Mummies found in Outer Hebrides: Kings of Ireland
JacobSmith
Mummies found in Outer Hebrides
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2856399.stm
"Researchers believe islanders on South Uist
started mummifying their dead at the same time
as the ancient Egyptians." . . . "Analysis showed
. . . bodies had been preserved using naturally
occurring acids and peat bogs." . . . "Proof they
were mummified comes from the fact that the
bodies were gutted and carbon dating has
shown them to have died up to 600 years
before burial."
The Annals of the Four Masters provides added
written evidence of an ancient Egyptian practice.
M3959.1
"The seventeenth year of Slanoll
in the sovereignty; and he died,
at the end of that time, at Teamhair Tara,
and it is not known what disease carried
him off; he was found dead, but his colour
did not change. He was afterwards buried;
and after his body had been forty years in
the grave, it was taken up by his son, i.e.
Oilioll mac Slanuill, and the body had
remained without rotting or decomposing
during this period. This thing was a great
wonder and surprise to the men of Ireland."
Previously noted:
However, the Milesian invasion, within its proper context,
relates to Carians, associated with the Sythians, who spread
south to ancient Israel [FACT] and east to Italy (Sicily) [FACT],
associated with Greece; from the area of modern Turkey, down
to Egypt [FACT]; with ancient Hebrew - Egyptian connections,
at Tahpanhes, with the Royal daughters of the King of Judah
[FACT], that are attested to within Irish written historical records,
kept before the 6th century, handed down and filtered. [FACT].
I add the following reference:
The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor,
available at Cambridge University Press;
Google Book, Chapter 7. Carian
[FACT VALIDATION] . . . "The largest number
of Carian texts consist of tomb inscriptions and
graffiti left by Carian mercenaries in Egypt, dating
from the seventh to the fifth centuries BC. "
Indication of Hebrew influence is found in right
to left writings in Egypt and left to right in Caria.
proper. Hebrew Royalty [biblical] and Carians
connected in both ancient Israel and in Egypt.
http://tinyurl.com/yzodxwx
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
Family Genealogy & History
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
Internet Education Directory: Academic Genealogy
http://tinyurl.com/y8wqmfo
taf
> BBC NEWS | UK | SCOTLAND |
> Mummies found in Outer Hebrides
Irrelevant.
> The Annals of the Four Masters provides added
> written evidence of an ancient Egyptian practice.
No, they don't.
> did not change. He was afterwards buried;
> and after his body had been forty years in
> the grave, it was taken up by his son, i.e.
> Oilioll mac Slanuill, and the body had
> remained without rotting or decomposing
> during this period. This thing was a great
> wonder and surprise to the men of Ireland."
". . . great wonder and surprise . . . ." In other words, they didn't
try for this to happen. Thus any claim to this being Egyptian
mummification, as you are suggesting, is patently absurd. This is
language takes straight out of medieval saintly hagiography. The same
was said of St. Olaf, and he wasn't mummified either.
>
> Previously noted:
And previously dismissed as wishful thinking.
> However, the Milesian invasion, within its proper context,
Which is a context of cultural mythology.
> relates to Carians, associated with the Sythians, who spread
> south to ancient Israel [FACT]
NOT a fact.
> and east to Italy (Sicily) [FACT],
NOT a fact.
> associated with Greece; from the area of modern Turkey, down
> to Egypt [FACT];
NOT a fact.
> with ancient Hebrew - Egyptian connections,
> at Tahpanhes, with the Royal daughters of the King of Judah
> [FACT],
NOT a fact.
> that are attested to within Irish written historical records,
> kept before the 6th century, handed down and filtered. [FACT].
NOT a fact.
> I add the following reference:
> The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor,
> available at Cambridge University Press;
> Google Book, Chapter 7. Carian
> [FACT VALIDATION] . . . "The largest number
> of Carian texts consist of tomb inscriptions and
> graffiti left by Carian mercenaries in Egypt, dating
> from the seventh to the fifth centuries BC. "
That is in the text, but . . .
