Descent from antiquity

[Andre Sijnesael]

I am very interested in Descent from antiquity. I know there are no proven lines to antiquity, e.g. the Romans, but there are many theories. As I understand the problem is there are hardly sources from that times that can prove any descent. Are there new sources that can be studied or will there ever be new sources found? It seems that all the sources that are left from ancient times are known or gone.

I am always searching to new developments in DFA, but there is not much news. Does any of the readers here know is there are any developments or any news about DFA and where I can find that?

Best regards,

André Sijnesael
Spijkenisse, The Netherlands

[zglorgy]

SeTtipani wrote to me last month saying, he is still working on his (BIG) book (I imagnie a mix of new works with his ancient work) , about Late antiquity Gaul, and barbaric nations. But he has been working on it for years and i don't know when he will publish it

He did not speak about LGA 2



JL

[taf]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:09:44 AM UTC-7, Andre Sijnesael wrote:
> I am very interested in Descent from antiquity. I know there are no proven lines to antiquity, e.g. the Romans, but there are many theories. As I understand the problem is there are hardly sources from that times that can prove any descent. Are there new sources that can be studied or will there ever be new sources found? It seems that all the sources that are left from ancient times are known or gone.
>
> I am always searching to new developments in DFA, but there is not much news. Does any of the readers here know is there are any developments or any news about DFA and where I can find that?
>

Generally speaking the problem is not with ancient times, but rather with what used to be called the 'dark ages', the bridge between medieval and ancient, but yes, most such sources are in hand and novelty comes from scholars offering a new interpretation of existing data rather than finding new sources.

There are possibilities for new documented lines (for example, Arabic sources are underutilized), and in some cases lines tracing back from medieval times and down from ancient times overlap, and documenting a single relationship may provide a breakthrough. Unfortunately, this is not the direction most 'progress' takes, being more involved with claiming to have gotten more blood out of the same stone by sheer speculation.

taf

[Denis Beauregard]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT), zglorgy
<jluc...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>SeTtipani wrote to me last month saying, he is still working on his (BIG) book (I imagnie a mix of new works with his ancient work) , about Late antiquity Gaul, and barbaric nations. But he has been working on it for years and i don't know when he will publish it
>
>He did not speak about LGA 2

There are lineages through the Middle East, by the Georgian and
Armenian houses (and from Constance d'Arles). So you can reach the
pharaohs but not by using the Gaul/Roman area.


Deni

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

[taf]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 7:25:39 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:

> There are lineages through the Middle East, by the Georgian and
> Armenian houses (and from Constance d'Arles).

You have a contemporary document that names the parents of Constance of Arles? Do tell.

taf

[wjhonson]

Denis I am afraid that *all* of the proposed lines to the Pharaohs have some speculative leaps and some complete nonsense interwoven with true agreed-upon facts

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

As Todd already said, Constance's parentage is pure speculation based on the fact that her name was rare at the time and similar to Flodoard's nickname Constantine for Charles of Vienne. That nickname also led to the theory that he may have been son of Anna of Byzantium, to whom his father was bethroded. However, as has been discussed at length in the newsgroup, there's no evidence that Charles, himself, ever used Constantine as a second name and, even if he did, it wouldn't necessarily be because of a Byzantine mother.

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

A quinta-feira, 16 de julho de 2020 à(s) 01:37:25 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu:
> Denis I am afraid that *all* of the proposed lines to the Pharaohs have some speculative leaps and some complete nonsense interwoven with true agreed-upon facts

Read http://erwan.gil.free.fr/modules/freepages/pharaons/ramses_II.pdf for a discussion of a descent from the Pharaohs and its problems.

[wjhonson]

I'm surprised in this list that you merely pass over the descent through the Armenian kingdom without commment.

By the way, speaking to all, DO NOT COPY, these birth years, some of which are made of whole cloth. For some of these people we don't even know *within twenty years* when they were born.

[Antoine Barbry]

Le mercredi 15 juillet 2020 14:54:38 UTC+2, zglorgy a écrit :
> SeTtipani wrote to me last month saying, he is still working on his (BIG) book (I imagnie a mix of new works with his ancient work) , about Late antiquity Gaul, and barbaric nations. But he has been working on it for years and i don't know when he will publish it
>
> He did not speak about LGA 2
>

Hello,

To be more precise, Christian is currently finalizing the editing of the manuscript of his Thèse d'Etat for a publication late this year. It is entitled "Liens dynastiques entre Byzance et l'étranger à l'époque des Comnènes et des Paléologues" (785 pages) and obviously touches upon numerous topics dealt with in this group.

