ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the implausible Ugaine Mor
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
If one were to take a MODERN trip to Ireland
by travel agency, it might be told, as part of
the itinerary, that in ANCIENT times:
[The hill of Tara is said to represent the womb
of Mother Ireland and where the High Kings of
Ireland were crowned. The Lia Fail Stone the
"Stone of Destiny" would roar when the king
was accepted and was also considered to be an
ancient fertility symbol.] - JOY TRAVEL
The plausible Ugaine Mor is plausible because:
(1) Royalty would be the most positive family
unit to preserve life for little children.
(2) The REVERENCE for fertility would require
the King to produce offspring, to prove the
validity of his kingship and authority.
(3) The description of a family in which many
children were produced, of which few also had
posterity, shows the reasonableness that the
record itself, if true, was not doctored to
validate sacred tradition. It falls more in
line with MODERN knowledge of ROYALTY INTER-
MARRIAGEs over time, producing GENETIC DEFECTS,
OF WHICH THE TRADITIONAL ANCIENT WRITERS HAD
NO KNOWLEDGE. Only the lack of understanding
and proper evaluation of the record within the
ANCIENT framework of Irish history makes this
a "silly story ridiculous". The "fabular nature"
of taf's logic "becomes [self]evident", unfortunately.
SEE RE:
RESPONSE:
"Mother of 24, gets special attention from grateful children
May 4, 1999
http://monroefreepress.com/newsweb/1999/hilit242.html
NOTE: I compared a MODERN woman who had 24 children
with an ANCIENT woman who was given a similar record.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] - on
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
The Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
has recently been updated. It contains over 5,000 quality
listings, connecting to hundreds of thousands of related
links that lead to billions of database records.
Todd A. Farmerie
> The plausible Ugaine Mor is plausible because:
> (1) Royalty would be the most positive family
> unit to preserve life for little children.
There are estimates that, in the time in question, less than half
of all births survived childhood diseases. Even if the royalty
was more likely to have the best medical care, (considering what
medical care entailed at the time, that might not favor survival
over no medical care) that hardly suggests that any family, royal
or not, would bring 24 children to adulthood. Look at Queen
Anne. She gave the best possible care to her heir, paranoid that
he would not reach adulthood, (and this 2000 years after the
events you are describing supposedly took place) yet the little
ankle-biter managed to get an infection from a broken piece of
glass and he was toast. Name for me a single medieval or ancient
monarch that brought even half this number of children all to
adulthood.
> (2) The REVERENCE for fertility would require
> the King to produce offspring, to prove the
> validity of his kingship and authority.
I don't see how this is relevant AT ALL. Unless they ceased
having sex entirely, a couple generally produced children until
they ceased to be fertile. It had nothing to do with proving
validity of anything. It had everything to do with maintanace of
viable sperm count, lack of impotence, numbers of viable eggs,
presence of normal cycling, diet, and the lack of debilitating
post-partum complications. Reverence for fertility does not
trump biological reality.
> (3) The description of a family in which many
> children were produced, of which few also had
> posterity, shows the reasonableness that the
> record itself, if true, was not doctored to
> validate sacred tradition.
I see, it is exactly because it is so ridiculous that it can't be
a lie? Thus the item most likely to be true is the one that is
infinitely improbable. Who would ever imagine that Bjorn Bearson
could actually be son of a woman raped by a bear? The very fact
that someone put it into a story, knowing full well how
incredulous his audience would be, must mean that it is true,
biological impossibility be damned.
> It falls more in
> line with MODERN knowledge of ROYALTY INTER-
> MARRIAGEs over time, producing GENETIC DEFECTS,
> OF WHICH THE TRADITIONAL ANCIENT WRITERS HAD
> NO KNOWLEDGE.
You have no evidence that intermarriage was involved - NONE. In
fact, your fable makes it clear this couple was unlikely to be
related. Likewise, there are no genetic defects that, due to
interbreeding, would affect 22/24 of progeny without the parents
being affected. The only way you could approach this number is
if BOTH parents were affected. (Think about that - both parents
then would have had to have been infertile, while you are arguing
just the opposite.) If you want something that didn't affect the
parents, then you are talking 1/4 ratio. This is statistical and
statistics don't rule out the improbable event, but the
improbability of those event can be quantified. If I calculated
it correctly, the probability of a family with 24 children having
22 affected by this 'fertility defect' gene due to intermarriage
(but without the parents having been affected) would be in the
neighborhood of 113315208015 : 1 - one in 113 billion - a number
more than ten times the total number of humans that have ever
lived. Is that the kind of probability you want to rest your hat on?
You are arguing the story must be accurate because it reflects
modern genetics. Considering that it doesn't reflect modern
genetics, by the same criterion, it must NOT be accurate.
> Only the lack of understanding
> and proper evaluation of the record within the
> ANCIENT framework of Irish history makes this
> a "silly story ridiculous".
You make this claim, and yet do you know the average birth rate
for a couple in Ireland 2500 years ago? Do you know the rate of
survival to adulthood? Do you know the fertility rate? In fact,
do you know anything about the very framework of Irish history?
How none of it was recorded for more than 1000 years after the
time in question? How your particular story wasn't recorded for
1000 years AFTER THAT? The entire concept of there being an
ANCIENT framework of Irish history flies in the face of all of
the surviving records. This 'ANCIENT framework' was invented,
from scratch, and it bears all the hallmarks that distinguish
such invented historical systematics - impossible chronology,
improbable family structures, eponymous ancetors, devisions of
territory explained by 'tribes' descended from siblings, etc.
This is all hardly worth dignifying. What you are presenting is
a genealogical connection for which the earliest source was
written 2000 years after the fact - and not just the connections.
This is not like someone now proposing that two known people
2000 years ago were actually father and son, in spite of the lack
of evidence. There is no evidence that any of the named
individuals ever existed, ever. Such claims can (and should) be
rejected out of hand.
taf
Roz Griston
up..and some one says no way could all the children reach adulthood.
most certainly they had disease and infection as well as medical
problems that could chip away at the offspring.
while not exactly in the medieval time frame..one of pocahontas's gr
grandchildren had 20 children, most of whom survived. medical
technology wasn't much beyond that of medieval practices in the late
1600's/early 1700's.
in my own line my gggg grandfather comes from a family of 13. those
kids survived all b. between 1790-1820. my ggg grandfather had 13 of
his own kids, 12 survived 10 had descendents..one of them had 17 kids.
my gg grandfather had 10 kids, 5 survived and his wife was the dau of a
dr..so go figure medical technology/advances. you'd think she'd would
have picked up a bit of medical skill by osmosis.
have you noticed many ppl are reverting to natural remedies and getting
away from the chemically produced ones. did you know if you have a
headache and chew the bark of willow..you get organic asprin?
our ancestors knew very well how to work the herbs/plants that were
available. btw..i'm from a family of three. 2 of us would have survived
to adulthood. my older sister would have died from a ruptured apendix.
none of us have had any life threatening ailments. we lived rurally and
often used old wives remedies for cough/colds, wounds such as stepping
on rusty nails.
quite frankly i don't see why it is thought to be impossible that
children of the high born would be less able to survive than peasant
stock.
it is because of modern birth control we no longer have large
families...think about it ppl, how many of your friends when you were
growing up had siblings who died or became deathly ill..and yes, i'm
cognizant of antibiotics and vaccinations..but how many deadly
diseases/plagues were also running about? and how often did the
mediveal plagues hit?
there were times when a generation or more weren't touch by "mass
illnesses".
citing all the stats in the world won't prove they could had a large
family that survived to adulthood, nor will it disprove it. it is quite
simply likely that that family did survive. i only have to look at my
robinson tree to see the large numbers of them who did survive pre 20th
C and modern medicine.
roz
my
On Saturday, May 24, 2003 9:17 PM, Todd A. Farmerie
Todd A. Farmerie
> i sit and shake my head every time the topic of large families comes
> up..and some one says no way could all the children reach adulthood.
No one says no way - just that it was prohibitively improbable to
hypothesize this in the context of two other highly unlikely
situations (24 children to one woman, and only 2 of 24 children
having their own family).
> most certainly they had disease and infection as well as medical
> problems that could chip away at the offspring.
>
> while not exactly in the medieval time frame.
Umm. That is the whole point - we are not even talking about the
medieval time frame, we are talking about somewhere between 800
and 400 BC.
> one of pocahontas's gr
> grandchildren had 20 children, most of whom survived.
Most? not all?
> btw..i'm from a family of three. 2 of us would have survived
> to adulthood. my older sister would have died from a ruptured apendix.
OK, so your mother wouldn't have managed to bring three to
adulthood. Mine failed to get four there. This in an
environment virtually free of small pox, free of cholera, free of
malaria, free of yellow fever, free of typhoid, rheubella,
typhus, little measles, food poisoning killed by a pill, as is
lock jaw and any other infection, not to mention vastly superior
nutrition, lack of marauding bands, of wolves, and since we are
talking about 500 BC Ireland, lets not forget human sacrifice.
How much easier would it have been to bring 24 to adulthood 2000
years ago?
> quite frankly i don't see why it is thought to be impossible that
> children of the high born would be less able to survive than peasant
> stock.
Among other things, the more sterile the environment, the less
developed the immune system (this has been specifically suggested
for Anne's son), but none of this applies to the 5th cnetury BC
royalty living in the hovel or tent right next door to the peasants.
> it is quite simply likely that that family did survive.
This turns probability on its head, like the infinite
improbability drive of Douglas Adams. Setting all other things
aside, just because it is hypothetically possible that this could
happen in some family does not make it "simply likely" that it
happened in this family. You can't set all other things aside
and fairly evaluate the question. You have a woman having 24
children, you have all of them living to adulthood, you have only
two having families of their own. You have no one named in the
pedigree that has any independent evidence that they existed.
You have the pedigree never being recorded, in a thouseand years
of Irish historical writings, a thousand years following an
earlier millenium in which the whole thing must have been
preserved perfectly by oral tradition. You have patterns within
the pedigrees that have every appearance of invention, from
scratch. Taken together, it is quite simply likely that that
family never existed at all.
I will put the same challenge to you I did to Mr. Tinney. Name a
single family from 500 BC with more than ten children, in which
they all survived to adulthood - every last one of them. The
fact is, you probably can't name a single family from that time
with 10 children, period. That is to be expected. Neither can
I, because historical records don't survive that would allow such
a challenge to be answered. (Given an equivalent time frame,
this document would be like you compiling an account of all of
the children of a family living in England at the time of Julius
Caesar.) The point is that to accept any document, written about
1600, claiming anything about a family living 500 BC, let alone
that they had 24 children survive to adulthood, is credulous to
the extreme. Then add in the other severe improbabilities and
what possible likelihood is there that the document in question
has any basis in truth?
> i only have to look at my
> robinson tree to see the large numbers of them who did survive pre 20th
> C and modern medicine.
We are not talking large numbers, we are talking every single one
of 24, and we are not talking pre 20th Century, we are talking
500 BC.
taf
Phil Moody
Name for me a single medieval or ancient
monarch that brought even half this number of children all to
adulthood.
PLM: I don't know how many lived to "adulthood", which is a relative
term, as adulthood may have 12 years of age at the time in question. But
we have from Mike Ashley's book:
Henry I of England, 29 children.
James II of England, 27
Robert II of Scotland, 22
Edward I of England, 20
Henry II of England, 20
Edward the Elder of Wessex, 19
Charles II of England and Scotland, 19
Anne, whom you mentioned is a tragic anomaly, she had 18, and they all
died young.
William IV, 17
John of England, 17
IIRC, King Swein Estridsson had about 17 also.
I know for a fact that woman can and do bear children into their 50's;
so given an early marriage, and a strong constitution, 24 children is
far from implausible.
Best Wishes,
Phil
Todd A. Farmerie
> Taf wrote:
>
> Name for me a single medieval or ancient
> monarch that brought even half this number of children all to
> adulthood.
>
> PLM: I don't know how many lived to "adulthood",
Which was the point of the whole exercise . . .
> which is a relative
> term, as adulthood may have 12 years of age at the time in question. But
> we have from Mike Ashley's book:
>
> Henry I of England, 29 children.
No - Richard d.y. (plus bastards don't count - you only hear of
the ones that make it. 29 looks high anyhow)
> James II of England, 27
No.
> Robert II of Scotland, 22
10 - how many lived to adulthood?
> Edward I of England, 20
No - several d.y.
> Henry II of England, 20
No - William d.y.
> Edward the Elder of Wessex, 19
No - Eadwine drowned, and Eadweard the Elder had just 14 that we
know of (and that may include duplication).
> Charles II of England and Scotland, 19
No.
> Anne, whom you mentioned is a tragic anomaly, she had 18, and they all
> died young.
No.
> William IV, 17
No.
> John of England, 17
No.
> IIRC, King Swein Estridsson had about 17 also.
Don't have anything that enables me to assess him.
> I know for a fact that woman can and do bear children into their 50's;
> so given an early marriage, and a strong constitution, 24 children is
> far from implausible.
Then name for me a medieval woman who had 24 children. I can
think of one who was in that ballpark, but and all of hers did
not make it to maturity.
taf
Leo van de Pas
that is where this line started. -------see below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the implausible Ugaine Mor
> Taf wrote:
>
> Name for me a single medieval or ancient
> monarch that brought even half this number of children all to
> adulthood.
>
> PLM: I don't know how many lived to "adulthood", which is a relative
> term, as adulthood may have 12 years of age at the time in question. But
> we have from Mike Ashley's book:
>
> Henry I of England, 29 children.
===========by how many concubines? How many lived to adulthood?
> James II of England, 27
by two wives and two mistresses. Most of his legitimate children died
young that is why we had Queen Mary II and Queen Anne.
> Robert II of Scotland, 22
by two wives and three mistresses
> Edward I of England, 20
=======by two wives, again many died young.
> Henry II of England, 20
========I can find only eigth legitimate and two illegitimate
> Edward the Elder of Wessex, 19
===by two wives and one mistress
> Charles II of England and Scotland, 19
======by seven mistresses
> Anne, whom you mentioned is a tragic anomaly, she had 18, and they all
> died young.
> William IV, 17
======two legitimate, ten by Mrs Jordan, one other illegitimate----I miss
out on four
> John of England, 17
=====I have five legitimate and 3 illegitimate children
>
> IIRC, King Swein Estridsson had about 17 also.
=======If I have the correct one, two wives (each one child) by unknown
mothers 17 children
>
> I know for a fact that woman can and do bear children into their 50's;
> so given an early marriage, and a strong constitution, 24 children is
> far from implausible.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Phil
=========Quite recently (?) Enrico Caruso was the 18th of 21 children. He
was the first one to survive infancy.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Janet Crawford
impossible to track all the children of a marriage. Records were sometimes
only kept for the eldest son and God forbid any record be kept on mere
daughters, records did not survive, or are still to be uncovered. Sometimes
only one or two siblings made the news and the rest lived in obscurity. I
don't know that we can assume that these numerous offspring only left a few
offspring of their own.
Janet Crawford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 6:38 AM
Subject: RE: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the implausible Ugaine Mor
Francisco Antonio Doria
Just happened to notice this topic. My gguncle Manuel
Mendes da Costa Doria (1830-1907) married just once
Felicidade (``Dadá'') Sizenanda de Azevedo. They had
24 children, and some 12 of them survived into
adulthood. (A ggggson of them just contacted me; it's
impossible to collect all their descendants.)
Moreover Manuel had two natural sons, born before his
marriage, and their descent is also huge - they
include former state secretaries, several high-ranking
military, a noted professor of odontology and a
federal representative. I personally know several
among them, but again it's impossible in practical
terms to list the whole descent.
Oh, Felicidade was the daughter of a Catholic
Monsignore and a Negro slave.
chico
--- "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
O melhor e-mail gratuito da internet: 6MB de espaço, antivírus, acesso POP3, filtro contra spam.
http://br.mail.yahoo.com/
Shawn Potter
Two of my ancestors had 18 children from their single marriage--and
then both lived to be about 80 years old [now that seems
extraordinary]. Most of their children lived to adulthood. Large
families do happen.
Shawn
1. NOAH W.6 DUNBAR (BENNETT5, DAVID4, DAVID3, JOSEPH2, ROBERT1) was
born April 27, 1801 in Hartford, Hartford County, CT1, and died
January 08, 1882 in Lee Township, Fulton County, IL2. He married
SARAH HOPPS December 12, 1822 in Ballston, Saratoga County, NY3,
daughter of FRANCIS HOPPS and MABEL BRADLEY. She was born November
17, 1802 in Greenfield, Saratoga County, NY4, and died April 05, 1882
in Lee Township, Fulton County, IL5.
Children of NOAH DUNBAR and SARAH HOPPS are:
i. SARAH JANE7 DUNBAR, b. October 30, 1823, Ballston, Saratoga
County, NY6; d. about 1900, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; m. JAMES
LOCKWOOD, April 26, 1840, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; b. about
1820, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
ii. LEWIS RAYMOND DUNBAR, b. September 26, 1824, Ballston, Saratoga
County, NY7; d. October 04, 1840, Dayton, Cattaraugus County, NY.
iii. JOHN HENRY DUNBAR, b. April 04, 1826, Stillwater, Saratoga
County, NY8; d. February 17, 1890, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; m.
NANCY HENDRYX, September 23, 1847, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; b.
about 1832, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
iv. FRANCES E. DUNBAR, b. July 17, 1827, Stillwater, Saratoga County,
NY9; d. May 16, 1859, Albany, Linn County, OR; m. MARTIN LUPER, April
14, 1846, Knox County, IL; b. about 1820, Knox County, IL.
v. REUBEN M. DUNBAR, b. September 03, 1828, Stillwater, Saratoga
County, NY10; d. about 1900, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; m. MARY
EDELMAN, November 05, 1876, Knox County, IL; b. about 1856, Knox
County, IL.
vi. NOAH W. DUNBAR, JR., b. December 22, 1829, Stillwater, Saratoga
County, NY11; d. about 1900, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
vii. MARIA ANTOINETTE DUNBAR, b. April 12, 1831, Stillwater, Saratoga
County, NY12; d. March 21, 1846, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL13.
viii. HELLEN AMANDA DUNBAR, b. January 14, 1833, Stillwater, Saratoga
County, NY14; d. June 19, 1918, Hopkinton, Delaware County, IA; m.
