. He is not. She has admitted that fact in the public forum on the Adkins Family History Group -- to members of my family -- and there are many witnesses -- yet she leaves the incorrect information in the public domain on her blog.  She goes so far to call herself "Parker Adkins" on her blog.  Do you understand how offensive that is to MY Adkins family?

She will not post nor answer detailed questions about the test results she obtained. What about the other matches besides "one of the matches" that was "mostly English and Irish" she claims?  I'll bet not one of you have asked her that question.  Did you ask if that result was from the mitochondrial test results or if she went further and had autosomal test results run?  What is the extent of the populations database of the testing company that she used?  How is this any kind of peer review?  You are making big decisions that affect an incredibly large number of people's lives and how they and their families identify.  These are real people.  YOU are affecting OUR lives. 

You insist on seeing documentation -- well, where's her documentation?  In fact, don't you find it IRONIC that you won't accept my family's unchanged, 250-year-old oral tradition that Bluesky was the daughter of Chief Cornstalk and the mother of Charity and Littleberry Adkins with Parker Adkins -- and yet you accept the ORAL test results conveyed by of the owner of the blog?  (Well, she writes about them, but no one has seen them.  We have to take her at her "word.")  Don't YOU think it's time to start asking some questions?

In fact, I did go to the trouble to do my due diligence.  I had a lengthy discussion with the Charity test subject about that test. The fact of the matter is that THE CHARITY TEST SUBJECT HAS NEVER SEEN HER OWN TEST RESULTS nor has she been given the log-in information to access her own DNA test results on FTDNA!!!  What's up with that???  Don't you find that troubling? In my opinion, it is definitely not "appropriate."

When the Charity test subject agreed to test, it was her and the members of the Adkins Family History Groups' understanding that the Charity test subject would take the FTDNA mitochondrial test, the actual, FULL and COMPLETE test results would be published on the Adkins Family History Group and other forums and that those test results would also be discussed in the public forum.  THERE IS NO PRIVACY ISSUE HERE.  

How can you, the representatives of Geni, make the demand that I and my family prove and provide DNA; and, yet, you do not hold the owner of the Parker Adkins & Blue Sky blog to the same standard?  The tester's privacy IS NOT being protected.  Again, the test subject gave permission for her DNA results to be posted and discussed at the time on Adkins Family History Group before the blog was created.

Dorene, I am familiar with the Bluesky issue. My qualifications etc are not up for debate, any more than your discussion of other members of Geni, on this geni platform. Your private blog is good enough, and having linked to it is good enough also; this site is “not” the venue to carry through your arguments. Presenting genealogical evidence is. Geni links DNA tests free through ftDNA. For the second time, we state we would be delighted to review the case again when those tests have been linked to profiles. Then it’s transparent as you desire.

Thanks for your reply, Erica.  I am glad that you are going to review the case materials.  I hope you can appreciate my family's frustration. 

Now as for the DNA, I have one quick question I would like answered, please:  How is the DNA processed and used that is uploaded to Geni?  I just spoke with the administrator of the Keziah test subject, and her test subject has given her permission to have her DNA uploaded to Geni once I have a clearer definition of how that information will be processed and used. However, you will have to contact the owner of the Parker Adkins & Blue Sky blog to obtain the FTDNA file to upload for the Charity test subject. Now that should be interesting...

https://help.geni.com/hc/en-us/sections/206536207-DNA?mobile_site=true

That covers everything I know. Further questions about processing should be directed to Geni customer Support. For myself I found it a quick & easy linking of accounts. Are you going to do it for your own DNA tests?

Thanks, Erica. I'll check it out, and then I will give you an answer about my DNA results as well.

I have a Lou Iney Cornstalk that was adopted. Every time I see the name Cornstalk, I think of her...

Hi, Erica, the page you directed me to does not answer my question. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. My fault. What is the specific purpose(s) for which you and the other profile managers will be using the Keziah tester's DNA once it is uploaded to Geni? How is that expected to help determine the issue at hand? Is it only going to be used for cousin matches and linking trees? If you could expand more about how you are going to be using the DNA, I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance.