> Indication of Hebrew influence is found in right
> to left writings in Egypt and left to right in Caria.
You made this up yourself. There is nothing in the text you cited
that mentions Hebrews at all. Likewise, Hebrew wasn't the only Middle-
Eastern language that wrote right-to-left.
> proper. Hebrew Royalty [biblical] and Carians
> connected in both ancient Israel and in Egypt.
And this is a complete non sequitur. There is not the slightest basis
in the cited source for this huge leap. You are taking a simple fact
and twisting it to to build a house of cards on the head of a pin. It
is all nonsense.
Tom, what is your evidence for the early-medieval part of your
pedigree?
taf
JacobSmith
==================================
You need to go back to Psammetichus I:
pharaoh of the Saite dynasty, ruler of Egypt
from 664 to 610.
http://tinyurl.com/yhywxf2
"Psammetichus employs Greek and Carian
mercenaries and achieves military supremacy
over the other rulers in Lower Egypt and the
Libyan tribes in the west" Carthage was part
of Libyan tribal areas. "The Elephantine Papyri
are a collection of ancient Jewish manuscripts
dating from the fifth century BCE. They come
from a Jewish community at Elephantine, then
called Yeb, the island in the Nile at the border
of Nubia, which was probably founded as a military
installation in about 650 BCE during Manasseh's
reign to assist Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his
Nubian campaign."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/aswan1.htm
Indication of Hebrew influence is found in right
to left writings in Egypt and left to right in Caria,
proper. Hebrew Royalty [biblical] and Carians
connected in both ancient Israel and in Egypt.
The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor,
available at Cambridge University Press;
Google Book, Chapter 7. Carian
Abraham and David J. Wasserstein
comment on translation in the ancient
world. On page 3, I note
http://tinyurl.com/yg6pgkg
Herodotus records the existence of a whole
class of "interpreters" in Egypt, and he tells us
that these were the descendants of Egyptian
boys taught Greek by Ionian and Carian
mercenaries in the service of Psammetichus I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psamtik_I
Previously noted:
However, the Milesian invasion, within its proper context,
(Caria and the Carians are mentioned for the first time in
the cuneiform texts of the Old Assyrian and Hittite Empires,
i.e., between c.1800 and c.1200. . . . country . . .called Karkissa.)
http://tinyurl.com/yjcje3w
relates to Carians, associated with the Sythians, who spread
south to ancient Israel [FACT] and east to Italy (Sicily) [FACT],
associated with Greece; from the area of modern Turkey, down
to Egypt [FACT]; with ancient Hebrew - Egyptian connections,
at Tahpanhes, with the Royal daughters of the King of Judah
[FACT], that are attested to within Irish written historical records,
taf
> You need to go back to Psammetichus I:
No, you don't. In fact, you can't get within 1000 years of him, not
with actual evidence, that is. But why let evidence stand in the way
of a good story.
> Previously noted:
And previously demolished.
> However, the Milesian invasion, within its proper context,
Which is that of mythology. Do, please, look up the meaning of the
word fact.
And do please address the portion of the pedigree that falls within
the period covered by this group, rather than these recent inventions.
taf
JacobSmith
> On Oct 25, 9:35 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You need to go back to Psammetichus I:
>
> No, you don't. In fact, you can't get within 1000 years of him, not
> with actual evidence, that is. But why let evidence stand in the way
> of a good story.
Yes, you do. I will conclude with the following:
Asia Minor Coins - Caria (Karia)
http://www.asiaminorcoins.com/caria.html
"Many Carians were mercenaries and military
specialists, and Herodotus writes that the Greeks
had been indebted to the Carians for three military
inventions: making shields with handles, putting
devices on shields, and fitting crests on helmets.
Because of this last invention, the Persians called
the Carians "cocks." The Carians were especially
famous for serving the Egyptian pharaoh."
