Garry Kasparov and the missing One Thousand Years
Sam Sloan
<musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
>New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
>designate as 1000 A.D.
>http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
>
>Bob Musicant
This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
Sam Sloan
Andy.III
>
>Sam Sloan
Let's just say that if he was correct the days that would have been needed to
adjust the Julian Calendar to Gregorian would have been a lot less... to say
nothing of the mezo-american records!
Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
Gordon Banks
everything else.
Nick
message news:<40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net>...
> "Bob Musicant" <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> > New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> > designate as 1000 A.D.
> > http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
>
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
When supposedly "there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300",
what happened to everyone outside of Europe? Did they also have a jump,
or did they have to wait until it was their turn again? :-)
Sam Sloan could begin by reading some scholarly books about European history
(A.D. 300 - 1300). Most scholars should lack the time, energy, and inclination
to respond to such a ludicrous Eurocentric 'millennium denial' hypothesis.
--Nick
Julian Richards
>When supposedly "there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300",
>what happened to everyone outside of Europe? Did they also have a jump,
>or did they have to wait until it was their turn again? :-)
>
>Sam Sloan could begin by reading some scholarly books about European history
>(A.D. 300 - 1300). Most scholars should lack the time, energy, and inclination
>to respond to such a ludicrous Eurocentric 'millennium denial' hypothesis.
This missing 1000 years is one hell of a millenium, even in Europe.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
Valente Silva
I live and I was born in Portugal, a country whose "funding fathers" dates
from XI and XII century. The country was funded legally in 1143 in a well
preserved document. In Portugal any kid with 7 or 8 years learn in school
dates like 1128 - 1143 - 1179 etc. There are millions of books written about
the period 300-1300 and millions of written documents exist in Europe, old
buildings, artifacts. etc. Near any small town or village in Europe have
written documents and material vestiges from the period 300-1300.
I have a better theory, chess Grand Masters era ended in 1972 after Fisher
retired from chess, after that all off them are computer robots.
Mark J
One example is Islam, which was developed in the 7th Century. There
are records of Islamic history (including European Islamic conquests
beginning in the 10th or 11th Century) that cover the supposedly
missing years from that point on. New Chronology is BS.
Mark
Dick Wisan
>
>This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
>Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
>know little did not exist at all.
Well, plenty of people in SHM will tell you there was no such thing
as Dark Ages.
> In other words, there was a jump
>from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
but, not for that reason.
>
>While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
>prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
>thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
Impossible. How could it be wrong? There was no such thing as a
thousand-year period in anybody's history were basically nothing
happened. On the other hand, if there were, why would anybody
assign numbers like 300-1300 to it? If there were such a period,
it would be very very dark, much too dark to be numbered.
Is that how the reasoning goes?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Bob Musicant
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net...
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened. <snip>
Don't tell that to the Christians. It was early in the 300s that Emperor
Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.
Other notable non-events during this period include:
The fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476
The Persian and Byzantine empires went to war, 539
Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina, 622 (Year 1 in the Islamic calendar)
Arabs conquered Jerusalem, 637 (following their conquest of Syria, Persia,
and Egypt)
Arabs began their takeover of North Africa, 670
Arabs conquered Spain, 711
Charles ("the Hammer") Martel halted the westward advance of the Arabs at
the Battle of Tours, 732
Reign of Charlemagne 771-814
Danish attacks on Britain, 800s
By and large, the 900s were indeed kind of slow, with the most notable
development, from a Eurocentric point of view, being the beginning of the
Christian re-conquest of Spain.
Of course, things picked up again in the 1000s, what with William conquering
England in 1066, and Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to take the Holy
Land from the Moslems, 1095, and the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in
1099.
Need we continue? And of course this says nothing about what was going on
in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
You and Garry should stick to chess.
Bob
nowonmai
Uh..The Wandering of the Nations? The Norman Conquest? The
crusades???
Does Kasparov actually believe this crap? He's not playing chess, he
believes in crackpot notions (they can't even be called theories).
Shades of another former champion (shudder)...
Sam Sloan
>In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>
>
>>
>>
>> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
>> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
>> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
>> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>>
>> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
>> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
>> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>> happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>>
>
>
>ECJ
They have a big article on Carbon-14 dating. See
http://www.new-tradition.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm#
Essentially, they say that Carbon-14 dating was calibrated using
objects of "known age". If it turns out that those objects are really
a thousand years younger than previously believed, that causes the
re-calibration of everything else to the dates they suggest.
I am not advocating their theory. I am simply stating that there is no
evidence that I know of that disproves it. For example, they state
that the pyramids of Egypt were built in 800 to 900 AD. I agree that
this seems ridiculous. However, the pyramids are still a mystery.
Nobody has been able to prove how they were built.
Lonnie Kwartler (who teaches high school history and has obviously
encountered this theory before) correctly points out that this is a
Russian theory. Garry Kasparov did not invent it. The developers of
this theory were Nicolai A. Morozov and Anatoly T. Fomenko. Kwartler
says that the Russians figure that since they have no knowledge of
their own history (having been overrun by the Mongol Hordes) that
nobody else does either.
I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching my
own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?
Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
wrong.
Sam Sloan
MTaHT
>own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
>all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
>back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
>not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
>1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
>of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
>impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
>example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
>we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?
>
>Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
>today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
>and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
>wrong.
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>
>
>
>
>
I know of many of my own and other folks ancestral lines that extend to before
1300 with no royal ancestors.
There are factors that do make ancestral ties across the 1500s difficult, many
tied to religious upheaval.
A chief problem was the population explosion which intensified in this period.
More births, fewer clergy interested in keeping track of them, governments had
not begin to pitch in on keeping vital records.
A second problem was the rise of many new religions who were not "religious"
about record keeping. Prior church records mentioned the parents names and
many even recorded the grandparents at marriages. Some of the new religions
mentioned only the wedding couple and two witnesses, when records were kept at
all.
France, in particular, lost many vital records due to church burnings and
general vandalism. Many Calvinists believed that all beautiful works of man
were evil. Most books of the period were quite pretty.
Best wishes,
Mike Talbot
Bob Musicant
> At 07:49 PM 1/14/2004 EST, chess...@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >sl...@ishipress.com writes:
I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching my
own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?
> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
Well, yes, royalty probably did keep better records than commoners. On the
other hand, there is a very detailed record of England's inhabitants during
the reign of William the Conqueror: "The Domesday book was commissioned in
December 1085 by William the Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The
first draft was completed in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418
settlements in the English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the
border with Scotland at the time)." http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/
What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
battlefield sites.
Bob
Sam Sloan
<musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
>> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
>> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
>> wrong.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>Sam,
>
>Well, yes, royalty probably did keep better records than commoners. On the
>other hand, there is a very detailed record of England's inhabitants during
>the reign of William the Conqueror: "The Domesday book was commissioned in
>December 1085 by William the Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The
>first draft was completed in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418
>settlements in the English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the
>border with Scotland at the time)." http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/
>
>What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
>War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
>about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
>designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
>battlefield sites.
>
>Bob
Of course, I know that the American Civil War took place because when
I was a boy growing up in the South there were people still alive who
had been alive during the war and would talk about it as though it had
happened last week.
Similarly, when I was researching my book "The Slave Children of
Thomas Jefferson" I read over a thousand letters hand-written by
Thomas Jefferson himself on the original paper and ink used by Thomas
Jefferson.
However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
years later, what the book really contained?
Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
books that we can read today were written in Latin? Why not in
English, German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language. Their theory
is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of Plato,
Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but
what is the proof that this is wrong?
As an example, the following question will often appear on a high
school history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me
your ears?"
The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that. This
is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare. However, the fiction
written by Shakespeare has been accepted as historical fact in the
minds of many if not most. How can we be entirely sure that similarly
the Bible for example was not an original fictional work created by a
13th century Italian author?
By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
Sam Sloan
Chris Phillips
Sam Sloan wrote:
> However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
> I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
> even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
> years later, what the book really contained?
Check out:
http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/ExternalRequest.asp?RequestReference=ri2108
(or any of a thousand and one other Domesday-related pages on the Internet)
Chris Phillips
W Johnson
> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong.
>
the Domesday book?
Will
Sam Sloan
>Sam, what about the Greek Thales measuring the height of the pyramids by
>using shadows. That occurred over 2000 years ago.
>
>Yours, Larry
The answer to this question is at their website
http://www.new-tradition.org
"Serious scientific facts have been collected in this book which prove
that as early as the 12th century A.D, all of Eurasia was pagan, and
human sacrifice and slavery prospered in Europe.
We shall cite a multitude of evidence which testifies that all
"ancient" manuscripts are literary works of the 15th and 16th
centuries and that there never was in reality an "ancient" Rome and
Greece as modern historical science teaches us.
We have collected the conclusions of dozens of scholars from various
countries, who say irrefutably that the most ancient monument of
mankind, the pyramids of Egypt, were constructed in the period between
the 10th and 13th centuries A.D., that is as recently as 800 - 900
years ago."
Please understand again that I am not advocating this. I am just
reporting that Garry Kasparov believes this.
Sam Sloan
nowonmai
The American civil war never happened. I am Curly Howard of the Three
Stooges reincarnate. There is an invisible magic elf on my shoulder.
Prove that I'm wrong.
Renia
>
> However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
> I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
> even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
> years later, what the book really contained?
Domesday Book does survive and is in the Public Record Office in London.
I'm surprised you don't know that.
Facsimile copies with translations published by Phillimore are available
plus hosts of other translations.
Renia
W Johnson
snip
> However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
> I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
> even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
> years later, what the book really contained?
>
Will
marshall kirk
as tho' I were trying to withhold information) why there aren't any
records of, say, births, marriages, and deaths for an early period in
a given area, was usually some version of this: why SHOULD there be
records? What motivation, precisely, did people have in (say)
15th-century England, or much later on the American frontier, to write
down on a piece of paper the fact that a child had been born, along
with name, date, and place? People don't do much, especially as a
general practice, without some compelling reason. From the point of
view of the Church, there was great theological motivation to
*baptize* a child -- the putative salvation of its immortal soul (also
putative) -- but markedly less motivation to write down the mere fact
that this had been done, unless and until circumstances arose in which
it became important (again, probably for reasons connected with the
application of canon law to situations in need of adjudication)) to
prove, by appeal to written record, that the ceremony had been
performed. (And even then, I can see no good reason to keep such
records long after the deaths of all the baptizees recorded, unless
such evidence was needed for determination of consanguinity among
their descendants.) IIRC, the order for the uniform recording of
English baptisms in uniform parochial registers, beginning in, I
think, 1538 or so, emanated from the court of Henry VIII, not the
Church as such (tho' the difference may be a bit moot), and *his*
motivation here was probably at least in part related to the need to
pin down the demographics relevant to realistic possibilities for
taxation, the Tudors being awfully interested in money. (Ditto for
censuses.) Why, indeed, should farmers in colonial New England have
taken hours off from their hard and pressing rural work to make a trek
to the town clerk, just to have him write down in a book the fact that
they'd sired yet another child -- especially when (a) they may have
had to pay for the 'service,' and (b) they'd often already had the kid
baptized, anyway? What was 'in it' for them? We've got so used,
today, to having to fill out a form every time we use the john that
it's become second nature, and it doesn't seem to occur to people to
realize that the real question is not why paper records are in short
supply for early periods, but why there are even so many of them.
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net>...
Renia
> My reply to library patrons who'd ask me (often a little accusingly,
> as tho' I were trying to withhold information) why there aren't any
> records of, say, births, marriages, and deaths for an early period in
> a given area, was usually some version of this: why SHOULD there be
> records?
In England, it became compusory to keep Parish Registers from 1538.
Prior to this, it was up to the individual incumbent but not all priests
immediately complied with this. Many of the early registers, however,
have been lost, for a variety of reasons. Missing ones still turn up in
the stranges of places, usually in private hands.
The priests were also supposed to send copies of the registers to the
Bishop, known as Bishops' Transcripts, but the survival of these is much
more spasmodic and the information in them can vary from what appears in
the PRs. The bulk of the material in the IGI comes from printed BTs.
Prior to this, any such records were for inheritance or breeding
purposes and if lucky, the researcher might find such material hidden in
the family papers of the aristocracy.
You do mention some of this in your wordy and paragraph-free monologue,
the rest of which I have snipped.
Renia
Erik Toussaint
> Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
> books that we can read today were written in Latin?
Not really, I think. During those so called 'dark ages' most europeans
were illiterate. Those ancient texts were preserved in the libraries of
monasteries (sp?). They were copied by christian (catholic) monks, who
used Latin as their formal language.
But apart from that, I don't think there are only Latin texts. Some
others like Greek, Hebrew and the likes must have remained, although I'm
not 100% sure of that.
> Why not in
> English,
Beowulf, the oldest known text in (Old) English, dates from before the
tenth century, if I'm to believe this website:
http://www.enotes.com/beowulf/
> German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language.
There also exist ancient Chinese texts.
> Their theory
> is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of Plato,
> Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
> 16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but
> what is the proof that this is wrong?
What would you accept as proof?
But I don't think you should ask for proof that this theory is wrong,
instead ask for proof that this theory is valid. That is how a
scientific way of researching history is supposed to work.
> As an example, the following question will often appear on a high
> school history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me
> your ears?"
>
> The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
>
> But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that.
We can be pretty sure that he didn't say it like this, in English. I'm
not sure if we can know if he never said this in Latin, unless a
complete and reliable transcription of all the speeches he ever gave exists.
> This
> is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare. However, the fiction
> written by Shakespeare has been accepted as historical fact in the
> minds of many if not most.
This is a problem of education of the masses, not a real problem of
scientific historic research.
> How can we be entirely sure that similarly
> the Bible for example was not an original fictional work created by a
> 13th century Italian author?
This depends upon your faith in the currently used methods of dating
ancient texts. I believe that recently texts have been found which date
back to the first century AD, which contain parts of Bible texts.
> By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
> another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
> date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
Weren't there rumours that they contained 'shocking' facts about the
origin of christianity, whatever that may mean?
Erik.
GRHa...@aol.com
books that we can read today were written in Latin? Why not in
English, German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Don't you think it possible that most of the people who had the ability to
write were monks and other church men? Wouldn't they have written in Latin
because that was the language used across Europe by the church? Isn't it possible
that writings in the "vernacular" were a long time in the future?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Liam Too
>> I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching
my
> own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
> all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
> back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
> not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
> 1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
> of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
> impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
> example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
> we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?<<
There's something about the 16th century that makes people doubt about
the events taking place. This is the same reason why a lot of people
and scholars have debated the real authorship of the Works of William
Shakespeare. Non-believers of the Bard from Stratford said that he is
illiterate, how can he have written the canon of Shakespeare. True,
the Kings School in Stratford that Shakespeare purportedly went to
school to, do not have a record of all the pupils in that school in
the 16th century. This has become the basis of the proponents of the
Marlovians, Baconians, Oxfordians, etc., that William Shakespeare of
Stratford did not write the Shakespearean canon.
>
>
> What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
> War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
> about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
> designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
> battlefield sites. Bob<<
The books of Qumran that was unearthed decades ago serve as the
authenticator of the Bible. The books of historians who were there
during the American Civil War said it all. If Sam Sloan will not
accept these proofs, then I don't know what kind of proof will he
accept.
Lance Smith
Gordon Banks
ANYTHING exists. The universe could just be a dream going on in your own
head. So let's stop talking about how it is impossible to disprove any
crazy idea. We all should agree to that. Not being able to disprove
something isn't evidence for it.
Gordon Banks
translated from Greek.
John Lamont
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
> <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> >New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> >designate as 1000 A.D.