I’m not going to use dna test links - you are. And anyone else interested in comparing dna test results. The advantage of a Geni collaborative tree is that the test propagates through the shared tree. Conflicts will show if there are pedigree errors.

Oh, great. Thank you for the information! ;)

I see one big problem with this issue. If your mtDNA "matches no one else in the world", as you claim, then you can't use it to prove descent from anybody. (Richard III was a special case, because they had the actual remains and were able to analyze them.) In your case you'd need at least one matching kit, and more would be better, with a matching ancestry story.

Dubious speculation involving the "Solutrean hypothesis" (Paleolithic Transatlantic origin theory for at least some Native Americans - not supported by DNA evidence thus far) or anonymous undocumented "captive white women" does not help your case at all.

Photographs of people "looking like" Native Americans (or Tudors or - fill in the blank with your favorite monarchs) are at best indicative, and often misleading. You should see photographs of *my* father - but he was Anglo with a side of German and nothing else that has come up...yet.

It is very unfortunate that that "Shawnee Heritage" guy muddied the waters so thoroughly and brought the whole Cherokee-Shawnee ancestry thing into such disrepute.

We have over the years had a number of people who have shown up with extravagant claims about their ancestry, that turned out to be unproven (at best) or disproved (more often). Some of them have stuck to their story in the teeth of mountains of evidence to the contrary, relegating them to genealogical fantasy-land.

So yeah, a lot of us have learned to be very skeptical, and want "just the facts, ma'am".

Maven, I invite you to go back and reread "The Case for Bluesky." There's no big problem. You, unfortunately, have misread.

It is NOT my mtDNA that is the subject of the Bluesky "issue." I use my mtDNA as an example of what can happen if DNA companies' algorithms run up against a piece of DNA they don't recognize -- it goes on to the next piece of DNA it does recognize giving incorrect results. There are no extravagant claims made in my blog...especially the DNA. DNA is too new...recently there has been a new haplogroup added to what is "officially" considered Native American...Haplogroup E...Don't you agree it is too soon to make these hard and fast determinations about other families' ethnicities?

I do, however, take offense to your comment about my personal family photos. You have no idea about the makeup of the rest of my family nor anything about their DNA.

Also, you claim that the "Shawnee Heritage" guy muddied the waters...does that mean that my family's oral tradition about Bluesky is invalid?...It's been in place and unchanged for 250 years..well before those books were written.

I'm curious, what exactly are your "mountains" of evidence against my family?  It seems you have already made up your mind. We are not going to receive a fair hearing of our "case" here.

Interesting phrasing, “MY family,” on a discussion of BlueSky Cornstalk.

She “belongs” to history. If she’s in anyone’s family, it’s that of the Shawnee people. Do they claim her? What do they have to say about her marriage, marriages, children, if any?

Yes, your phrasing is interesting as well. We are discussing a member of my family. I do believe my family will have something to say about it. Are you attempting to take that away from us too?

So apparently you've made up your mind as well, Erica. That's unfortunate. Are you all so interested in chasing off the family who is attempting to correct incorrect information? The Parker Adkins & Blue Sky blog contains inaccurate information as far as familial relationship AND the DNA test results. I'm curious why you are not asking questions and investigating that further. You cite quotes from that blog on the overview page and post a link to the page. I respectfully request that you please at least post the link to "The Case for Bluesky & Parker Adkins" on the Overview page so that others can make their own decision.

Your blog is a rebuttal of another blog. This is a genealogy site and profile overviews are a summary of the genealogical evidence, as succinct as possible; and biographical information, as much as can be known. I’d definitely be interested in a small summary of the family group as you construct it to be. I am definitely not interested in your arguments with others.

So for Bluesky, what is your summary information appropriate for a genealogy profile?

With citations for birth, marriage, death, of course, if known.

My my, hyperdefensive much? The "mountains of evidence" comment refers to some of the other people who have shown up, and particularly to one individual who badgered this site for ten years with increasingly nonsensical arguments about why he was certain he was a "lost Tudor prince". This led to a lot of valuable research - all of it DISproving his theory. But at last report he hadn't been dissuaded, he'd just (finally) shut up.