PATTERSON OFFICER JOSEPH, April 14, 1853, Lee Township, Fulton County,
IL; b. March 29, 1829, Chandlersville, Muskingum County, OH; d. August
1906, Hopkinton, Delaware County, IA.
ix. HARRIET S. DUNBAR, b. June 02, 1834, Stillwater, Saratoga County,
NY15; d. November 29, 1893, Hopkinton, Delaware County, IA; m. GEORGE
W. CRAWFORD, November 09, 1853, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; b.
about 1830, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
x. ELIPHALET R. DUNBAR, b. March 05, 1836, Parrysburgh, Cattaraugus
County, NY16; d. January 01, 1873, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; m.
LUCY M. BUCK, June 04, 1857, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; b. about
1837, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
xi. ELIZA W. DUNBAR, b. May 10, 1837, Dayton, Cattaraugus County,
NY17; d. March 01, 1875, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL18; m. HOSLIP
PHILLIPS, June 01, 1856, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; b. about
1832, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
xii. ELIZUR N. DUNBAR, b. May 10, 1837, Dayton, Cattaraugus County,
NY19; d. February 01, 1864, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
xiii. FERNANDO C. DUNBAR, b. May 16, 1839, Dayton, Cattaraugus
County, NY20; d. about 1910, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; m.
LIZZIE MAIN, January 30, 1872, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; b.
about 1852, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
xiv. OSCAR FITZLAIRD DUNBAR, b. October 21, 1840, Dayton, Cattaraugus
County, NY21; d. December 07, 1908, Macomb, McDonough County, IL22; m.
CHARITY MARIA STAGGS, January 17, 1865, Macomb, McDonough County, IL;
b. about 1845, Macomb, McDonough County, IL.
xv. MINERVA O. DUNBAR, b. April 14, 1842, Dayton, Cattaraugus County,
NY23; d. about 1910, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; m. OSCAR W.
WARREN, January 17, 1865, Macomb, McDonough County, IL; b. about 1837,
Macomb, McDonough County, IL.
xvi. SALOMA A. DUNBAR, b. January 15, 1844, Dayton, Cattaraugus
County, NY24; d. about 1915, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; m. DAVID
D. LUPER, February 24, 1870, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL; b. about
1839, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
xvii. MARY OLIVA DUNBAR, b. November 10, 1845, Lee Township, Fulton
County, IL25; d. October 06, 1848, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL26.
xviii. WILLIAM DUNBAR, b. about 1848, Lee Township, Fulton County,
IL; d. Bef. 1861, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL.
Endnotes
1. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, " Noah W. Dunbar was born in Hartford, Ct., April 27,
1801; his father, Bennett Dunbar, was born in Rhode Island, and died
in 1807; his mother, Sabiah (Stutson) died in 1859 ..."
2. Virgil Cemetery, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL, "Noah W. Dunbar,
born April 27, 1801, died Jan 8, 1882."
3. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ...; Dec. 12, 1822, in Saratoga County,
N. Y., Noah W. married Sarah Hopps, a native of Freenfield, N. Y. ..."
4. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps, a native of
Greenfield, N. Y., born in 1802 ..."
5. Virgil Cemetery, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL, "Sarah--wife of
Noah W. Dunbar, born April 17, 1802, died April 5, 1882."
6. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: Sarah J., Oct. 30, 1823 ..."
7. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Louis R., Sept. 26, '24 ..."
8. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... John H., April 4, '26 ..."
9. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Francis E., July 17, '27 ..."
10. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Reuben M., Sept. 3, '28 ..."
11. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Noah W., Dec. 22, '29 ..."
12. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Maria A., April 12, '31 ..."
13. Virgil Cemetery, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL, "Maria A.
Dunbar, d/o N.W. & S., died 3-21-1846, age 14 y 11 m 9 d."
14. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Helen A., Jan. 14, '33 ..."
15. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Harriet S., June 2, '34 ..."
16. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Eliphalet R., March 5, '36 ..."
17. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Eliza W. and Elizur N., May 10, '37
..."
18. Virgil Cemetery, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL, "Phillips,
Eliza--died March 1, 1875, age 37 y, 10 m."
19. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Eliza W. and Elizur N., May 10, '37
..."
20. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Fernando C., May 16, '39 ..."
21. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ...Oscar F., Oct. 21, '40 ..."
22. Virgil Cemetery, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL, "Oscar
Fitzlaird Dunbar, h/o Charity (Staggs), died Dec 7, 1908, age 68 y 1 m
14 d."
23. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Minerva O., April 11, '42 ..."
24. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Saloma A., Jan. 15, '44 ..."
25. Charles C. Chapman & County, History of Fulton County, Illinois,
(Peoria, IL: J. W. Franks & Sons, Printers, Binders and Publishers,
1879), p. 762, "Noah W. Dunbar ... married Sarah Hopps ... have had 8
boys and 9 girls, as follows: ... Mary O., Nov. 10, '45 ..."
26. Virgil Cemetery, Lee Township, Fulton County, IL, "Mary O.
Dunbar, d/o Noah W. & Sarah, died Aug 6, 1848, age 2 y 8 m 27 d."
franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br (Francisco Antonio Doria) wrote in message news:<2003052510231...@web41812.mail.yahoo.com>...
Doug McDonald
>
> while not exactly in the medieval time frame..one of pocahontas's gr
> grandchildren had 20 children, most of whom survived. medical
> technology wasn't much beyond that of medieval practices in the late
> 1600's/early 1700's.
Yes, but in America there were some beneficial factors: first
infinite land and food. There was no crowding of people in cities
or villages for large numbers of people. This reduced the
spread of disease. They had clean water supplies. There were no
wars of consequence (until 1860 of course, and all my
relatives survived that one).
>
> in my own line my gggg grandfather comes from a family of 13. those
> kids survived all b. between 1790-1820. my ggg grandfather had 13 of
> his own kids, 12 survived 10 had descendents..one of them had 17 kids.
> my gg grandfather had 10 kids,
My own ancestors all had similar numbers of kids .... and if you look at
he
dates, very few indeed, even in the late 17th century, did NOT reach
adulthood.
> quite frankly i don't see why it is thought to be impossible that
> children of the high born would be less able to survive than peasant
> stock.
I agree with this. She is saying in a double negative that it might
be thought that maybe peasants had a higher survival. I have no
idea in medieval times in England, but in America, they had
the advantages described above, though my own ancestors were not
peasants, they were landowners with a modest number of slaves.
Doug MCDonald
Doug McDonald
>
>
> > Robert II of Scotland, 22
>
> 10 - how many lived to adulthood?
>
Robert II had, according to SP, 9 children by Elizabeth
Mure, 4 by Euphemia of Ross, and 8 bastards, which add up to
21. These of course are listed as reaching adulthood. There
may have been more.
But ... of course, this thread is referring to how many
a woman had, not a King.
Doug McDonald
GRHa...@aol.com
mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu writes:
> But ... of course, this thread is referring to how many
> a woman had, not a King.
>
> Doug McDonald
Not only was the thread referring to one particular woman having 24 children
who ALL lived to adulthood it was claimed to have occurred in a time and place
where the survival of children was very iffy. I doubt that 24 of 24 children
would have lived to adulthood in the timeframe cited. Possibly if the woman
had given birth to, say 40, then 24 might reach adulthood.
Gordon Hale
Phil Moody
Phil Moody wrote:
> Taf wrote:
>
> Name for me a single medieval or ancient
> monarch that brought even half this number of children all to
> adulthood.
>
> PLM: I don't know how many lived to "adulthood",
PLM: There are three stipulations to your challenge, 1.) Any Monarch.
2.) "half that number", the number being understood to be 24; so half
would be 12. 3.) living to adulthood.
I conceded I could not answer the third point, but can you, or anyone
else here? You mentioned nothing about legitimacy, but I will amend my
list to accommodate this additional criteria, because it can be easily
done. However, it is not very sporting of you to change the rules in the
middle of the game, and I find the requirement of the children being
from the same mother to be an unreasonable demand. Arranged marriages
were not conducive to monogamous relationships; so we will never know if
these woman could have bore more children, because their husbands did
not practice fidelity.
I will drop Sven Estridsson from my list, because of the uncertainty of
his legitimate children.
James II of England, 27, 20 legit.
Robert II of Scotland, 22, 14 legit.
Edward I of England, 20, 19 legit.
Edward the Elder of Wessex, 19, 18 legit.
Here is a much shorter list to play with, Todd. Now, which of these did
not have 12 children that lived to adulthood, and please specify what
age they died; so we can determine if they were adults by medieval
standards.
Good Luck,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: ta...@wc-du-112-193-252-66.wcox.com
[mailto:ta...@wc-du-112-193-252-66.wcox.com] On Behalf Of Todd A.
Farmerie
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 2:38 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the implausible Ugaine Mor
Roz Griston
On Saturday, May 24, 2003 11:47 PM, Todd A. Farmerie
[SMTP:farm...@interfold.com] wrote:
> Roz Griston wrote:
> > i sit and shake my head every time the topic of large families
comes
> >
> > up..and some one says no way could all the children reach
adulthood.
> >
>
> No one says no way - just that it was prohibitively improbable to
> hypothesize this in the context of two other highly unlikely
> situations (24 children to one woman, and only 2 of 24 children
> having their own family).
>
> > most certainly they had disease and infection as well as medical
> > problems that could chip away at the offspring.
> >
> > while not exactly in the medieval time frame.
>
> Umm. That is the whole point - we are not even talking about the
> medieval time frame, we are talking about somewhere between 800
> and 400 BC.
rg/
okay, then the land would have been considerably more pristine than
during the medieval time period..as doug mcdonald pointed out in his
post regarding colonials.
>
> > one of pocahontas's gr
> > grandchildren had 20 children, most of whom survived.
>
> Most? not all?
rg/ well, i was being lazy, i didn't feel like digging up the exact
number of surviving children. i do recall this large family is in the
randolph line of descent.
>
>
> > btw..i'm from a family of three. 2 of us would have survived
> > to adulthood. my older sister would have died from a ruptured
> > apendix.
>
> OK, so your mother wouldn't have managed to bring three to
> adulthood. Mine failed to get four there. This in an
> environment virtually free of small pox, free of cholera, free of
> malaria, free of yellow fever, free of typhoid, rheubella,
> typhus, little measles, food poisoning killed by a pill, as is
> lock jaw and any other infection, not to mention vastly superior
> nutrition, lack of marauding bands, of wolves, and since we are
> talking about 500 BC Ireland, lets not forget human sacrifice.
> How much easier would it have been to bring 24 to adulthood 2000
> years ago?
rg/ if there hadn't been knowledge and use of birth control, one can
only surmise how many children my mother may have had. to the best of
my knowledge i've only lost one cousin, that being a first cousin to my
father, and he died as a young adult. the cause of death was lukemia
(sp). and i've tons of cousins. (average size family 4-7 kids) we are
all healthy and long lived.
additionally, the diseases you mention above..yellow fever, malaria are
tropical. lockjaw/tetanus(sp) a probability of wound ailment. you
mention wolves, but fail to mention the human predators as in "boogie
men/perverts" to warring factions...but lets not forget the 24 children
are of "high born" status, ergo they would be more protected and/or
ransomable thereby increasing their likelihood of survival to
adulthood.
it is not too likely those kids would have qualified to be candidates
for human sacrifice either (unless the priest felt there was a need for
powerful hoodoo to avert disaster or bring about a positive outcome to
situtuation)
vastly superiour nutrition..hmm, seems to me the food would have been
incredibly organic. no pesticides, herbicides or genetically altered
food sources for ppl living 500 to 1000 years BC. ireland has a lovely
climate, perhaps they might have experienced molding of food items, but
overall they would have had good crop returns, and in the years of
famine the high born children would not be the first to do without.
just because the romans thought the celtic and gallic and other
northern tribes were barbarians, doesn't mean they were. they had a
very interesting and developed culture, it just didn't include a
writing style the romans knew about or even cared to learn about,
ergo..they were labelled barbarian--heathen, just as the conquistadors
looked upon the aztecs. who didn't have an easily recognizable writing
system either.
yes, i'm aware the romans weren't power players during that era..but
much of our modern attitudes towards the barbarians comes from
roman/greek influence compounded by the church teaching about pagans
and heretics.
> > quite frankly i don't see why it is thought to be impossible that
> > children of the high born would be less able to survive than
peasant
> >
> > stock.
>
> Among other things, the more sterile the environment, the less
> developed the immune system (this has been specifically suggested
> for Anne's son), but none of this applies to the 5th cnetury BC
> royalty living in the hovel or tent right next door to the peasants.
they didn't all live in hovels and tents. permanent homes were build of
wood and/or stone. and often villages or communities had fences/walls
to stop or at least slow down the mauraders..two and four footed
varieties.
>
>
> > it is quite simply likely that that family did survive.
>
> This turns probability on its head, like the infinite
> improbability drive of Douglas Adams. Setting all other things
> aside, just because it is hypothetically possible that this could
> happen in some family does not make it "simply likely" that it
> happened in this family. You can't set all other things aside
> and fairly evaluate the question. You have a woman having 24
> children, you have all of them living to adulthood, you have only
> two having families of their own. You have no one named in the
> pedigree that has any independent evidence that they existed.
> You have the pedigree never being recorded, in a thouseand years
> of Irish historical writings, a thousand years following an
> earlier millenium in which the whole thing must have been
> preserved perfectly by oral tradition. You have patterns within
> the pedigrees that have every appearance of invention, from
> scratch. Taken together, it is quite simply likely that that
> family never existed at all.
>
> I will put the same challenge to you I did to Mr. Tinney. Name a
> single family from 500 BC with more than ten children, in which
> they all survived to adulthood - every last one of them. The
> fact is, you probably can't name a single family from that time
> with 10 children, period. That is to be expected. Neither can
> I, because historical records don't survive that would allow such
> a challenge to be answered. (Given an equivalent time frame,
> this document would be like you compiling an account of all of
> the children of a family living in England at the time of Julius
> Caesar.) The point is that to accept any document, written about
> 1600, claiming anything about a family living 500 BC, let alone
> that they had 24 children survive to adulthood, is credulous to
> the extreme. Then add in the other severe improbabilities and
> what possible likelihood is there that the document in question
> has any basis in truth?
most legends have a basis in truth.i.e..dinosaurs = dragons. and i'll
not take up your challenge to locate a family with 10 or more children
who survived to adulthood, all borne by the same woman. i've other
things to do with my time. quite simply it is probable that a large
family could survive to adult hood prior to modern medicine, etc.
consider this..it is legend that mentions this family. perhaps the
survival of the children was legendary enough to merit the tale told in
the 1600's. maybe even a few more kids were added to "bring colour" to
the story.
and as you say, the names of the kids weren't recorded..only two of
them are attributed with descent. try following the lines 20 great
grandchildren of pocahontas and remembering their descent for a 1000
years.
quality of life really didn't begin to change until the industrial
revolution in western civilization...and that is not to say there
wasn't a quality of life prior to "modern" technologies that could not
allow the raising of a family of 20 or more kids to healthy adulthood.
i'm thinking perhaps you should do some "investigating" in to tribal
lifestyle prior to roman conquest in northern european countries,
instead of believing the legends and myths of hovels and tents...which
the barbarian tribes did have, but they also had permanent developed
settlements.
regards
roz
>
> > i only have to look at my
> > robinson tree to see the large numbers of them who did survive pre
> > 20th
> > C and modern medicine.
>
GRHa...@aol.com
r_gr...@dccnet.com writes:
> quite simply it is probable that a large
> family could survive to adult hood prior to modern medicine, etc.
>
I think you are wrong in this statement and from what I read of the Middle
ages the childhood death rate was at least 50%. You can enumerate all of the
blessings of the time, including lack of the evil chemicals now in our lives,
and still our life expectancy is greater by 20 or 30 years, at least, of a
person of the Medieval period.
Gordon Hale
GRHa...@aol.com
r_gr...@dccnet.com writes:
> ireland has a lovely
> climate, perhaps they might have experienced molding of food items, but
> overall they would have had good crop returns,
Ireland may have a lovely climate, but in the era under discussion, the crops
did not give near the return of modern day crops. They had more spoilage and
damage by insects and "varmints" than we do today. From what I have read the
poorer classes were living on the edge of starvation even in the best of
times and when times got bad they died off like flies. Children were particularly
affected by the germs which were a constant feature of life in the Medieval
times.
Look at the statistics for the "Plague era" deaths in England alone and you
can see that it would be highly unlikely for most children to survive to become
adults.
Yes, the upper echelon of the populace had a better situation than did the
poor, but the doctors of the time still treated most diseases by bleeding, and
other idiotic methods.
If I am not mistaken the "slops" from the bed chambers were often simply
dumped into the streets of many cities of the times. This is a sure way to spread
whatever disease is popular at the time of the dumping.
Roz, I just think you are getting a bad view on this situation. That is
unusual for you.
Gordon Hale
Todd A. Farmerie
> TAF questions:
>
> Phil Moody wrote:
>
>>Taf wrote:
>>
>>Name for me a single medieval or ancient
>>monarch that brought even half this number of children all to
>>adulthood.
>>
>>PLM: I don't know how many lived to "adulthood",
>
>
> PLM: There are three stipulations to your challenge, 1.) Any Monarch.
> 2.) "half that number", the number being understood to be 24; so half
> would be 12. 3.) living to adulthood.
3) _ALL_ living to maturity.
> I conceded I could not answer the third point, but can you, or anyone
> else here?
That, too, is part of the point of the challenge. If we cannot,
for a time 1000 years ago, fully account for the children of a
monarch, at a period when historical records survive, how can
anyone defend an account that claims to have a complete list,
1500 years earlier, and a full 1000 years before any historical
records survive for the area in question.
> You mentioned nothing about legitimacy, but I will amend my
> list to accommodate this additional criteria, because it can be easily
> done. However, it is not very sporting of you to change the rules in the
> middle of the game, and I find the requirement of the children being
> from the same mother to be an unreasonable demand.
Look back at my post - I said nothing about the same mother.
(That adds an additional level of improbability, but that is not
what we are focusing on here, which is survival.) I maintain,
though, that illegitimates are out (because we only know about
the ones that survived).
> James II of England, 27, 20 legit.
I couldn't find dates for all of them, but . . .
Charles, d. aged 1
Mary
James, d. age 4
Anne
Charles, d age 1
Edgar, d. age 2
Henrietta, d. <1
Catherine, d. <1
stillborn
Catherine, d. <1
stillborn
Isabella, d. aged 5
Charles, d. 1 mon.