Herodotus on Psammetic I
http://www.touregypt.net/herodotusonPsammetic1.htm
"Psammetichos doubted that men of bronze would
come to his aid. But shortly afterwards, Ionians
and Carians, voyaging for plunder, were forced to
land on the coast of Egypt, where they disembarked
wearing bronze armor. An Egyptian came to the
marsh and brought Psammetichos, who had never
before seen armored men, the news of men of
bronze coming from the sea and foraging in the plain.
Psammetichos saw in this the fulfilment of the oracle;
he befriended the Ionians and Carians, and promised
them great recompense for joining him and, having
won them over, with their help and the help of some
Egyptians volunteers, he deposed the eleven kings.
Thus he became king of all Egypt. He built the southern
outer court of Hephaestus' temple at Memphis, and facing
this, a court for Apis, where he is kept and fed whenever
he appears. This court is surrounded by a colonnade and
many carved images; the roof is supported by seven metre
high pillars that have the form of great statues . Apis in Greek
is called Epaphus.
Psammetichos rewarded his allies the Ionians and Carians
with places to live in called The Camps, opposite each other
on either side of the Nile. Moreover he paid them what he
had promised them. He also put Egyptian boys into their
hands who were taught Greek, and today's Egyptian
interpreters are descended from them."
http://www.touregypt.net/herodotusonPsammetic1.htm
At the same time, as before:
Ireland: 'the island of Banda of the women'
{taw-mawr'} is from an unused root meaning
to be erect; TWOT - 2523; n m AV - palm tree 12; 12.
In relation to Irish genealogies is Biblical Tarah [Tarih]
to geographical Teamhair (Tara), as well as to Nahor's
daughter Tipa with Tephi or Tea, as in Biblical Tiphsah
or Thapsacus. Thus, Biblical Tamar of Tahpanhes [Daphnae -
"Castle of the Jew's Daughter"], transformed into Irish records,
is Tamar Tephi: an erect stone over the grave of Tea; Temair
is Tea Mur, "the Wall of Tea". Reference: Lebor Gabála Érenn:
The Book of Invasions.
Irish commentary relates to the historical evidence about
the allies of Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II, the Carians, described
by Herodotos as being of Minoan descent. Carians were highly
trusted security, anciently protecting the child king Joash:
[In the seventh year of Athaliah's reign, Jehoiada the priest
summoned the commanders, the Carite mercenaries, and
the guards to come to the Temple of the Lord.] Psamtik I,
had his daughter Nitocris I adopted; he was the father of
Necho II. Psamtik I established a garrison of foreign
mercenaries at Daphnae, mostly Carians and Ionian
Greeks (Herodotus ii. 154). These elite guards would later
be able to protect the "Castle of the Jew's Daughter"; i.e.,
the daughters of King Zedekiah, who were also, by Irish
record sources, connected to, or "adopted" into Egyptian
Royalty. Necho II was father of Psamtik II; grandfather of
Apries, whose sister Ankhnesneferibre, was politically
adopted as the new God's Wife of Amun, at Thebes.
An important word in the Carian language is gela, translated
as king. Local Turkish Caria: Geyre. Míl Espáine, his given
name was Golam or Galamh. The Tyrrhenian [Tirrén] Sea is
part of the Mediterranean Sea off the western coast of Italy.
It is bounded by Corsica and Sardinia (west), Tuscany, Lazio,
Campania, and Calabria (east), and Sicily (south). Gela (Sicily)
was founded around 688 BC by colonists from Rhodes and Crete.
Another important word in the Carian language is banda, which
is translated as victory.