> >http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> >Bob Musicant
>
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
> Sam Sloan
In fact it is thought among many historians that the "dark" ages
really weren't quite as dark as we are usually led to believe, just
that the traditional institutions of society were mainly run by the
Catholic church, which had it's own views on things, and since it
controlled pretty much all of Europe nobody saw any real reason to
change. Europe was forced to advance though, Spiritually,
Scientifically, and otherwise due mainly to rise of Protestantism and
the threat, whether real of perceived, of the Ottoman Empire and other
Muslim encroachment into Europe.
In the aftermath of the Roman Empire, I suppose you could view
the Middle ages as a move away from citizen governments to a more
spiritually bound type of system. It doesn't mean the people
themselves were any more pious, just that they were willing to let
their lives be directed by their Fuedal Lords, who in turn were held
in check (theoretically) by the church.
In a sense the Dark Ages were really more a period of stagnation
where society naturally "regressed" from the "golden" era of Rome and
Greece as widespread empires dissolved but in terms of proletariat
rights and other modern ideas of a "cultured" society I wouldn't say
peasants were any better or worse off than any other time in history
before say 1700-1800 AD.
John Lamont
> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
>
> Sam Sloan
There are many Churchs and Christian religious objects that can be
proved date-wise to come from before 1000 AD even without
carbon-dating. The Dead Sea Scolls for example, which are obviously
related to the bible, show signs of metal fatigue on the copper that
could not occur naturally in only 500 or so years.
Simon Pugh
<sl...@ishipress.com> writes
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
><musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
>>New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
>>designate as 1000 A.D.
>>http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
>>
>>Bob Musicant
>
>This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
>Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
>know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
>from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
>While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
>prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
>thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
>Sam Sloan
>
Isn't this blown out of the water by the eclipses, both solar and lunar,
that are recorded during the period that supposedly doesn't exit. A
quick play with Starry Night and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle should
convince anyone.
--
Simon Pugh
Remove X for email
Doug McDonald
>
>
> Need we continue? And of course this says nothing about what was going on
> in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
>
And even more telling, since it is quite sure that there was no
conspiracy, the civilization in Guatemala and Mexico, though this
poops out well before 1300.
You simply can't get rid of those 1000 years without
screwing up the eclipse tables. Everybody's eclipse
tables agree, by the way.
Doug McDonald
wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu
> At 07:49 PM 1/14/2004 EST, chess...@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >sl...@ishipress.com writes:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> >> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> >> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> >> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
> >>
> >> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> >> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> >> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> >> happened.
Your instincts were correct. No such period existed.
Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
> >>
> >> Sam Sloan
> >>
> >
> >Um...Carbon-14 dating?
> >
> >ECJ
>
> They have a big article on Carbon-14 dating.
That is certainly not a "big article". Just a few
incorrect claims.
See
> http://www.new-tradition.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm#
>
> Essentially, they say that Carbon-14 dating was calibrated using
> objects of "known age".
In the first place it is not necessary to calibrate
C-14. Uncalibrated C-14 dates are approximate, but
reliable enough to refute the missing one thousand
year theory. Not to mention dating old kingdom
Egyptian works to 900 AD.
In the second place C-14 can be and is calibrated against
tree ring records, which themselves can be dated by simple
counting with an error rate of about 2% (due to missing
rings, mostly).
Hundreds of large volcanos erupted in this interval, leaving
detectable ash on the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
These can also be dated (and C-14 has absolutely nothing to
do with this) and compared with historical and other
records. Again, no thousand year gap.
Finally, objects can be dated by other means (thermoluminescence
dating, fission track dating, even amino-acid dating) and these,
oddly enough, also fail to show a 1000 year gap
If it turns out that those objects are really
> a thousand years younger than previously believed, that causes the
> re-calibration of everything else to the dates they suggest.
No. There is a huge difference in C-14 activity between
objects dating from 300 and those from 1300. Much, much
more than differences in calibration can account for.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Bob Musicant
<snip>
> Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
> books that we can read today were written in Latin? Why not in
> English, German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language. Their theory
> is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of Plato,
> Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
> 16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but
> what is the proof that this is wrong?
>
> As an example, the following question will often appear on a high
> school history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me
> your ears?"
>
> The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
>
> But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that. This
> is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare. However, the fiction
> written by Shakespeare has been accepted as historical fact in the
> minds of many if not most. How can we be entirely sure that similarly
> the Bible for example was not an original fictional work created by a
> 13th century Italian author?
>
> By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
> another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
> date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
>
> Sam Sloan
From the website of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem:
"The Shrine of the Book was erected in 1965 for the preservation and
exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As the fragility of the scrolls makes it
impossible to display them on a continuous basis, a system of scroll
rotation has recently been developed. After a scroll has been exhibited for
3-6 months, it is removed from its showcase and placed temporarily in a
special storeroom, where it is given a "rest" from exposure. Scrolls that
had been removed from exhibition are replaced by other authentic scroll
fragments."
http://www.imj.org.il/eng/shrine/scrollsondisplay.html
Soren Larsen
news:nRKG9UE+...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk
Or the good calibration of the C14 dates you get with wood dated
by dendrochronology.
Soren Larsen
Brad Verity
> My reply to library patrons who'd ask me (often a little accusingly,
> as tho' I were trying to withhold information) why there aren't any
> records of, say, births, marriages, and deaths for an early period in
> a given area, was usually some version of this: why SHOULD there be
> records? What motivation, precisely, did people have in (say)
> 15th-century England, or much later on the American frontier, to write
> down on a piece of paper the fact that a child had been born, along
> with name, date, and place?
In 15th-century England, if the parents held land, there was strong
motivation to record the birth and/or christening of each child, as
there was potential that the child could become the heir to the land.
And if the holder of the land died while the heir was a minor, the
heir would have to Prove their Age upon reaching majority (21 for
lads, 14 or 16 for lasses) in order to gain seisin (right to enter and
possess) the inheritance, which was held by a guardian (the crown, if
the heir was a tenant in chief) until the heir's majority.
Proof of Ages exist from Edward I's reign through Henry VIII's reign,
I believe. I'm not sure when they ceased, though as Renia pointed
out, it may have been around 1538 when Parish Registers became
mandatory. The procedure for a proof of age was, upon petition of the
heir, the crown would issue a writ to the escheator of the county in
which the heir was born to hold a Proof of Age. Male witnesses (about
a dozen) were then brought in front of the escheator to testify that
they were aware the heir had reached the age of majority and why.
Usually it was because they were in the location when the heir was
born and either witnessed or had a more active role in the heir's
christening ceremony. Many witnesses also mention that they know the
ceremony occurred 21 years ago, for example, because they saw it
written in the book of the church.
In modern days, as you point out, with drivers licenses, birth
certificates, etc., the thought of actually having to produce
objective (no parent or relatives) witnesses to prove the day of our
birth seems quaint, but that's how it was done in 15th century
England. Even members of the royal family had to Prove their Age
before they were granted the right to enter their inheritance.
Philippa, Countess of Ulster, granddaughter of Edward III, is a
14th-century example. Even though you would think the king was well
aware how old his firstborn grandchild was, she still had to produce
objective witnesses in front of the escheator and have it all
recorded.
So churches, abbeys, etc., did keep books with births/christenings
recorded in 14th and 15th century England (not sure about earlier than
that), but as Renia pointed out, finding any that have survived
through the centuries to today is a challenge, as the ransacking
during the Dissolution scattered them far and wide.
Cheers, ------Brad
marshall kirk
unless the poster has a multiple personality, or is addressing
multiple *points* in a previous post (which I was not), what he writes
is inevitably going to be monologue.
I don't paragraph where no paragraph is really called for --
especially in a post to a discussion forum. (Nor do I spend a great
deal of effort proofreading -- again, because it's a mere post in a
discussion forum, not a solicited article for the latest _Encyclopedia
Britannica_. My standard of editorial accuracy is more than adequate
for the immediate purpose.)
Wordy? That's a matter of opinion and taste, which we clearly don't
share. I use such words -- and such illustrations -- as seem likely
to express my position with maximum clarity. If posts here have a
characteristic fault, it's precisely that they often *aren't* "wordy"
enough for the reader to be clear as to the author's intent. Your
"snipped" version is a telling example, as it leaves what is now a
somewhat cryptic remark dangling in mid-air, *sans* illustration ...
and also pares away some of the same additional points *you* make --
some of which, you're so gracious as to admit, I do mention. (Your
own first paragraph could stand some clarification, since it's not
clear whether, by "early registers," you mean prior to or following
1538. If you do mean "prior to," as your wording suggests, the
statement that "many ... have been lost" is a whopping
understatement.)
In any event, who died and made you Editor-in-Chief?
Additional information is welcome, but pointless venom isn't. Your
last remark is snotty and hateful, like all too much of what I read
here. Fortunately, I'm no more obliged to read you in future than you
were to read me. (You weren't, you know. If you dislike what I have
to say, and the way I say it, so intensely, why do you bother reading
it?)
--mk
Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message news:<bu6ciq$m06$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>...
Simon Pugh
<soh...@tiscali.dk> writes
Or the precession of the equinoxes. :-)
Nick
> > While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to prove
> > it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a thousand-year
>
> Don't tell that to the Christians.
Dear Bob,
Yes, it might be prudent not to mention some historical events to them. :-)
> It was early in the 300s that Emperor Constantine made Christianity
> the religion of the Roman Empire.
>
> Other notable non-events during this period include:
> The fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476
> The Persian and Byzantine empires went to war, 539
> Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina, 622 (Year 1 in the Islamic calendar)
> Arabs conquered Jerusalem, 637 (following their conquest of Syria, Persia,
> and Egypt)
> Arabs began their takeover of North Africa, 670
> Arabs conquered Spain, 711
> Charles ("the Hammer") Martel halted the westward advance of the Arabs at
> the Battle of Tours, 732
> Reign of Charlemagne 771-814
> Danish attacks on Britain, 800s
> By and large, the 900s were indeed kind of slow, with the most notable
> development, from a Eurocentric point of view, being the beginning of the
> Christian re-conquest of Spain.
> Of course, things picked up again in the 1000s, what with William conquering
> England in 1066, and Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to take the Holy
> Land from the Moslems, 1095, and the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in 1099.
A 'Millennium denial' hypothesis seems even harder to accept than
a 'Holocaust denial' hypothesis (which also is ludicrous).
> Need we continue? And of course this says nothing about what was going on
> in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
Yes, as I already have observed, the 'Mathematics of the Past' article by
Garry Kasparov is based on an *exclusively* Eurocentric distortion of history.
> You and Garry should stick to chess.
Ah, but since when have Garry Kasparov and Sam Sloan been 'stick(ing)
to chess'? :-)
--Nick
Nick
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:45:32 GMT, "Bob Musicant" wrote to Sam Sloan:
> > (snipped)
> > What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
> > War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
> > about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
> > designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
> > battlefield sites.
>
> I was a boy growing up in the South there were people still alive who
> had been alive during the war and would talk about it as though it had
> happened last week.
By his standards of 'historical evidence', however, how could Sam Sloan
*prove* that those witnesses were *not* part of a conspiracy to lie to him?
> (snipped)
> Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
> books that we can read today were written in Latin?
It's not 'noteworthy' because it's not true.
> Why not in English, German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language.
English, German, and Spanish are languages that developed after ancient times,
which, according to a conventional western European historical view, might be
said to have concluded with the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476.
Here's a link to a British Library website about the world's earliest dated
printed book, the Diamond Sutra (AD 868), which is a translation of a Sanskrit
text into Chinese:
http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/diamond.html
> Their theory is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of
> Plato, Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
> 16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but what
> is the proof that this is wrong?
Some classical Greek texts became known again to the Europeans of the
Renaissance after they had been translated from Arabic (Arab scholars had
translated them earlier from Greek) into Latin.
> As an example, the following question will often appear on a high school
> history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me your ears?"
Really? On a "high school *history* exam" as distinguished from a "high
school *English literature* exam"? What kind of United States high school
did Sam Sloan attend?
> The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
Who otherwise may be known in history as Marc *Antony*. :-)
> But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that.
Of course, the historical Marc Antony did not even speak English, which did
not yet exist as a language. But the dramatic character of 'Marc Antony'
did say that in the play, 'Julius Caesar'.
> This is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare.
Ah, evidently Sam Sloan would dispute the 'anti-Stratfordians'!
> However, the fiction written by Shakespeare has been accepted as
> historical fact in the minds of many if not most.
But not by professional scholars who have devoted their careers to
studying what they believe are 'historical facts'.
> How can we be entirely sure that similarly the Bible for example was not
> an original fictional work created by a 13th century Italian author?
> By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
> another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
> date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
Who knows? Perhaps the secret of how to play chess perfectly? :-)
--Nick
GRHa...@aol.com
In the aftermath of the Roman Empire, I suppose you could view
the Middle ages as a move away from citizen governments to a more
spiritually bound type of system. It doesn't mean the people
themselves were any more pious, just that they were willing to let
their lives be directed by their Fuedal Lords, who in turn were held
in check (theoretically) by the church.
In a sense the Dark Ages were really more a period of stagnation
where society naturally "regressed" from the "golden" era of Rome and
Greece as widespread empires dissolved but in terms of proletariat
rights and other modern ideas of a "cultured" society I wouldn't say
peasants were any better or worse off than any other time in history
before say 1700-1800 AD.
Erik Toussaint
>>As an example, the following question will often appear on a high school
>>history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me your ears?"
>
> Really? On a "high school *history* exam" as distinguished from a "high
> school *English literature* exam"? What kind of United States high school
> did Sam Sloan attend?
>
>>The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
>
> Who otherwise may be known in history as Marc *Antony*. :-)
Or Marcus Antonius. Why is it that some Roman names get shortened like
this in the English language? And if it happens, why doesn't it happen
consistently? Why is it Julius Caesar and not July Caesar then?
Erik.
Alex
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
> <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> >New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> >designate as 1000 A.D.
> >http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> >Bob Musicant
>
> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all.
With Kasparov's one and only more or less history-related reference being
Gibbon, his general knowledge of history probably could be safely
described as "nonexisting" so what he contends or not contends to, outside
chess area is of no importance. :-)
>In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
IMO is article shows nothing besides two things: (a) he is more or less
oblivious of a history in general and (b) the primitive mathematical
models do not work for forward or backward projections. Following the
same methods, Marx predicted that industrialization will result in an
explosive growth of the number of factory workers. Which did not happen.
K's speculations regarding the Roman technology do not really work: there
was no "progress" (in Kasparov's meaning) over couple thousands years of
Ancient history. Egypt had a well-developed technology and probably
something impressive can be diffed from the Ancient China as well. Still,
all these millenias did not result in a working steam engine or in Newton's
mathematics (not to mention a simple "0"). Maybe somebody added all these
millenias as well?
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong.
This is not a "totally c-p theory". I read a book where author, using
the same theory, "proved" that actually the Mongols did not exist at all
(no Karakorum, no conquest of China, etc.) and were, in a reality, just
the Russian princes fighting each other (and invading Western Europe
trying to help Friederich II against the Pope). Of course, author
convenienly ignored a massive archeological evidience, etc. Very convenient
method. :-)
>It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened.
"Nothing" means "no events worth mentioning" or "no ballistic missiles
had been developed"? :-)
> Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
CAn anybody (including Kasparov) prove that it is correct?
Alex
> Sam Sloan sl...@ishipress.com says...
> >
> >This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> >Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> >know little did not exist at all.
>
> as Dark Ages.
Of course. There was "A Period of Insufficient Illumination" because
electricity was out for a while (breakage in the system due to the
destructive and, I'd say "barbaric" actions, of the overzealous
environmentalists) and everybody had to use the candles and torches.
WHen all the wires had been fixed, there was a beginning of "Enlightnment".
>
> > In other words, there was a jump
> >from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> but, not for that reason.
And for much longer: "Enlightnment" started only in mid XVIII.....
>
> >
> >While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> >prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> >thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> >happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
> Impossible. How could it be wrong? There was no such thing as a
> thousand-year period in anybody's history were basically nothing
> happened.