Elizabeth, d. <1
stillborn
Charlotte, d. < 2 mon.
stillborn
stillborn
James
Louisa, d. aged 10
So, 20 births, 3 reaching adulthood.
> Robert II of Scotland, 22, 14 legit.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a handy account of him
and his children, so I will have to punt on this one.
> Edward I of England, 20, 19 legit.
Eleanor
Joan, d. <1
John, d. ae 6
Henry, d. ae 6
Juliann (Katherine), d. <1
Joan
Alphonso, d. ae 10
Isabel, d. inf
Margaret
Berengaria, d. ae 1-3
Mary
Alice, d. ae 12
Elizabeth
Edward
Beatrice
Blanche
Thomas
Edmund
Eleanor, d. ae 5
(I know John Carmi Parsons discovered an additional child, but I
don't know if she is in this list or not.) I could not find
death dates for all of these, but it looks like about half failed
to make it.
> Edward the Elder of Wessex, 19, 18 legit.
You have too many here:
Æthelstan
dau (? Eadgyth) m. Sitric, perhaps (unlikely, I think) identical
to one of the following
Ælfweard
Eadwine
Eadflaed
Eadgyfu m. Charles 'the Simple'
Æthelhild
Eadhild m. Hugh 'the Great'
Eadgyth m. Otto I 'the Great'
'Elgifa' m. "cuipiam regi iuxta Iupitereos montes"
Eadmund
Eadred
Eadburga
Eadgyfu m. "Louis, Prince of Aquitaine" (perhaps identical to
Eadgyfu above)
That's 15, max, that we know of. Now, this may be a valid set -
the problem is that we only learn about these in much later
sources, sources unlikely to report any that did not live to
adulthood/marriage. Eadwine drowned in 933, but we don't know
when he was born - just that it must have been before 922.
> Here is a much shorter list to play with, Todd. Now, which of these did
> not have 12 children that lived to adulthood, and please specify what
12 children that ALL lived to adulthood.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Saturday, May 24, 2003 11:47 PM, Todd A. Farmerie
> [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com] wrote:
>
> okay, then the land would have been considerably more pristine than
> during the medieval time period..as doug mcdonald pointed out in his
> post regarding colonials.
'pristine' also means wild. Less communicable diseases, more
starvation, ravages of animals and brigands.
>>OK, so your mother wouldn't have managed to bring three to
>>adulthood. Mine failed to get four there. This in an
>>environment virtually free of small pox, free of cholera, free of
>>malaria, free of yellow fever, free of typhoid, rheubella,
>>typhus, little measles, food poisoning killed by a pill, as is
>>lock jaw and any other infection, not to mention vastly superior
>>nutrition, lack of marauding bands, of wolves, and since we are
>>talking about 500 BC Ireland, lets not forget human sacrifice.
>>How much easier would it have been to bring 24 to adulthood 2000
>>years ago?
>
> rg/ if there hadn't been knowledge and use of birth control, one can
> only surmise how many children my mother may have had.
The point is, she would not have succeeded in bringing three to
adulthood, so adding a slew more would in no way make her more
likely to get all of them there.
> additionally, the diseases you mention above..yellow fever, malaria are
> tropical.
That didn't stop a kinglet of Wales from dying, it is said, of
yellow fever.
> lockjaw/tetanus(sp) a probability of wound ailment.
And wounds happen all the time, not just in war. I certainly
knew a lot of kids who fell on a sharp object, and were given a
shot, just in case (and one that wasn't, and barely made it through).
> you
> mention wolves, but fail to mention the human predators as in "boogie
> men/perverts" to warring factions.
You are not strengthening your position . . .
> ..but lets not forget the 24 children
> are of "high born" status, ergo they would be more protected and/or
> ransomable thereby increasing their likelihood of survival to
> adulthood.
Yes, but not increased from iffy to certain. Rather from
doubtful to iffy.
> it is not too likely those kids would have qualified to be candidates
> for human sacrifice either (unless the priest felt there was a need for
> powerful hoodoo to avert disaster or bring about a positive outcome to
> situtuation)
Perhaps not in Ireland (although I don't know what criteria were
used in selection). Certainly, you don't have to go too far away
to find cultures where royals were the prefered subjects.
> vastly superiour nutrition..hmm, seems to me the food would have been
> incredibly organic. no pesticides, herbicides or genetically altered
> food sources for ppl living 500 to 1000 years BC.
NUTRITION - you know, vitamins, minerals, the stuff that is added
to our bread, and salt, and milk and water, and which represent
the second biggest class of drugs used by Americans, so that we
don't HAVE to eat 'healthy' food. Pesticides and herbicides do
not decrease the nutritional value of food. Likewise, you can
say a lot about genetically modified food (and all kinds of
people do, most of whom don't have a clue what they are talking
about), but one thing that it is not is non-nutritious. I doubt
that even vaccines and antibiotics have done as much for human
health as adequate food (at least for the northern hemisphere).
All of this longing for the pristine organic lifestyle of the
ancients is nothing but looking at the past through rose-colored
glasses. Life was hard, short and cruel. Childbirth was the
primary killer of adult woman. More than half of the children
never reached their teens, and those that did faced a life of
hard work just to keep themselves and their families above the
level of starvation, such that one bad harvest could spell utter
disaster.
>>>it is quite simply likely that that family did survive.
>>
>>This turns probability on its head, like the infinite
>>improbability drive of Douglas Adams. Setting all other things
>>aside, just because it is hypothetically possible that this could
>>happen in some family does not make it "simply likely" that it
>>happened in this family. You can't set all other things aside
>>and fairly evaluate the question. You have a woman having 24
>>children, you have all of them living to adulthood, you have only
>>two having families of their own. You have no one named in the
>>pedigree that has any independent evidence that they existed.
>>You have the pedigree never being recorded, in a thouseand years
>>of Irish historical writings, a thousand years following an
>>earlier millenium in which the whole thing must have been
>>preserved perfectly by oral tradition. You have patterns within
>>the pedigrees that have every appearance of invention, from
>>scratch. Taken together, it is quite simply likely that that
>>family never existed at all.
>
> most legends have a basis in truth.i.e..dinosaurs = dragons. and i'll
Most legends have basis in earlier legends, or in the
imaginations of inventive story-tellers. There is no evidence
whatsoever that dinosaurs gave rise to dragon legends - no human
ever saw a dinosaur, nor (contrary to claims to the contrary) are
they likely to have ever seen dinosaur skeletons.
> quite simply it is probable that a large
> family could survive to adult hood prior to modern medicine, etc.
Based on what is KNOWN, from church records, etc., it was not all
that likely for a small family to all survive to adulthood, even
in relatively recent times (yet before modern medicine). Turn
the clock back 2000 years and this claim is lacking in credibility.
> consider this..it is legend that mentions this family. perhaps the
> survival of the children was legendary enough to merit the tale told in
> the 1600's. maybe even a few more kids were added to "bring colour" to
> the story.
Or maybe, since there is no reason to believe that this might be
the case - that a tradition would survive for 1000 years, then
survive unrecorded for a further 1000 years after the advent of
historical writing in the area without having been recorded, and
then be written fully accurately, in all its glory - maybe,
rather than hypothesizing that there was some reality behind
this, when we KNOW that comtemporary peoples with similar
historographical traditions forged their origin pedigrees,
perhaps an author was in need of an explanation of 24 regions of
the country, ans so plotted out 24 siblings, giving them
eponymous names. Or perhaps, he just said, "I think I will give
them 24 children", just because he wanted a large number (or to
intentionally match some other tradition where the founder had 24
children). Or perhaps he had a bunch of people who he couldn't
place into a genealogical context, so he made them all members of
the same kinship. There is absolutely nothing that supports a
single aspect of this fable, other than the strenuous wishes of
the credulous.
> and as you say, the names of the kids weren't recorded..only two of
> them are attributed with descent. try following the lines 20 great
> grandchildren of pocahontas and remembering their descent for a 1000
> years.
Try remembering the CHILDREN of Pocahontas 2000 years later,
without a written record. The argument that it is hard to
remember information for so long obliterates the source's value
entirely.
taf
Roz Griston
different culture from that of medieval europe.
settlements/villages were comprised of mostly one story "homes" plus
communal housing..so no need to *regarde l'eau* being flung into the
streets. i'm not heard of what their toilet facilities were like. i can
only surmise they could have been like natives in north
america..i.e...go do *that* a way over there.
during biblical times..sick tents were set up or the ill person/family
was avoided. they even set up leper colonies. the real problem here is
too many ppl are thinking in more modern terms vs an ancient
culture..and one that was civilized, by their standards, not
necessarily ours or roman.
crops certainly didn't yeild then what they do now..but, most
significantly, crops were very different. mostly wild grains that were
harvested and
quasi-domesticated because these ppl had learned you could get a higher
yeild if you tended the plants.
ancient ppl also dined on a lot of edible leaves and roots, as well as
wild fruits and berries. living near the sea would mean harvesting from
the sea..red tide would be their most dangerous aspect of such a
diet..that and falling off the raft/canoe. fishing from creeks and
rivers would also net more of a catch.
these ppl also didn't turn their noses up at dining on rodents and
insects, i imagine the occassional roast leg of wolf was favoured too.
i've eaten cougar burgers and cougar sausage. i'll trade you an elk
steak anyday vs beef steak.
you need to let your mind get beyond western cultural ideas of what a
persons diet was/could be.
there were smaller clusters of population, this coupled with difficult
transportation (foot or mounted along pathways, not roman roads) meant
that "plague" and other communicable diseases were not spread as easily
as one finds with medieval era ..especially when the exotic
trade/crusader routes really began to open up.
starvation of the poorer classes was often caused by the lord
controlling the flow of food.
this is an interesting read regarding peasants and allocation of
grain..
http://www.medieval-life.co.uk/article/barn.htm
roz
On Sunday, May 25, 2003 1:30 PM, GRHa...@aol.com
Sutliff
What John Carmi Parsons found out was that the names and dates and even
sexes of some of Edward I's children by Eleanor of Castile are incompatible
with the lists oft repeated by the like of Alison Weir and others. There
were no daughters named Julian, Alice or Blanche. These names were late
inventions. Although not mentioned thus far in the thread, the four younger
sons of Henry III were shown by Margaret Howell to also have been later
inventions, especially the son named William who was found to be in error
for Henry's brother William de Valence.
Perhaps it is time to mention again that Stewart Baldwin, F. A. S. G. did a
comprehensive review of Ashley's book (for TAG, I think). There was
absolutely no doubt that the book contained so much error that it ought not
to be on anyone's bookshelf. Unfortunately I do not know if this review can
be found online as it is very well done.
A cursory glance at _The Royal Bastards of Medieval England_ by Chris
Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1984) suggests
that Ashley has accepted every possible theory as a certainty and has vastly
overestimated documentable or probable illegitimate issue for many Kings.
It is unfortunate to see too much of this thread revolving around emotion
rather than sound and deliberative genealogical research, knowledge of the
time and place and context of same. Contemporary evidence must be cited by
those advancing its plausibility. It is particularly disconcerting to see so
many emotions stirred up from a thread resulting from a travel agency
brochure, but then that would appear to be Mr. Tinney's usual agenda here.
HS
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3ED12A6E...@interfold.com...
> Ćthelstan
> dau (? Eadgyth) m. Sitric, perhaps (unlikely, I think) identical
> to one of the following
> Ćlfweard
> Eadwine
> Eadflaed
> Eadgyfu m. Charles 'the Simple'
> Ćthelhild
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> What John Carmi Parsons found out was that the names and dates and even
> sexes of some of Edward I's children by Eleanor of Castile are incompatible
> with the lists oft repeated by the like of Alison Weir and others. There
> were no daughters named Julian, Alice or Blanche. These names were late
> inventions.
The lesson - that is what you get for taking a quick look on the
internet (the only option, not having Parsons' work or anything
of similar scholarship available).
taf
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
. . . Even if the royalty was more likely
> to have the best medical care, (considering what medical care entailed
> at the time, that might not favor survival over no medical care) that
> hardly suggests that any family, royal or not, would bring 24 children
------------------------------------------------------
"The largest number of children born to one woman is recorded at 69.
From 1725-1765 a Russian peasant woman gave birth to 16 sets of twins,
7 sets of triplets and 4 sets of quadruplets."
Under "Miscellaneous"
http://www.allaboutmoms.com/parentingtips.htm
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
Vassilet) of Shuya, Russia (1702 or 07- June 16 1782) gave birth to 16
sets of twins (in addition to 7 sets of triplets & 4 sets of quads.).
She had a total of 69 children, 67 of whom survived infancy who were
born between 1725 - 1765. Mrs. Mary Jonas who died in 1899 had 15 sets,
and all were boy/girl."
http://www.greatbabyproducts.com/twinsfacts.htm
PLEASE NOTE THE COMMENT: "67 of whom survived infancy"
"SHUYA, a town in the government of Vladimir, 68 m. by rail N.E. of the
town of Vladimir. It is one of the chief centres of the cotton and linen
industries in middle Russia. It is built on the high left bank of the
navigable Teza, a tributary of the Klyazma, with two suburbs on the
right bank. Annalists mention princes of Shuya in 1403. Its first linen
manufactures were established in 1755; but in 1800 its population did
not exceed 1500."
http://64.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SH/SHUYA.htm
"Mrs. Vassilyev gave birth to 69 children, 67 of whom survived infancy
with most surviving to adulthood.
She was the 1st wife of Mr. Vassiliev, and they lived outside of Shuya,
Russia, and were peasants who farmed off the land. The children were
born between 1725 and 1765. It was reported and recorded by a monastery
in 1782. Empress Ekaterina the 2nd was supposedly very captivated by the
story. It is the only authenicated case of a woman having more than 60
children. It is believed that she and her husband eventually split up,
as he did remarry.
Other notable families with multiple multiples include Mrs. Mary Jones
of Chester, England, who gave birth to 15 sets of fraternal boy-girl
twins in the 19th Century and Maddalena Granata (1839-1866) of Nocera
Superiore, Italy, who allegedly had 15 sets of triplets."
http://www.twinstuff.com/twinfact1.htm
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] - on
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
The Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
has recently been updated. It contains over 5,000 quality
listings, connecting to hundreds of thousands of related
links that lead to billions of database records.
------------------------------------------------------
Phil Moody
3) _ALL_ living to maturity.
> I conceded I could not answer the third point, but can you, or anyone
> else here?
That, too, is part of the point of the challenge. If we cannot,
for a time 1000 years ago, fully account for the children of a
monarch, at a period when historical records survive, how can
anyone defend an account that claims to have a complete list,
1500 years earlier, and a full 1000 years before any historical
records survive for the area in question.
PLM: Merely because there are no extant records now does not prove they
never existed. I can appreciate your skepticism, but you also lack any
supporting evidence for your position as well.
> You mentioned nothing about legitimacy, but I will amend my
> list to accommodate this additional criteria, because it can be easily
> done. However, it is not very sporting of you to change the rules in
the
> middle of the game, and I find the requirement of the children being
> from the same mother to be an unreasonable demand.
Look back at my post - I said nothing about the same mother.
(That adds an additional level of improbability, but that is not
what we are focusing on here, which is survival.) I maintain,
though, that illegitimates are out (because we only know about
the ones that survived).
PLM: If you are excluding bastards merely because they lived to
maturity; then you are loading the deck decidedly in your favor. I think
your insistence that ALL children lived to maturity is a pedantic point.
We cannot be certain that Thephi did not have some children die
prematurely, but rather like the illegitimate children of monarchs, only
those known to have matured were remembered.
I don't wish to belabor the point any longer, merely affirm my belief
that it is a plausible set of circumstances, and given the absence of
evidence and unknown variables, I choose not to dismiss it.
Best Wishes,
Phil
Phil Moody
My comments are not ruled by emotion, and only a placid Vulcan could
view them as such. I have been as cordial as a kitten. I am aware of
Ashley's reputation, but I am not as fortunate as some to more reliable
data. Short of searching through reams of paper for W. L. Sheppard's
_Royal Bye-Blows_ series, Ashley's work is the most comprehensive
reference I have. I do have a book by Antonia Fraser, which begins with
the Norman period, but I doubt you would accept her data any better than
Ashley's, after seeing the contempt you have for Historians in general.
I agree, it would be desirable to have contemporaneous data to back up
the plausibility of an assertion, but good luck finding it c. 500 BC.
But in asserting that something is implausible - the same rules should
apply as well. One cannot glibly assert that something is fact, merely
because there is no evidence to challenge his assertion.
With the absence of evidence, one must remain open to both possibilities
in order to remain objective, until substantial evidence is presented to
tip the scale in favor of the most logical conclusion.
I have no personal interest in this thread other than trying to keep it
objective. I do not like to see ideas prematurely dismissed merely
because a list owner finds it personally impossible. Absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence, and when someone puts forward an assertion
as fact without any evidence, he is being opinionated - not objective,
and this is an important distinction I felt was worth my time to
illustrate. Good research demands that objectivity supercede opinion,
IMHO.
I think I have said all I need to say on this subject.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Comments interspersed:
>
> 3) _ALL_ living to maturity.
>
>>I conceded I could not answer the third point, but can you, or anyone
>>else here?
>
> That, too, is part of the point of the challenge. If we cannot,
> for a time 1000 years ago, fully account for the children of a
> monarch, at a period when historical records survive, how can
> anyone defend an account that claims to have a complete list,
> 1500 years earlier, and a full 1000 years before any historical
> records survive for the area in question.
>
> PLM: Merely because there are no extant records now does not prove they
> never existed.
There is not a single historical record for Ireland for this
period - not one (except generic mention of the island in the
writings of other cultures). If you think the Irish maintained
such records, such that they can survive for 1500 years, then
another 1000 years, just so this one author could 'reveal' 30
generations of the ancient ancestry of the kings of Ireland, only
to then have this and all ancient Irish records disappear, I
don't know what to say. You seem to want it both ways - I have
to have evidence to disprove a fable (a logical fallacy), yet you
are fully willing to accept not only the fable, but all of these
contortions necessary to hypothesize a 'historical record, now
lost' supporting the fable.
> I can appreciate your skepticism, but you also lack any
> supporting evidence for your position as well.
Genealogy is not about what might have been, as there are an
infinitie number of inventions that likewise lack records for
proof (for obvious reasons) which equally might have been.
Genealogy is about what can be shown by the historical record.
> I don't wish to belabor the point any longer,
How about at least telling me who the other four claimed children
of Eadweard the Elder are.