This done, he will come back to his other manuscript, the volume 2 of "La Préhistoire des Capétiens" (currently more than 1200 pages), hoping to finalize and publish it in 2021.
So, yes it is a piece of work that we have been waiting for so long, but the result will be worthwile!

regards

antoine barbry

[Antoine Barbry]

Le mercredi 15 juillet 2020 14:09:44 UTC+2, Andre Sijnesael a écrit :

Hello,

Most of Christian Settipani's articles and books will be of interest to you. I suggest you look at his academia page (although it lists only a small part of this work) and particularly at this article
https://www.academia.edu/2567744/La_transition_entre_Mythe_et_R%C3%A9alit%C3%A9

regards

antoine barbry

antoine barbry

[zglorgy]

Settipani agrees now that Charles Constantine is not linked to Byzance via Constance's parents

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Jul-20 10:46 PM, zglorgy wrote:
> Settipani agrees now that Charles Constantine is not linked to Byzance via Constance's parents
>

I'm not clear what this means - it seems to be a welcome development,
and if so speaks well for him as it can't have been easy to concede to
the evidence after such persistent and increasingly preposterous
rationalisations over years.

But do you mean he no longer maintains that Constance of Arles was
probably descended from Charles Constantine of Vienne, or that the
latter plausibly had Byzantine ancestry through his mother, or both?

Peter Stewart

[zglorgy]

Hi peter, Hi all


I can’t speak for Settipani, and i won’ t copy/paste his mail. Moreover, i am not fluent in English, but i will try to resume,

Ho told me that he does not Believe any more that Constance « De Provence » is a daugther of Charles « Constantin » . But he still thinks that Anna is The mother of Charles Constantin.
As he explained to me, he honestly think Anna is her mother. His judgmenet is not biaised because the link between french aristocracy and Byzance (throuh this path) , is dead because, for Him Constance is not daugther of Charles Constantin anymore, So his thesis from LGA is dead
Nevetherless, He reminded me some reasons in oro the link Anna/Charles Constantin

Sure, when his thésis will be completed, he will answer by himself

JL

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

Back in 2017, Settipani told me via email that he believes the House of Savoy was descended from Charles Constantine. Thus, there could be an alternative descent from Charles Constantine.

[wjhonson]

Just one small axe to shatter the entire line.

Tiridates called by mythmakers the first "Christian" king of Armenia died about 330 (not in it). He was poisoned.

His father was not some mythical person who died in 297. He is specifically Khosrov "the Valiant" who was slain by Anak in 261. *In* that year his son Tiridates is referred to as a "youth" for this very reason (that his father had just been killed)

He would not be called a youth if he was already 35 or whatever.

So whoever wrote this part up, was quite sloppy

[wjhonson]

Another massive blunder.

The father of my previously named Khosrov was not another Tiridates

Rather his name was Vagharsh who was King of Armenia for about twenty years and died *in battle* in 213 (or of a battle wound).

His son is named as being with him in this same battle (so of battle-age that year), and he became Khosrov "The Valiant"

The father of Vagharsh was Tigranes who was king from about 150 to about 190 more or less

I wonder how in the world he was made to descend from Parthia ?

It seems to me the much more interesting descent is his supposed descent from Pontus and Macedonia

[wjhonson]

We really need a central website where we can fix all the utter senseless nonsense being put into family trees about these Romish client-kings.

[Peter Stewart]

This is mystifying. The connection of Constance to Charles Constantine
was just wishful thinking, with no evidence for it - unless accepting a
forced circumstantial association from the peculiar idea of
gender-crossing similar-but-different name inheritance (Constantia
rather than Constantina).

The Charles Constantine > Anna connection on the other hand has not only
a lack of evidence for it - unless accepting the very peculiar idea that
Constantine was a second proper name of Charles and somehow indicates
that he was a grandson of Leo VI - but significant evidence against it
that has been uncritically ignored or misrepresented since a weakly
argued suggestion made by Adolf Hofmeister taken up in a
shoddily-reasoned article by Charles Previté Orton. Very rum.

Peter Stewart

[sba...@mindspring.com]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 8:33:20 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> Another massive blunder.
>
> The father of my previously named Khosrov was not another Tiridates
>
> Rather his name was Vagharsh who was King of Armenia for about twenty years and died *in battle* in 213 (or of a battle wound).
>
> His son is named as being with him in this same battle (so of battle-age that year), and he became Khosrov "The Valiant"
>
> The father of Vagharsh was Tigranes who was king from about 150 to about 190 more or less

There is no contemporary (or even close to contemporary) evidence for the existence of this alleged king Tigranes. All well-documented Armenian kings of that name lived in the first century or earlier. It has been quite a while since I looked at this, but as I recall, contemporary evidence for an Armenian king named Vologases ("Vagharsh") around this time is also extraordinarily thin, consisting mainly of a vague passage in a fragmentary source. The Roman historian Cassius Dio, who is the main contemporary source for much of what we know about Armenian history during this period, was very stingy about providing the names of the Armenian kings he mentioned during this period, and the less careful historians have too freely mixed contemporary evidence with the "traditional" Armenian histories from centuries later by identifying Cassius Dio's kings with various kings from these later histories. These accounts are much more popular than the more realistic accounts stating that very little is known about either the succession or the genealogy of the kings of Armenia in the second half of the second century or the first half of the third.