Nothing? It probably took a lot of effort for Austrians
to fake this old imperial crown they are exibiting...
>On the other hand, if there were, why would anybody
> assign numbers like 300-1300 to it?
The important question is "when exactly and by whom these numbers were
assigned"? It must be some sinister international plot (with Jews having
a calendar of their own, we can probably exclude a notion that this was,
as always, a Jewish plot :-) ).
To think about it, it is rather simple (except for a coordination of the
efforts). This was a plot of the tax collecting services. You just filled
a tax form for the year 301 and .... bams!.... It's year 1300 and you
owe the taxes and penalties for 1,000 years!
>If there were such a period,
> it would be very very dark, much too dark to be numbered.
Of course, this is absurd. Why exactly 1,000 years and not 900 or 1,200?
If Mongolian invasions are qualified as "nothing", there was definitely
nothing worth mentioning for another hundred years or so.
Renia
to read hugely long paragraphs. Makes the reader want to skip it.
Renia
Renia
Because of Shakespeare.
Renia
benjo maso
> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
And I guess those 15th and 16th century Italians also wrote all the
documents from the Middle Ages. Do you realise how much there are left?
Hundreds of thousands, all written by hand. Must have been quite busy chaps,
those Italians. Quite clever as well, because those documents are not only
written in Latin (but a Latin which was developing all the time so that 13th
century Latin is quite different from classic Latin), but also in Greek,
Chinese, Japanese, Sanskrit, Arabic and from 1100 on also in French, German,
Anglo-Saxon, Spanish, Catalan, Flemish, Portuguese, etc. with all kinds of
regional differences). And what's more, those Italians not only must have
written all those documents, but also hidden a lot of them, because most of
them have been only discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries. No wonder
that 15th and 16th century Italy was in decline - economically and
politically. Instead of fighting wars or producing goods, the whole
population must have spent its time to this all compassing conspiracy.
Benjo Maso
marshall kirk
I agree -- where rights to an estate depended on it, there would have
been a motivation to record births. (As a matter of fact, it's
sometimes been hypothesized -- and, for all I know to the contrary,
demonstrated -- that writing itself originated in the need to record
money-related rights and transactions of various sorts, including
temple offerings; and the fundamentals of planar geometry, for that
matter, in the need to develop formal techniques of surveying in order
to establish and re-establish boundary lines.) Altho' landowning
familiies would have comprised only a small percentage of the
population in 15th-century England (I'd guess, what? Perhaps 5%?
10%? I don't claim certainty; perhaps it was more than I imagine), I
might have mentioned them as an exception, if I hadn't wished *not to
be overly wordy*. (A frown at you-know-who.)
I do have a question about such proofs of age, tho'. I've made a fair
amount of use of *inquisitiones post mortem*, but only as calendared.
(I lack affordable access to the originals, and am lucky to have
access to a good university library.) Now, altho' some of those
abstracts make specific statements as to age -- "he was of age on the
quindene of Roodmass last past," or, rather, some actual and
meaningful formulation -- I'm not sure I've run across a reference to
anyone checking baptismal registers for this purpose. (Much
reference, indeed, to personal knowledge as to the date of a child's
birth, but not to written records.) Still, my experience is by no
means comprehensive, and the abstracts I've used are, well,
*abstracts*. Would you post the text of an 'original' that does
mention written records, as an example? (I don't disbelieve you, but
you've aroused my curiosity.)
Also, the need to prove age would presumably apply only to those
within a few years of their majority, give or take. Much of what I've
seen just says, "35 or thereabouts," "40 or more," or the like, often
with several (up to five, perhaps more) years' error; presumably
because it was so visibly patent that the heir was of age that no
proof, as such, was needed. (Much like ID *vis-a-vis* buying
cigarettes or liquor; I had to present state ID until my late 30s, as
I looked unnaturally young; alas, no one's felt the need to ask for
proof of my age since then!)----You allude to this in your first
paragraph, of course.
Does any parish-by-parish list exist of such 'ancient' registers as
survive? This would be of great value.
One other thought that occurs to me -- registers surviving from as
early as the mid-14th century must be rare indeed, as I've read
extensive discussions by demographers as to the population of England,
with special reference to what proportion of it bit the dust in the
Black Death of 1348-50 or so. Those scholars had tried their
darnedest to shore up their guesstimates with actual demographically
relevant contemporary records, including monastic tabulations of oxen
handed over upon tenants' deaths, and other rather roundabout ways of
getting at the facts -- but I've never seen anything, I think, that
refers to parochial records of baptism, marriage, and burial, which,
if available, would be my first choice for addressing the
question.---If you know of anything along these lines, again, I'd be
interested, as the Black Death has always held a morbid fascination
for me. (Appropriately enough.)
--Regards, mk
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.04011...@posting.google.com>...
D. Spencer Hines
Renia Simmonds is 100% right....
Kirk is new to USENET and has yet to learn some of the basics.
There is, however, a significant BENEFIT of his lengthy paragraphs
often, but not always, filled with turgid prose....
Fewer people will read his more gibberish-laced posts ----- which is a
Good Thing....
Here Is A Disgusting, Painful Sample Of Kirkspeak:
"I agree -- where rights to an estate depended on it, there would have
been a motivation to record births. (As a matter of fact, it's
sometimes been hypothesized -- and, for all I know to the contrary,
demonstrated -- that writing itself originated in the need to record
money-related rights and transactions of various sorts, including
temple offerings; and the fundamentals of planar geometry, for that
matter, in the need to develop formal techniques of surveying in order
to establish and re-establish boundary lines.) Altho' landowning
familiies would have comprised only a small percentage of the
population in 15th-century England (I'd guess, what? Perhaps 5%?
10%? I don't claim certainty; perhaps it was more than I imagine), I
might have mentioned them as an exception, if I hadn't wished *not to
be overly wordy*. (A frown at you-know-who.)"
Stream-Of-Consciousness Blather At Its Worst....
Hilarious!
Keep Using Your Red Pencil, Renia....
Cheers,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:bu74uf$5i4$3...@usenet.otenet.gr...
| Sorry, didn't want to sound like editor-in-chief. It's just so
| difficult to read hugely long paragraphs. Makes the
|reader want to skip it.
|
| Renia
|
| marshall kirk wrote:
[...]
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Bob Musicant
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6655d472.04011...@posting.google.com...
Good point. Do you think the Wall Street Journal knows that a member of
their editorial board is such a crackpot in this realm? Would they care?
Bob
StanB
> Of course, I know that the American Civil War took place because when
> I was a boy growing up in the South there were people still alive who
> had been alive during the war and would talk about it as though it had
> happened last week.
Bullshit.
StanB
Nathaniel Taylor
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
> > However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
> > I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
> > even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
> > years later, what the book really contained?
>
> Check out:
> http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/ExternalRequest.asp?RequestReference=ri2108
> (or any of a thousand and one other Domesday-related pages on the Internet)
I know this is off-topic, and comes from a cross-posting troll to boot,
but it is worth killing.
This phenomenon (that some or all of the early Middle Ages are a hoax,
and never happened) has been around since the early 1990s when a German
self-promoter, Heribert Illig, began to publish lots of books on the
subject. He had previously published books attempting to argue a new
chronology of ancient Egypt, in the style of Immanuel Velikovsky. He
switched to the Middle Ages with a 1992 book alleging Charlemagne is a
hoax. See a list of his books at:
http://www.lelarge.de/buecher.html
At about the same time, there has been a publishing craze of
mathematicians writing about the 'neatness' of history, and alleging
that some of it appears to be a hoax. I know less about this trend at
first hand, but it seems that Kasparov's stuff is a marriage of the two
types of argument for a hoax theory. All of this has been discussed
here to an extent, and in soc.history.medieval too.
The medieval chronoogical hoax ideas boil down to something like this
(in the mind of Heribert Illig or someone who buys his junk):
1. I don't know a lot about the early Middle Ages; it seemed like not
much happened then.
2. The Romans were very sophisticated; their empire was big, with lots
of money, lots of people, and lots of technology. How could it fall?
Did it really fall? (variant: did it really exist?)
3. Europe allegedly 'became' sophisticated again after the year 1000, in
the 'Romanesque period', when people built buildings that emulated Roman
prototypes (hence the term 'Romanesque'). Now, the era in between was
alleged to have been one of depopulation, political instability,
poverty, and the loss of various technological and aesthetic know-how.
How can that be true? Maybe there was really no time between the Roman
and the Romanesque periods, and we're looking at the false insertion of
centuries which didn't actually exist?
4. Since there appears to be a big time period that I don't know much
about, maybe it has been a hoax perpetuated by a conspiracy of long-dead
monks for evil purposes (Christianity, Latinization, world domination,
etc.--fill in your pet bugbear here).
[etc.: the variations are predictable]
Well, the only basis for these ideas is a fundamental ignorance of the
vast tapestry of historical and cultural material from Europe and her
neighbors from the late Antique period to the year 1000. I have taught
entire courses on what went on in this period, and more and more rich
and varied primary sources are available in modern translations each
year, not to mention facsimiles original documents (Codices Latini
Antiquiores, etc.) and exhaustive studies of surviving buildings, etc.
Any attempts to allege fraud or cover-up among a cabal of church
leaders, or to use naive mathematical modeling for military or
population history, look pretty silly to any one with a passing
acquaintance with real sources from the era.
Enough said.
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
F minus for formatting, syntax and editing.
LOOK at this long scrawling screed...turning off readers by the score.
But the CONTENT is excellent....
And TRUE.
John 5:14
"My reply to library patrons who'd ask me (often a little accusingly,
as tho' I were trying to withhold information) why there aren't any
records of, say, births, marriages, and deaths for an early period in
a given area, was usually some version of this: why SHOULD there be
records? What motivation, precisely, did people have in (say)
15th-century England, or much later on the American frontier, to write
down on a piece of paper the fact that a child had been born, along
with name, date, and place? People don't do much, especially as a
general practice, without some compelling reason. From the point of
view of the Church, there was great theological motivation to
*baptize* a child -- the putative salvation of its immortal soul (also
putative) -- but markedly less motivation to write down the mere fact
that this had been done, unless and until circumstances arose in which
it became important (again, probably for reasons connected with the
application of canon law to situations in need of adjudication)) to
prove, by appeal to written record, that the ceremony had been
performed. (And even then, I can see no good reason to keep such
records long after the deaths of all the baptizees recorded, unless
such evidence was needed for determination of consanguinity among
their descendants.) IIRC, the order for the uniform recording of
English baptisms in uniform parochial registers, beginning in, I
think, 1538 or so, emanated from the court of Henry VIII, not the
Church as such (tho' the difference may be a bit moot), and *his*
motivation here was probably at least in part related to the need to
pin down the demographics relevant to realistic possibilities for
taxation, the Tudors being awfully interested in money. (Ditto for
censuses.) Why, indeed, should farmers in colonial New England have
taken hours off from their hard and pressing rural work to make a trek
to the town clerk, just to have him write down in a book the fact that
they'd sired yet another child -- especially when (a) they may have
had to pay for the 'service,' and (b) they'd often already had the kid
baptized, anyway? What was 'in it' for them? We've got so used,
today, to having to fill out a form every time we use the john that
it's become second nature, and it doesn't seem to occur to people to
realize that the real question is not why paper records are in short
supply for early periods, but why there are even so many of them."
marshall kirk
-------------------------------
michael adams
>
> At 07:49 PM 1/14/2004 EST, chess...@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >sl...@ishipress.com writes:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> >> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
> >>
> >> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> >> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Um...Carbon-14 dating?
> >
> >ECJ
>
> http://www.new-tradition.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm#
>
> Essentially, they say that Carbon-14 dating was calibrated using
> a thousand years younger than previously believed, that causes the
> re-calibration of everything else to the dates they suggest.
>
> evidence that I know of that disproves it. For example, they state
> that the pyramids of Egypt were built in 800 to 900 AD. I agree that
> this seems ridiculous. However, the pyramids are still a mystery.
> Nobody has been able to prove how they were built.
>
> Lonnie Kwartler (who teaches high school history and has obviously
> encountered this theory before) correctly points out that this is a
> Russian theory. Garry Kasparov did not invent it. The developers of
> this theory were Nicolai A. Morozov and Anatoly T. Fomenko. Kwartler
> says that the Russians figure that since they have no knowledge of
> their own history (having been overrun by the Mongol Hordes) that
> nobody else does either.
>
> I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching my
> own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
> all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
> back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
> not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
> 1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
> of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
> impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
> example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
> we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?
>
> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
>
Would you?. Well let me tell you 'everybody' has a prob. comprehending
the history of the human race circa. 2000 (bc). Jewish records clearly
state for example that 4000 yrs. before the advent of Jeezus (4000bc -
in effect) the Babylon was an enclave Hebrew!..
sandirhodes
"nowonmai" wrote
>
> The American civil war never happened. I am Curly Howard of the Three
> Stooges reincarnate. There is an invisible magic elf on my shoulder.
>
> Prove that I'm wrong.
Of course, everyone knows this.
Peter Jason
Judging by the style, Kirk is a historian, and all history books are written
this way.
Historians have never heard of the COLUMN and the way newspapers are written
to make it easier and faster to read.
For an example of good writing, go to the "Merck Manual" 11th edition, which
is an encyclopedia of current medical practice.
In this splendidly written book the columns are not only present but the
correct size too.
Each heading has an abstract so that the busy reader can gloss over the
irrelevant bits, and I believe there is a glossary for people who have never
heard of, say,"hyperthyroidism" or "schitzoid".
The chapters on "Madness and the Usenet with Particular Reference to Prof
Marvel and That Other Hydra Head B.Avenger" is a joy and a delight to read,
and uncovers the reasons behind the condition of those dark, dank, randy,
feotid, psyches, even though the readers' knowledge of medicine may be nil.
Clearly the contributors to the "Merck Manual" were obliged to drag their
prose beneath the noses of a phalanx of EDITORS before any printing was
done. And the wonderful result is plain to see.
It is time for this ng to be REGULATED!
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:Y7HNb.43$p07....@eagle.america.net...
GRHa...@aol.com
effective writing is done in short paragraphs and in coming directly to the crux
of an argument.
I was trained in high school in newspaper journalism and one of the main
points the instructor continually stressed was shortness of the item and getting
to the point.
You don't the the advertising people using long, uninterrupted, paragraphs to
try to sell a product. They try to get their point across in as few words as
possible (often falsehoods it seems in this case).
Terry Mair
1850 he would be 13, old enough to know what was going on, if that person
lived to be say 85 he would have died in 1933, I dont know how old Sam is
but this could be possible, my father was born in 1930 and he is still going
strong, but I do get tired of his damn storys ;-)
Terry
Bill Brock
>
> > While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> > prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> > thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>
> Don't tell that to the Christians. It was early in the 300s that Emperor
> Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.
>
> Other notable non-events during this period include:
> The fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476
> The Persian and Byzantine empires went to war, 539
> Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina, 622 (Year 1 in the Islamic calendar)
> Arabs conquered Jerusalem, 637 (following their conquest of Syria, Persia,
> and Egypt)
> Arabs began their takeover of North Africa, 670
> Arabs conquered Spain, 711
> Charles ("the Hammer") Martel halted the westward advance of the Arabs at
> the Battle of Tours, 732
> Reign of Charlemagne 771-814
> Danish attacks on Britain, 800s
> By and large, the 900s were indeed kind of slow, with the most notable
> development, from a Eurocentric point of view, being the beginning of the
> Christian re-conquest of Spain.
> Of course, things picked up again in the 1000s, what with William conquering
> England in 1066, and Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to take the Holy
> Land from the Moslems, 1095, and the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in
> 1099.