I have not been able to confirm any *scientifically reliable* reports of mtDNA haplogroup E being "officially" added to the Native American haplogroups. The latest information I've been able to find still has them as specifically Southeast Asian/Austronesian (Pacific Islanders).

I dd find one article on oddball haplogroups among the Cherokee https://dnaconsultants.com/cherokee-unlike-other-indians/ - but even on casual inspection that article relies heavily on the debunked crackpot theory of "British Israelites". And there's no mention of any mtDNA haplogroup E.

Familytreedna.com has one individual self-reporting E1a1a1 as "Native American", vs. five Filipino and one each Spanish, Malaysia and Indonesian. (The great majority, 23 participants, were "Unknown Origin".) They include a disclaimer that "All origins are self-reported by the participants and may not reflect accurate haplogroup origins."

Any disparagement in my comments on photographs was aimed at *my* father - we had the usual "Indian princess" legends, but to date she has stubbornly refused to turn up.

I’m in the same position as Maven; chasing down oral history of Indian Princess in the family. Apparently a common issue for Southern USA families; yet Maven & I are different families - so I guess we’re looking at several unknown Princesses?

It would be nice to establish independent citations for the existence of this daughter of Cornstalk. Is there anything written down from before the internet? I was able to track some of my stories to rejected claims for land.

Respectfully, Erica, my family does not hold Bluesky out as an "Indian Princess." She is the daughter of Chief Cornstalk. He was a headman, not a king.

There are innumerable old-settler families such as mine that intermarried with Native Americans in that region. I don't believe that should be perceived as an "issue." It is a fact, not a problem. It should be dealt with in a respectful manner.

Yes, there are documents written down before the internet. There are letters written to Cloe Etta Clark, a daughter of Charity Adkins, about her grandmother Bluesky Cornstalk. These letters have been handed down in the family. I invite you to visit the "Recent Developments" page on my blog under the date of October 15, 2018. This woman had reached out to the owner of the Parker Adkins & Blue Sky blog with this information on that date.

There is more documentation contained in the book "The Heritage of Cabell County, West Virginia," Vol. I, compiled by the KYOWVA Genealogical Society, ordered by proclamation of the County Commission of Cabell County. Please see page 96, the genealogical profile of Mr. Garnett Adkins, submitted by Mitchell F. Adkins on p. 96. There you will find Chief Cornstalk, Bluesky, Parker Adkins, Charity Adkins, contained in that profile of
Mr. Adkins's family.

I originally found mention and a copy of the article posted on the Adkins Family History Group; at the moment, I forget by whom, but will amend that when I find who that person was. I tracked down and purchased the book. I shall upload a copy of the pertinent page on the "Recent Developments" page of my blog. You will find it posted under "1996." I shall do that before the end of the day.

*Please note this book was put together and published well before any "Shawnee Guy" books were published (the first being April 9, 2008 -- I performed a simple internet search to determine the date).

I do have more evidence of treaties and land allotments to the Cornstalks, but I have an injured husband to care for.

Speaking of documentation, Geni has noted in the "Overview" section a notation of recognition of Bluesky as the daughter of Chief Cornstalk by the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. May I please obtain the citation material where I can find that in formal hard copy for my records

Thank you in advance.

All I know is what you see in Geni profiles, so queries further info go to profile managers via “contact manager” or discussion. The same applies to citations added to Geni profiles. In other words, I’m not going to chase the references you give for the URL & text of the citation; that’s for profile managers / researchers / interested parties to do.

What I asked for is a simple genealogy profile of Bluesky: birth, marriage, death, parents, children, as much as known, with citations to support that data.

So who are her mother and father, when & where was she born, married, died?

One of my reasons for skepticism, in this particular case. is that according to Native American genealogists, it’s more or less unheard of for women to have had their children raised in a white family. If she had died early, her sisters etc would have raised any children. Much like nowadays, actually.

https://www.amazon.com/Heritage-Cabell-County-Virginia-1809-1996/dp... so I presume published after 1966. Do you have page 96 scanned to upload to the profile? Can you point to a genealogy profile for Mitchell F. Adkins on the internet so we can see his distant he is from Parker V?

NB Cornstalk is well known to history (ALL of ours); it’s his unproven daughter we need documented as much as possible.