> merely affirm my belief
> that it is a plausible set of circumstances, and given the absence of
> evidence and unknown variables, I choose not to dismiss it.
Do you realize what you are saying? Given the absence of
evidence, you choose to ACCEPT it? I bet it makes it easy to do
genealogy, not requiring evidence or any other such inconveniences.
taf
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
> You have no evidence that intermarriage was involved - NONE.
. . .
In fact, do you know anything about the very framework of Irish history?
How none of it was recorded for more than 1000 years after the time in
question?
. . .
There is no evidence that any of the named individuals ever existed,
ever. Such claims can
RESPONSE:
You are incorrectly judging the record from a medieval
viewpoint, when "International commerce had ceased except
for a small trade in luxury items carried on by adventurous
Greek, Syrian, and Jewish traders. The old Roman cities
served mainly to house the local bishop and his staff.
The absence of a vibrant middle class meant that society
was composed of the nobility, a fusion through intermarriage
of aristocratic Gallo-Roman and German families who owned
and exercised authority over large estates, and the lower
class coloni, who were bound to the land. These serfs
included large numbers of formerly free German farmers.
Only about 10 percent of the peasant population of Gaul
maintained a free status."
http://ragz-international.com/middle_ages.htm
IN FACT:
The long relationship between England and France is
validated in Vol. III of An Economic Survey of Ancient
Rome, (1959), under Roman Britain mining and minerals,
the subject Tin. It appears that west Cornwall [England]
was well populated and in close touch with Brittany
and Ireland, and after 1000 B.C., "they became much
closer, and local finds demonstrate frequent imports,
. . . these include objects from Gaul, the Pyrenees,
Numidia, Greece, and Cyprus." A maritime perspective
of middle Bronze Age trade, between Britain
and Europe, is noted by Keith Muckelroy, in Vol. 47,
(December 1981), issue of the Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society. The witness for past trade
exhibited by wreck-sites is in many respects superior
to any other source; suggesting, in a very real sense
they are 'trade frozen in time'. Importantly, "the
evidence suggests a European-wide network of bronze
exchange which operated separately from local
arrangements for production and distribution."
A European-wide network of bronze exchange which
operated separately from local arrangements required
Royalty to Royalty contacts. Historically, King Solomon
had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram
[King of Tyre, the capital of ancient Phoenicia]: once
in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold,
and silver, ivory and apes, and peacocks. David W. Tandy
mentions in Warriors into Traders, The Power of the
Market in Early Greece, published 1997, that the tenth
century [B.C.] relationship between Hiram and Solomon
shows Hiram sending supplies of cedar and fir trees,
gold and even laborers, and Solomon reciprocating
with thousands of measures of wheat each year and
other gifts. This is corroborated by an early Egyptian
historical document showing also the import of "forty
ships of cedar logs", during the reign of Sneferu.
Ancient sea routes between Asia Minor and the North,
include connections to Cyprus, the Etruscans, southern
Spain, northwest France, western Ireland, south and
west England, including both the passage through the
English Channel and that around the north of Scotland.
Royalty Intermarriages were generated by International
Trade agreements. The Jewish merchant class followed
King Solomon's example and cemented local protection
of their Diaspora group, by entering into marriages
and having concubine contract agreements with local
royalty and families in positions of authority.
The very framework of Irish history is connected to the
ancient history of international commerce and marriage
contracts. Ezekiel, a major Hebrew prophet of the
6th century B.C. [author of the Book of Ezekiel], has
in Chapter 27, verse 12, a Lament over Tyrus.
"Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude
of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin and lead,
they traded in thy fairs." Validation is thus made
of an interconnecting link to Jewish merchants and
the previously established European-wide network
of bronze exchange, revealing the constant diffusionist
nature of expanding local markets into worldwide trade
contacts.
The proof is in the continued commerce over time, as
validated by numerous finds, which assures the necessity
of international royalty contacts to support and sustain
it within the social fabric. As mentioned heretofore,
the poem, Ora Maritima, written in the fourth
century A.D. by the Roman Avienus, incorporated
information from the sixth century B.C. sailing manual
called the Massiliot Periplus. Sea journeys were
made by Tartessan and Carthaginian merchant venturers
from southern Iberia, northwards to Brittany, Albion
[Britain] and Ireland in order to trade with the
natives. The Massiliot Periplus mentions islands in
the west -- Oestrymnis -- lying close to Britain,
whence natives sailed in skin boats carrying cargoes
of tin and lead. This is discussed in A People of
the Sea, The Maritime History of the Channel Islands,
Edited by A. G. Jamieson, first published in 1986.
Emrys Bowen, an archaeologist and historical geographer,
indicates that in Ireland, smiths of the Beaker era were
fashioning bronze axes and daggers before 1500 B.C.
As Ireland had no tin workings of its own, they
must have exploited the Cornish tin mines via seafarers.
I conclude by asking you, if "There is no evidence that
any of the named individuals ever existed", then how do
you know their names in the first place? There is much
evidence outside of the written history that declares the
traditional records to be plausible, but NOT from your
evaluation of the record, using a medieval framework,
with a modern mental calculus. These are great and grand
errors of judgment, in my opinion.
John Steele Gordon
"Shawn Potter" <shp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7004aa4b.03052...@posting.google.com...
> Chico and Todd,
>
> Two of my ancestors had 18 children from their single marriage--and
> then both lived to be about 80 years old [now that seems
> extraordinary]. Most of their children lived to adulthood. Large
> families do happen.
My 8th great grandparents Col. John Moore (1686-1749) and Frances Lambert
(1692-1782), had 18 children between 1715 and 1737 (including 2 sets of
twins, so poor Frances had only 16 accouchements, to use the Victorian
term--the Victorians like to use as many French words as possible when
discussing reproductive matters). Of the 18, 6--fully one-third--died young,
and a 7th child died at age 30. And this was a seriously rich family in a
relatively healthy environment (New York had a much higher childhood
mortality rate in the mid 19th century than in the mid-18th)
But of the 12 children who made it to adulthood, only 5 ever married. Maybe
growing up amid all those siblings put them off the idea of having families
of their own.
If I remember correctly Queen Anne, while she had seventeen pregnancies, had
many miscarriages. One son, the Duke of Gloucester, lived to be 11. I don't
think any other of her children who made it to term lived a year. All those
pregnancies (and a serious case of overactive fork) ruined her health. She
died when only 49.
JSG
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>> You have no evidence that intermarriage was involved - NONE.
>
> . . .
>
> In fact, do you know anything about the very framework of Irish history?
> How none of it was recorded for more than 1000 years after the time in
> question?
> . . .
> There is no evidence that any of the named individuals ever existed,
> ever. Such claims can
>
> RESPONSE:
> You are incorrectly judging the record from a medieval
> viewpoint,
True - it shoud be judged as a 17th century record perporting to
tell of 500 BC events. Considering the quality of similar
compilations of the same period, it should be viewed with contempt.
> when "International commerce had ceased except
> for a small trade in luxury items carried on by adventurous
> Greek, Syrian, and Jewish traders. The old Roman cities
[and another 100 lines, none of which refutes any of the
statements made above.]
Give me a single historical record that names this mythical
Ugaine Mor, and I will withdraw my criticism.
taf
Phil Moody
> I don't wish to belabor the point any longer,
How about at least telling me who the other four claimed children
of Eadweard the Elder are.
PLM: You had already asked this privately, but I see you thought I was
taking to long to supply the data; so you chose to expound upon your
response to the same e-mail publicly. I try to oblige everyone, but my
time is extremely limited; so you cannot be to hasty in your
expectations of a timely response; although sometimes I need a gentle
reminder:-)
Here is the data I sent you earlier today:
__________________________________________
I will give you Ashley's data from Chart 31, _The Family of Edward the
Elder_.
Edward married first Egwina (parentage not given).
1.) Athelstan (895-939).
2.) Alfred (died young).
3.) Edith (d. c927), m. Sitric Caech.
Edward's married 2ndly, Elfleda, dau. Of Athelhelm, Ralderman of
Wiltshire.
4.) Edwin (d. 933).
5.) Elfweard (d. 924).
6.) Eadflaed (a nun).
7.) Edgiva (d. c953), m. Charles the Simple. [the footnote for Edgiva
reads: "Edgiva married secondly (c951) Herbert, Count of Vermandois and
had 2 further children: Stephen I, Count of Vermandois (952-1021) and
Agnes (b. 953)"]. 8.)Edhilda (d. C953), m. Hugh, Count of Paris. [the
footnote states: "Edhilda may have died in 938 and Hugh Capet may have
been the son of a second marriage to Hedwig, sister of Otto I"].
9.) Edith (d. 946/7), m. Otto I, German Emperor.
"3 nuns"
10.) Elfleda.
11.) Ethelfleda.
12.) Ethelhilda.
13.) Elgiva m. Boleslaw (Chart 33 details below).
Edward Boleslaw I of Bohemia (brother of good king Wenceslaus}.
| |
| ------------------------
| | |
Elgiva = Boleslaw II Dubrawka = Mieszko I, Duke of Poland.
Duke of Bohemia |
Gunhilda = Svein I
Forkbeard.
Edward's 3rd wihe was Edgiva, dau. Of Sigehelm, ealderman of Kent.
14.) Edmund I (921-946).
15.) St. Eadburh, nun (d. 960).
16.) Edgiva = Louis, king of Arles.
17.) Eadred.
"with a dotted line is added"
18.) Thyra = Gorm the Old.
Judging by Ashley's count, he sees Thyra as legitimate. The numbering is
arbitrary, since I merely numbered them from left to right, deferring
only the legitimate order of Edward's spouses.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd A. Farmerie [mailto:farm...@interfold.com]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 10:43 AM
To: moody...@cox.net
Subject: Re: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the implausible Ugaine Mor
Phil Moody wrote:
> I don't wish to belabor the point any longer,
Could you at least answer who the 'extra' four children of
Eadweard the Elder are supposed to be?
Todd
________________________________________________________
> merely affirm my belief
> that it is a plausible set of circumstances, and given the absence of
> evidence and unknown variables, I choose not to dismiss it.
Do you realize what you are saying? Given the absence of
evidence, you choose to ACCEPT it? I bet it makes it easy to do
genealogy, not requiring evidence or any other such inconveniences.
PLM: I accept that it still remains plausible; which is not the same as
accepting it as fact. I choose to keep an open mind, and abstain from
passing judgment either way - at this time.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Todd wrote:
>
>
>>I don't wish to belabor the point any longer,
>
>
> How about at least telling me who the other four claimed children
> of Eadweard the Elder are.
>
> PLM: You had already asked this privately, but I see you thought I was
> taking to long to supply the data; so you chose to expound upon your
> response to the same e-mail publicly. I try to oblige everyone, but my
> time is extremely limited; so you cannot be to hasty in your
> expectations of a timely response; although sometimes I need a gentle
> reminder:-)
No, I was not demanding a more rapid respone - I just didn't
realize that you had sent your post both to me privately and to
the list, until after I replied privately. I thought the list
would benefit from the discussion, so I repeated the request in
the forum.
> I will give you Ashley's data from Chart 31, _The Family of
Edward the
> Elder_.
>
> Edward married first Egwina (parentage not given).
>
> 1.) Athelstan (895-939).
> 2.) Alfred (died young).
> 3.) Edith (d. c927), m. Sitric Caech.
OK, I know where Alfred comes from. There is one charter that
names AElfredi, filius regis. However, there are questions as to
whether it is based on an authentic original or not (this is the
case with most Anglo-Saxon charters). That being said, he
occupies the exact position in this document as that occupied by
AElfweardi, filius regis, in numerous documents of about the same
time with similar witness lists, AElfweardi being conspicuously
absent from the document naming AElfredi. The obvious conclusion
is that AElfredi is a scribal error for AElfweardi, particularly
since AEthelred II is the first king known to have given his
father's name to a child, and when he did it, it was in the
course of recapitulating the entire kings list. (Given that he
only appears in one document, placing "Alfred" as son of Ecgwina
seems ill founded.)
As to the wife of Sihtric, even her name is suspect - the only
source that names her (giving details of her life, including the
day and month of her death, but not the year) errs in naming each
of the other three daughters whose marriage he reports. This
suggests at least the possibility that he was confused in this
case as well. As to her maternity, only one of the latest of the
sources makes her daughter of Ecgwina, and the same source goes
on to describe Eadweard's liason with Ecqwina as essentially a
'one-night stand', so he is internally inconsistent. Likewise,
it is reported that at the time of his death, Sihtric's marriage
had yet to be consumated, suggesting that this sister of
AEthelstan was still too young, and hence not likely to be born
to the same mother as the King. Other chroniclers call her
daughter of AElfflead, or even Eadgyfu. I think it more likely
that Sihtric's wife was another daughter of AElfflead.
> Edward's married 2ndly, Elfleda, dau. Of Athelhelm, Ralderman of
> Wiltshire.
The sources are not in harmony over the identity of her father.
> 4.) Edwin (d. 933).
> 5.) Elfweard (d. 924).
> 6.) Eadflaed (a nun).
> 7.) Edgiva (d. c953), m. Charles the Simple. [the footnote for
Edgiva
> reads: "Edgiva married secondly (c951) Herbert, Count of
Vermandois and
> had 2 further children: Stephen I, Count of Vermandois
(952-1021) and
> Agnes (b. 953)"].
> 8.)Edhilda (d. C953), m. Hugh, Count of Paris. [the footnote
states:
> "Edhilda may have died in 938 and Hugh Capet may have been the
son of a
> second marriage to Hedwig, sister of Otto I"].
The 'may have been' is an understatement - he certainly was child
of Hedwig. Hugh and Eadhild had no known children.
> 9.) Edith (d. 946/7), m. Otto I, German Emperor.
>
> "3 nuns"
> 10.) Elfleda.
> 11.) Ethelfleda.
> 12.) Ethelhilda.
Neither AElfflaed nor AEthelflaed can be supported by the
historical record. They are likely confused versions of either
Eadflaed or AEthelhild. Further, it would be atypical for an
Anglo-Saxon family to give a child the name of either parent.
> 13.) Elgiva m. Boleslaw (Chart 33 details below).
Her name is given differently by different authors, and as to her
husband, this is just one of many hypotheses.
> Edward's 3rd wihe was Edgiva, dau. Of Sigehelm, ealderman of Kent.
>
> 14.) Edmund I (921-946).
> 15.) St. Eadburh, nun (d. 960).
> 16.) Edgiva = Louis, king of Arles.
> 17.) Eadred.
Eadgyfu, wife of "Louis, Prince of Aquitaine" has always been an
enigma. In spite of attempts to identify her husband with anyone
named Louis, and/or anyone in Aquitaine, and/or anyone who was a
King and with an unidentified wife, the only Louis who was Prince
of Aquitaine was none other than Louis IV, son of Charles the
simple and Eadgyfu. Given that even the name is the same, I
strongly suspect that the chronicler failed to recognize that his
source for this daughter had simply confused father and son, and
that this is none other than Eadgyfu, wife of Charles the Simple.
(Again, it is unlikely a daughter would be named for her mother.)
> "with a dotted line is added"
>
> 18.) Thyra = Gorm the Old.
>
> Judging by Ashley's count, he sees Thyra as legitimate. The
numbering is
> arbitrary, since I merely numbered them from left to right,
deferring
> only the legitimate order of Edward's spouses.
I already have addressed her - no basis in the historical record.
Thyra is called daughter of Harald by one source, and AEthelred
by another (late) one, but I find neither of these of value.
taf
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
True - it shoud be judged as a 17th century record perporting to tell of
500 BC events. Considering the quality of similar compilations of the
same period, it should be viewed with contempt.
--------------------------
NOTE: "SHOUD" is "SHOULD"?
NOTE: "PERPORTING" IS "PURPORTING"?
--------------------------------------------------
FINAL RESPONSE:
Ugaine Mor is identified historically by the creation
of the divisions in Ireland. Complexity of formation
is involved in the "units within units". "[T]here
are indications that each was also a complete society
in itself, a replica of the entire series. Kingship
belonged pre-eminently to the central province, but
every province had a king of its own." "[E]ach province
had its druids, warriors, farmers and serfs. Furthermore,
the social classes themselves were not homogeneous groups.
Each had a structure which seems to have reproduced that
of the larger society. Just as there were high-kings,
provincial kings and tribal kings, so were the grades
within the learned class."
Encyclopedia of the Celts : Ibar Mac Riangabra - Iweret
"A key aspect of the Celtic economy was its capacity to
feed and clothe itself and have enough purchasing power
to acquire some of the more luxurious things in life.
They traded in food, metals, fine ceramics, jewellery,
olive oil. perfumes, wines etc. As well as more
localised trading, Ireland, West Scotland, Wales,
Cornwall, Gaul and Brittany were all linked by trade.
Throughout Europe, the peoples of the Mediterranean
set up entire cities on the border of Celtic areas
to take advantage of their trade. The Phoenicians
had a trading post near Cadiz in Southern Spain and
Greek entrepreneurs built Marseilles in the South
of France."
http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/he/web_sites/business/economics/begg/econ_supps/general/cases/irish/irish_ch01_privatization.html
"Such voluntary co-operation of individuals through
these institutions played a crucial role in the
development of Celtic society." . . .
"Such organising systems were not unique to the Celts.
Anthropological evidence exists for similar systems
amongst such societies as the Saxons of England,
early Rome and as antecedent as the Eastern
Mediterranean in 10th century B.C."
Ugaine Mor was to secular Ireland what Moses was to
the Hebrew Nation. "They collaborated in what became
effectively a national legal system, establishing
Irish laws as the oldest surviving law in Europe."
His association with political land divisions
in Ireland, similar to that undertaken by the Celts
in Europe, who organised themselves into small
regional groups, validates Ugaine Mor, as historically
plausible as Caesar, Napoleon, or other writers of
national codes.
Ugaine Mor in history, is found in the great
expansion of the La Tene culture, "late in
northern and western Europe, confined to
the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C., but with a
few 3rd-century finds as well . . . related
to the expansion of trade and the formation
of oppida . . . and development of social
hierarchy . . . Some late cross-Channel
migrations are well documented in both
written sources and archaeologically . . ."
The expansion of Rome led to "the
agglomeration of large groups of the
population in oppida, most importantly
artisans and craft specialists, in the late
phase under the leadership of groups of
oligarchical nobles."
From the time of 3rd-century migrations,
or, more accurately, mobile Celtic armies,
there were included "warrior groups even
from distant Celtic tribes in Gaul", with known
Celtic mercenaries fighting in "Hellenistic armies
in Sicily, Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor" as
"recorded in classical sources."