>
> in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
>
>
Wow, think of Islamic history: from Hegira to Spanish conquest is
already fast in uncompressed time. What would that be in compressed
time, twenty minutes? Maybe some local version of post-Big Bang
inflation was at work?
Were this theory true, inshallah, the occulted Imam Mahdi might be
youngish, well under seven hundred years old. Sorta like the occulted
Aragorn of Arathorn.
Brad Verity
I was able to answer some of your questions.
mkk...@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote in message news:
> I do have a question about such proofs of age, tho'. I've made a fair
> amount of use of *inquisitiones post mortem*, but only as calendared.
> (I lack affordable access to the originals, and am lucky to have
> access to a good university library.) Now, altho' some of those
> abstracts make specific statements as to age -- "he was of age on the
> quindene of Roodmass last past," or, rather, some actual and
> meaningful formulation -- I'm not sure I've run across a reference to
> anyone checking baptismal registers for this purpose.
No, it was personal testimony in both inquisitions post mortem and in
Proof of Ages. But sometimes, written records of birth and death were
referred to within the testimony. Whether the records were then
examined by the jurors to validate statements, I don't know.
Examples:
From Proof of Age for 'Thomas son and heir of Thomas de Alvedele'
taken at Alvedele 12 January, 43 Edward III: "John Austyn, Richard de
Sheynton, and Roger le Wryghte, aged 48 years and more, agree [with
the testimony of the other witnesses in the proof of age] and say they
were present at Alvedele at the burial of Thomas de Fillilode, who was
buried there on Sunday after the day of the birth, which day of the
death and burial of Thomas de Fillilode is written there in a certain
missal."
From Proof of Age for 'John, son and heir of Edmund [of Woodstock],
late Earl of Kent, taken at Stenyng, 9 April, 25 Edward III: "Walter
Randekyn, aged 50 years, agrees and says that Alice his wife was
buried in the said church of St. Bartholomew on the same day the said
John was baptised, and the day of her death is enrolled in the
kalendar of the missal of the said church."
> (Much
> reference, indeed, to personal knowledge as to the date of a child's
> birth, but not to written records.) Still, my experience is by no
> means comprehensive, and the abstracts I've used are, well,
> *abstracts*. Would you post the text of an 'original' that does
> mention written records, as an example? (I don't disbelieve you, but
> you've aroused my curiosity.)
More examples:
From Proof of Age for 'William son and heir of John Bardolf' taken at
Wormegay, Wednesday after St. Faith, 45 Edward III: "John Henk, aged
58 years and more, agrees and says that the heir's birthday was
entered for full evidence in the calendar of a book belonging to the
church of Wyrmegeye called 'le Porthors,' and he has often read the
writing."
From Proof of Age for 'Elizabeth, daughter and heir of John de
Segrave', taken at Meelton, 4 September, 27 Edward III: "Hugh Jouwet,
aged 60 years and more, says the said Elizabeth was fourteen years old
on 25 October last, because she was born in the abbey of Croxton, co.
Leicester, and baptised in the church of Croxton on 25 October, 12
Edward III; and this he knows because the then abbot of Croxton caused
the day of the said Elizabeth's birth, viz. the feast of SS. Crispin
and Crispinian, 12 Edward III, to be entered (inbreviari) in a missal
of his church there."
From Proof of Age for 'John de Hastynges, son and heir of Laurence de
Hastynges, late Earl of Pembroke', taken at Derteford, Friday after
the Decollation of St. John the Baptist, 42 Edward III: "Robert atte
Helle, aged 60 years, Stephen Morkoc, aged 52 years and more, Giles
Sheuel, aged 49 years and more, and John Lomb, aged 55 years, agree
and say that the day of the birth of the said John is enrolled in the
missal of Sutton Valence."
From Proof of Age for 'William, son and heir of Henry de Ferariis',
taken at Leicester, 10 March, 28 Edward III: "William Motoun, knight,
aged 60 years and more, says that the said William was 21 years of age
on 28 February last, having been born at Neubold and baptised in the
church of St. Mary there on 28 February, 7 Edward III; and this he
knows because, on the day of the said William's birth, he saw the
rector of the church enter in a missal there the day and year of the
said William's birth."
The four individuals above were the heir of their father at their
birth, but births of younger children were also celebrated and
recorded, not for the least of which because fate could intervene and
make the younger sibling eventual heir to the family lands. The next
example is for Thomas de Ros, a younger son when he was born.
From Proof of Age for 'Thomas de Roos, brother and heir of William de
Roos, of Hamelak', taken at Bolewyk, Thursday the feast of Corpus
Christi, 32 Edward III: "John Hunte of Stoke Daubeney, aged 36 years,
says that the said Thomas was born in the manor of Stoke Daubeney and
baptized in the parish church of that town and was 21 years of age on
the feast of St. Hilary last, and he knows this because the day and
year of the birth are written in a book in the church."
From the same: "William Fraunceys, aged 40 years and more, agrees and
says that he was in the service of (stetit cum) William de Roos, the
father, and has the day and year of the birth of all his sons and
daughters."
> Also, the need to prove age would presumably apply only to those
> within a few years of their majority, give or take.
It applied to all minors who stood to inherit property from a parent
or other relative upon reaching majority (meaning the parent or
relative died while the heir was underage). The Proofs of Age above
are printed in the Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, and apply to
tenants in chief who held land of the crown. If an heir held land of,
say an Earl or a Bishop, then the Proof of Age was undertaken in the
manorial court of the feudal lord, but these records do not survive,
as far as I know.
> Much of what I've
> seen just says, "35 or thereabouts," "40 or more," or the like, often
> with several (up to five, perhaps more) years' error; presumably
> because it was so visibly patent that the heir was of age that no
> proof, as such, was needed.
These ages look like they are from IPMs, which are different than
Proof of Ages. When someone who held land died, their heir was
determined through an IPM, and the age of the heir was returned. What
evidence was used by the IPM jurors to determine the age(s) of the
heir(s), I don't know. Probably personal testimony of witnesses
similar to that given in Proof of Ages. But if the heir was pretty
obviously in his/her 40s or 50s, as you point out, physical appearance
may have been enough for the jurors.
If the heirs were teens, then probably more specific evidence was
required by the jurors of the IPM. For instance, when Philippa, widow
of Sir Richard Serjeaux, died in Sept. 1399, the jurors in her
Cornwall IPM of Jan. 1400, returned her heirs as her daughters
"Elizabeth, wife of William Marny, knight, is aged 21 years and more;
Philippa, wife of Robert Passele, 18 years and more; Alice, wife of
Guy St. Aubyn, 14 years and more; and Joan 7 years and more."
The jurors had to be sure and determine the ages of these girls
correctly, for the heiresses could only receive their share of the
inheritance immediately if they were of age, and the girls who were
under age would become wards of the crown and the income from their
shares of the inheritance would go to the crown's coffers until they
came of age. The third daughter, Alice St. Aubyn, had to Prove her
Age four months later, in May 1400, to show that she was really aged
15 (not 14 as the IPM jurors had returned) and thus of majority and
had the right to receive her share of the lands of her parents. That
her elder sisters Elizabeth Marny and Philippa Passele did not have to
prove their ages must be because the evidence of their being of age
was sufficient for all parties involved. Appearance alone would not
be enough (all the sisters save the youngest were close enough in age
to each other), so further evidence had to have been presented during
the IPM, but what form of evidence is not recorded.
> Does any parish-by-parish list exist of such 'ancient' registers as
> survive? This would be of great value.
I don't believe such a thing exists.
> One other thought that occurs to me -- registers surviving from as
> early as the mid-14th century must be rare indeed, as I've read
> extensive discussions by demographers as to the population of England,
> with special reference to what proportion of it bit the dust in the
> Black Death of 1348-50 or so. Those scholars had tried their
> darnedest to shore up their guesstimates with actual demographically
> relevant contemporary records, including monastic tabulations of oxen
> handed over upon tenants' deaths, and other rather roundabout ways of
> getting at the facts -- but I've never seen anything, I think, that
> refers to parochial records of baptism, marriage, and burial, which,
> if available, would be my first choice for addressing the
> question.---If you know of anything along these lines, again, I'd be
> interested, as the Black Death has always held a morbid fascination
> for me. (Appropriately enough.)
I'm not familiar enough with church cartularies, missals, etc., to
know how to extract demographic information. I do know that several
Bishop's Registers have been published, and these are very useful for
researching daily religious life in a medieval diocese.
I only have a fraction of the Proof of Ages that have been published,
and a good half of what I have make no mention at all of the heir's
birth/baptism being recorded in writing, or even refer to other
written evidence (burial entries, indentures, etc.) at the time of the
heir's birth. They simply present verbal testimony of witnesses
present at the heir's baptism.
So I can't say if every English church kept a written record of births
and burials in the 14th and 15th centuries. But there is enough
evidence to show that a good many did, and that written record of
births was important, at least to landed families, and could prove
quite useful.
Cheers, -----Brad
Martin Reboul
"Peter Jason" <pa...@colonel.com.au> wrote in message
news:bu7jr0$2858$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
I think not! Regulated by who - D Spencer Whines? Tiresome,
nit-picking rejections based on grammar, spelling and style?
Favouritism, censorship and no more rude words... never!
It would be like being back at school - most of us no longer are,
I for one do not wish to go back.
We 'self-regulate' here - anyone offensive, unpleasant, annoying
or overbearing soon gets to know about it. Okay, it might get a
bit messy, repetitive and bloody sometimes, but this is an arena
as well as a discussion forum.
Perhaps more like a playground in fact, as anybody can join in or
choose not to play if they wish, and can ignore the noisy boys
slugging it out and go and play marbles in a quiet corner if they
choose to. The only difference is, anyone can leave at any time,
go to another school or go home whenever they fancy - if only I
had had such options at school!
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
> Bingo!
>
> Renia Simmonds is 100% right....
>
> Kirk is new to USENET and has yet to learn some of the basics.
>
> There is, however, a significant BENEFIT of his lengthy
paragraphs
> often, but not always, filled with turgid prose....
>
> Fewer people will read his more gibberish-laced posts -----
which is a
> Good Thing....
>
> Here Is A Disgusting, Painful Sample Of Kirkspeak:
Snip...
Oh, give it up Spency! You go the other way - a paragraph for
every sentence, followed by a pretentious, nonsensical 50 line
'signature' which nobody ever reads anyway. That's called 'wasting
space'.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
"marshall kirk" <mkk...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1c74a9e5.04011...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Brad,
>
> I agree -- where rights to an estate depended on it, there would
have
> been a motivation to record births. (As a matter of fact, it's
> sometimes been hypothesized -- and, for all I know to the
contrary,
> demonstrated -- that writing itself originated in the need to
record
> money-related rights and transactions of various sorts,
including
> temple offerings; and the fundamentals of planar geometry, for
that
> matter, in the need to develop formal techniques of surveying in
order
> to establish and re-establish boundary lines.) Altho'
landowning
> familiies would have comprised only a small percentage of the
> population in 15th-century England (I'd guess, what? Perhaps
5%?
> 10%? I don't claim certainty; perhaps it was more than I
imagine), I
> might have mentioned them as an exception, if I hadn't wished
*not to
> be overly wordy*. (A frown at you-know-who.)
Take no notice of him!
The records of tenants and employees in the accounts and records
of estates are a valuable resource, as well as local legal records
from Courts Leet etc. concerning land and property transactions,
plus wills, tax and tithe records.
Things become tough before the 18thC though, and very difficult
indeed before the Reformation however, you may be lucky enough to
find the odd name here and there in court records and very rare
documents like the Paston letters and Stonor papers.
As for maps, I've seen some wonderfully deatailed tithe maps from
the early 18th C that record individual trees as well as the
owners of individual fields etc. One like this was found among the
papers in a solicitors office recently, 1728, which covered part
of the battlefied at Barnet and provided some vital clues about
that event, even though it was drawn up over 250 years afterwards.
> I do have a question about such proofs of age, tho'. I've made
a fair
> amount of use of *inquisitiones post mortem*, but only as
calendared.
> (I lack affordable access to the originals, and am lucky to have
> access to a good university library.) Now, altho' some of those
> abstracts make specific statements as to age -- "he was of age
on the
> quindene of Roodmass last past," or, rather, some actual and
> meaningful formulation -- I'm not sure I've run across a
reference to
> anyone checking baptismal registers for this purpose. (Much
> reference, indeed, to personal knowledge as to the date of a
child's
> birth, but not to written records.) Still, my experience is by
no
> means comprehensive, and the abstracts I've used are, well,
> *abstracts*. Would you post the text of an 'original' that does
> mention written records, as an example? (I don't disbelieve
you, but
> you've aroused my curiosity.)
Early stuff tends to record people's ages as being 'born in the
fifth year of the reign of King Henry VIII' and so-on, and 'born
on St Cecilia's Day' rather than Nov 28th or whatever.
I'm not actually sure what you're after exactly, so please forgive
me 'waffling' if I've missed the point...
> Also, the need to prove age would presumably apply only to those
> within a few years of their majority, give or take. Much of
what I've
> seen just says, "35 or thereabouts," "40 or more," or the like,
often
> with several (up to five, perhaps more) years' error; presumably
> because it was so visibly patent that the heir was of age that
no
> proof, as such, was needed. (Much like ID *vis-a-vis* buying
> cigarettes or liquor; I had to present state ID until my late
30s, as
> I looked unnaturally young; alas, no one's felt the need to ask
for
> proof of my age since then!)----You allude to this in your first
> paragraph, of course.
>
> Does any parish-by-parish list exist of such 'ancient' registers
as
> survive? This would be of great value.
If it does, I'd like to know too!
> One other thought that occurs to me -- registers surviving from
as
> early as the mid-14th century must be rare indeed, as I've read
> extensive discussions by demographers as to the population of
England,
> with special reference to what proportion of it bit the dust in
the
> Black Death of 1348-50 or so. Those scholars had tried their
> darnedest to shore up their guesstimates with actual
demographically
> relevant contemporary records, including monastic tabulations of
oxen
> handed over upon tenants' deaths, and other rather roundabout
ways of
> getting at the facts -- but I've never seen anything, I think,
that
> refers to parochial records of baptism, marriage, and burial,
which,
> if available, would be my first choice for addressing the
> question.---If you know of anything along these lines, again,
I'd be
> interested, as the Black Death has always held a morbid
fascination
> for me. (Appropriately enough.)
It is rare to find Parish records from before the mid 17th
century in the UK, though they do exist. Sometimes cemetery
records and gravestones themselves can provide useful info, but
even then, pre-18th C memorials are few and far between outside
churches, and those inside tend to be only the gentry and
aristocracy.
A gigantic jigsaw with few pieces I'm afraid, but thanks to the
internet and the efforts of many keen amateurs and helpful
professionals, things are becoming far easier and the 'picture'
seems to be growing rapidly by the day.
It took my father over 30 years to track our family history back
to France at the end of the 18th century, where he came to a dead
end. That involved him travelling around the country and spending
many hours searching through dusty tomes and writing hundreds of
letters.
A while ago I became curious, and had a look on the net - within
two hours (and at no cost at all) I tracked back to the late 15th
century.
As for Gary Kasparov (as mentioned in the header to this), I think
his talents probably lie in playing chess, rather than analysing
history....
Cheers
Martin
Sam Sloan
Humans have been on this Earth for three million years. Humans have
almost always buried their dead, for the simple reason, as any soldier
who has experienced combat will tell you, the stench of a dead body is
so horrible that nobody can stand it. So, there are graves going back
thousands of years, long before there is any written record of the
people in those graves.
Similarly there are thousand year old buildings. The Buddhist stupas
at Bamyan, Afghanistan which were destroyed by the Taliban were
reliably dated to about 200 AD, so we know that Buddhism existed at
that time. We also know that the Great Walls of China were built.
(There are many walls, not just one, and I have been there.)