> I wonder how in the world he was made to descend from Parthia ?

Armenian tradition makes these kings Arsacids, and the placement of cadet members of the Arsacid dynasty on the throne of Armenia in the first and early second centuries is well-documented. So, the theory that these Armenian kings descended from the kings of Parthia seems well founded, even if the line of descent is mostly guesswork.

> It seems to me the much more interesting descent is his supposed descent from Pontus and Macedonia

At least there is reasonable evidence for the descent of Armenian kings from the Arsacids of Parthia. The supposed connections to Pontus and Macedonia are based on such flimsy evidence that they are hardly worth consideration. How many "dotted lines" does a genealogical conjecture need to have before it becomes useless junk.

Stewart Baldwin

[wjhonson]

Armenian tradition also makes them all descend from Noah.

So are we going to five equal credence to that theory now?

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

A sábado, 18 de julho de 2020 à(s) 21:29:18 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu:
> Armenian tradition also makes them all descend from Noah.
>
> So are we going to five equal credence to that theory now?

No offense, but your analogy is stupid. Noah never existed while the Arsacids existed and até documented to have ruled Armenia.

[wjhonson]

It's only stupid to stupid people. Stop being stupid.

No one should give the slightest credence to "legends", "fables", and "traditions"

That is not genealogy

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

Stewart Baldwin is generally skeptical but he disagrees with you in this case because the tradition is supported by the fact that the Arsacids are documented to have ruled Armenia.

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

You are not only going against Stewart Baldwin but also against Christian Settipani, Cyril Toumanoff and Ian Moncreiff, all of whom are experts in this area. No offense, but do you really think your suppositions can go against decades of expert consensus?

[taf]

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 5:51:12 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:

> You are not only going against Stewart Baldwin

Who can speak for himself here so I will not comment on his work in the area (which I have not looked at closely anyhow).

> but also against Christian Settipani,

He himself admits that his work is more directed toward indicating possibilities, rather than revealing authentic descents. (or to paraphrase someone's question from earlier in this thread, how many dotted lines does it take before it all becomes just wishful thinking?)

> Cyril Toumanoff

Not had a chance to study his work.

> and Ian Moncreiff,

I find him to be incredibly credulous when there is the possibility of an exotic line (or when presenting the origins of Scottish clans, which seems to often amount to the same thing).

> all of whom are experts in this area.

If by 'area' you mean specifically the Armenian descent, of the ones you have listed, I would call only Toumanoff and expert _in this area_, the others simply being experts in other areas who have turned their eyes to this potential route. If you mean experts in descents from antiquity in general, I am not sure one can be an expert in such an aspirational concept, any more than one can be an expert in all of medieval genealogy - it is too broad and varied, and it is the rare person who has the same fine-grained understanding of the sources in Latin, Greek, Arabic and Ogham, etc., for every place from Galicia to, well, Galicia.

> No offense, but do you really think your suppositions can go
> against decades of expert consensus?

No offense, but isn't it better to focus on the specific details of the claimed descent, rather than just name-dropping 'experts'?

taf

[joseph cook]

Toumanoff and Moncrieff are not "experts" in this area. They are merely enthusiasts who have interest in DFA so they generate material on them hoping something will pop up. This is *far* *far* from being an "expert" on ancient Armenian genealogy. Their opinions on these dfa's, I believe, are..optimistic to the point of naiviety.

Joe C

[P J Evans]

Paulo reminds me of my father when he got into genealogy after retiring. My father had no experience with judging source quality (and had taken no classes), and so some of the ones he had were very poor. He got better at it.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

A domingo, 19 de julho de 2020 à(s) 19:55:24 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
> Toumanoff and Moncrieff are not "experts" in this area. They are merely enthusiasts who have interest in DFA so they generate material on them hoping something will pop up. This is *far* *far* from being an "expert" on ancient Armenian genealogy. Their opinions on these dfa's, I believe, are..optimistic to the point of naiviety.
>
> Joe C

Sorry for being pedantic, but "were", not "are" is the accurate term. Both of them are long dead.
Regardless, they were still far more acknowledgeable on all of this than Will Johnson, who is making groundless suppositions.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

No offense, but, in this particular situation, that's not the case. Will Johnson is going against decades of expert consensus, which even the generally skeptical Stewart Baldwin supports.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I agree with Stewart Baldwin. Much of the specific descent is speculative but there's no good reason to doubt that those Armenian kings were descended from the Arsacids, who did rule Armenia.

[wjhonson]

Here are some reasons for thinking that this line to Parthia is not correct.

It's supported by *tradition* using NO documented sources whatsoever.

*That* some kings of Parthia put puppets on the throne, and *that* some Romans put puppets on the throne tells us exactly *nothing* about who these particular kings were. Full Stop.

Now show some documentation about it. Stop waving your hands wildly in the air while screeching about experts and pounding your chest.