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> True - it shoud be judged as a 17th century record perporting to tell of
> 500 BC events. Considering the quality of similar compilations of the
> same period, it should be viewed with contempt.
> --------------------------
> NOTE: "SHOUD" is "SHOULD"?
> NOTE: "PERPORTING" IS "PURPORTING"?
So you found some typos in my quickly typed response. You must
be proud of yourself. I wil tri varry harde too avoide tipoes yn
thiss poast.
> --------------------------------------------------
> FINAL RESPONSE:
> Ugaine Mor is identified historically by the creation
> of the divisions in Ireland.
If I showed you a history of America, in which a 500 BC
individual named Aimerico had 50 children, named Alabama, Alaska,
Arkansas, etc., you would accept that Aimerico must be real,
because of the divisions of America? Don't you get it? This is
a classic pattern of forged foundation legends - to explain such
divisions by inventing a group of siblings or near kin to match
the existing geographical divisions. That such divisions exist
is the whole reason the tradition was invented - you can't then
use the those same divisions to prove the reality of the
invention. This is like saying Elroy must have existed, because
someone wrote "Elroy was here" and 'here' exists.
The only thing that would identify Ugaine Mor historically is a
historical document that names Ugaine Mor.
> Ugaine Mor was to secular Ireland what Moses was to
> the Hebrew Nation. "They collaborated in what became
> effectively a national legal system, establishing
> Irish laws as the oldest surviving law in Europe."
> His association with political land divisions
> in Ireland, similar to that undertaken by the Celts
> in Europe, who organised themselves into small
> regional groups, validates Ugaine Mor, as historically
> plausible as Caesar, Napoleon, or other writers of
> national codes.
Let me get this straight. The Irish were organized, and the
Ugaine legend tells of the organization of Ireland, therefor, the
Ugaine legend must be true? That is like saying that the Paul
Bunyan tale relates him dragging his axe to create a Grand Canyon
that is deep, and since the Grand Canyon IS deep, Paul Bunyan
must be a historical individual.
> Ugaine Mor in history, is found in the great
> expansion of the La Tene culture, "late in
Same logical flaw. The fact that the La Tene culture expanded in
no way proves (or even suggests) that an individual name Ugaine
Mor had any basis in reality.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
American Educational System has failed to teach THINKING 101, much less Higher
Critical Thought, to several generations of American students ---- for about
40 years.
You "educators" should be ashamed of yourselves. Your grade is F-.
Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude.
Now if you had shown the Good Sense and Superior Judgement to resist the
blandishments of fad, fashion and political correctness and concentrate on the
fundamentals of a Good Education ---- which certainly begins with THINKING
101 ---- you would not have FAILED so miserably.
Your predecessors called it Logic, Rhetoric and Recitation ---- among other
allied subjects.
They were not afraid to use the Red Pencil as well as occasional oral Ridicule
and Excoriation....
Back You Go To Learning From THEM ---- Your Far More Competent Predecessors As
"Educators"....
There's not a moment to lose.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3ED41BBE...@interfold.com...
Stewart Baldwin
<farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>If I showed you a history of America, in which a 500 BC
>individual named Aimerico had 50 children, named Alabama, Alaska,
>Arkansas, etc., you would accept that Aimerico must be real,
>because of the divisions of America?
Oops. I think you may have just provided certain individuals with
fifty-one additional "individuals" to add to their databases along
side of Milesius, Brutus, Woden, Dan Mykillati, and Ugaine Mor.
:-)
Stewart Baldwin
Gryphon801
Kåre A. Lie
Stewart Baldwin
>Who is Dan Mykillati??? That fiction is unfamiliar to me.
He is the first DANish king in the pseudohistory of Saxo Grammaticus.
He also appears as a Danish king in the Icelandic sources, although
not the first one.
Stewart Baldwin
John Steele Gordon
"Stewart Baldwin" <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3ed50f77....@news.mindspring.com...
He sounds Greek to me. Perhaps the early Danish kings were a Greek dynasty?
That would be only fair, seeing as the recent Greek kings were Danish.
JSG
Phil Moody
it necessary to record their descent from Odin in the ASC? Was it to
give the Norse an even stronger reason to attempt to conquer England?
No, Odin was a historical figure who over time became deified, and it is
his godhood which causes so much incredulity concerning him being real,
and not mythic.
Cheers,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Baldwin [mailto:sba...@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:30 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Paul J Gans
>Where there is smoke there is fire. Why did the Anglo Saxon kings feel
>it necessary to record their descent from Odin in the ASC? Was it to
>give the Norse an even stronger reason to attempt to conquer England?
>No, Odin was a historical figure who over time became deified, and it is
>his godhood which causes so much incredulity concerning him being real,
>and not mythic.
Among non-Christian groups, tracing descent to a god was *very*
common. Practically every group did it.
In Christian groups this was not possible, so descent is traced
to some ancient hero. Trojans were *very* popular, for example.
Reason? Descent from a god or a hero (both of whom are undoubtedly
noble) means that your family is noble.
For the newly jumped-up nobility of the 9th-12th centuries, grafting
their family tree to an existing noble line is also very common.
Last: if one feels that where there is smoke there is fire, then
Gog and Magog must have been very real...
---- Paul J. Gans
Todd A. Farmerie
> Where there is smoke there is fire.
Where there is smoke, there is smoke.
> Why did the Anglo Saxon kings feel
> it necessary to record their descent from Odin in the ASC?
Why do so many people want to trace descent from Jesus? Anyhow,
whoever decided to trace descent from Wodin predated the ASC by
some time. More appropriate, you should ask why the Wessex
genealogist chose to steal the Bernician pedigree, rather than
creating a separate one. The Wessex kings _should_ have
descended from Sexnet.
> Was it to
> give the Norse an even stronger reason to attempt to conquer England?
(W)Odin was not Just a Norse god.
> No, Odin was a historical figure who over time became deified, and it is
> his godhood which causes so much incredulity concerning him being real,
> and not mythic.
And for this, your sole basis is that the English traced from
him. As Paul said, people like to trace descents from Gods, but
also, when they are converted, they sometimes convert those Gods
into heros (even Saints) and maintain the descents in a period
when the god is no longer worshiped. Do you also think Thor was
also a historical figure? Loki? Zeus? Yahweh?
taf
Phil Moody
> his godhood which causes so much incredulity concerning him being
real,
> and not mythic.
And for this, your sole basis is that the English traced from
him. As Paul said, people like to trace descents from Gods, but
also, when they are converted, they sometimes convert those Gods
into heros (even Saints) and maintain the descents in a period
when the god is no longer worshiped. Do you also think Thor was
also a historical figure? Loki? Zeus? Yahweh?
PLM: Perhaps Thor was also. Snorri records that Thor was Frey were
priests of Odin. He also records that Odin was not worshipped as a God,
until after his death, not unlike Jesus. I don't think anyone doubts he
was a historical figure - do they?
The ASC was begun by Alfred about 890, after the Norse had capture the
north of England, and East Anglia, and Alfred had barely kept his head
during the invasions. But curiously, Alfred's ancestry from Wodin and
Adam is given during the annal 855; which coincidentally is the first
year the Norse ever wintered in England, or in other words, the
beginning of the colonization and conquest of England by the Norse.
From the online copy of the ASC:
A.D. 854. This year the heathen men (34) for the first time remained
over winter in the Isle of Shepey. The same year King Ethelwulf
registered a TENTH of his land over all his kingdom for the honour of
God and for his own everlasting salvation. The same year also he went
to Rome with great pomp, and was resident there a twelvemonth. Then he
returned homeward; and Charles, king of the Franks, gave him his
daughter, whose name was Judith,
to be his queen. After this he came to his people, and they were fain
to receive him; but about two years after his residence among the Franks
he died; and his body lies at Winchester. He reigned eighteen years and
a half. And Ethelwulf was the son of Egbert, Egbert of Ealhmund,
Ealhmund of Eafa, Eafa of Eoppa, Eoppa of Ingild; Ingild was the brother
of Ina, king of the West-Saxons, who held that kingdom thirty-seven
winters, and afterwards went to St. Peter, where he died. And they were
the sons of Cenred, Cenred of Ceolwald, Ceolwald of Cutha, Cutha of
Cuthwin, Cuthwin of Ceawlin, Ceawlin of Cynric, Cynric of Creoda, Creoda
of Cerdic, Cerdic of Elesa, Elesa of Esla, Esla of Gewis, Gewis of Wig,
Wig of Freawine, Freawine of Frithugar, Frithugar of Brond, Brond of
Balday, Balday of Woden, Woden of Frithuwald, Frithuwald of Freawine,
Freawine of Frithuwualf, Frithuwulf of
Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Great, Great of Taetwa, Taetwa of
Beaw, Beaw of Sceldwa, Sceldwa of Heremod, Heremod of Itermon, Itermon
of Hathra, Hathra of Hwala, Hwala of Bedwig, Bedwig of Sceaf; that is,
the son of Noah, who was born in Noah's ark: Laznech, Methusalem, Enoh,
Jared, Malalahel, Cainion, Enos, Seth, Adam the first man, and our
Father, that is, Christ. Amen. Then two sons of Ethelwulf succeeded to
the kingdom; Ethelbald to
Wessex, and Ethelbert to Kent, Essex, Surrey, and Sussex. Ethelbald
reigned five years. Alfred, his third son, Ethelwulf had sent to Rome;
and when the pope heard say that he was dead, he consecrated Alfred
king, and held him under spiritual hands, as his father Ethelwulf had
desired, and for which purpose he had sent him thither.
EQ
So, the Christians are no different, they try to fabricate a genealogy
all the way back to Adam, the son of God who was perfect in everyway,
and immortal, until he sinned. I have more faith in Odin being a
historical figure, than I do Adam. Perhaps I'm a minority of one, but
that is not to say I am wrong:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: ta...@wc-du-169-193-252-66.wcox.com
[mailto:ta...@wc-du-169-193-252-66.wcox.com] On Behalf Of Todd A.
Farmerie
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:46 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the now plausible Ugaine Mor
Todd A. Farmerie
> Todd wrote:
>
> him. As Paul said, people like to trace descents from Gods, but
> also, when they are converted, they sometimes convert those Gods
> into heros (even Saints) and maintain the descents in a period
> when the god is no longer worshiped. Do you also think Thor was
> also a historical figure? Loki? Zeus? Yahweh?
>
> PLM: Perhaps Thor was also. Snorri records that Thor was Frey were
> priests of Odin. He also records that Odin was not worshipped as a God,
> until after his death, not unlike Jesus. I don't think anyone doubts he
> was a historical figure - do they?
Yes, they do, but this is not the place . . .
Just as we have been talking about, Snorri is not the best source
for events 1300 years earlier. Snorri claims that Odin was a man
made into a God, but in his Christian context, it would be in
Snorri's best interest to say this, for then he can celebrate the
man (worshiped as a God by those silly pagans), rather than
celebrating a pagan God.
> The ASC was begun by Alfred about 890,
Perhaps it was first compiled about that time, but based on
earlier material of similar nature.
> after the Norse had capture the
> north of England, and East Anglia, and Alfred had barely kept his head
> during the invasions. But curiously, Alfred's ancestry from Wodin and
> Adam is given during the annal 855; which coincidentally is the first
> year the Norse ever wintered in England, or in other words, the
> beginning of the colonization and conquest of England by the Norse.
A perfect time for the author to demonstrate that "our kings have
just as good of a pedigree as those stinkin' norse, . . . don't
they? No? Well they do now!". Anyhow, this is not the earliest
annal with the pedigree to Woden - it is 494.
> So, the Christians are no different, they try to fabricate a genealogy
> all the way back to Adam,
If you are willing to accept that the part from Woden to Adam is
forged, why can you not accept that the part from Cerdic to Woden
is also (in this latter case, we can even dissect out the steps).
taf
Reedpcgen
Christian writers to "present" the descent of the royal line back to Noah, and
thence to Adam. Clearly they had no better evidence of such a connection than
we do now.
One has to face the fact that there
... WAS invention ...
somewhere along the line. Odin was even (later, by Christian writers) traced
back to Noah.
Since there WAS clearly invention, the question then becomes, at what point did
the invention occur, and on what basis was oral tradition put into writing?
Are we to believe that the ancestry is correct to Ugaine Mor, back through
Milesius, and correct as far as the King of Scythia and Pharaoh, but not beyond
that? In this same style, some take it back to Milesius, THEN discard the oral
tradition to connect to King Zedekiah of Judah (we've discussed that as well).
Such practice smells of selecting desired ancestry because it suits one's
desires, not because the historical criticism and methodology supports that
line and conclusion (IMHO).
Paul
Janet Crawford
Todd wrote:
>
> If you are willing to accept that the part from Woden to Adam is
> forged, why can you not accept that the part from Cerdic to Woden
> is also (in this latter case, we can even dissect out the steps).
Todd, I am just using the above as a jumping off place. At what point in
time do you believe that the Irish geneaologies may probably be correct and
why? Is there a period of time before that when you believe that there may
be some semblence of truth to them? Janet
Kelsey J. Williams
I would strongly suggest you read Kenneth Sisam's "Anglo-Saxon Royal
Genealogies" in _Proceedings of the British Academy_ 39 (1953), pp.
287-348. There is simply no way that the Odin descent could represent
an authentic tradition in its present form.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
moody...@cox.net ("Phil Moody") wrote in message news:<000001c3257d$8c7c4540$1a69...@tu.ok.cox.net>...
Phil Moody
I have at no point said that I believe any of the genealogies back to
Odin, merely that he was real, and not mythical. The margin for error is
to great with oral tradition. If you were paying attention to what I
wrote last night; you will see that I said as much, when I wrote this:
"I cannot connect the dots between him, and a modern historical figure
genealogically."
Does this not confirm that I find the genealogies untrustworthy?
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd, I am just using the above as a jumping off place. At what point in
> time do you believe that the Irish geneaologies may probably be correct and
> why? Is there a period of time before that when you believe that there may
> be some semblence of truth to them? Janet
Stewart Baldwin probably knows more of this than I do, but the
general principle is that you figure out when the material was
first written (in pedigree form) and what the author would have
had available, in terms of historical records, at the time.
Using this, you can determine what is sometimes termed the
'historical horizon', which frequently ends up being somewhere in
the neighborhood of 100-150 years prior to the date of
compilation. This is the period for which the writing was based
on historical record and trustworthy memory. You also evaluate
the pedigree itself, and look for repeated elements, eponymous
ancestors (those claimed to have given a territory its name),
examples where great migrations and divisions of people are
explained by a single family of siblings, constant generation
lengths tracing from a common ancestor to people living at
different times, etc., for evidence of srtificial construction.
For Ireland, IIRC, there is some debate, but the historical
horizon is frequently placed in the neighborhoor of 350-400 AD.
Next, within this period is the genealogy authentic - an entirely
different question (one I am less able to address in the Irish
context, other than to say that the authenticity of some of the
lines has been seriously questioned).
As an example in a different geographical context, most place the
historical horizon for the Wessex pedigree a couple of
generations after Cerdic (certainly, the pedigree prior to Cerdic
has been adequately demonstrated to have been 'borrowed' from
that of the Bernician kings, only with Bernic, the eponymous
ancestor of the Bernicians, replaced by Gewis, that of the West
Saxons, or Gewesse), but likewise, it is debated whether some of
the connections of later kings to the 'main line' of Cerdic's
deascendants are not constructs, perhaps hiding female-line
descents or even inventions in order to give a usurper a valid
Cerdicing descent. In other words, just because the later
genealogist had genealogical records available to them, they were
not necessarily above modifying or inventing connections for
reasons of politics or systematics. Thus each pedigree must be
evaluated for its chronology and consistency, both internally and
with the surviving historical record.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Kelsey:
>
> I have at no point said that I believe any of the genealogies back to
> Odin, merely that he was real, and not mythical. The margin for error is
> to great with oral tradition. If you were paying attention to what I
> wrote last night; you will see that I said as much, when I wrote this:
>
> "I cannot connect the dots between him, and a modern historical figure
> genealogically."
>
> Does this not confirm that I find the genealogies untrustworthy?
Yet since all of the early references to him are through
untrustworthy genealogical records, and in descriptions of him as
a God, how do you justify arguing that he was a historical
individual? What is your basis for this conclusion?
(Specifically, not generically such as 'people sometimes
converted heros into gods after they died')
taf
Igor Sklar
> Phil Moody wrote:
> > Todd wrote:
> >
> > And for this, your sole basis is that the English traced from
> > him. As Paul said, people like to trace descents from Gods, but
> > also, when they are converted, they sometimes convert those Gods
> > into heros (even Saints) and maintain the descents in a period
> > when the god is no longer worshiped. Do you also think Thor was
> > also a historical figure? Loki? Zeus? Yahweh?
> >
> > PLM: Perhaps Thor was also. Snorri records that Thor was Frey were
> > priests of Odin. He also records that Odin was not worshipped as a God,
> > until after his death, not unlike Jesus. I don't think anyone doubts he
> > was a historical figure - do they?
>
> Yes, they do, but this is not the place . . .
Thor is a classical Indo-European god of thunder, one of three highest
(or only?) gods of the Indo-European pantheon. He has been called
Agni, Zeus, Jupiter, Perun, Perkunas by different people, but his
attributes were the same in all Indo-European religions and cultures.
Read the great books of Georges Dumezil to learn more:
Du mythe au roman, La Saga de Hadingus (Saxo Grammaticus, I, v-viii)
et autres essais, PUF, Paris, 1983, 208 blz.
idem Le roman des jumeaux - Esquisses de mythologie, Gallimard,
Paris, 1994, 337 blz.
idem Tarpeia - essais de philologie compârative indo-européenne,
Gallimard, Paris, 1947, 294 blz.
idem Idées romaines, Gallimard, Paris, 1969, 306 blz.
idem La Religion Romaine Archaïque avec un appendice sur la religion
des Etrusques, Payot, Paris, 1987, 700 blz.
idem Heur et Malheur du Guerrier, Flammarion, Paris, 1985, 236 blz.
idem Mariages indo-européens suivi de Quinze questions romaines,
Payot, Paris, 1979, 336 blz.
idem Les dieux souverains des Indo-Européens, Gallimard, Paris, 1977,
274 blz.
idem Romans de Scythie et d'alentour, Payot, Paris, 1978, 380 blz.
idem Apollon sonore et autres essais, Esquisses de mythologie,
Gallimard, Paris, 1982, 256 blz.
idem Loki, Flammarion, Paris, 1986, 261 blz.
idem Fêtes romaines d'été et d'automne suivi de dix questions
romaines, Gallimard, Paris, 1975, 298 blz.
idem Mythe et épopée, Gallimard, Paris, 1968, tome I, L'idéologie des
trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens, 663 blz.
idem 1971, tome II, Types épiques indo-européens: un héros, un
sorcier, un roi, 402 blz.
idem 1973, tome III, Histoires romaines, 370 blz.
regards
Igor Sklar
> > after the Norse had capture the
> > north of England, and East Anglia, and Alfred had barely kept his head
> > during the invasions. But curiously, Alfred's ancestry from Wodin and
> > Adam is given during the annal 855; which coincidentally is the first
> > year the Norse ever wintered in England, or in other words, the
> > beginning of the colonization and conquest of England by the Norse.