As you correctly point out, the Muslims have kept very reliable,
detailed and accurate records of their history, starting from 632 AD.
The names and dates of every great Khalif and Iman have been
preserved.
The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
names are not found in history books? The only way we know of the
existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
Plato, Aristotle and Socratese, works of Homer, and the great plays
such as Oedipus Rex and so on.
How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ? Why is it that no
physical paper and writings from 0 have survived. We have been told
that the great works were copied and recopied by Monks. Is that really
true? Do we have any evidence or proof to support this?
Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to
1500 ? Do we have any real evidence either for or against that
hypothesis?
Sam Sloan
At 04:24 PM 1/15/2004 +0100, Kaarlo Schepel wrote:
>Dear Sam,
>
>A.D. = the year of our Lord Jesus Christ. The problem with most people who
>try to cast doubt on historical facts that have been taught in Universities
>in Europe for hundreds of years, is that they are non-believers. The years
>have been counted by the Christians who lived through the Dark Ages, year
>in, year out. If you ask astronomers, they will be able tell you that the
>Star of Bethlehem (probably Saturnus, Jupiter standing in the star
>constellation of Pisces) really occurred in 7 B.C. as described in the New
>Testament.
>
>You are a non-believer (Christian) but you believe in the Quran. And in Arab
>countries history was meticulously retained too by the great Arab
>civilisation in their universities. Many of those years were obviously not
>that interesting (more in Egypt and the Middle East than in Europe), and
>almost all of those were written about by hand. I think it is better that
>you have a decent talk with a few historians, and a few theologians who have
>spent all their lives working with this kind of material. Or art historians
>who devote all their lives digging through original manuscripts. THat is if
>you have any doubt.
>
>This kind of nonsense propagated by Kasparov (and the Russian 'historians'
>quoted previously) are not that different from the nonsense by neo-nazi's
>and fervent arab-nationalist who try to 'prove' that the holocaust never
>happened.
>
>At least you do not doubt (I think) that Gutenberg invented the
>book-printing art around 1450, nor that Martin Luther existed and rebelled
>against the Pope in 1517 (I have a website about in Dutch, shortly with an
>English version). Nor that you doubt that the Renaissance occurred. What
>about all those churches of which we can prove that they were built way back
>to 900 - 1100. Here in our village, the church dates back to 1170. All those
>books printed since the 15th century, all those paintings hanging in
>art-galleries and musea. Nor that Constantinopel (Istanbul) fell to the
>Turks in 1453. All of the Greek writings (including the Greek New Testament)
>from ancient history were preserved in Istanbul, and then came to the west.
>All that music written down and going back to the 11th and 12th century.
>
>You as a Muslim should know better. The Muslim Faith has been alive and well
>since the days of Muhammad.
>Why do you give this such a wide coverage ?
>
>Well, yes, Belarus, Lithuania and the Baltic states were still pagan in the
>11th century. What does that prove ?
>When the English (British) finally decided to adopt the Gregorian Calendar
>on 02 September 1752, although Pope Gregory XIII published his bull
>abolishing the Julian calendar dating back to Julius Caesar already in
>February 1582. The argument used in the House of Commons was: we are running
>behind. And we do not want to have the same calendar as those barbarian
>Russians ! (The countrymen of Garry Kasparov retained the Julian Calendar
>until 1917 !!). The Russian Christmas is still celebrated today on 06
>January (Twelfth Night/ Epiphany).
>
>Do we need to listen to Kasparov, who is (or at least was many years -
>certainly in the Soviet years) a bit paranoid as you very well know. Why
>don't you read e.g. just the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject of
>Calendars instead of thinking of a 1000-year Conspiracy. I agree that a few
>people on this chat-site are lunatics. But - to lightly alter a coined
>phrase - why make absolutely sure that we all know you are a lunatic too, by
>giving this theory such a prominent place ?
>
>kaarlo schepel (the netherlands)
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <sl...@ishipress.com>
>Newsgroups:
>rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,soc.g
>enealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
>To: <fide-...@yahoogroups.com>; <che...@yahoogroups.com>;
><samsche...@yahoogroups.com>; <sloansc...@yahoogroups.com>;
><sl...@ishipress.com>; <schi...@best.com>; <che...@hearn.nic.surfnet.nl>;
><kis...@yk.rim.or.jp>
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:06 PM
>Subject: [fide-chess] Re: Garry Kasparov and the missing One Thousand Years
>
>
>> At 04:10 PM 1/15/2004 +0800, Larry Parr wrote:
>> >Sam, what about the Greek Thales measuring the height of the pyramids by
>> >using shadows. That occurred over 2000 years ago.
>> >
>> >Yours, Larry
>>
>> The answer to this question is at their website
>> http://www.new-tradition.org
>>
>> "Serious scientific facts have been collected in this book which prove
>> that as early as the 12th century A.D, all of Eurasia was pagan, and
>> human sacrifice and slavery prospered in Europe.
>>
>> We shall cite a multitude of evidence which testifies that all
>> "ancient" manuscripts are literary works of the 15th and 16th
>> centuries and that there never was in reality an "ancient" Rome and
>> Greece as modern historical science teaches us.
>>
>> We have collected the conclusions of dozens of scholars from various
>> countries, who say irrefutably that the most ancient monument of
>> mankind, the pyramids of Egypt, were constructed in the period between
>> the 10th and 13th centuries A.D., that is as recently as 800 - 900
>> years ago."
>>
>> Please understand again that I am not advocating this. I am just
>> reporting that Garry Kasparov believes this.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
>
> >> Isn't this blown out of the water by the eclipses, both solar and
> >> lunar, that are recorded during the period that supposedly doesn't
> >> exit. A quick play with Starry Night and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
> >> should convince anyone.
I recently read an article stating eclipses are not a good means for
setting up a historic time frame because they are cyclic events.
> Or the precession of the equinoxes. :-)
This one is *much* better. Currently the proponents of cutting the
history off a couple hundred or a thousand years have a very hard time
explaining historical reports of astronomical one-time events, like
the occultation of Spica by the moon reported by the ancient greek
astronomer Hipparchos.
Modern retro-computations are able to confirm the Spica occultation
did happen at the time it was reported. Mathematicians of the 14th or
15th century, the time where the alleged invention of medieval history
had happened had neither the data nor the astronomical model to assume
such an occultation ever had happened nor less than ever could have
put it on the correct retro-time.
Claus-Juergen
Chris Bennett
thread to SHM, where it properly belongs. So this time I'll blast to the
listening universe and hope that people will respect the Follow-up.
In short: Claus is on the right lines, but we can do much better than this
single observation which is, after all, only known to us through the
supposedly forged literary tradition. We possess extensive and detailed
astronomical records from Babylonia in the period 300 BC to 0. They were dug
up out of the ground in the last century, and they are written in Akkadian
cuneiform, whose very existence was unknown in the 16th century. They
therefore cannot possibly have been forged by fanatical Italian conspirators
in the 16th century, even if those forgers had a miraculous knowledge of
astronomical theory and access to the buried temple of Esagila in a remote
Ottoman province. They also dovetail with similar records provided by
GrecoRoman horoscopes on Egyptian papyri for the early centuries AD.
The totality of the historical and astronomical data in these records
confirm conclusively that the Hellenistic and Roman periods belong where
they have always been placed. Therefore the following period from 300 AD to
1300 AD existed. QED.
Chris
"Claus-Jürgen Heigl" <un...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote in message
news:400811D0...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
benjo maso
(snip)
>
> Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
> question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
> two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
> Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
> Plato, Aristotle and Socratese, works of Homer, and the great plays
> such as Oedipus Rex and so on.
>
> How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ?
Who told you that there was "virtually nothing" between A.D. 0 and 1500?
There is a lot (cf the books of Peter Dronke, for instance). It's true that
the first centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire most literature is
more or less religious and that there isn't much "fiction" or poetry (but
there is some). The reason is simple: for economic and social reasons there
was hardly an audience. Except the clergy almost nobody could read or write.
Most litereray works were orally transmitted (but fortunately sometimes
written down, like Beowulf ). But as soon as the towns came to new life and
courts becamse more and more important (end of the 11th century), literature
was flourishing again (to give you an idea: there have been preserved about
2500 poems in Occitan, written between 1100 and 1300).
> Why is it that no physical paper and writings from 0 have survived.
Because they were written on papyrus which can stand use for only 300 years
and can be only preserved under exceptional circonstances (in the desert for
instance).
> We have been told that the great works were copied and recopied by Monks.
Is that really true?
Yes.
> Do we have any evidence or proof to support this?
Yes. Because most of them were not written on papyries anymore, but on
parchment, a lot of those copies have survived The earliest are dating from
the 4th and 5th century. It's true that between 500 and 750 hardly any Roman
or Greek literature had been copied, but it was considered to be pagan
anyhow. Some of the earlier manuscripts were washed or rubbed off to make
room for Christian texts, but thanks to infra-red and digital enhancement
techniques it's nowadays possible to recover the erased texts - with
remarkable results.
>
> Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
> ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to
> 1500 ?
No. It's complete nonsense.
Do we have any real evidence either for
None.
or against that
> hypothesis?
An overwhelming amount.
Benjo Maso
GRHa...@aol.com
We 'self-regulate' here - anyone offensive, unpleasant, annoying
or overbearing soon gets to know about it. Okay, it might get a
bit messy, repetitive and bloody sometimes, but this is an arena
as well as a discussion forum.
Perhaps more like a playground in fact,
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I don't know that I like the "regulation" idea, being generally
anti-regulatory, but the point is that long paragraphs are difficult to read and many will
not read the entire paragraph. I am one of those. It is better to be
succinct with many short paragraphs. They are more effectual.
That was one paragraph although not a long one. Note the difference below.
I don't know that I like the "regulation" idea, being generally
anti-regulatory.
The point is that long paragraphs are difficult to read.
Many will not read the entire paragraph.
I am one of those.
It is better to be succinct with many short paragraphs
They are more effectual.
People are more inclined to read single sentences than long paragraphs and
getting people to read what you write is, to me anyway, the main idea. If they
don't read it they can't/won't understand or respond.
GRHa...@aol.com
Oh, give it up Spency! You go the other way - a paragraph for
every sentence, followed by a pretentious, nonsensical 50 line
'signature' which nobody ever reads anyway. That's called 'wasting
space'.
Cheers
Martin
But, Martin, you must agree that Spencer is a quicker, easier read. And you
do understand, usually, what his message is quickly, without much doubt.
D. Spencer Hines
The Texan gets it right.
-----------------------------------
ZAP!!!
Renia Simmonds is 100% right....
Kirk is new to USENET and has yet to learn some of the basics.
There is, however, a significant BENEFIT of his lengthy paragraphs
often, but not always, filled with turgid prose....
Fewer people will read his more gibberish-laced posts ----- which is a
Good Thing....
Here Is A Disgusting, Painful Sample Of Kirkspeak:
"I agree -- where rights to an estate depended on it, there would have
been a motivation to record births. (As a matter of fact, it's
sometimes been hypothesized -- and, for all I know to the contrary,
demonstrated -- that writing itself originated in the need to record
money-related rights and transactions of various sorts, including
temple offerings; and the fundamentals of planar geometry, for that
matter, in the need to develop formal techniques of surveying in order
to establish and re-establish boundary lines.) Altho' landowning
familiies would have comprised only a small percentage of the
population in 15th-century England (I'd guess, what? Perhaps 5%?
10%? I don't claim certainty; perhaps it was more than I imagine), I
might have mentioned them as an exception, if I hadn't wished *not to
be overly wordy*. (A frown at you-know-who.)"
Stream-Of-Consciousness Blather At Its Worst....
Hilarious!
Keep Using Your Red Pencil, Renia....
Cheers,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<GRHa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:28.428d783...@aol.com...
Graeme Wall
"W Johnson" <gandulfinip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
> news:400682c2...@ca.news.verio.net...
> snip
> > However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
> > I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
> > even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
> > years later, what the book really contained?
> >
> Um I think you'll find that the Doomsday book does still exist.
>
And you can buy a copy of it for GBP 25.00 (possibly about $40.00), recently
published by Penguin.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Bob Bennett
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
> <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> >New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> >designate as 1000 A.D.
> >http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> >Bob Musicant
>
> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
You are funny. You are Mohammed Ismail Sloan, a Sunni Muslim and even
a haji. I didn't think that muslims consider 300-1300 to be "Dark" at
all, as much of the history of your religion fall into this period.
Do you think that Mohammed the Prophet is an Italian creation? I
think your fellow muslims might consider that to be heresy.
Bob Bennett
Mike Murray
wrote:
>You are funny. You are Mohammed Ismail Sloan, a Sunni Muslim and even
>a haji. I didn't think that muslims consider 300-1300 to be "Dark" at
>all, as much of the history of your religion fall into this period.
>Do you think that Mohammed the Prophet is an Italian creation? I
>think your fellow muslims might consider that to be heresy.
And then a fat watta good his chess skill will do him.
wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu
>
> The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
> that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
> names are not found in history books?
Coins were not only issued by emperors. Pretenders
to the throne, who sometimes ruled substantial fragments
of the empire for years, issued their own coins. As
did other individuals. And non-imperial coins circulated.
The only way we know of the
> existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
> coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
> errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
No, we have a complete chronology of the Roman Emperors.
Heck, I think we even have a complete list of the Consuls.
>
> Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
> question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
> two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
> Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
> Plato, Aristotle and Socratese,
Actually we have no works by Socrates. He wrote nothing.
works of Homer, and the great plays
> such as Oedipus Rex and so on.
>
> How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ?
Zero to 1492 is just too easy. Let's take 400 to 1400. In
that time, in Europe alone, were written:
The Divine Comedy, the Decameron, the Canterbury Tales,
Froissart's chronicles, the works of Petrarch, of Saint
Thomas Aquinas (heard of him?), Bede's "Ecclesiastical
history of the Church of England", Beowulf, Augustine's
"City of God", Boethius's "consolations of philosophy",
the philosophical works of John Duns Scotus, Michael
Psellus' "lives of the twelve Caesars", Anna Commena's
"Alexiad", Procopius's "secret history", "The Green Knight",
the various tales of King Arthur, the romance cycle centered
on Charlemagne, Asser's "Life of King Alfred", Cassiodorus'
"History of the Goths", the "Nieblungenleid", the poetry
of Wolfram von Eschenbach ("Parzival" and so on), the
elder Eddas, Icelandic sagas.
And that's just from Europe (ignoring the vast Arab
literature of the time), and only a selection of the
little I can recall - and I'm no expert on late classical
or Medieval literature. And I could extend that list
easily.
So the claim that "virtually nothing" was written in this
era is based on nothing more than ignorance.
Why is it that no
> physical paper and writings from 0 have survived.
Paper burns nicely. As well as the dead sea scrolls
there is a copy of Luke that dates from about 135,
and probably much else I am unaware of.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Rafal T. Prinke
> How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ? Why is it that no
> physical paper and writings from 0 have survived.
We can finally agree on a compromise hypothesis: there was
no year 0 AD (or BC, if you prefer). This explains why there
are no writings from that year - and I guess such consensus
might be agreeable to all.
> Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
> ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to
> 1500 ? Do we have any real evidence either for or against that
> hypothesis?
No, it is not reasonable. There is a well known track of
many of those great works via Byzantium, Syria, Islamic
Renaissance and Medieval Renaissance (translations in Spain and
Italy from Arabic).
Best regards,
Rafal
iain wallace
<wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:yv7z65fb...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu...
> sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
> ...Zero to 1492 is just too easy. Let's take 400 to 1400. In
> that time, in Europe alone, were written:
>
An alternative view is that it was written by an unknown author pretending
to be Asser, this person being called the pseudo-Asser in order to
distinguish him from the real thing. However, still written long before
1400.
Iain.
Peter Jason
All the others can clear out and leave the field to the select few.