[wjhonson]

Not groundless Paulo.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DsRGAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA82

The Conversion of Armenia to the Christian Faith
By William St. Clair Tisdall

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

The page doesn't show up for me when I click. Could you, please, quote the relevant text?

[wjhonson]

You can also Google for this name, it's full view

Here is another source however

http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/the_armenians_in_history.pdf

[zglorgy]

He is right... unfortunatly

We CAN NOT put any confidence in traditions


JL

[taf]

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:

> You can also Google for this name, it's full view

It is full view _for you_. Based on its date, it is likely still under copyright (or treated as such) in other places, so one can't assume it is visible everywhere.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Sorry for being pedantic, but "were", not "are" is the accurate term. Both
> of them are long dead.
> Regardless, they were still far more acknowledgeable on all of this than
> Will Johnson, who is making groundless suppositions.

Again, arguing over which side has the most/expertiest experts is really not the best way to reach conclusions on genealogical conundra.

taf

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 13:27:25 -0700 (PDT), taf <taf.me...@gmail.com>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:
>
>> You can also Google for this name, it's full view
>
>It is full view _for you_. Based on its date, it is likely still under copyright (or treated as such) in other places, so one can't assume it is visible everywhere.

Some sites will assume either the USA years for copyrights or the
worse case if another country.

You can use a proxy that is in USA to get the USA years. It is up
to you to decide.


Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

[Peter Stewart]

On 20-Jul-20 4:55 AM, joseph cook wrote:
> Toumanoff and Moncrieff are not "experts" in this area. They are merely enthusiasts who have interest in DFA so they generate material on them hoping something will pop up. This is *far* *far* from being an "expert" on ancient Armenian genealogy. Their opinions on these dfa's, I believe, are..optimistic to the point of naiviety.

Ian Moncreiffe (as he rejoiced in spelling his surname) was a chatterbox
and a highly amusing raconteur (when sober enough) but not at all expert
in any field of medieval study.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Make that Iain Moncreiffe - he liked an atavistic spelling for his
preferred given name too.

Peter Stewart

[sba...@mindspring.com]

Really? After all of the chest-thumping in your postings to this thread, that is the source that you cite to support your position? One would think that you would know better than to base your opinions on a book published in 1897 which does not state the sources for most of its claims, and in fact has very few footnotes at all (which ought to be a big "red flag" to any sensible genealogist). Are you even aware of the ultimate source for the late second to early third century (alleged) Armenian kings which you apparently took from this book and repeated (without qualification) in a previous posting? Apparently not. Let me remind you of a statement from one of your previous postings in this thread:

> No one should give the slightest credence to "legends", "fables", and "traditions"

Not an unreasonable statement, but you appear to be ignorant of the fact that the "history" of the Armenian kings given by Tisdall is based mainly on the Armenian legends, fables, and traditions in Moses of Chorene's Armenian "history" (of controversial date, but certainly no earlier than the late fifth century). So, you have been arguing vehemently against your own position, apparently without even realizing it. And you have the nerve to use the word "stupid" to describe those to whom you respond? It is all too apparent that you are basically ignorant of the main primary sources for the history of the early Armenian kingdom and kings, or you wouldn't have made this ridiculous blunder.

Twenty or so years ago, there were numerous detailed discussions in this newsgroup about DFA's, concentrating mainly on the supposed routes through the Armenian or Iberian (Georgian) kings. Not surprisingly, these discussions sometimes became very contentious, but most of the longest arguments were between participants who, like myself, had bothered to become acquainted with the underlying primary evidence for the period. Even when the disagreements were extreme (which was often), there was at least the satisfaction of knowing that some of the more active participants were basing their opinions on much of the same underlying data. The present thread is a sad ghost of this, with too many vehement opinions being expressed by people who haven't bothered to become basically knowledgeable in the subject. (This comment applies not just to DFA's, but some other topics as well.) For those who would like a good account of this difficult period in Armenian history, I recommend the following work:

Marie-Louise Chaumont, "L'Arménie entre Rome et l'Iran," in "Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt" II, 9, 1 (Berlin, 1976): 71-194.

The obvious disadvantage of this work is that you need to know French to read it, but in my opinion, it is better than anything I have seen in English on the subject. I should also warn the reader that this work will be too honest for the taste of many, leaving too many questions unanswered for those who don't like the word "unknown" and want THE answer for everything.

Stewart Baldwin

[wjhonson]

You confuse my position.

Firstly, in regard to "legends and fables". It is an assumption that some ancient writer was writing down legends, unless they themselves clearly state it.

What we do know, is that there is a work, written at least 1400 years ago, say, which claims this and that.
We can cite that book, and say *this* is my source. We can compare that information to other information about the things stated in that work. We can decide to discard something from that work, and include something else, based on *known* claims from other written works, or archaeology, coins, inscriptions, etc.

What we can not do, in genealogy, is wave our hands and say "see the newsgroup" and so on, even if we are perhaps *re* discussing something previously discussed.