The eDIL Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language translates
banda as womanly. Ireland itself was known in ancient times
as 'the island of Banda of the women' (Condren, 1989). Rivers
were also identified with Ireland's goddess culture. Reference:
Exploring the Celtic Narrative in Advertising:
Goddess Culture and the Lexicon of Perfumery (pdf)
Cin Drom Snechta: Historians say that there were exiles
of Hebrew women in Erinn at the coming of the sons of
Milesius, who had been driven by a sea tempest into the
ocean by the Tirrén Sea. They were in Erinn before the
sons of Milesius. They said, however, to the sons of Milesius
[who, it would appear, pressed marriage on them], that they
preferred their own country, and that they would not abandon
it without receiving dowry for alliance with them. It is from
this circumstance that it is the men that purchase wives in
Erinn for ever, whilst it is the husbands that are purchased
by the wives throughout the world besides. Change of
political power and out migration to other areas occurs
when Apries attempted to protect Libya from incursions
by Dorian Greek invaders. His efforts here backfired
spectacularly as his forces were mauled by the Greek invaders.
When the defeated army returned home, a civil war broke out
between the indigenous Egyptian army troops and foreign
mercenaries in the Egyptian army.
Why Dowries?: In ancient Near Eastern civilizations, ancient
Greece, thirteenth-century Byzantium, medieval western Europe,
Arab Islam, Japan from the Edo period, among the Germanic
tribes in the high Middle Ages, and among the Jews daughters
could not receive bequests unless there were no surviving brothers
in their natal households (BS, Section 2). This exactly applies to
the Milesians taking of Ireland, within the time frame determined
from the records themselves, using no preconditioned biases,
re: the daughters of the King of Judah. Social and commercial
relations between the peoples of the northwest of the Iberian
Peninsula and those of Brittany and the British Islands date
back to very remote times. Celtic Legacy in Galicia notes trade
in tin between Ireland and Galicia was already established
[Carthaginian commerce was by sea throughout the Mediterranean
and far into the Atlantic and by land across the Sahara desert.
According to Aristotle, the Carthaginians and others had treaties
of commerce to regulate their exports and imports. The empire
of Carthage depended heavily on its trade with Tartessos and
other cities of the Iberian peninsula, from which it obtained vast
quantities of silver, lead, and, even more importantly, tin ore,
which was essential to the manufacture of bronze objects by
the civilizations of antiquity. Its trade relations with the Iberians
and the naval might that enforced Carthage's monopoly on trade
with tin-rich Britain and the Canary Islands allowed it to be the
sole significant broker of tin and maker of bronze. Maintaining
this monopoly was one of the major sources of power and
prosperity for Carthage, and a Carthaginian merchant would
rather crash his ship upon the rocky shores of Britain than reveal
to any rival how it could be safely approached.]
You lack vital understanding of the resources.
I have clearly noted, among many other references:
The Irish Mil genealogies are military, ship census
and family data, connected by historical time period
after the Battle of Carchemish, circa 605 B.C., when
Tyre was forced to submit to the rule of Babylonia.
The various curses placed against the sons of Mil
so that they could not find Ireland again, are similar
to "the curses leveled against Tyre should it abrogate
its treaty obligations"; i.e., the early data on Ireland
contacts reveal treaty and trade relationships. Just
as in the triad of three Kings in Ireland, [Mac Cuill,
Mac Cecht, and Mac Greine]: "May Baal Shamaim,
Baal Malagec and Baal Saphon raise an evil wind
against your ships to undo their moorings and tear
out their mooring pole, may a strong wave sink them
in the sea and a violent tide [rise] against you".
This curse, taken from Neo-Assyrian Treaties
and Loyalty Oaths, c. 1988, [as reviewed in Tyre
"In the Heart of the Seas"] shows a cultural link
to Irish Texts, #394, "The druids of Ireland and
the poets sang spells behind them, so that they
were carried far from Ireland, and were
in distress by reason of the sea."
This is listed under Primary Literary Materials:
Mesopotamia Parpola, S. and Watanabe, K. eds.,
State Archives of Assyria, Vol. 2: Neo-Assyrian
Treaties and Loyalty Oaths
(Kelsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project
and the Helsinki University Press, 1988).
david
I will conclude.......