>
> A perfect time for the author to demonstrate that "our kings have
> just as good of a pedigree as those stinkin' norse, . . . don't
> they? No? Well they do now!". Anyhow, this is not the earliest
> annal with the pedigree to Woden - it is 494.
There are living male-line descendants of Wodin, click
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f03aa10.0301302322.3d841894%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
regards
Stewart Baldwin
Moody") wrote:
>No, Odin was a historical figure who over time
>became deified, and it is his godhood which
>causes so much incredulity concerning him being
>real, and not mythic.
If, as you claim, Odin was a "historical" figure, then you ought to be
able to back this claim up with actual historical evidence, something
that has NEVER been done, by you or anyone else. Please note that the
act of producing genealogies which claim this Odin/Woden/etc. as an
ancestor does not qualify as "historical" evidence, because these
genealogies are patently false constructions that would require Odin
to have a lifespan of a way over a hundred years (being fertile the
entire time) just in order just to be chronologically consistent.
If you wish to scale back your claim to stating that Odin the deity
was based on a real man named Odin who actually existed at some point
in the obscure past (without going so far as claiming that he is
"historical"), then you are talking about someting that could never
actually be disproved (because, however unlikely, it is at least
within the realm of possibility that the deity Odin did arise from a
deified leader in the vague past), but it is still something for which
not even the tiniest bit of supporting evidence is available.
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
Crawford") wrote:
>Todd, I am just using the above as a jumping off
>place. At what point in time do you believe that
>the Irish geneaologies may probably be correct and
>why? Is there a period of time before that when
>you believe that there may be some semblence of
>truth to them?
The Irish annals appear to have a contemporary core dating back to
about 550 or so. Since we have only late compilations that had these
early annals as far removed ultimate sources, and later interpolations
were made, it should not be assumed that every item in the annals back
to 550 is genuine. The earliest surviving genealogical poems seem to
date from not long after that, perhaps the early seventh century. The
earliest manuscripts containing large genealogical collections date
from the twelfth century, but they show clear signs of being based on
material compiled many centuries earlier, that was updated from time
to time.
The genealogy of each family needs to be considered separately within
this scheme (for example, many consecutive generations that fail to
appear in the annals might be considered a "red flag"), but the
genealogies of many of the main families seem to be hold together
pretty well beck to the middle of the sixth century when the earliest
contemporary annals begin. Before about 450, there are so many
problems, contradictions, and indications of outright fabrication,
that the whole scheme is a mess. It may well be that the names (and
perhaps even the genealogies) of a VERY SMALL number of individuals
have survived without error back to the fourth century, but there is
no reasonable way to separate these hypothetical good pieces from the
sea of bogus information, so the entire earlier part must be regarded
as effectively nonhistorical. (The suggestion that the genealogies
might be valid so far back as the completely fictional Ugaine Mor is
so ludicrous that it does not deserve serious consideration.)
The period from the late fifth century (the apparent time of St.
Patrick) to the middle of the sixth century is harder to judge. A lot
depends on when the annals were extended back before 550. If they
were extended backward shortly after 550, then they would describe
events within living memory (or almost so). If the annals before 500
were first written as late as the eighth century, using whatever
materials (reliable and unreliable) that were then available, then
they would be less useful. My own opinion is that an earlier date is
more likely, because the annals contain events that contradict the
"orthodox" history that was being developed in the later period, and
appear to have been written during an earlier period.
Stewart Baldwin
Paul J Gans
I think that another example is Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History
of the Kings of England". This was written in the early middle
of the 12th century, purportedly from Welsh records (but the
possession of an ancient book of wisdom is another very common
trope). He's got about 100 kings all laid out going back to
the Trojans, who, as we all know, were the first Britons.
That is, if one discounts Gog and Magog, my personal favorites.
We know more about the Saxon kings (and pre-Saxon history) of
England than Geoffrey did. So it is an interesting exercise
to check his genealogies.
And Geoffrey was relatively well-informed for his time.
----- Paul J. Gans
GRHa...@aol.com
skla...@yandex.ru writes:
> There are living male-line descendants of Wodin, click
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f03aa10.0301302322.3d841894%40posting.go
> ogle.com&output=gplain
>
>
Shoot, that ain't nuthin'. I go back to Odin/Wodin in at least five
different lines and each one has a different birth date for him. Does anyone "really"
know when my
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGrandfather was born?
Gordon Hale
Please accept this in the spirit it was given or at least drink some spirits
after reading it.,
Todd A. Farmerie
> There are living male-line descendants of Wodin, click
Not if he didn't exist, there isn't. More correctly, there are
living people who CLAIM to be male-line descendants of (W)Odin.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f03aa10.0301302322.3d841894%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
Ah. A Moncreiffe reconstruction. In other words, a person who
claims to be descended from Odin's adopted son, not Odin. How
solid is the claim? The line breaks down into three parts.
First comes the material in the Inglingatal, down through Eystein
Fart. The next section comes from the Frankish annals in
relating the interactions of the Franks and Danes. Finally, you
have the Rurikids. The critical section is as follows:
Olaf Treefeller |
Halfdan Whiteleg | Inglingatal
Eystein Fart -+
Harald of Jutland -+
Halfdan of Jutland | Frankish Annals
Hemming of Jutland |
Rurik -+ -+
Ivar | Rurikid
The earliest generations are drawn from Inglingatal, claimed to
have been written in the reign of Ragnevald Olafsson (his father,
Olaf was son of Guddrud, son of Halfdan, who was traditionally
son of Eystein Fart), the same rules apply as we have discussed.
What are the chances that someone writing about 900 would be
able to give an authentic history of the family back to the time
of Christ?
The next segment is based on an assumption I haven't seen before,
but I am not surprised either. The annals present two families
in competition for domination of Denmark. One of these has as
its founder a Godfried, the other begins with a nepos of Harald,
who had reigned earlier. It was suggested by the historians of
the late 19th/early 20th century that Godfried was none other
than the Guddrud of the Inglingatal. That, however, doesn't
account for this line, as it doesn't trace from Godfrey, but
rather from the other clan. It would seem that the theory here
is that Harald, founder of the other kindred, was uncle of
Godfrey, and since Godfried is identified with Guddrud, then
Harald would be son of Eystein, grandfather of Guddrud. This,
then, is where the connection came from. There is no evidence
for it whatsoever. All we know is that Harald was a king some
time before Godfried - there is no indication in the record that
they were related, let alone uncle/nephew, so whatever line there
is, it stops here.
Now, within the Jutland kings, this is one of the common
reconstructions, but for the precise points of it, I recommend
reading Stewart Baldwin's page on the Danish Kings in the
Frankish annals. At the other end, the annals conflict as to the
exact placement of Rurik, as either brother or nephew of another
Harald - here he is placed as brother.
Of course the other significant junction is in identifying this
Jutland/Frisian Rurik with the Russian one, which has been
suggested by numerous athors, based on a correlated chronology
and shared name, yet the chronology is not all that solid, and
having two vikings of the same name may be nothing but coincidence.
So, the claimed descent has several problems with it, and
certainly is far from an acceptible male-line descent from Odin.
taf
Igor Sklar
> Igor Sklar wrote:
> > There are living male-line descendants of Wodin, click
>
> Not if he didn't exist, there isn't. More correctly, there are
> living people who CLAIM to be male-line descendants of (W)Odin.
The claim is actually very old. The Slavicization of Rurikids was
accompanied by a wide-scale campaign aimed at magnifying Perun (the
Russian equivalent of Odin and a patron saint of the regal family)
into the head of the Slavic pantheon. This campaign had no parallel in
other Slavic countries. Finally Vladimir conducted a religious reform
establishing Perun as the chief god and introducing human sacrifices
in his honour. The religious reform seemed to Vladimir (whose maternal
ancestry was menial) an apt way to stress his glorious paternal
ancestry leading to Perun/Odin.
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f03aa10.0301302322.3d841894%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
>
> The earliest generations are drawn from Inglingatal, claimed to
> have been written in the reign of Ragnevald Olafsson (his father,
> Olaf was son of Guddrud, son of Halfdan, who was traditionally
> son of Eystein Fart), the same rules apply as we have discussed.
I'd add that Ragnvald Olafsson was apparently a maternal grandfather
of Yaroslav the Wise. He and his wife were killed before the eyes of
their daughter by the same Vladimir we were speaking above.
> Of course the other significant junction is in identifying this
> Jutland/Frisian Rurik with the Russian one, which has been
> suggested by numerous athors, based on a correlated chronology
> and shared name, yet the chronology is not all that solid, and
> having two vikings of the same name may be nothing but coincidence.
Represented on the picture is a large kurgan (or man-made funerary
barrow) called Shum-gora (in the Novgorod region, Russia). It has 100
meters in diameter, more than 13 metres in height. Archaeologists
described the monument as "the regal barrow dating back to the late
9th century". They determined (using X-rays or something like this)
that inside of it is an empty room, tentatively identified as a
sepulchre of Rurik. Access to this room is made impossible by multiple
stone plies of kurgan walls. They were so intricately laid that it's
impossible to access the room without destroying the kurgan itself.
The kurgan's structure suggests that around the king's chamber, like
rays around the sun, must have been laid bodies of his warriors. This
is consistent with the local legend that Rurik was killed in the
battle and was buried in haste, but a year later a Norwegian king sent
his men to build a regal mound and bury Rurik (who was his relative)
and his warriors here. In 1877 local inhabitants reported that a large
triangle stone situated 40 steps away had a band-like vertical
inscription in strange characters. When the scientific expedition
finally arrived to the place, the stone was gone. They discovered
however several large stone idols representing helmeted warrior who
covered half of his face with his hand. It was determined that the
place used to be a heathen sanctuary which had been destroyed very
long time ago.
It was the time when much arhcaeological activity was going on in
Russia. The Black Grave (125 meters in diameter, 11 meters in height)
near Chernigov was dug out. It turned out to be, as the legend had it,
the sepulchre of the Black Prince ("Cherny" in Russian), the legendary
founder of Chernigov. Another mound, this time near Ladoga (the
capital of Rurik), first described as Oleg's grave by the Archangel
Chronicle and known as such since then, was excavated even earlier, in
the 1820s (http://www.ropnet.ru/ogonyok/pict/199908/08-24-1b.jpg)
Permission to dig out the Shum-gora has been denied to many
generations of archaeologists for fear of destroying "the outstanding
monument of history". Several years ago a new method was proposed: it
permits to access the royal chamber without much harm to the kurgan.
So there is some hope that permission will be given.
Supposing the bones are exhumed, is there any way to establish the
king's identity? May he be identified by comparative analysis of his
remains with remains of his descendants (say, Yaroslav the Wise)? Is
it possible to compare his remains with remains of Haithabu konungs to
establish their common ancestry?
regards
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3ED6FB60...@interfold.com>...
>
>>
>>The earliest generations are drawn from Inglingatal, claimed to
>>have been written in the reign of Ragnevald Olafsson (his father,
>>Olaf was son of Guddrud, son of Halfdan, who was traditionally
>>son of Eystein Fart), the same rules apply as we have discussed.
>
>
> I'd add that Ragnvald Olafsson was apparently a maternal grandfather
> of Yaroslav the Wise. He and his wife were killed before the eyes of
> their daughter by the same Vladimir we were speaking above.
Well, both of these claims are new to me. What are the bases for
them?
> http://www.itogi.ru/paper2002.nsf/Article/Itogi_2002_04_27_13_1440f.html/$file/OBSCHESTVO-kamni-7hi.jpg
>
> Represented on the picture is a large kurgan (or man-made funerary
> barrow) called Shum-gora (in the Novgorod region, Russia). It has 100
> Supposing the bones are exhumed, is there any way to establish the
> king's identity? May he be identified by comparative analysis of his
> remains with remains of his descendants (say, Yaroslav the Wise)?
No, but were you extremely lucky, you may make some headway.
First of all, there are only two techniques that have the type of
resolution necessary to be illuminating along these lines.
First, you have the DNA. If the DNA survives, (this is a big if
- preservation varies dependent on climate, temperature, and
particularly moisture (which damages DNA over time) then you
could compare the Y-chromosome markers with male-line descendants
of Vladimir (such as the guy whose lineage touched off this
latest discussion). This would demonstrate whether the bones
belong to an individual of Vladimir's family, but that is as far
as it can go, in isolation. The second thing you would need is a
big piece of wood, that could then be matched with a
dendrochronology of the area to determine a date after which the
the wood was cut. Given date and male-lineage, it narrows things
down considerably, but absolute identification is impossible
without independent testimony. An example where you could come
close would be if you have a precise death date from chronicle
sources that matches the dendrochronology - the person is known
to have died in the same year as the tomb wood was cut, he did
not have siblings who would have died in the same year, and the
skeleton matches the male and female lineages expected, then you
basically have an ID. Anytime you don't have the chronology this
tight, either historically or dendrochronologically, or the
pedigree is iffy, or you can't identify appropriate kin of the
lineages in question, then such identification is not possible.
> Is
> it possible to compare his remains with remains of Haithabu konungs to
> establish their common ancestry?
I don't think any tombs are known for them, nor are there
appropriate descendants to be tested. There is a mound that is
thought to be Olaf Gersted-Alf's, but I don't know if there is a
surviving skeleton. Besides, the nature of the supposed
connection is so iffy, you could get a male-line match because of
the blind squirel phenomemon - someone, through no credit of
their own, may have stumbled on the right lineage in spite of
concocting a false pedigree, and we would not have the female
line to test.
taf
Phil Moody
If you wish to scale back your claim to stating that Odin the deity
was based on a real man named Odin who actually existed at some point
in the obscure past (without going so far as claiming that he is
"historical"), then you are talking about someting that could never
actually be disproved (because, however unlikely, it is at least
within the realm of possibility that the deity Odin did arise from a
deified leader in the vague past), but it is still something for which
not even the tiniest bit of supporting evidence is available.
PLM: No, I can do both, because I have circumstantial evidence that
another contemporary "historical" person in the same geographic region
was also deified. So I do have the "tiniest bit of supporting evidence."
My research is ongoing, and I will not discuss my preliminary findings
any further.
Best Wishes,
Igor Sklar
> Igor Sklar wrote:
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3ED6FB60...@interfold.com>...
> >
> >>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f03aa10.0301302322.3d841894%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
> >>
> >>The earliest generations are drawn from Inglingatal, claimed to
> >>have been written in the reign of Ragnevald Olafsson (his father,
> >>Olaf was son of Guddrud, son of Halfdan, who was traditionally
> >>son of Eystein Fart), the same rules apply as we have discussed.
> >
> >
> > I'd add that Ragnvald Olafsson was apparently a maternal grandfather
> > of Yaroslav the Wise. He and his wife were killed before the eyes of
> > their daughter by the same Vladimir we were speaking above.
>
> Well, both of these claims are new to me. What are the bases for
> them?
Not so new perhaps, because you strongly objected to this possibility
several months ago. Read
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5a635d65.0302240631.5c430cb8%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
(a Tjodolv section) to refresh your memory.
Best regards, Igor
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3ED76EA7...@interfold.com>...
>
>>Igor Sklar wrote:
>>
>>>"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3ED6FB60...@interfold.com>...
>>>
>>>of Yaroslav the Wise. He and his wife were killed before the eyes of
>>>their daughter by the same Vladimir we were speaking above.
>>
>>Well, both of these claims are new to me. What are the bases for
>>them?
>
> Not so new perhaps, because you strongly objected to this possibility
> several months ago. Read
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5a635d65.0302240631.5c430cb8%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
> (a Tjodolv section) to refresh your memory.
OK, but what are the bases for them?
taf
Stewart Baldwin
Moody") wrote:
[extra arrows added to make attribution of quotes clearer]
>Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
>>If you wish to scale back your claim to stating that Odin the deity
>>was based on a real man named Odin who actually existed at some point
>>in the obscure past (without going so far as claiming that he is
>>"historical"), then you are talking about someting that could never
>>actually be disproved (because, however unlikely, it is at least
>>within the realm of possibility that the deity Odin did arise from a
>>deified leader in the vague past), but it is still something for which
>>not even the tiniest bit of supporting evidence is available.
>
>PLM: No, I can do both, because I have circumstantial evidence that
>another contemporary "historical" person in the same geographic region
>was also deified. So I do have the "tiniest bit of supporting evidence."
>
>My research is ongoing, and I will not discuss my preliminary findings
>any further.
If you wish to keep this alleged evidence a secret for the time being,
then then it would be better for you to avoid posting claims which you
are not willing to back up, and you should not blame people for being
skeptical about an unsupported claim that generally only appears in
genealogical sources of extremely low quality. The very brief amount
that you did say also invites skepticism, since identifying SOMEBODY
historical who was deified is NOT evidence that Odin was a deified
human. (THAT point has been discussed here before - check the
archives.) In any case, since you seem unwilling to reveal your
supposed evidence, it might be best for you drop your claim for the
time being, until such time that you are willing to back it up.
Stewart Baldwin
Phil Moody
from your own, and I will not. I will standfast by what I have said;
which is readily available in the archives. The time frame is OT, and
since I am not trying to prove any descent from Odin, then the entire
subject is OT.
My assertion is that he was "Historical", but I cannot validate a
descent from him; so this is not genealogy.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Baldwin [mailto:sba...@mindspring.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 4:36 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the now plausible Ugaine Mor
Igor Sklar
> Igor Sklar wrote:
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3ED76EA7...@interfold.com>...
> >
> >>Igor Sklar wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3ED6FB60...@interfold.com>...