My original claim is that the author of this supposed DFA completely ignores citing *ANY* sources whatsoever,, at all, full stop, zero,, for this entire hundreds-years claimed descent.

That is not acceptable. It is a claim of authority or to authority, not presented, hoping that no one will stand up and say Hold On Now.

I can't let that pass.

[wjhonson]

On the point of Tisdell being completely reliant on Moses of Khorene, and him not citing any sources, here are the sources he claims to have used to compile his book

https://books.google.com/books?id=DsRGAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

[sba...@mindspring.com]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 4:29:26 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> On the point of Tisdell being completely reliant on Moses of Khorene, and him not citing any sources, here are the sources he claims to have used to compile his book
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=DsRGAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is becoming more and more obvious why you have not been quoting the comments to which you respond lately. It would make your deception more obvious, where you deliberately try to make it look as if someone made a comment which they did not in fact make, in order to deceive readers into believing that you have made a valid point by "responding" to the misquoted remarks. In my previous postings, I stated that Tisdall's book "does not state the sources for most of its claims, and in fact has very few footnotes at all." This statement is absolutely true, and your use of the words "not ... any" distorts the meaning of my sentence in two ways. First, and most obviously, I did not accuse the author of "not citing any sources." Second, I deliberately added the words "of its claims" along with the clarification that there were few footnotes to indicate that specific sources were not cited for specific claims. The list of principal sources used given in the front in no way makes it clear which sources were being used for which claims. This failure by the author should have made it clear to begin with that this book was not a good source to use.

In another similar distortion made by you, I did not state that Tisdale was "completely" reliant on the history of Moses, I stated that his account of the kings of Armenia depended "mainly" on Moses. Although there are quite a few sources in the list given by Tisdale that are relevant to the time of conversion and the generation or so before, the vast majority of Tisdale's account of the Armenian kings up to the early third century is taken almost directly from Moses, so the fact that he mentions other sources used for the later period is pretty much irrelevant (especially since my original participation in the discussion was specifically with regard to the earlier period).

This sort of misrepresentation of the statements of others for the purpose of appearing to make a point, and avoiding the admission of your own errors, is in no way appropriate.

Stewart Baldwin

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

The most realistic descents from antiquity stop at the Achaemenids.
The problem with finding an Egyptian link is that the Pharaohs were famously opposed to marrying their daughters to foreign dynasties.
Even if such a link was found, it's very hard to get beyond the 19th Dynasty, as its origins were in military officers who rose to power due to the collapse of the 18th Dynasty, caused by Akhenaten's heresy.
A more fruitful route may be finding a Babylonian or Assyrian link, which could provide a very ancient descent.

[Don Stone]

The late Chris Bennett, a frequent contributor to soc.genealogy.medieval, was quite interested in ancient Egyptian genealogy. See, for example, http://www.instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm.

He also wrote two articles published in vol. 12 (1995) of the Journal of Ancient & Medieval Studies (published by The Octavian Society, part of the Augustan Society). One is "Bridging the Second Intermediate Period (of Ancient Egypt)" and the other is "A Babylonian Ancestry for King Darius." The latter article can be ordered for $2.00; see https://store.augustansociety.org/shopping/search?category=42&query=babylonian+ancestry&Search=Search. It proposes that Darius's mother Rhodogune was possibly a great-granddaughter of Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, 626-605.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I already knew Chris Bennett's website. BTW, when did he die? The website showed he had health problems but was never updated to show him as deceased.
Regardless, I already knew that he had proposed a descent of Darius from the Babylonian kings but didn't know the details. Thanks for telling me.

[John Higgins]

He is said to have died 20 Jan 2014 - but no source is given for that date.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Egyptian_Royal_Genealogy_Project

[JBrand]

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=christopher-john-bennett&pid=169165351

[joseph cook]

Here is his obituary
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=christopher-john-bennett&pid=169165351

Joe C

[sba...@mindspring.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:58:15 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> The most realistic descents from antiquity stop at the Achaemenids.

. . .

It seems to me that you are stretching the definition of "realistic" by a lot. A "true" DFA would require each and every generation to have reasonable documentation. Even for an alleged descent back to the Arsacids, the chances that every single one of the (very many) conjectured generations would be valid is so slim as to be unworthy of serious consideration. The idea that every generation of the alleged Achaemenid descent would be valid is simply too preposterous to take seriously, let alone an even more absurd line back to the Egyptian pharaohs or Babylonian or Assyrian kings.

If the definition of DFA is relaxed to include "approximate" or "discontinuous" lines in which the exact descent is not specified, then there is a reasonable case for such a descent for the nineteenth century Bagratid kings of Georgia back through the Mamikonids, Gregorids, and Arsacid kings of Armenia back to the Arsacid kings of Parthia (ca. 250 BCE). In my opinion, the suggested DFA's from the western European dynasties back through the Byzantines and Mamikonids to the Gregorids, etc., are unreasonable, because the claimed western Europe to Byzantine to Mamikonid links are too flimsy, and even if they were accepted, there is no good reason to believe that the supposed Mamikonid cadets were in the branch descended from the key Mamikonid-Gregorid marriage.