Best news that we've had from Mr Tinney in the past couple of weeks
taf
> On Oct 25, 9:49 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:> On Oct 25, 9:35 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You need to go back to Psammetichus I:
>
> > No, you don't. In fact, you can't get within 1000 years of him, not
> > with actual evidence, that is. But why let evidence stand in the way
> > of a good story.
>
> ============================================
> Yes, you do. I will conclude with the following:
Not that what followed had any relevance whatsoever to either this
group or your ridiculous claims, but at least a conclusion has been
reached.
[snip: a whole lot of material that hasn't the slightest bit to do
with Ireland.]
>
> At the same time, as before:
Crap repeated is still crap.
> Ireland: 'the island of Banda of the women'
>
> {taw-mawr'} is from an unused root meaning
[self-serving invented etymology deleted]
> Irish commentary relates to the historical evidence about
> the allies of Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II, the Carians, described
> by Herodotos as being of Minoan descent.
It was a complete non sequitur the first time you said it, and thus it
remains.
[more irrelevancies deleted]
> An important word in the Carian language is gela, translated
> as king. Local Turkish Caria: Geyre. Míl Espáine, his given
> name was Golam or Galamh. The Tyrrhenian [Tirrén] Sea is
> part of the Mediterranean Sea off the western coast of Italy.
> It is bounded by Corsica and Sardinia (west), Tuscany, Lazio,
> Campania, and Calabria (east), and Sicily (south). Gela (Sicily)
> was founded around 688 BC by colonists from Rhodes and Crete.
> Another important word in the Carian language is banda, which
> is translated as victory.
. . . and another important word, gelatin: obviously, combining the
Carian word for royalty with, well, it's obvious. It was named for
King Tinney. This is the kind of quackery that comes from a novice
playing etymologist. Nothing but 'Just So Stories'. Superficial
similarities between a Sicilian port and an Anatolian word for king do
not a cultural connection make.
> The eDIL Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language translates
> banda as womanly. Ireland itself was known in ancient times
> as 'the island of Banda of the women' (Condren, 1989).
Oh, there were Women in Ireland. WOMEN, of all things. I never
expected that! Well if the Irish had women, then they must have been
from the Middle East.
> Cin Drom Snechta: Historians say that there were exiles
> of Hebrew women in Erinn at the coming of the sons of
> Milesius,
For those who haven't been following (fully understandable) Mr. Tinney
has his own dictionary. "Fact" means 'any old BS, as long as it is
called a fact enough times'. Here he uses "historians" to refer to
people writing 200 years ago, when history was still an avocation, and
not yet a scholarly science, or the creators of recent advertisements,
or actual historians who in their own words describe the pedigrees in
question as outright inventions, but whose text can be taken out of
context to pretend that it supports the mythology being peddled as
fact.
> Why Dowries?:
[sigh] Why not? Better yet, why bother, as dowries are a global
phenomenon. I guess all the world is Irish.
> [Carthaginian commerce was by sea throughout the Mediterranean
Oh, the sea. Well that narrows things down, given that use of the sea
can be demonstrated in Australia 40,000 years ago, and America 13,000
years ago, and basically all over the bloody planet, then the fact
that the Cartaginians took to the sea and Ireland is an Island, well
that is surely significant.
> You lack vital understanding of the resources.
No, but you lack a vital grip on the nature of sources and their use.
> I have clearly noted, among many other references:
[sigh, here we go again]
> The Irish Mil genealogies are military, ship census
> and family data, connected by historical time period
> after the Battle of Carchemish, circa 605 B.C., when
You keep saying this, again and again and again. You made this up.
You haven't the slightest evidence that any of this existed. It is
your own fantasy. There were no such ship censuses. The only
evidence you have come up with for any so called 'historical records'
are large rocks with single names carved in them. Let's see. A ship
census, with the name of each passenger carved on a rock weighing more
than they do. Of course. Throughout time, navies always have kept
their records on large rocks, buoyancy being so completely unimportant
when it comes to nautical sciences.