Tom Klem
>
> >
> > The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
> > that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
> > names are not found in history books?
>
> Coins were not only issued by emperors. Pretenders
> to the throne, who sometimes ruled substantial fragments
> of the empire for years, issued their own coins. As
> did other individuals. And non-imperial coins circulated.
>
>
> The only way we know of the
> > existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
> > coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
> > errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
>
> No, we have a complete chronology of the Roman Emperors.
> Heck, I think we even have a complete list of the Consuls.
>
> >
> > Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
> > question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
> > two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
> > Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
> > Plato, Aristotle and Socratese,
>
> Actually we have no works by Socrates. He wrote nothing.
>
Probably correct, though we do have his speech before Athens at the time of
his trial. Most likely compiled by his student(s).
I believe this work is commonly referred to as "Socrate's Apology", and it's
a dusey.
It's the one that begins:
" How you, O Athenians, have been affected by my accusers,
cannot tell; but I know that they almost made me forget who I
was so persuasively did they speak; and yet they have hardly
uttered a word of truth. But of the many falsehoods told by"
Nick
message news:<f8e58188.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of
> > > so-called New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the
> > > time that we designate as 1000 A.D.
> > > http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> > Essentially, Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages"
> > about which we know little did not exist at all.
>
> Gibbon, his general knowledge of history probably could be safely described
> as "nonexisting" so what he contends or not contends to, outside chess area
> is of no importance. :-)
But does the "Wall Street Journal" know that what Kasparov contends
'outside chess...is of no importance'? :-)
> > In other words, there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> IMO is article shows nothing besides two things: (a) he is more or less
> oblivious of a history in general and (b) the primitive mathematical
> models do not work for forward or backward projections. Following the
> same methods, Marx predicted that industrialization will result in an
> explosive growth of the number of factory workers. Which did not happen.
>
> K's speculations regarding the Roman technology do not really work: there
> was no "progress" (in Kasparov's meaning) over couple thousands years of
> Ancient history. Egypt had a well-developed technology and probably
> something impressive can be diffed from the Ancient China as well.
For an introduction to the extraordinary history of Chinese science and
technology, one may read:
"The Genius of China: 3000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention"
by Robert Temple (introduced by Joseph Needham)
"It ('The Genius of China') is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of
my 'Science and Civilisation in China', published by the Cambridge University
Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which
fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press.
The extraordinary inventiveness, and insight into nature, of ancient and
medieval China raises two fundamental questions. First, why should they
have been so far in advance of other civilisations; and second, why aren't
they now centuries ahead of the rest of the world?..."
--Joseph Needham (October 1985, 'The Genius of China', p. 6)
> Still, all these millenias did not result in a working steam engine or in
> Newton's mathematics (not to mention a simple "0"). Maybe somebody added
> all these millenias as well?
"The essential design of the steam engine, lacking only the crank-shaft, was
invented in China before the steam engine existed. It was a water-powered
flour sifting and shaking machine which operated in reverse mode to the later
operation of the steam engine: instead of the piston of the steam engine
working the wheels on a vehicle, the Chinese machine had wheels which were
worked by rushing water in order to power pistons. The crank-shaft could not
be incorporated in the Chinese machine because it is a Western invention which
the Chinese never had. But it was not necessary.
The machines in question were south of the city of Ching Ming Ssu at the
Buddhist monasteries of Loyang. They are mentioned in a book entitled
'Description of the Buddhist Temples and Monasteries of Loyang', dating from
about 530 AD. These machines worked on the reciprocating principle of a
piston being moved by a connecting rod attached to a crank (powered by a
water wheel).
This principle came to be used more widely in connection with the metallurgical
industry. A water-powered device of this kind was found to be the most
efficient and labour-saving way to work the giant bellows of blast furnaces....
This, then, was one of the secrets of Chinese metallurgical supremacy. For
we know from another source that by driving the pistons from the smaller wheel
on the machine, which spun fifteen times faster than the large driving-wheel,
the pistons fanning the smelting fires could work at an enormous rate. The
blast would have been continuous, since from the fourth century BC the Chinese
had used the double-acting piston bellows for this purpose. Consequently, the
Chinese had prodigious energies harnessed to provide fully automated continuous
air blasts for their metallurgical operations by the sixth century AD. No
wonder this was the century which also saw the development of the steel
co-fusion process! The excellent steel which the Chinese had been producing
for several centuries previously provided the necessary bearings and parts
to produce tolerance for such hard-working machinery.
It was seven hundred years before water power in Europe was to be harnessed
for bellows, in the thirteenth century. In 1757, John Wilkinson patented a
hydraulic blowing-engine which was essentially identical to that described
by Wang Chen in 1313, except for the addition of a crank-shaft by way of
refinement. In 1780, James Pickard patented a steam engine using essentially
this apparatus in reverse, that is, power from the piston driving the wheel
rather than vice versa. Pickard's patent forced James Watt (who was barred
from this standard technique by not having the patent) to invent the
sun-and-planet gear for his own steam engine. *These European designs were
all derived, through various intermediaries such as Agostino Ramelli (1588),
from those of China.*"
--Robert Temple (The Genius of China, pp. 64-5)
In short, the Chinese had invented the steam engine's essential design long
before the Europeans were able to add the crank-shaft to that design and
thereby gain the credit (in Eurocentric books) for having invented the steam
engine's complete design all by themselves.
> > While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> > prove it wrong.
>
> This is not a "totally c-p theory". I read a book where author, using the
> same theory, "proved" that actually the Mongols did not exist at all (no
> Karakorum, no conquest of China, etc.) and were, in a reality, just the
> Russian princes fighting each other (and invading Western Europe trying to
> help Friederich II against the Pope). Of course, author convenienly ignored
> a massive archeological evidience, etc. Very convenient method. :-)
For an alternative view by an academic historian about a similar subject:
"Nomads and Crusaders: AD 1000-1368" by Archibald Lewis
> > It has always seemed strange that there was a thousand-year period in
> > European history where basically nothing happened.
>
> "Nothing" means "no events worth mentioning" or
> "no ballistic missiles had been developed"? :-)
Perhaps Sam Sloan meant that 'nothing happened' then in his own life? :-)
> > Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
> CAn anybody (including Kasparov) prove that it is correct?
Garry Kasparov's FIDE rating (a statistical measure of strength) in chess
is higher than ours. What more 'proof' need we expect? :-)
--Nick
Terry Mair
----- Original Message -----
From: "benjo maso" <benjo...@chello.nl>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Garry Kasparov and the missing One Thousand Years
>
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
> news:40080c5d...@ca.news.verio.net...
>
> (snip)
> >
> > How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> > literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> > there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> > time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ?
>
> Who told you that there was "virtually nothing" between A.D. 0 and 1500?
> There is a lot (cf the books of Peter Dronke, for instance). It's true
that
> the first centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire most literature is
> more or less religious and that there isn't much "fiction" or poetry (but
> there is some). The reason is simple: for economic and social reasons
there
> was hardly an audience. Except the clergy almost nobody could read or
write.
> Most litereray works were orally transmitted (but fortunately sometimes
> written down, like Beowulf ). But as soon as the towns came to new life
and
> courts becamse more and more important (end of the 11th century),
literature
> was flourishing again (to give you an idea: there have been preserved
about
> 2500 poems in Occitan, written between 1100 and 1300).
This brings up a question in my mind, what caused the change so suddenly
that people forgot how to read, or that there was no audiance for poetry as
an example?
Thanks
Terry
>
>
> Benjo Maso
>
>
>
Mark J
>
> The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
> that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
> names are not found in history books? The only way we know of the
> existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
> coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
> errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
You make the following suspect assumptions in this paragraph.
1) no histories of the sort you refer to were written.
We have no idea of what was written and subsequently lost.
Speculation is useless, but any assertion that something was not
written is an argument from silence, not exactly the sort of argument
to bet the farm on.
2) If histories were written, they would have survived.
In medieval europe, most of the educated class was connected with the
church. Their activities and concerns dictated which earlier European
works (of which the Arabs were unaware) would survive. Members of the
church heirarchy were obviously more concerned with spiritual issues
than they were with pagan history. Even if someone found it worthy to
recopy decaying ancient historical records, though, there are always
the problems of plundering, conquest, fire, flood, mold, and other
methods of destruction that could have wiped out the evidence that
such activities happened.
> Why is it that no
> physical paper and writings from 0 have survived.
The dead sea scrolls exist and are from around that time. They were
kept in about as close to perfect conditions as are possible (dark
storage in low humidity). Look at the condition in which they were
found--not good at all--many had crumbled into small bits. Paper is
destroyed by fire, flood, high humidity (which breeds mold), usage
over time, and more. The surprising thing is not fact that little
paper has survived more five hundred years, but rather that we have
any paper left that is that old.
> Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
> ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to
> 1500 ? Do we have any real evidence either for or against that
> hypothesis?
No, it isn't reasonable. The Arabs knew of many ancient European
writings long before the 14th century. For example, Algebra was
invented by medieval arabs who knew of ancient Greek math works. and
what about medieval Jewish writings? For example, Rashi, the most
important medieval Jewish commentator, lived in 11th century France.
His commentaries were known by Spanish Jews of the 12th to 15th
century. Did the Italians have Jews make him up, and all the Spanish
texts too? Why would these nefarious Italians have cared to let the
Jews in on their conspiracy; after all, Jews were not exactly a
favored minority in Italy at any point.
Sam, you've gotten many good responses in this thread about why the
new chronology theory is crap. It's time to hang it up.
Mark
marshall kirk
Roman historians whose works once existed, but are now known only from
chance mention in some other historian whose works do survive.
Specific examples: Gregory of Tours, writing about 580, quotes short
verbatim extracts from the late IIIrd-/early IVth-century histories of
Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus and Sulpicius Alexander. Those extracts
suggest that the original works were highly detailed, and their loss a
sore blow. More tellingly, Ammianus, writing perhaps around 390, and
the so-called Augustan History, perhaps of roughly the same date (tho'
it claims to be around eighty years older), mention the historical
work (probably of the early IIIrd century) of Marius Maximus -- the
former, to complain that Marius Maximus is all that the once-educated
class of aristocrats feels like reading, the latter, to complain of
the *excessive detail* of this historian. (I feel his posthumous
pain.) It sounds very much as tho' Marius Maximus was a potentially
precious source, once existing in at least hundreds, and perhaps
thousands, of copies -- yet AFAIK, not a single copy exists.
Consider, finally, the Roman historians who *do* survive, but in some
cases *via* a single, incomplete, or textually corrupt copy.
I'm also a little unsure about the idea of Roman Emperors known *only*
from coins, and never mentioned in a single written source. I can
easily think of a chain of overlapping histories that, I think, name
them all (and I'm not even a specialist). Not that it would make your
argument much stronger, but ... could you give an example?
iceb...@my-deja.com (Mark J) wrote in message news:<ba107a46.04011...@posting.google.com>...
Brant Gibbard
>I'm also a little unsure about the idea of Roman Emperors known *only*
>from coins, and never mentioned in a single written source. I can
>easily think of a chain of overlapping histories that, I think, name
>them all (and I'm not even a specialist). Not that it would make your
>argument much stronger, but ... could you give an example?
There are actually are a few such, but calling them "emperors" may be a
bit of a stretch: they were would-be-emperrors, usurpers who seem to
have survived only for a very short time, just long enough to mint a
handful of coins before succumbing. Silbannacus comes to mind, and I
believe there are a few more. A single coin of his exists in the British
Museum, and can only be dated by the style, as there are no historical
references to him.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@ca.inter.net
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~bgibbard/gen/
Toronto, ON
Doug McDonald
>
>
> "The essential design of the steam engine, lacking only the crank-shaft, was
> invented in China before the steam engine existed. It was a water-powered
> flour sifting and shaking machine which operated in reverse mode to the later
> operation of the steam engine: instead of the piston of the steam engine
> working the wheels on a vehicle, the Chinese machine had wheels which were
> worked by rushing water in order to power pistons. The crank-shaft could not
> be incorporated in the Chinese machine because it is a Western invention which
> the Chinese never had. But it was not necessary.
>
Tha's absolutely totally silly. The essential mechanical quality
of the steam engine is the conversion of heat into work. What
you describe is something FAR less important!
But what really what was NECESSARY for the West to be better was
a man named Sadi Carnot, not anything mechanical. Did the Chinese
look at whatever they had and try to improve it? Did they invent the
steam engine itself? Did they look at it and invent the
refrigerator?
That last is CRITICAL! The number one thing to come out
of steam engines was the understand of thermodynamics, especially
entropy.
What you quote is a typical silly attempt at trying to make
a civilization better than they were.
> In short, the Chinese had invented the steam engine's essential design
No .... that is the conversion of heat into motion, in a continuous
cyclic fashion. Early steam engines lacked the cyclic part, so
they had to carry vast amounts of water.
Doug McDonald
Sam Sloan
follows:
You are correct that my ancestry is Christian and more than that were
religious ministers and preachers. My first Swedish ancestor to arrive
in America was Peter Cassel who was my great-great-grandfather and who
in 1845 led a group from Kisa, Ostergotland, Sweden and established
the first Swedish settlement West of the Mississippi, near what is now
Fairfield, Iowa.
However, my first ancestor to arrive in America was David Graham who
was also a religious minister and who in 1772 arrived from Ireland in
Charleston, South Carolina on the ship Pennsylvania Farmer.
Peter Cassel, my great-great-great-grandfather, was named after his
ancestor Peter Cassel who was the riding master of King Erik XIV
(1533-1577) of Sweden.
I have recently discovered that I am descended from King Erik XIV of
Sweden on my father's side (who I did not even previously know was
even part Swedish). Peter Cassel and David Graham were both from my
mother's side.
However, King Erik XIV of Sweden (who is regarded as having been the
first King of Sweden) was murdered in 1577 by poisoning on orders of
his half brother, who became the next King of Sweden, so my immediate
ancestors were not royalty at all but were very common average people.
My point here is that even though I know the name of my
great-great-great-great-grandfather, David Graham from Ireland, and I
know the dates of his birth and death and the name of the ship he
arrived on, that is all I know. I have not been able to find out the
names of his parents. In fact, nobody that I know with Irish ancestory
can go back further than the first immigrant who came from Ireland to
America. I do not know whether the Irish did not keep records, or
destroyed them, or are simply not releasing them.
On my Swedish side, even though King Erik XIV of Sweden was the king,
all I or anybody else knows is the names of his grandparents. His
grandfather was Erik Johansson Vasa (1470-1520). That is just about
the oldest ancestor I have established. A few of my ancestors, all
Swedish, are slightly older.
My point is that the historical record of my family peters out at
around 1492, the date that Columbus discovered America. This is not
only true for me but true for everybody. Nobody can trace their family
history much before 1492. It seems that there are no cemeteries, no
gravestones and no cemetary markers much before 1492. Of course,
people were buried before that time, but their graves were apparently
unmarked.
Is it not remarkable that the history of chess can only be reliably
traced to that time? The modern form of chess, with the strong queen
and bishop, developed in 1497, just about the same time. We believe
that chess is much older, but have no solid proof. In 1985, when I was
researching my monograph "The Origins of Chess", I was shocked to
discover that all the ancient references to chess cited by H.J.R.
Murray were pure fabrications. H. J. R. Murray cites two works from
the seventh century and two more from the ninth century, which he
claims contain references to chess. Murray says that references to
chess are contained in Harshacharita by Bana and in Vasavadatta by
Subhandu. Murray also says that references to chess can be found in
the Kharnamak, the Shatranj Namak, the Shah Namak and in the works of
Al Berumi.
All of these citations by Murray are fake. None of these works contain
any reference to chess.
This discovery, that nobody has bothered to check the citations by
Murray, has led me to wonder about other commonly held beliefs.
One of the main criticizisms to the article by Kasparov concerns the
fact that the Soviet Union was the biggest fabricator of history.