While there can be little doubt that there was some sort of descent going back to the Seleucids, Achaemenids, etc., any idea that an approximate line of descent can be found are an illusion.

Stewart Baldwin

[sba...@mindspring.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:58:15 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> The most realistic descents from antiquity stop at the Achaemenids.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Maybe I should have worded my reply better.
I think the Achaemenids are the most ancient dynasty we can plausibly conjecture a descent from.
Beyond them, the documentation is too thin.

[Peter Stewart]

Could you explain what value you find in a loose conjectural descent
from antiquity?

Is this just for amusement or do you (sometimes at least) take such
discussions as substantial contributions to genealogical knowledge?

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I like to see what are the limits of genealogy. In this case, it's how far back we can trace a line.

[Peter Stewart]

I still don't get it - how do you establish that speculative DFA lines
can be traced back further than medieval ones that do not cross a limit
into the unknown?

When DFAs span gaps, genealogical tracing stops and wishful conjecture
begins. Mythical lines back to Adam and Eve are not much more fanciful,
though perhaps more culturally significant, than ginning up putative
links to historical personages without continuous documentation.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thing is, even the generally skeptical Stewart Baldwin accepts discontinuous descents. Indeed, he prefers it to conjecturing exact descent.

[joseph cook]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Thing is, even the generally skeptical Stewart Baldwin accepts discontinuous descents. Indeed, he prefers it to conjecturing exact descent.

I think it is wise not to speak for people who are present here and can ably speak for themselves. However, nobody "prefers" "discontinuous descents", whatever that phrase is supposed to mean. It absolutely does not fall under the category of "Genealogy" however.

If your statement is meant simply to say someone prefers not making up facts from no evidence.... I think we are all in agreement on that. It is in no case a counter-argument to Peter's point.

We are all descended from fish. While this is interesting from a scientific perspective, it is not genealogy. And I would argue investigating how we are descended from fish is *far* more interesting than knowing vaguely, that maybe, there is an Achaemenid ancestor in our tree.

--Joe Cook

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I meant that, in this kind of cases, Stewart Baldwin is willing to accept that X was probably descended from Y but not conjecture an exact line of descent.

[Peter Stewart]

I agree with Joe's well-made points.

Like everyone else living today, I am descended from countless people
who lived in antiquity; but I can't identify any one of them or trace
any line to that time which is even nearly continuous - and I don't care
a fig. It would provide nothing but a momentary vainglorious buzz if I
could, and it would provide nothing at all but a worthless curiosity to
anyone else.

The point of medieval genealogy is to substantiate as full a picture as
practicable through interpretation of documents or failing that through
deduction from circumstantial evidence.

Pre-supposing a result and then jamming odd jigsaw pieces together in
order to achieve a distorted semblance of that imagined picture is not
at all the same pursuit. I still do not understand why some people
expend time and effort on this kind of futile chase after will-o-the-wisps.

Peter Stewart

[sba...@mindspring.com]

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:07:41 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 05-Aug-20 2:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > terça-feira, 4 de Agosto de 2020 às 15:20:48 UTC+1, joseph cook escreveu:
> >> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thing is, even the generally skeptical Stewart Baldwin accepts discontinuous descents. Indeed, he prefers it to conjecturing exact descent.

This is misleading, and easily misinterpreted. While I have no objection to conjectures in principle, provided that the uncertainties are adequately stated (often not the case), I have little taste for strings of conjectures that have been made solely for the purpose of filling in the "generations" between one person and an alleged ancestor. Temporarily making such conjectures may sometimes be convenient at an intermediate stage of the research in order to decide where to look next, but they need to be abandoned if supporting evidence is not found. Far too often, such conjectures take on a life of their own, and this can often happen when the goal becomes to find a line of descent between X and Y without first having any clear evidence that such a descent exists.

> >> I think it is wise not to speak for people who are present here and can ably speak for themselves. However, nobody "prefers" "discontinuous descents", whatever that phrase is supposed to mean. It absolutely does not fall under the category of "Genealogy" however.

I would have to disagree. To take a simple case, someone might name a person as their grandson in their last will and testament. If the identity of the intervening generation cannot be established by other evidence, then you have an example of a what I have called a "discontinuous" genealogical relationship.

Another example, with a possibly uncertain number of generations, can come from knowing that someone was the legal heir of a certain individual. To mention another possibility that has recently become available, Y-DNA tests can be used to prove that individuals descend from the same direct male line. While such tests do not usually prove that one individual was a descendant of another, it is sometimes that case that a direct descent can be proven by Y-DNA evidence. This is another case that definitely falls into the category of genealogy. (Of course, attempts to fill in the missing generations with undocumented conjectures is not genealogy in any serious scholarly sense.)