> >>>
> >>>I'd add that Ragnvald Olafsson was apparently a maternal grandfather
> >>>of Yaroslav the Wise.
Considering that we know nothing about Rogneda except the chroniclers'
account of her, I don't think that her origin will ever be proven.
Nothing can be proved or disproved on the basis of so slender an
evidence. However we may put forth some ideas about it:
1. Ragnvald (the father of Ragnhild) is described by the Russian
Primary Chronicle as a newcomer "from overseas". This was a standart
phrase of chroniclers alluding to Scandinavia.
2. Ragnvald belonged to no common family for several reasons. For one
thing, his daughter refused Vladimir's proposals alluding to the
humble extraction of his mother. She obviously considered her family
to be superior to Vladimir's.
3. Also, according to Norse sagas the Scandinavian wife of Vladimir
was particularly helpful to the young Olaf Tryggvason when he was in
trouble. I suggested that she was apparently his kinswoman, but have
to admit that this point is far from proven. I used this hypothesis
however to determine Rogvolod's position in the Yngling family.
4. Ragnvald and Ragnhild were Norse names particularly popular in the
Yngling family of Norway. By the way, one Yngling descendant of Harald
Fairhair (Emund Ringsson) was chronicled as a Polotsk official in the
mid-11th century.
5. Harald's children were brought up by their mothers and inherited
their lands. Also, Harald's daughters brought with them the title of
Jarl to their male heirs. The only instance of this cultural tradition
in Rus is Rogneda's eldest son Izyaslav. He was brought up by his
mother in Polotsk, and his descendants ruled Belarus for next 250
years.
Rogneda's use of Yngling tradition possibly points to the family
whence she came from. It's also possible that her father married an
aboriginal or Viking princess of Polotsk, and the town came to his
possession through this marriage.
> >>>He and his wife were killed before the eyes of
> >>>their daughter by the same Vladimir we were speaking above.
This story may be found in Russian chronicles: Vladimir raped Rogneda
in front of her parents and then ordered them to be murdered there.
Now, I don't think that Rogneda cherished very tender feelings towards
Vladimir. Vladimir's next wife Anna also had no reason to be
particularly fond of him. Considering that Vladimir had to take his
wives by force, either he was too ugly or (which is more probable)
they considered him of too low a birth to make a good party for
them.
Andrey Frizyuk
> 3. Also, according to Norse sagas the Scandinavian wife of Vladimir
> was particularly helpful to the young Olaf Tryggvason when he was in
> trouble.
You forget to mention that the name of this "Scandinavian wife" is
known. She was Olava Eiriksdottir of Sweden, and she could have been a
relative of Tryggvason. Vladimir married her during his stay in
Scandinavia (ca 977-980).
Best wishes, Andrey
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
It may well be that the names (and
> perhaps even the genealogies) of a VERY SMALL number of individuals
> have survived without error back to the fourth century, but there is
> no reasonable way to separate these hypothetical good pieces from the
> sea of bogus information, so the entire earlier part must be regarded
> as effectively nonhistorical. (The suggestion that the genealogies
> might be valid so far back as the completely fictional Ugaine Mor is
> so ludicrous that it does not deserve serious consideration.)
RESPONSE:
Ptolemy's map of Ireland included names that can be
identified presently, going back at least to circa
200 A.D., from ancient seafarer sources within the
time frame of the historical Ugaine Mor.
http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/.Texts/Ptolemy/links*.html
"Considering that in outlying areas Ptolemy seems
to have got most of his information from seafarers,
it's interesting to note that most of the towns on his
map are inland. Sure enough, this corresponds to reality:
the coasts of Ireland are desolate, and the kingdoms that
shared the island thru the Middle Ages had inland capitals.
Two towns are in fact marked Regia or "king's town"; one
is Dunum — Celtic for hillfort."
http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/.Texts/Ptolemy/2/1*.html
Ugaine Mor is identified historically by the creation of the divisions
in Ireland. Complexity of formation is involved in the "units within
units". "[T]here are indications that each was also a complete society
in itself, a replica of the entire series. Kingship belonged
pre-eminently to the central province, but every province had a king of
its own." "[E]ach province had its druids, warriors, farmers and
serfs. Furthermore, the social classes themselves were not homogeneous
groups. Each had a structure which seems to have reproduced that of the
larger society. Just as there were high-kings, provincial kings and
tribal kings, so were the grades within the learned class."
Encyclopedia of the Celts : Ibar Mac Riangabra - Iweret
Ugaine Mor in history, is found in the great expansion of the
La Tene culture, "late in northern and western Europe, confined
to the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C., but with a few 3rd-century finds
as well . . . related to the expansion of trade and the formation
of oppida . . . and development of social hierarchy . . . Some late
cross-Channel migrations are well documented in both
written sources and archaeologically . . ." The expansion of
Rome led to "the agglomeration of large groups of the
population in oppida, most importantly artisans and craft
specialists, in the late phase under the leadership of groups
of oligarchical nobles."
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] - on
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
The Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
has recently been updated. It contains over 5,000 quality
listings, connecting to hundreds of thousands of related
links that lead to billions of database records.
Brian M. Scott
<vcti...@dcn.org> wrote:
>Stewart Baldwin wrote:
How on earth is this supposed to support the early genealogies or
the existence of an historical Augaine Már?!
Brian
GRHa...@aol.com
vcti...@dcn.org writes:
> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:05:07 +0000 (UTC), reo...@eircom.net ("Janet
> >Crawford") wrote: . . .
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
>
Am I wrong or was this not the content of some of your previous messages in
this discussion. Simple repetition of something does not, will not, cannot
make it so. Your thesis could possibly be true, but you have supplied no hard ev
idence that it is. I mean evidence that others may read and agree with your
ideas, not evidence that you have interperted and decided that it is fact.
I am not a professional genealogist or even a very experienced one but I have
spent my life in the business world and I know that you must be able to bring
proof to the table, rather than just opinions.
Gordon Hale
Surreyman
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr. <vcti...@dcn.org> wrote in message
news:3EDE7AC3...@dcn.org...
> > Two towns are in fact marked Regia or "king's town"; one
> is Dunum — Celtic for hillfort."
>
Surreyman
Andrew S. Kalinkin
It is not that simple. Olava is known only from Tatishchev. And the
"Eiriksdottir of Sweden" part is just pure speculation without any
supporting evidence.
But of course identification of Allogia of sagas with Rogneda is also
merely a speculation.
Best wishes, Andrew
Andrey Frizyuk
> It is not that simple. Olava is known only from Tatishchev. And the
> "Eiriksdottir of Sweden" part is just pure speculation without any
> supporting evidence.
The Ingvars saga mentions that Eric the Victorious married his
daughter to 'konung of fjord to the East of Holmgardr'.
Two other things are important: that Vladimir escaped after Oleg's
murder to Scandinavia (to his relatives?) and that Olav/Olava is a
typical Swedish name often used in the family of Eric the Victorious.
> But of course identification of Allogia of sagas with Rogneda is also
> merely a speculation.
Judging by her strange name and pious chracter, Allogia is Olga
Prekrasa shifted in time. The skalds had much information about
Olga/Allogia but they didn't know well to what period of time she
belonged, so they decided she was a wife of Vladimir, who was a
well-known king of Russia.
Best wishes, Andrey
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
educated in the monastic schools of the medieval
period, additionally had personal, ancient pre-
Christian traditional learning, that included the
capacity to write and communicate, a requirement
to transact government business and commercial
ventures with visiting seafarers; who, back to the
time period of Ptolemy, had enough intelligence
and knowledge to convey these word concepts to
Ptolemy, thus adding support to the early genealogies,
as written records, not orally handed down tradition.
ALSO: Patrick. . . (had Calpurnius for his father,
son of Potitus), who when captured . . . was taken
to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men, etc.
Someone had to take care of, feed and herd the cattle.
The existence of an earlier historical Augaine Már
can be seen as reasonable, in the capacity for slave
raids undertaken, involving the international transport
of "many thousand men", as noted in this later recorded
biography.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] - on
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
The Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
has recently been updated. It contains over 5,000 quality
listings, connecting to hundreds of thousands of related
links that lead to billions of database records.
------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Scott
On 05 Jun 2003 "Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <vcti...@dcn.org>
wrote in news:3EDF75...@dcn.org in soc.history.medieval:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:03:31 -0700, "Chris & Tom Tinney,
>> Sr." <vcti...@dcn.org> wrote:
>>>Stewart Baldwin wrote:
[...]
>>>> (The suggestion
>>>>that the genealogies might be valid so far back as the
>>>>completely fictional Ugaine Mor is so ludicrous that it
>>>>does not deserve serious consideration.)
>>>RESPONSE:
>>>Ptolemy's map of Ireland included names that can be
>>>identified presently, going back at least to circa
>>>200 A.D., from ancient seafarer sources within the
>>>time frame of the historical Ugaine Mor.
>>>http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazet
>>>teer/Periods/Roman/.Texts/Ptolemy/links*.html "Considering
>>>that in outlying areas Ptolemy seems to have got most of
>>>his information from seafarers, it's interesting to note
>>>that most of the towns on his map are inland. Sure
>>>enough, this corresponds to reality: the coasts of Ireland
>>>are desolate, and the kingdoms that shared the island thru
>>>the Middle Ages had inland capitals. Two towns are in fact
>>>marked Regia or "king's town"; one is Dunum — Celtic for
>>>hillfort."
>>>http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazet
>>>teer/Periods/Roman/.Texts/Ptolemy/2/1*.html
[snip divisions of Ireland and cross-Channel migrations]
[...]
>> How on earth is this supposed to support the early
>> genealogies or the existence of an historical Augaine
>> Már?!
> The map suggests that Irish literary scholars,
> educated in the monastic schools of the medieval
> period, additionally had personal, ancient pre-
> Christian traditional learning, that included the
> capacity to write and communicate, a requirement
> to transact government business and commercial
> ventures with visiting seafarers; who, back to the
> time period of Ptolemy, had enough intelligence
> and knowledge to convey these word concepts to
> Ptolemy, thus adding support to the early genealogies,
> as written records, not orally handed down tradition.
As suggestions go, that one is so weak as to be downright
helpless.
> ALSO: Patrick. . . (had Calpurnius for his father,
> son of Potitus), who when captured . . . was taken
> to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men, etc.
> Someone had to take care of, feed and herd the cattle.
> The existence of an earlier historical Augaine Már
> can be seen as reasonable, in the capacity for slave
> raids undertaken, involving the international transport
> of "many thousand men", as noted in this later recorded
> biography.
You have a strange notion of what constitutes evidence, I'm
afraid.
Brian
D. Spencer Hines
| You have a strange notion of what constitutes evidence, I'm
| afraid.
|
| Brian
Then there is no reason to waste time responding to him/them/it...as you
should know by now.
Igor Scott is quite happy to respond to AI testing algorithms aplenty....
He's not too bright.
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9391A8D467BC4s...@129.250.170.93...
| >>>marked Regia or "king's town"; one is Dunum - Celtic for
Janet Crawford
the existence of a person. Is there ever a time when you might accept
anything else? This is more recent, but I can find no written trace of an
ancestor, but the other descendent's of that ancestor can tell me exactly
which farm that ancestor was born on and lived 200 years ago. Do we pretend
he never existed because there is no "evidence?"
Janet Crawford
Leo van de Pas
I think this is quite different. Ugaine Mor apparently lived a few thousand
years ago.
Ugaine Mor apparently means Great Twenty, to me, this sounds more like a
group of elders than one person.
Living memory can stretch quite far, for instance some Maoris in New Zealand
can recite their ancestry far back, and this is not from a manuscript. Do
you know the name of that ancestor who lived two hundred years ago? The
knowledge of the other descendants, is that handed on verbally? Do they have
diaries or anything to go on?
I really think you should not compare these two cases.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Crawford" <reo...@eircom.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the now plausible Ugaine Mor
Brian M. Scott
>Celtic?
Probably justifiable in this case: Common Celtic *<du:no-> is
represented in both branches of insular Celtic and in Gaulish.
Brian
Todd A. Farmerie
> The map suggests that Irish literary scholars,
> educated in the monastic schools of the medieval
> period, additionally had personal, ancient pre-
> Christian traditional learning, that included the
> capacity to write and communicate, a requirement
> to transact government business and commercial
> ventures with visiting seafarers; who, back to the
> time period of Ptolemy, had enough intelligence
> and knowledge to convey these word concepts to
> Ptolemy, thus adding support to the early genealogies,
> as written records, not orally handed down tradition.
>
> ALSO: Patrick. . . (had Calpurnius for his father,
> son of Potitus), who when captured . . . was taken
> to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men, etc.
> Someone had to take care of, feed and herd the cattle.
> The existence of an earlier historical Augaine Már
> can be seen as reasonable, in the capacity for slave
> raids undertaken, involving the international transport
> of "many thousand men", as noted in this later recorded
> biography.
So, in summary, because the Irish understood their own geography,
and because the Irish took slaves, then Ugaine Mor must have
existed. The Scandinavians knew their geography and took slaves.
Does that mean that Ugaine Mor was Scandinavian too? This just
doesn't follow. It is the same argument as my Paul Bunyan
example. "Because the Grand Canyon exists, then that proves Paul
Bunyan was real." An important question to ask yourself is if
Ugaine Mor never existed, would it be impossible for the Irish to
launch slave raids 1200 years later, or have geographical
information a thousand years later. Is there not any other
possible explanation for this? Could it all not be due to
Domnall the Druid who lived in Ireland only 500 years before
these conditions existed, rather than Ugaine Mor who (supposedly)
lived 1200-1000 years before?
To prove Ugaine, you must present evidence of Ugaine, evidence
that is specific to Ugaine, not some sociological condition a
thousand years later that only supports Ugaine if you arbitrarily
exclude every other possible scenario, which then begs the question.
taf
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
such as roadways that linked royal sites, such as
Emain Macha, Tara and Rath Cruachain in 148 B.C.; that
finds going back to 800 B. C., show Irish civilization
as complex, having wealth and prosperity, with items
created with a high state of sophistication in metal-
working skill, especially in gold. Irish gold
ornaments, obtained by excavations at Gaza, on the
Mediterranean Sea near the Sinai Peninsula, dated
circa 800 B.C., indicate that settlements in Ireland
were connected by patterns of mobility common among
ancient Near Eastern craftsmen, who were able to create
a literature in written records, as well as genealogies.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] - on
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
The Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
has recently been updated. It contains over 5,000 quality
listings, connecting to hundreds of thousands of related
links that lead to billions of database records.
-------------------------------------------------------
Janet Crawford
Leo wrote:
> I think this is quite different. Ugaine Mor apparently lived a few
thousand
> years ago.
> Ugaine Mor apparently means Great Twenty, to me, this sounds more like a
> group of elders than one person.
>
> Living memory can stretch quite far, for instance some Maoris in New
Zealand
> can recite their ancestry far back, and this is not from a manuscript. Do
> you know the name of that ancestor who lived two hundred years ago? The
> knowledge of the other descendants, is that handed on verbally? Do they
have
> diaries or anything to go on?
>
> I really think you should not compare these two cases.
Well, let's delve into this a little more. In my particular case, the parish
records are gone and there is no other record, but, yes, I do have a name
and it comes verbally from descendant's. I would consider that valid in this
particular case.
Now let me give another example, one I briefly mentioned before on the list.
In connection with the monastic site in Ahenny, Co. Tipperary, there is a
"memory" of a St. Crispin associated with the church. It is a corrupted
memory as there was never a "saint" Crispin, but is instead a memory of a
person surnamed Crispin that owned that plot of land with the church upon
it. That "memory" is 1200 years old albeit corrupted. I think that may serve
as "evidence" that this person existed and was located there.
As you said, the Maoris have a very extended verbal memory and I'm sure many
other groups are the same.
Leaving Ugaine Mor out of the equation for the moment, Ireland is unique in
that many of the placenames do reflect ownership by an individual or sept
and that memory appears to be very, very long indeed. What puzzles me is the
artificial date at which people tend to discount memory and adamantly insist
it is myth. That artificial date is usually fixed at about the time of the
arrival of Christianity and the advent of written records. Why do we then
totally disallow verbal memory, even though it may be corrupted to an
extent, when we can all come up with instances where the extended verbal
memory has some validation? This disallowance of memory seems to be
particularly used as it pertains to Irish genealogy and yet the Irish
themselves were avid genealogists. I grant you they amended their
genealogies to fit new political and social changes, but so did other groups
in other countries; I note particularly the Norman and English genealogies
that eliminate all the Irish lines as if they never existed making my life
miserable.
Wouldn't we be better served instead to investigate the ancient memories for
clues instead of writing everything pre 436 AD off as pure fiction? There
might be much to discover. For example, if your theory that Ugaine Mor may
have been a group of twenty ruling the island and reflecting its
subdivisions, might then the names of the subdivisions reflect the memory of
the names of the men ruling those areas? I find Irish ancient history
totally fascinating.
Janet
Surreyman
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:33:31 +0100, "Surreyman"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr. <vcti...@dcn.org> wrote in message
> >news:3EDE7AC3...@dcn.org...
>
> >> Two towns are in fact marked Regia or "king's town"; one
>
> >Celtic?
>
> Probably justifiable in this case: Common Celtic *<du:no-> is
> represented in both branches of insular Celtic and in Gaulish.
>
What's the modern Welsh equivalent?
Surreyman
Doug McDonald
>
> So in summary, taf avoids other considerations,
> such as roadways that linked royal sites, such as
> Emain Macha, Tara and Rath Cruachain in 148 B.C.; that
> finds going back to 800 B. C., show Irish civilization
> as complex, having wealth and prosperity, with items
> created with a high state of sophistication in metal-
> working skill, especially in gold. Irish gold
> ornaments, obtained by excavations at Gaza, on the
> Mediterranean Sea near the Sinai Peninsula, dated
> circa 800 B.C., indicate that settlements in Ireland
> were connected by patterns of mobility common among
> ancient Near Eastern craftsmen, who were able to create
> a literature in written records, as well as genealogies.
None of this is relevant to the existance of
a particular person. The only that that is relevant
is documentation OF THAT PERSON.
Mr. Tinney, what you are quoting is the sort of barf
that is the mainstay of the sloppiest kind of
archaeo-historical speculation.
Mr. Hines, please chime in here where you are
truly needed! Your inimitable style is needed, and
it's not my thing.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
> >Why do we then
> totally disallow verbal memory, even though it may be corrupted to an
> extent, when we can all come up with instances where the extended verbal
> memory has some validation?