Whenever a Soviet political leader fell from favor, he was either
murdered or sent to Siberia and his picture was airbrushed from all
photographs. In short, he ceased to exist. In addition, the Soviets
were noted for claiming that everything worth inventing had been
invented by a Russian. The electric lightbulb was not invented by
Edison. It was invented by a Russian. Every chess opening was invented
by a Russian, too. Benko did not invent the Benko Gambit. It was
invented by a Russian. The Pirc Defense was not invented by Pirc. It
was invented by a Russian, too. Since they could not find any Russian
who played the Pirc Defense before Pirc did, they claimed that it had
been invented by a previously unknown Russian named Ufmsted, who had
played something similar. Since they could not find anybody who played
the Benko Gambit before Benko did, they named it after a river, the
Volga.
You are correctly pointing out that the same old Soviets who re-wrote
history, who denied the existence of people who existed, and who
claimed that they had invented everything, are now claiming that the
entire History of Europe before about the year 1400 is fake.
Your point is well taken. Almost all of the proponents of the
so-called "New Tradition History" are former Soviets, including
Nicolai A. Morozov and Anatoly T. Fomenko, as well as Garry Kasparov
and several others.
This, however, does not mean that their theories, however crack-pot as
they may seem, can be rejected out of hand.
To cite as an example, when I was a little boy the theory that Africa
and South America had once been united but had drifted apart was
regarded as a crack-pot theory. It was not until the 1960s that the
theory of continental shift began to be accepted into the mainstream.
Now, it is regarded as scientifically proven fact.
As I understand it, the "New Tradition History" does not claim that
all ancient history is fake. It does not dispute the Arab or Chinese
histories, not does it claim that all the European Histories are fake.
What is does claim is that the histories of Ancient Greece and Rome
are fake. This includes Biblical History, because the Bible comes to
us primarily through Greek and Latin Sources.
Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, not only has an authoratative
translation never been published, but the scholars who devoted their
lives to working on the scrolls are either dead or are very old now.
The scrolls are said to date from 200 AD and were written by an
off-beat sect, not a main-stream group. From this we already know that
what they contain is different from what is found in the traditional
Bible.
You also keep asking me what is my agenda. The answer is I do not have
any. I first read the essay by Kasparov a few years ago. I dimissed it
as crack-pot, especially because I know Kasparov quite well and he is
a cracked-pot. However, when I read it again last week, it did seem to
provide an answer to some questions I had been asking recently in
other areas, and so I decided to consider it more carefully.
Sam Sloan
At 11:30 AM 1/17/2004 +0100, Kaarlo Schepel wrote:
>Sam,
>
>Pete's answer below is of course brilliant.
>
>The main point for you from a personal edge must be:
>
>'Do I want to see all sides of the argument. Or am I biased as a Muslim against Christianity.'
>
>You converted to Islam, you are not a second or third generation Muslim. As you claim your ancestry to (mostly) Sweden, most of your ancestors have a Christian heritage going back to the 10th century.
>Bonifatius e.g. was (probably) a monk from Ireland who converted whole tribes in the Netherlands and Germany in the 8th century. He founded such diverse churches as Arnstadt
>(celebrating its 1,300 years founding in 2004), the great Cathedral of Erfurt and a few churches in e.g. Friesland (Frisia).
>The church in this village had a forerunner dating back to 780, founded by a
>disciple of Bonifatius by the name of Ludger. It was (probably) a wooden structure on a previous
>Germanic place of worship that goes back to about the first century A.D. The excavations
>proving these things are still being made annually in this province.
>
>When we talk about church history (Italy and even France), then we talk
>about written records.
>
>If as you state "As you correctly point out, the Muslims have kept very
>reliable, detailed
>and accurate records of their history, starting from 632 AD. The names and
>dates of every great Khalif and Iman have been preserved.",
>
>why can't you just try to read Catholic church history - without bias. Why
>should the Khalif have
>existed but their counterparts - the popes of the Vatican been invented by
>the Italians ?????
>Their records in the Vatican, the records of Synods and Church Councils have
>been just as
>meticulously if not better preserved.
>
>We all know that the greatest falsifiers of history, who basically invented
>a new way to rewrite it - whenever
>another top party member was banished to Siberia or (most of the time)
>murdered, were the Soviets. You
>should not be surprised to find a few (probably) atheïst and fervent
>anti-Christian historians - now embraced
>by G.K. to try to eradicate Christinaity from history.
>
>So, Sam, quite honest. Tell us: What is your agenda ? Do you try to promote
>these ideas, because you had several terrible religious (Christian) lunatics yourself ? I sympathize with
>what happened to you(r family), but what does it have to do with Christ, who (probably) was born in 7 B.C.
>(astronomists) and died in 26 - age 33. He is absolutely blameless, and is a saint/ prphet even for
>Muslims. Read your Quran.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>kaarlo schepel
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <PTam...@aol.com>
>To: <fide-...@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 2:39 AM
>Subject: Re: [fide-chess] Re: Garry Kasparov misses One Thousand Years
>asLarrymissed t...
>
>
>OK, Sam, maybe this will give you a better idea of the "dark ages." Just the
>highlights. I'm sure I left stuff out.And there was no year "0" , btw. I
>put
>where you could find some stuff according to sources (books at hand), but
>really all you have to do is go over to the Cloisters. You know where that
>is.
>
>The "Dark Ages" Light It Up:
>
> 77 Pliny’s Natural History, oldest extant
>encyclopedia
>200-300 Codex form of book invented; mostly vellum
>300-400 Two oldest extant Greek vellum codices of
>Scripture: Codex Vaticanus , acquired by Vatican library ca. 1448; Codex
>Sinaiticus; purchased by British Museum from Russia, 1933 for $500,000
>360 Scrolls begin to be replaced by books
>390 St. Augustine apologizes for having to use
>vellum instead of papyrus to write a letter on
>383-405 St. Jerome translates Bible from Hebrew &
>Greek
>into Latin:Vulgate
>411-13 Pelagius, British theologian affirms freedom
>of will
>413-26 St. Augustine, Civitas Dei
>490 Dracontius of Carthage: De laudibus Dei
>494 Pope Gelasius: list of proscribed
>books-earliest known instance
>496 Gelasian Missal, instruction book on Mass
>celebration
>500 Codex Bezae, New Testament in Greek and
>Latin
>500 Johannes Stobaios of Macedonia: anthology
>of
>Greek lit.
>500 Aristainetos Eletter on life in Alexandria
>500(approx.) Dionysius the Areopagite and his neo-Platonic
>writings
>520(app) Priscian’s systematic grammar
>523-24 Boethius: Consolatio Philosophiae
>529-34 Institutes, Digests, and Codex Justinianus
>issued
>540-604 Pope Gregory: orders chants collected,
>arranged: Antiphonarium
>547 Gildas: De Excidio Britanniae
>550 Oldest extant ms. of Gothic writing, Codex
>Argentus, preserved at Upsala University, Sweden, written in silver letters
>on purple dyed parchment.
>583 Cassiodorus(490-583), Ostografia
>586 Echmaiadsin Evangliar, Byzantine-Armenian
>ms.
>594 Gregory of Tours died, author of Historiae
>Francorum
>598 First English school at Canterbury
>622 Isidore, Bishop of Seville: Etymologiae
>632 Georgios Pisides: The Hexameron, poem on
>the
>creation of the world
>635 Irish school of writing enters England
>(BTW,
>there’s a great book on Ireland keeping learning alive in so-called “Dark
>Ages E
>670 Codification of the law of the Visigoths in
>Spain
>685 Ravenna Cosmography, a catalog of all known
>countries,towns,rivers
>695 Law code of King Wihtred
>700 Lindisfarne Gospels, illuminated monastic
>ms.
>716 Codex Amiatinus, transcript of Vulgate
>Bible, preserved in Laurentian Library
>731 Venerable Bede: Historia Ecclesiastica
>742-814 Charlemagne
>750-800 Cynewulf: Elene, Juliana, The Ascension, Fates
>of the Apostles
>766-782 Aethelbert and Alcuin make York a center of
>learning
>790 Libri Carolini by Carolingian divines;
>Frankish Court school
>799 Paul the Deacon died, author of Historia
>Langobardorum
>829 End of the Annales Regni Francorum
>(official
>chronicle)
>840 Einhard died, official biographer of
>Charlemagne
>840-930 Hucbald of Flanders reforms in notation of
>music (followed “soon Eby Guido de Arezzo and then 300 years later by Franco
>de
>Cologne with notation reforms)
>842 Oaths of Strasbourg, first record of final
>separation of French and German languages
>865 Otfrid of Weissenburg: Diatessaron in
>German
>verse
>867 Johannes Scotus: Peri physeon merismou
>883 Notker Balbulus: Gesta Karoli
>890(app) Cantilene de Ste. Eulalie, first French poem
>893 Asser, Bishop of Sherborne: Life of Alfred
>the Great
>930 Ekkehard of St. Gallen: Walter of
>Aquitaine(epic poem)
>960-980 Hrotsvit of Gandersheim: six Christian plays
>961-971 Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona: Antapodosis,
>History of Otto I
>965-967 Widukind of Corvey: Saxon History
>966 Flodoard of REims died, Annals, History of
>Reims Church
>971 Blickling Homilies
>990-1020 Aelfric the Grammarian, Abbot of Eynsham:
>Homilies, Latin Grammar, Glossary
>1000-1010 Chanson de Roland
>1005-1020 Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham: English translations
>of the Bible
>1010 Richer of St. Remy died, author of Historia
>Remensis Ecclesiae
>1050(app) Moors introduce paper-making into Europe thru
>Spain & Sicily
>1050 Radulfus Glaber died, author of Historiae
>sui
>Temporis. Ruodlieb,first German novel of chivalry
>1060 Ekkehard IV of St. Gall, died, author of
>Casus Sancti Galli
>1075 Adam of Bremen: History of the Hamburg
>Church
>1077 Lampert of Hersfeld died, author of Annals
>1086 Domesday Book
>1104 Oldest known European decorated leathe
>binding 7th-10th cent., is in this year taken from the coffin of English
>monk St.
>Cuthbert; preserved at Stonyhurst College, Lancashire.
>1109 Anselm of Canterbury died, author of Cur
>Deus
>Homo, Monologion, Proslogion
>1115 Chancellor Bernard reorganizes Chartres
>school
>1137-1158 Otto, Bishop of Freising, author of De duabus
>civitatibus, Gesta Friderici I.
>1141 Thierry establishes scientific and classical
>studies at Chartres school
>1142 Peter Abelard died, author of Sic et non
>1143 William of Malmesbury, died, author of Gesta
>Pontificum Anglorum, Gesta Regum Anglorum
>1147 Geoffrey of Monmouth: Historia Regum
>Britanniae
>1151 Xativa, Spain: paper mill
>1154 Edrisi: Geography. End of the Anglo-Saxon
>Chronicle
>1155 Wace: Roman de Brut
>1159 John of Salisbury: Policraticus (on
>statesmanship, dedicated to Thomas Becket)
>1140-1160 Peter Lombard, teacher at Paris University
>1160-1170 Walter Map, Anglo-Latin lyrical poet
>1167-68 Oxford University founded
>1190(app) Chrestien de Troyes died, author of Lancelot,
>Yvain, Guillaume d’Angleterre, Perceval
>1191-1204 Nibelungenlied
>1202-1204 Siena Univ. founded, Vicenza Univ. founded,
>Fibonacci introdues Arabic numerals in Europe.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Of course, nobody would claim that those thousand years did not exist.
>Humans have been on this Earth for three million years. Humans have almost
>always buried their dead, for the simple reason, as any soldier who has
>experienced combat will tell you, the stench of a dead body is so horrible
>that nobody can stand it. So, there are graves going back thousands of
>years, long before there is any written record of the people in those
>graves.
>
>Similarly there are thousand year old buildings. The Buddhist stupas at
>Bamyan, Afghanistan which were destroyed by the Taliban were reliably dated
>to about 200 AD, so we know that Buddhism existed at that time. We also
>know that the Great Walls of China were built. (There are many walls, not
>just one, and I have been there.)
>
>As you correctly point out, the Muslims have kept very reliable, detailed
>and accurate records of their history, starting from 632 AD. The names and
>dates of every great Khalif and Iman have been preserved.
>
>The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware that
>there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose names are
>not found in history books? The only way we know of the existence of many
>Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a coin dug up in the
>ground. This proves that there are big gaps and errors in the generally
>recognized history of Rome.
>
>Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
>question is whether the great literary works from that time are really two
>thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The Bible,
>the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of Plato,
>Aristotle and Socratese, works of Homer, and the great plays such as
>Oedipus Rex and so on.
>
>How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of literature
>from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then there was virtually
>nothing for about 1500 years until just about the time that Columbus
>Discovered America in 1492 ? Why is it that no physical paper and writings
>from 0 have survived. We have been told that the great works were copied
>and recopied by Monks. Is that really true? Do we have any evidence of
>proof to support this?
>
>Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
>ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to 1500 ?
>Do we have any real evidence either for or against that hypothesis?
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>At 04:24 PM 1/15/2004 +0100, Kaarlo Schepel wrote:
>>Dear Sam,
>>
>>A.D. = the year of our Lord Jesus Christ. The problem with most people who
>>try to cast doubt on historical facts that have been taught in Universities
>>in Europe for hundreds of years, is that they are non-believers. The years
>>have been counted by the Christians who lived through the Dark Ages, year
>>in, year out. If you ask astronomers, they will be able tell you that the
>>Star of Bethlehem (probably Saturnus, Jupiter standing in the star
>>constellation of Pisces) really occurred in 7 B.C. as described in the New
>>Testament.
>>
>>You are a non-believer (Christian) but you believe in the Quran. And in
>Arab
>>countries history was meticulously retained too by the great Arab
>>civilisation in their universities. Many of those years were obviously not
>>that interesting (more in Egypt and the Middle East than in Europe), and
>>almost all of those were written about by hand. I think it is better that
>>you have a decent talk with a few historians, and a few theologians who
>have
>>spent all their lives working with this kind of material. Or art historians
>>who devote all their lives digging through original manuscripts. That is if
>>you have any doubt.
Renia
> My point here is that even though I know the name of my
> great-great-great-great-grandfather, David Graham from Ireland, and I
> know the dates of his birth and death and the name of the ship he
> arrived on, that is all I know. I have not been able to find out the
> names of his parents. In fact, nobody that I know with Irish ancestory
> can go back further than the first immigrant who came from Ireland to
> America. I do not know whether the Irish did not keep records, or
> destroyed them, or are simply not releasing them.
One of the problem with Ireland, is that many records have been
destroyed. For example, all the Irish wills were destroyed in 1922 by a
bomb in Dublin. The same bomb affected the existence of a lot of other
Irish records.
Of potential interest for you, however, are the records of the Graham
family available from the Public Record Office in Belfast, Northern Ieland.
http://proni.nics.gov.uk/records/private/graham.htm
The Graham Papers (D/812, MIC/305 AND T/3263)
Q
> The Graham papers comprise c.4,700 documents and c.95 volumes, 1741,
1777 and 1791-1957, and consist primarily of: title, deeds, leases,
wills, accounts, correspondence, etc, 1741, 1777 and 1791-1957, relating
to Graham property in and around Lisburn, Co. Antrim, and in Belfast;
correspondence and diaries of Dr James Graham and Colonel James Graham,
1819-1905, including some family letters, but chiefly concerned with Dr
and Colonel Graham's service in India and with the Indian Mutiny; and
correspondence and diaries of Captain D.C. Graham, including
descriptions of Captain Graham's experience during the 1914-1918 War,
when he served with the Royal Engineers in France. The Graham family
originated in Scotland and settled in Ulster, probably at Lisnastrain,
outside Lisburn, some time in the 17th century.