> >> If your statement is meant simply to say someone prefers not making up facts from no evidence.... I think we are all in agreement on that. It is in no case a counter-argument to Peter's point.
> >>
> >> We are all descended from fish. While this is interesting from a scientific perspective, it is not genealogy. And I would argue investigating how we are descended from fish is *far* more interesting than knowing vaguely, that maybe, there is an Achaemenid ancestor in our tree.
> >>
> >> --Joe Cook
> >
> > I meant that, in this kind of cases, Stewart Baldwin is willing to accept that X was probably descended from Y but not conjecture an exact line of descent.
> >
>
> I agree with Joe's well-made points.
>
> Like everyone else living today, I am descended from countless people
> who lived in antiquity; but I can't identify any one of them or trace
> any line to that time which is even nearly continuous - and I don't care
> a fig. It would provide nothing but a momentary vainglorious buzz if I
> could, and it would provide nothing at all but a worthless curiosity to
> anyone else.

I'm not sure that you should be speaking for others with regard to how much interest they might have in such a long descent. Trying to find a long ancestry has been a major motivating factor to many genealogists, and this is not changed by the fact that so many of them do poor research.

> The point of medieval genealogy is to substantiate as full a picture as
> practicable through interpretation of documents or failing that through
> deduction from circumstantial evidence.
>
> Pre-supposing a result and then jamming odd jigsaw pieces together in
> order to achieve a distorted semblance of that imagined picture is not
> at all the same pursuit. I still do not understand why some people
> expend time and effort on this kind of futile chase after will-o-the-wisps.

I agree with much of this, but I would not apply the term "will-o-the-wisps" to all DFA research. For example, as I stated in an earlier posting, a reasonably good (but not certain) case can be made that the nineteenth century Bagratid king of Georgia were descended from the Arsacids, by a "discontinuous" descent that ran through the Mamikonids and Gregorids. The fact that an approximate route can be specified for this descent makes this a reasonably good candidate for a "discontinuous DFA." This example needs to be distinguished from the attempts to link this line to the medieval European nobility through the Byzantines, which are largely guesswork, or the even more questionable attempts to link back to the Achaemenids or further.

Stewart Baldwin

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Aug-20 1:09 PM, sba...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:07:41 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 05-Aug-20 2:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>> terça-feira, 4 de Agosto de 2020 às 15:20:48 UTC+1, joseph cook escreveu:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thing is, even the generally skeptical Stewart Baldwin accepts discontinuous descents. Indeed, he prefers it to conjecturing exact descent.
>
> This is misleading, and easily misinterpreted. While I have no objection to conjectures in principle, provided that the uncertainties are adequately stated (often not the case), I have little taste for strings of conjectures that have been made solely for the purpose of filling in the "generations" between one person and an alleged ancestor. Temporarily making such conjectures may sometimes be convenient at an intermediate stage of the research in order to decide where to look next, but they need to be abandoned if supporting evidence is not found. Far too often, such conjectures take on a life of their own, and this can often happen when the goal becomes to find a line of descent between X and Y without first having any clear evidence that such a descent exists.
>
>>>> I think it is wise not to speak for people who are present here and can ably speak for themselves. However, nobody "prefers" "discontinuous descents", whatever that phrase is supposed to mean. It absolutely does not fall under the category of "Genealogy" however.
>
> I would have to disagree. To take a simple case, someone might name a person as their grandson in their last will and testament. If the identity of the intervening generation cannot be established by other evidence, then you have an example of a what I have called a "discontinuous" genealogical relationship.

This is not a discontinuous relationship at all, but just one with a
name (and possibly also that continuously-related personage's gender)
missing. By a discontinuous line I mean one where not even the number of
generations within a gap, much less the exact connections with or
without names, can be established.

>
> Another example, with a possibly uncertain number of generations, can come from knowing that someone was the legal heir of a certain individual. To mention another possibility that has recently become available, Y-DNA tests can be used to prove that individuals descend from the same direct male line. While such tests do not usually prove that one individual was a descendant of another, it is sometimes that case that a direct descent can be proven by Y-DNA evidence. This is another case that definitely falls into the category of genealogy. (Of course, attempts to fill in the missing generations with undocumented conjectures is not genealogy in any serious scholarly sense.)

This is not genealogy but genetics - the studies have distinct names
because they are different disciplines.

>
>>>> If your statement is meant simply to say someone prefers not making up facts from no evidence.... I think we are all in agreement on that. It is in no case a counter-argument to Peter's point.
>>>>
>>>> We are all descended from fish. While this is interesting from a scientific perspective, it is not genealogy. And I would argue investigating how we are descended from fish is *far* more interesting than knowing vaguely, that maybe, there is an Achaemenid ancestor in our tree.
>>>>
>>>> --Joe Cook
>>>
>>> I meant that, in this kind of cases, Stewart Baldwin is willing to accept that X was probably descended from Y but not conjecture an exact line of descent.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Joe's well-made points.
>>
>> Like everyone else living today, I am descended from countless people
>> who lived in antiquity; but I can't identify any one of them or trace
>> any line to that time which is even nearly continuous - and I don't care
>> a fig. It would provide nothing but a momentary vainglorious buzz if I
>> could, and it would provide nothing at all but a worthless curiosity to
>> anyone else.
>
> I'm not sure that you should be speaking for others with regard to how much interest they might have in such a long descent.