Because the only way we know that a verbal memory is correct is
through comtemporary or nrar contemporary documentation!
> This disallowance of memory seems to be
> particularly used as it pertains to Irish genealogy and yet the Irish
> themselves were avid genealogists. I grant you they amended their
> genealogies to fit new political and social changes,
So unless we have contemporary evidence that this did not
happen, we must simply discount their stuff.
> but so did other groups
> in other countries; I note particularly the Norman and English genealogies
> that eliminate all the Irish lines as if they never existed making my life
> miserable.
Well, then find the contemporary documentation.
>
> Wouldn't we be better served instead to investigate the ancient memories for
> clues instead of writing everything pre 436 AD off as pure fiction?
We are not writing it off as proven fiction ... just
unproven speculation.
Doug McDonald
Todd A. Farmerie
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
> So in summary, taf avoids other considerations,
> such as roadways that linked royal sites, such as
> Emain Macha, Tara and Rath Cruachain in 148 B.C.; that
> finds going back to 800 B. C., show Irish civilization
> as complex, having wealth and prosperity, with items
> created with a high state of sophistication in metal-
> working skill, especially in gold.
(etc.)
This proves that the Irish built roads and did metalworking. It
does nothing to prove that a specific individual, Ugaine Mor,
existed.
Look, I do not question that there are lakes at the headwaters of
the Susquehanna River. I do not question that in the 1750s,
there were both indian settlements and frontier Anglo-Europeans
in the region. I do not question that there are roads among the
settlements, or that artifacts can be found that date from this
period. However, that does nothing to prove that a Natty Bumppo,
Uncas, Chingachgook, or any other character in a James Fenimore
Cooper story actually was real.
You seem to be arguing that since the Irish have an ancient
culture, Ugaine Mor must be real. This is a complete non
sequitur. If you want to prove that the Irish had such an
ancient culture or political organization or trade, then the
evidence you are suggesting is valid, but if you want to prove
that a specific individual, Ugaine Mor, existed, then your
evidence actually has to have SOMETHING to do with Ugaine Mor.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Just what is it about my style that is "not your thing" ---- you can't write
clearly, succinctly and to the point?
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:3EE09909...@scs.uiuc.edu...
[...]
| None of this is relevant to the existance [sic -- DSH] of
| a particular person. The only [sic -- DSH] that
\(insert name\)
>> I note particularly the Norman and English
>> genealogies that eliminate all the Irish lines as if they never
>> existed making my life miserable.
>
> Well, then find the contemporary documentation.
Doug seems to be widening this out to include Irish genealogies in the
historic period so I would point out that contemporary documentation is
typically found within the genealogy itself, in the several layers in which
updates can be seen to have been made to the part previously committed to
writing. To this explicit genealogy add a few reference dates from the
annals and some dead reckoning and you have something a little stronger
than the "Roger had a manor in X and a Roger de X appears as son of Y in an
inquisition", etc chain of reasoning that you tend to get in Norman and
English lines created out of thin air in more recent times.
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
You seem to be arguing that since the Irish have
an ancient culture, Ugaine Mor must be real.
---------------------------------------------
REPLY: RE: "the now plausible Ugaine Mor"
No, I am not arguing. There are two parts to
good genealogy research. Evaluation of the
records related to pedigrees and evaluation of
the surrounding historical settings. If you are
forced to admit, taf, by the testimony of history,
"that finds going back to 800 B. C., show Irish
civilization as complex, having wealth and prosperity,
with items created with a high state of sophistication
in metal-working skill, especially in gold", good
genealogical evaluation requires that a determination
be made of what it would take to transmit, over
generations of time, this knowledge and creative
art. A question might be asked: "Has there ever been
any civilization, with similar capabilities, that did
not also have indications of a parallel written record?"
For example, recent mention has been made of
"The world's only preserved copy of an Etruscan
gold book", of which "The text and especially the
images indicate the book was made for the funeral
of an aristocrat who was an adept of the Orpheus cult."
. . . "the script of this mysterious Etruscans
is not yet fully made out." . . .
http://www.novinite.com/newsletter/print.php?id=22691
Were there burial tombs, passage tombs, sacred temples,
or astronomical observatories in Ireland? If there
were "roadways that linked royal sites, such as
Emain Macha, Tara and Rath Cruachain in 148 B.C.", did
the Romans, of a similar time frame, build roads without
written communications, written documents, written letters,
inscribed mile posts or stone markers?
If there were cows in Ireland, was there any butter?
If there are preserved genealogies in Ireland, was there
any history? If so, where are the connective links; i.e.,
if so, where are the refrigerators? "Butter is as old as
history".. . . "Archeologists found a deposit of butter
buried in peat bogs found wrapped in a skin in County
Leitrim". . . . The original practice of the Arabs and
Syrians, so far as is known, was to use vessel made from
goatskin for a churn."
http://webexhibits.org/butter/history-intro.html
Roz Griston
columbus didn't have to deal with the "experts" on this list to get
funding to follow his "legends/theories". north america would have
never been discovered.
oh and a quasi-contemporary to the ugaine mor family..try this family
of 12 sons surviving to adulthood..albeit bibical..joseph and his
brothers and dispute caused by the coat of many colours.
meanwhile, here's some info derived from irish legend...pls, don't
forget to notice the reference to egypt within the article.
sometimes, it is wise to ignore the advice of experts, their plodding
tunnel vision blinds them to the full scope of the availability of
information.
interesting ugaine mor urls.
http://wolf.mind.net/library/celtic/mil.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~fianna/history/milesian.html
there are more references on the web to ugaine mor.
try http://www.alltheweb.com
i betcha you even end up at some of the irish universities. leave no
stone unturned when seeking validity to a myth/legend.
regards
roz
The Mythology of Griston Bog
By Michael Fitzgerald
(Taken from article in the Knocklong - Glenbrohane Parish, Journal N02.
1984)
The name Griston in Irish is Baile na nGriosdunach. Translated as
Townland
of the Gristons - A family name)
The seed from which my interest in local history was sown many years
ago
was when the late Michael Maume McGuire of Kilgarrif told me that the
name
of the townland was derived from a pagan deity or Fierce White Bull (Bo
Ban
Garbh) that lived beneath the waters of Griston Bog, anciently known as
Loch Tairbh. The task of the bull was to protect the nine raths of
Kilgarrif. When danger or peril of any kind was imminent the Bull
emerged
from beneath the waters of the Loch, and with a menacing roar dispelled
would be attackers. As the Bull was immune to spears or swords, victory
was
always on his side tells us that Loch Tairbh or Griston Bog and its
environs was a place of renown, a title we believe not lightly
bestowed.
At the time this story was told, I was about twelve years of age and
regarded it as an artifice designed by Michael McGuire to keep me and
others from galavanting around the roads at night. However, many years
later while perusing some ancient Irish manu- scripts in the British
Museum, I found reference to Loch Tairbh or Griston Bog in an almost
illegible manuscript and extracted the following lines. "Bail alaid
Mael-
na mbo tuath im Ratharbh loca Tarb ait i toraig Ban Bo Garbh", which I
translated as " A place of renown, the Royal Tuath surrounding the
Raths of
Loch Tairbh, the place or retreat of the Bo Ban Garbh." Reference to
Kilgarrif itself occurs as "Sean fidh demain Bulga" which means the old
wood of the Fir Bolg Serpent. It is to be noted that Bo above is used
in a
generic sense.
Griston Bog is referred to as Loch Luinge after the Roth Rarnhnach or
Glider employed by Mogha Ruith (a druid) at the siege of Knocklong
crash-landed there!
The former importance of the Bo Ban Garbh may be gauged from the fact
that
a poetic name for Ireland was Banba. Since the manuscript tells us that
Loch Tairbh or Griston Bog and its environs was a place of renown, a
title
we believe not lightly bestowed. Below are given some of the names
applied
to it in various records down through the centuries with reasons where
known.
I. Mona Dara Lothair
Lothair was son of Milit of Spain. He set up on the Hill of Dara and
obviously owned Mona Ban Ba or Griston Bog. In AD. 563 a battle called
Cath
Mona Daire Lothair took place there at which seven kings were slain.
2. Loch Luigne
Griston Bog is referred to as Loch Luinge after the Roth Rarnhnach or
Glider employed by Mogha Ruith (a druid) at the siege of Knocklong
crash-landed there
Mogha Ruith as a youth studied in the East (Egypt) at the school of
Simon
Magus, an expert on primitive aeronautics!
3. Cluain Daimh
The Santuary of the Ox St. Ailbe gave a church in Cluain Daimh to St.
Senach (Shinnick or Fox). St. Patrick made him a bishop, and gave him a
new
name viz. Agnus Dei.
4. Inis Bofinn
Bishop CoIman who was connected with Easter Controvercy in England
returned
in A.D. 667 to Inis BoFinn to consult his Superiors. It is recorded he
built a church there.
5. Loch Cinn and Loch Ard O Cillin are the other names I have found
applied to Griston Bog
6. Inis Samhair
Should have a familiar ring as it means the enclosure / island of the
Morning Star.
In regard to the manuscript from which this information was derived, I
am
of the opinion that it could be part of the lost Book of Molaga, which
was
written at the monastery of Tullach Menn Molaga now Tully Glenroe.
Other Information
5th Jan. A.D. 682 Ciar Suit daughter of Dubh Rea of Fidh-na-mbo died.
Note arising from (1) above i.e. Mona Dara Lothair. Lothair's brother
Brochan established himself at the place now known as Glenbrohane thus
originated the name Glenbrohane.
norenxaq
Roz Griston wrote:
> all, i can think of regarding this thread..is thank god christopher
> columbus didn't have to deal with the "experts" on this list to get
> funding to follow his "legends/theories". north america would have
> never been discovered.
>
> oh and a quasi-contemporary to the ugaine mor family..try this family
> of 12 sons surviving to adulthood..albeit bibical..joseph and his
> brothers and dispute caused by the coat of many colours.
>
quasi-contemporary??? Only if one considers a gap of sevaral centuries...
Roz Griston
significantly earlier era. big deal, the survival of large numbers of
children is not impossible whether the time frame is AD or BC.
taf also wanted some info on medieval dragons.
the url below discusses beowolf and dinosaurs. its an interesting read.
http://biblebelievers.org.au/nation10.htm
and a 15C legend from cornard suffolk
Little Cornard:OS ref TL 9038
In 1449, on the afternoon of 26th of September it is recorded(in a
contemporary document stored
in Canterbury Cathedral) that two dragons were seen fighting on the
marshy meadow, by the
banks of the river Stour. The black dragon came down from Kedington
Hill, on the Suffolk side
of the river, the other was red with spots, from Ballingdon Hill,on the
Essex side of the river.
Apparently the Essex Dragon won the battle eventually.However both
dragons were able to
return to their respective lairs.
http://www.dragoncrafts.co.uk/page4(4).htm
the above url has more references to dragons in the british isles.
regards
roz
On Friday, June 06, 2003 10:34 AM, norenxaq [SMTP:nore...@san.rr.com]
wrote:
GRHa...@aol.com
vcti...@dcn.org writes:
> If there were cows in Ireland, was there any butter?
>
There may have been, or there might not have been. If you wish to engage in
"what ifs" then you can use such logic, but you cannot PROVE the existence of
any one person simply because it is possible. You cannot prove there were
either cows or butter in Ireland unless there is documentation of them. Yes, it
is more than likely that there were cows and there was butter in Ireland, but
without PROOF it is merely assumption based upon facts which may or may not be
relevant.
Gordon Hale
GRHa...@aol.com
r_gr...@dccnet.com writes:
> Subj: RE: ANCIENT vs MODERN, RE: the now plausible Ugaine Mor
> Date: 6/6/2003 2:01:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: <A HREF="mailto:r_gr...@dccnet.com">r_gr...@dccnet.com</A>
> To: <A HREF="mailto:GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com">GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com</A>
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> well taf wanted one from the medieval time frame..so here's one from a
> significantly earlier era. big deal, the survival of large numbers of
> children is not impossible whether the time frame is AD or BC.
>
> taf also wanted some info on medieval dragons.
> the url below discusses beowolf and dinosaurs. its an interesting read.
> http://biblebelievers.org.au/nation10.htm
> and a 15C legend from cornard suffolk
> Little Cornard:OS ref TL 9038
>
> In 1449, on the afternoon of 26th of September it is recorded(in a
> contemporary document stored
> in Canterbury Cathedral) that two dragons were seen fighting on the
> marshy meadow, by the
> banks of the river Stour. The black dragon came down from Kedington
> Hill, on the Suffolk side
> of the river, the other was red with spots, from Ballingdon Hill,on the
> Essex side of the river.
> Apparently the Essex Dragon won the battle eventually.However both
> dragons were able to
> return to their respective lairs.
> http://www.dragoncrafts.co.uk/page4(4).htm
> the above url has more references to dragons in the british isles.
>
> regards
> roz
I knew I never should have given up Dragon hunting. The big problem was in
finding them and then in selling their pelts. They didn't make good shoes nor
luggage because all of the firebreathing make the leather stiff and crackly.
Monte Python, where are you when we need you.
Gordon Hale
\(insert name\)
(insert name) wrote:
> Doug seems to be widening this out to include Irish genealogies in the
> historic period so I would point out that contemporary documentation
> is typically found within the genealogy itself, in the several layers
> in which updates can be seen to have been made to the part previously
> committed to writing. To this explicit genealogy add a few reference
> dates from the annals and some dead reckoning and you have something
> a little stronger than the "Roger had a manor in X and a Roger de X
> appears as son of Y in an inquisition", etc chain of reasoning that
> you tend to get in Norman and English lines created out of thin air
> in more recent times.
This whole area would seem to warrant a thread on its own.
Irish genealogies are often derided because they take the form of bare
narratives in the form A son of B son of C, unsupported by the copious
references to inquisitions, rolls, etc that accompany the typical
English/Norman genealogy.
It seems to me that it is easily forgotten that while the typical Irish
genealogy has accrued across medieval times in express form, the typical
English/Norman genealogy is a modern construct built from the very
documentation that is later adduced to support it.
Discuss!
Reedpcgen
>"that finds going back to 800 B. C., show Irish
>civilization as complex, having wealth and prosperity,
>with items created with a high state of sophistication
>in metal-working skill, especially in gold",
>
I might posit that the Egyptians or Phoenicians had very advanced societies at
times in the ancient world, as did the Etruscans, various states in Greece,
Parthia, Rome, Babylon, etc. These are cultures which left far more historical
evidence than did Ireland of that period.
But that does not mean that such advances simplify sorting out their
genealogies, or even make it possible to be certain that particular individuals
who appear in oral traditions were even historical or invented. There is
plenty of mythology worked into the Greek genealogies (which is partly why some
explain the prohibition against the endless pedigrees made in the Bible).
If a society flourished so highly in metal-working skill, especially gold, one
might expect coins of that ruler to be remaining in some types of
archaeological digs.
Again, given that AT SOME POINT it is clear the Irish genealogies were
creations of fiction, AT WHAT POINT, Mr. Tinney, do you feel comfortable
stating they become fiction?
And again, how do you reconcile the differences in calculating chronology that
we have presented before, of
(1) those trying to connect to King Zedekiah, and this aiming towards making
the Milesians come to Ireland about the time of the fall of Jerusalem, and
(2) the chronology in the Irish chronicles themselves, which would put that
event at least FOUR CENTURIES earlier?
How do you decide what to distrust, and what to keep, of what appears in the
Irish chronicles?
Paul
Brian M. Scott
>> >Celtic?
I'm not sure that it survives in modern Welsh, unless <dinas> is
related, but the reflex in Old Welsh and Cornish is <din> 'a
fort, a hill', found in a number of place-names, including
<Tintern> (<Dindyrn>, <Dindirn>, <Tindirn>, <Tindyrn> ca.1150);
the second element is probably <teyrn> 'king'. <Dinmore>
(Herefordshire) is from <din mawr> 'great hill'.
Brian
norenxaq
GRHa...@aol.com wrote:
questing after a holy grail large enough to contain 16 tons of spam while dodging the
attacks of vorpal bunnies
:>
Roz Griston
not all "dragons" were fire breathing, actually it's doubtful any were.
it is however, surmised the "fire breathing" ability came from belches
of methane gas produced by the "dragon" during its digestive process.
(yes, the same stuff that pigs and cows produce to create the green
house effect..or is that just more mythology).
anyhow, imagine, a villager trying to fend off a "dragon" with a
torch..and the dragon belched..oops..the stuff of legends...that thar
critter just breathed fire.
now as for monty python, hmm could he be in iraq on a quest for
invisible wmd's? oops, not supposed to get political..it's offensive to
some..okay lets discuss lady godiva and her jiggly
bits..<gaffaw..school boy snicker>
imagine 500 years from now..someone finds a reference to a "one of a
kind artifact" that was held in the baghdad museum..but, lo and behold
the artifact went missing/was destroyed in 2003..ergo, it didn't
exist..it's only legendary. and of course the then protected oil
refineries are all dried/used up and gone..so gulf war2 was only a myth
too...i mean after all oil is simply pre-historic goopy decay that is
combustable or so legend has it.
consider the plants and animals that have been hunted to extinction in
the last several hundred years.
i have to wonder how many dodo bones are kicking about, or what about
the tasmanian tiger.
roz waiting for the full monty report on iraq..you know just the bare
facts..no propaganda, or decade old plagerized student thesis.
Todd A. Farmerie
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
> A question might be asked: "Has there ever been
> any civilization, with similar capabilities, that did
> not also have indications of a parallel written record?"
Yes.
Now my question for you. Has there ever been such a culture that
didn't also have indications of mythology, and fictional
storytelling tradition? Would someone writing 2400 years later
know the difference?
What is more likely:
1) that this writer had access to a tradition that managed to
survive 2400 years without any indication of it being known to
anyone, then was suddenly 'discovered' by this individual intent
on tracing an ancient genealogy, then for it immediately
afterwards to again disappear, or
2) that the 'genealogist' in question created a pedigree that
accomplished his goals?
You certainly cannot distinguish between the two by giving
examples that the Irish had an ancient culture, because such a
culture is not inconsistent with either hypothesis.
As Paul has asked (and you have failed to answer), when does the
Irish pedigree become fictional (or don't you think it ever does
- is it true back to Adam)?
> If there are preserved genealogies in Ireland, was there
> any history?
There is no reason to believe, and many to distrust that the
genealogies tracing to Ugaine Mor have been preserved, rather
than invented.
taf