UNQ
You have probably seen the following in the IGI, interesting because it
has the S on the end of the name:
119. ANDREW GRAHAMS - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Christening: 18 SEP 1755 Donaghmore, Tyrone, Ireland
Renia
marshall kirk
This isn't a newspaper, and I'm not advertising. This is -- in
intent, anyway -- a scholarly forum, the purpose of which is to
express positions fully and unambiguously. Ease of reading is
desirable, but NOT the primary consideration -- and I don't write for
people who aren't prepared to make an effort to, or in some cases
simply can't, pay attention. (Those who aren't interested at all in
what I have to say needn't read it. Deletion's a mouse-click away.)
I don't know where the odd but frequently implied notion arose that
one style of writing is best for all purposes, and that that style is
brief, with lots of paragraphs, but I suspect it has something to do
with the economics of mass marketing, and the short attention span of
most readers -- both of which are symptomatic of the intellectual
barbarization of our society. I think it says a lot -- in fact,
damned nearly everything -- that you apparently draw your ideal of
style from a high-school instructor of newspaper journalism. Most
newspaper prose is godawful -- written, in my opinion, by limited
minds, for limited minds, yet (strangely enough) still in desperate
need of editing.
That you apparently approve of Hines's style is, if anything, even
more telling. I consider it high praise to be told by such a writer
that my prose is horribly wrong; it stands as strong evidence that I
must be doing something right.
If you think my essential point was false, you apparently *didn't*
understand it, as it's patently true. Let's say it again: the making
and keeping of genealogically useful records isn't driven by some sort
of powerful instinct that won't be denied, and a lack thereof
shouldn't come as a surprise, still less as cause for suspicion.
People have to have a compelling reason to record things like births
or baptisms; they don't usually do it for fun. Some examples have
been given, correctly, of religious and economic reasons for recording
such events. Prior to about 1500, the majority of the English
population didn't fall under those economic rubrics; of the records
that were made, a great many have fallen prey to the vicissitudes of
time. Consequently, there are precious few records of birth,
marriage, or death in England before the inception of uniform parish
registers.
*Hier steht ich*.
--mk
GRHa...@aol.com wrote in message news:<10c.2e7299...@aol.com>...
> Kirks message:
> "My reply to library patrons who'd ask me (often a little accusingly,
> as tho' I were trying to withhold information) why there aren't any
> records of, say, births, marriages, and deaths for an early period in
> a given area, was usually some version of this: why SHOULD there be records?
> What motivation, precisely, did people have in (say)
> 15th-century England, or much later on the American frontier, to write
> down on a piece of paper the fact that a child had been born, along
> with name, date, and place? People don't do much, especially as a
> general practice, without some compelling reason. From the point of
> view of the Church, there was great theological motivation to
> *baptize* a child -- the putative salvation of its immortal soul (also
> putative) -- but markedly less motivation to write down the mere fact
> that this had been done, unless and until circumstances arose in which it
> became important (again, probably for reasons connected with the application of
> canon law to situations in need of adjudication)) to prove, by appeal to
> written record, that the ceremony had been
> performed. (And even then, I can see no good reason to keep such
> records long after the deaths of all the baptizees recorded, unless
> such evidence was needed for determination of consanguinity among
> their descendants.) IIRC, the order for the uniform recording of
> English baptisms in uniform parochial registers, beginning in, I
> think, 1538 or so, emanated from the court of Henry VIII, not the
> Church as such (tho' the difference may be a bit moot), and *his*
> motivation here was probably at least in part related to the need to
> pin down the demographics relevant to realistic possibilities for
> taxation, the Tudors being awfully interested in money. (Ditto for
> censuses.) Why, indeed, should farmers in colonial New England have taken
> hours off from their hard and pressing rural work to make a trek to the town
> clerk, just to have him write down in a book the fact that they'd sired yet
> another child -- especially when (a) they may have
> had to pay for the 'service,' and (b) they'd often already had the kid
> baptized, anyway? What was 'in it' for them? We've got so used,
> today, to having to fill out a form every time we use the john that
> it's become second nature, and it doesn't seem to occur to people to
> realize that the real question is not why paper records are in short
> supply for early periods, but why there are even so many of them."
> Spencer, you old dog, you are correct again. It is a fact that the most
> effective writing is done in short paragraphs and in coming directly to the crux
> of an argument.
>
> I was trained in high school in newspaper journalism and one of the main
> points the instructor continually stressed was shortness of the item and getting
> to the point.
>
> You don't the the advertising people using long, uninterrupted, paragraphs to
> try to sell a product. They try to get their point across in as few words as
> possible (often falsehoods it seems in this case).
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in
> message news:<f8e58188.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> > sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in
> > message news:<40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net>...
> > > "Bob Musicant" <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of
> > > > so-called New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the
> > > > time that we designate as 1000 A.D.
> > > > http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> > >
> > > This is a very interesting and thought provoking article.
> > > Essentially, Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages"
> > > about which we know little did not exist at all.
> >
> > With Kasparov's one and only more or less history-related reference being
> > Gibbon, his general knowledge of history probably could be safely described
> > as "nonexisting" so what he contends or not contends to, outside chess area
> > is of no importance. :-)
>
> But does the "Wall Street Journal" know that what Kasparov contends
> 'outside chess...is of no importance'? :-)
Sorry, I probably should add "and business". To be completely objective,
a couple decades ago he was, alledgedly, dating one of the most beautiful
Soviet actresses so we should add "and women". Well, it would be safer to
reformulate my statement: "what he contends to in tha area of a history..."
:-)
>
> > > In other words, there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
> >
> > IMO is article shows nothing besides two things: (a) he is more or less
> > oblivious of a history in general and (b) the primitive mathematical
> > models do not work for forward or backward projections. Following the
> > same methods, Marx predicted that industrialization will result in an
> > explosive growth of the number of factory workers. Which did not happen.
> >
> > K's speculations regarding the Roman technology do not really work: there
> > was no "progress" (in Kasparov's meaning) over couple thousands years of
> > Ancient history. Egypt had a well-developed technology and probably
> > something impressive can be diffed from the Ancient China as well.
>
> For an introduction to the extraordinary history of Chinese science and
> technology, one may read:
> "The Genius of China: 3000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention"
> by Robert Temple (introduced by Joseph Needham)
>
> "It ('The Genius of China') is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of
> my 'Science and Civilisation in China', published by the Cambridge University
> Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which
> fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press.
>
> The extraordinary inventiveness, and insight into nature, of ancient and
> medieval China raises two fundamental questions. First, why should they
> have been so far in advance of other civilisations; and second, why aren't
> they now centuries ahead of the rest of the world?..."
>
> --Joseph Needham (October 1985, 'The Genius of China', p. 6)
Indeed. And why, knowing a gunpowder ages before Europeans, weren't they
ages ahead in a defelopment of the firearms? :-)
Or why and how the Incas, who formally had been still in a (developed but
still) stone age, managed to build a network of the roads all over their
empire.
BTW, IIRC, the Romans had been widely using a concret so should we assume
that ACTUALLY "the gap" was until XIX century and all these Middle Ages,
Renaissance, Enlightment, etc. are simply invention of the Victorians?
Even simpler example. With all known well-developed civilizations of a
Mediterranian who long did it took to start using an arch in theconstructions?
IIRC, the Romans were the 1st who started using it extensively so what
would it be, 2,000 years?
[]
> > > It has always seemed strange that there was a thousand-year period in
> > > European history where basically nothing happened.
> >
> > "Nothing" means "no events worth mentioning" or
> > "no ballistic missiles had been developed"? :-)
>
> Perhaps Sam Sloan meant that 'nothing happened' then in his own life? :-)
To think about it, can he produce any serious proof of his own existence?
:-)
>
> > > Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
> >
> > CAn anybody (including Kasparov) prove that it is correct?
>
> Garry Kasparov's FIDE rating (a statistical measure of strength) in chess
> is higher than ours. What more 'proof' need we expect? :-)
Damn, I should pay more attention to Madonna's views on US politics! :-)
Alex
If to follow Sam's logic, it's all more complicated: the Russian
oligarphs bribed Italian Mafia to remove a 1,000 years from European
(only European, everybody else allowed to have their history) to avoid
a prosecution for the massive tax evasions. This theory HAS to be true
because his source is a high school history teacher and who would doubt
qualification of an American school educator? :-)
Sam Sloan
>Sorry, I probably should add "and business". To be completely objective,
>a couple decades ago he was, alledgedly, dating one of the most beautiful
>Soviet actresses so we should add "and women". Well, it would be safer to
>reformulate my statement: "what he contends to in tha area of a history..."
>:-)
Who was that Soviet actress? Do you know? Was that one of his wives,
because I know one of them?
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
Bingo! This certainly helps me, because I am virtually certain that I
am descended from the Grahams you have just cited, or at least
everything fits.
Sam Sloan
benjo maso
> Is it not remarkable that the history of chess can only be reliably
> traced to that time? The modern form of chess, with the strong queen
> and bishop, developed in 1497, just about the same time. We believe
> that chess is much older, but have no solid proof. In 1985, when I was
> researching my monograph "The Origins of Chess", I was shocked to
> discover that all the ancient references to chess cited by H.J.R.
> Murray were pure fabrications. H. J. R. Murray cites two works from
> the seventh century and two more from the ninth century, which he
> claims contain references to chess. Murray says that references to
> chess are contained in Harshacharita by Bana and in Vasavadatta by
> Subhandu. Murray also says that references to chess can be found in
> the Kharnamak, the Shatranj Namak, the Shah Namak and in the works of
> Al Berumi.
>
> All of these citations by Murray are fake. None of these works contain
> any reference to chess.
Chess was one of the favorite passtimes for at 12th and 13th century french
courts, which is many, many times mentioned in contemporary literature. They
even knew the story how the inventor of the game as a reward asked for (one
corn grain on the first square, two on the second, four on the third).
Benjo Maso
D. Spencer Hines
teachers propagate all the time ---- including that:
1. The Non-Western Cultures were really MUCH smarter and more competent
at all sorts of scientific and engineering accomplishments than the
West....
2. All Cultures are basically equal....
3. Multi-Culturalism, incorporating principles 1 and 2 above, is
Politically Correct and must be obeyed ---- and any other belief is
Racist, Chauvinist, Politically-Incorrect and Contemptible ---- as well
as Mean-Spirited, to be sure.
Educators Educate Yourselves ---- Rather Than Just Jumping On Your Work
Product, Like This Poor Ignorant Fool You've Produced ---- And Start
Weeding Out The Charlatans Amongst You ---- Or We'll Start Doing It For
You.
And this means you too, McDonald ---- along with Gans, Scott and the
Great Gaggle of the rest of you educators on USENET.
You Have Mortgaged Our Future With Great Debts Of Ignorance....
Deus Vult
Sholem Aleichem
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:40094A0D...@scs.uiuc.edu...
D. Spencer Hines
Marshall Kirk is already doing a classic Back & Fill...
He carps, whines, protests, condescends and pontificates in a
limited-hang-out hissy fit ---- but at the same time backs off and
adopts a more user-friendly posting style.
Kirk's paragraphs are getting shorter and his congealed-chunk prose is
properly less characterized as hyperbolic-soap-opera, pimply-faced-kid,
stream of consciousness ---- as to style.
Score:
Hale 1
Renia 1
Kirk 0
'Nuff Said....
Deus Vult
Sholem Aleichem
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"marshall kirk" <mkk...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1c74a9e5.04011...@posting.google.com...
<baldersnip>
Julian Richards
<D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>Hilarious!
>
>Marshall Kirk is already doing a classic Back & Fill...
>
>He carps, whines, protests, condescends and pontificates in a
>limited-hang-out hissy fit ---- but at the same time backs off and
>adopts a more user-friendly posting style.
>
>Kirk's paragraphs are getting shorter and his congealed-chunk prose is
>properly less characterized as hyperbolic-soap-opera, pimply-faced-kid,
>stream of consciousness ---- as to style.
Certainly there is nothing like a huge single block of text in a
posting to make me go straight on to the next message. Likewise, the
use of a new paragraph for each sentence, irrespective of length or
content can be equally annoying.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
Martin Reboul
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:hVfOb.150$p07....@eagle.america.net...
> Hilarious!
>
> Marshall Kirk is already doing a classic Back & Fill...
>
> He carps, whines, protests, condescends and pontificates in a
> limited-hang-out hissy fit ---- but at the same time backs off
and
> adopts a more user-friendly posting style.
>
> Kirk's paragraphs are getting shorter and his congealed-chunk
prose is
> properly less characterized as hyperbolic-soap-opera,
pimply-faced-kid,
> stream of consciousness ---- as to style.
Yet he still writes interesting stuff. When are you going to
manage to do that Spency?
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>You have probably seen the following in the IGI, interesting because it
>has the S on the end of the name:
>
> 119. ANDREW GRAHAMS - International Genealogical Index
>Gender: Male Christening: 18 SEP 1755 Donaghmore, Tyrone, Ireland
>
>Renia
No. I had not seen this before and thank you very much. It is possible
or even likely that this is my great-great-great-grandfather.
My great-great-great-grandfather was Andrew Graham who was born in
Ireland in "About 1753". His mother was Janet and his father was David
Graham. This Andrew Graham was born 18 SEP 1755 and his mother was
Jane and his father was James Grahams. In spite of the two years
difference in dates, the difference between Janet and Jane and the
difference between David Graham and James Grahams, there is enough
similarity that further checking is appropriate.
One possibility concerns the fact that my Andrew was the eldest of
eight children. When a man died it was customary for his brother to
marry the widow. So, it is possible that James died and David the next
brother married Jane or Janet. The fact that Andrew had a different
father from the others was just never mentioned.
Sam Sloan
Graeme Wall
Claus-Jürgen Heigl <un...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Simon Pugh wrote:
> >
> > >> Isn't this blown out of the water by the eclipses, both solar and
> > >> lunar, that are recorded during the period that supposedly doesn't
> > >> exit. A quick play with Starry Night and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
> > >> should convince anyone.
>
> I recently read an article stating eclipses are not a good means for
> setting up a historic time frame because they are cyclic events.
Surely cyclic (and highly predictable) events are just what you need for a
historic time frame.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Graeme Wall
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
[snip]
>
> How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ?
Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.
Sheila J
I've always wondered why in every movie, when they are portraying
'medieval chess' they use the Lewis set. From what I understand, that
wasn't chess at all. Am I wrong?
--
Also say to them, that they suffre hym this day to wynne his spurres,
for if God be pleased, I woll this journey be his, and the honoure thereof.
Edward III, at some point...
Todd A. Farmerie
he broadcasts another moronic post to five groups, knowing that people
won't be able to resist responding. After several months away. Mr.
Sloan has again forced this group into participation in one of his inane
crossposted threads. We justly complain when Mr. Sloan's narcissism
results in him crossposting the most irrelevant material to this group,
followed by responses that are equally out of bounds. We ask the other
posters (and Mr. Sloan, for all the good it does) to be good net
citizens and drop the crosspost. Well, now it is our turn. While one
could argue that this thread is on-topic for this group, as it stupidly
argues that the medieval period itself didn't exist and all of the
documents we use are forged, it is certainly off-topic for the three
chess groups that he also included, rec.games.chess.analysis,
rec.games.chess.misc and rec.games.chess.politics.
The best approach, any time Mr. Sloan posts, is to ignore him. However,
if you MUST respond, then ABSOLUTELY UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you
fail to remove the other groups from the crosspost. This thread will
never go away if people keep perpetuating the chaos by repeating the
crosspost. As it is the thread seems to be drifting in all kinds of
different directions, none of which are appropriate here. Mr. Sloan has
long ago proven that he really doesn't care what people are saying, as
long as he is the center of the conversation, so posting evidences will
have no effect. All that will happen is that, the longer this
continues, the more he will be encouraged to repeat his misbehavior.
taf