Obviously I'm not purporting to speak for anyone else - I didn't say
that others would regard it as a worthless curiosity but just expressed
MY OWN view that it would be one.

> Trying to find a long ancestry has been a major motivating factor to many genealogists, and this is not changed by the fact that so many of them do poor research.

Trying to find cold fusion has been a major motivating factor for some
physicists. Where did it get them?

>
>> The point of medieval genealogy is to substantiate as full a picture as
>> practicable through interpretation of documents or failing that through
>> deduction from circumstantial evidence.
>>
>> Pre-supposing a result and then jamming odd jigsaw pieces together in
>> order to achieve a distorted semblance of that imagined picture is not
>> at all the same pursuit. I still do not understand why some people
>> expend time and effort on this kind of futile chase after will-o-the-wisps.
>
> I agree with much of this, but I would not apply the term "will-o-the-wisps" to all DFA research. For example, as I stated in an earlier posting, a reasonably good (but not certain) case can be made that the nineteenth century Bagratid king of Georgia were descended from the Arsacids, by a "discontinuous" descent that ran through the Mamikonids and Gregorids. The fact that an approximate route can be specified for this descent makes this a reasonably good candidate for a "discontinuous DFA." This example needs to be distinguished from the attempts to link this line to the medieval European nobility through the Byzantines, which are largely guesswork, or the even more questionable attempts to link back to the Achaemenids or further.

A discontinuous descent to modern Bagratids (despite making little or no
allowance for our ignorance of adoption practices to ensure succession
at times within the vast span of the putative lineage - as, say, with
Rajput ruling families in India) is not exactly what I would classify as
substantial genealogy rather than an exercise in wish-fulfillment.

Peter Stewart

[P J Evans]

As it happens, I have this exact situation in my family: a fourth great-grandfather left a will naming all ten of his sons, his daughter, a granddaughter, and the granddaughter's daughter - but though I've documented the granddaughter's marriage, the marriage bond names one of her uncles, not her father. (Unfortunately, the names are too common to go searching for the possible fathers.)

[P J Evans]

I also have the DNA situation - a man whose brother's DNA tests show that they're descendants of someone in Connecticut, but there are two generations between them and the descendants that I'm aware of.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.

I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry. I vaguely remember
something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but my
recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.

Stewart Baldwin

[miked]

Excuse my ignorance, but why bother with a dodgy line via the Savoyards? Wernt
the later kings of Georgia [i believe the last was George XII d1800 who had 23
kids] descended from the Bagratids or Bagratuni/Bagration dynasts who ruled in
Armenia and Georgia in the Middle Ages? I saw somewhere in the media that
the 2 rival lines of Georgian claimants had recently reunited at a wedding. So
there are plenty of descendants of the Bagratids hopping about still, surely the
problem areas are before the 8th and ninth century, and while there have been
many attempts to connect the medieval Bagratids with earlier families
such as the mamikonians by the usual suspects in DFA studies, they all seem
to involve a lot of people called NN, [..] or unknown.

Mike

mike

[taf]

On 2/18/2024 10:12 AM, miked wrote:
> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
>>> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy
>>> has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity,
>>> don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the
>>> Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the
>>> Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
>
>> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry.  I vaguely remember
>> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but
>> my recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
>
>> Stewart Baldwin
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but why bother with a dodgy line via the Savoyards?
> Wernt the later kings of Georgia [i believe the last was George XII
> d1800 who had 23 kids] descended from the Bagratids or
> Bagratuni/Bagration dynasts who ruled in Armenia and Georgia in the
> Middle Ages?

For whatever reason, there is interest in identifying connections to
Western European dynasties. For those, even for the dodgy ones (dodgy
connections, not necessarily dodgy dynasties), you often end up with a
medieval tie-in to the Bagratids rather than a modern one.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Maybe it's because Western European dynasts tend to have been not so
much Bagratids as Ratbagids, and even a fantasy DNA might make them seem
more respectable.

But still no-one has substantiated to my mind that this could ever have
value beyond satisfying an optimistic curiosity. Almost any tidbit of
actual history can have interest and value as adding to knowledge and
understanding of humankind. "Horizontal" genealogy included, as
relationships between individuals and families in their own time and
even across living-memory stretches of time can illuminate behaviours.
But "vertical" genealogy across millennia - surely not so much.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[Will Johnson]

test

[Will Johnson]

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 8:25:55 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

Yes just so. The purported line which makes the House of Savoy descend from the Bagratid's has a lot of guesses and hand waving in it.

[taf]

Just as a general rule, the more exotic/desirable the line, the more
relaxed the standards of evidence tend to become.

taf

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Please, elaborate.