> The various curses placed against the sons of Mil
> This curse, taken from Neo-Assyrian Treaties
Again, something so absolutely unique to the Irish: a curse. Tell you
what. This may come as a surprise to you, but cultures without curses
are about as common as cultures without women.
And still Mr. Tinney focuses on trying to prove mythology, not
genealogy. His pedigree fails 1000 years more recently, and not in
Ireland. He is repeatedly asked for his evidence, and the closest he
comes is to argue that because there were cursing women in Anatolia
and carved boulders in Eire, then (apparently) pedigrees written down
last Thursday must derive from authentic ships' muster rolls.
Completely barmy, but there it is.
taf
M.Sjostrom
it has been relatively funny to take occasional looks at what and how that 'Jacob smith' gives a show of an obviously unbalanced mind.
And to try to determine what specific mental health problems he has. I am still not fully convinced that his diagnosis should be simple megalomania.
As there are actual indications to some other categories of lunacies.
I wonder why so many nutcases -including this 'Jacob Smith'- are so fascinated about biblical concoctions.
Has anybody checked what sort of delusion are those Jacob smith's allegedly published genealogies and prosopographies ?
-------------------------
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
Family Genealogy & History
Internet Education Directory: Academic Genealogy
M.Sjostrom
On 27 Oct, 06:16, JacobSmith wrote:
"I will conclude....... "
----------------------
this looks too good to be true.
I rather expect that after this concluding scribble, we will soon be reading the mental equivalent of:
"..... and secondly,...."
JacobSmith
written evidence of an ancient Egyptian practice.
did not change. He was afterwards buried;
and after his body had been forty years in
the grave, it was taken up by his son, i.e.
Oilioll mac Slanuill, and the body had
remained without rotting or decomposing
during this period. This thing was a great
wonder and surprise to the men of Ireland."
". . . great wonder and surprise . . . ." In other words, they didn't
try for this to happen. Thus any claim to this being Egyptian
mummification, as you are suggesting, is patently absurd. This is
language takes straight out of medieval saintly hagiography. The same
was said of St. Olaf, and he wasn't mummified either.
. . .
taf
=========================================
taf, in my conclusion, I forgot to comment or your
additional error about "This is language takes
straight out of medieval saintly hagiography."
The ancient writings were later filtered.
I thus need to refer you again to:
053: DAUGHTERS [The Biblical TAMAR]
(daughters of MATTANIAH - ZEDEKIAH)
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm#053
. . .
COMPARE:
Upon his arrival in Egypt , Pharaoh Nectonibus,
after learning of his great valor, wisdom and conduct
in arms, made him General of his forces against
the king of Ethiopia. At this time the Ethiopian’s
were invading Egypt . Milesius once again was
victorious, he forced the enemy to submit to the
terms of peace set forth by the Egyptians.
WITH:
Handbook of Greek Archaeology, Chapter II, pages
47 - 52, notes the Carians had been the inventors of
armour, and that they introduced handles to their
shields, which previously had been carried by means
of leather thongs round the neck and left shoulder.
The Carians were a fighting race; we know them
as mercenaries in Egypt assisting Psarnrnetichos
in the latter half of the 7th century B.C. An Account
of Egypt notes certain Ionians and Carians who had
sailed forth for plunder were compelled to come to
shore in Egypt, and they having landed and being
clad in bronze armour, one of the Egyptians, not
having before seen men clad in bronze armour,
came to the fen-land and brought a report to
Psammetichos that bronze men had come from
the sea and were plundering the plain. So he,
perceiving that the saying of the Oracle was
coming to pass, dealt in a friendly manner with
the Ionians and Carians, and with large promises
he persuaded them to take his part. Then when
he had persuaded them, with the help of those
Egyptians who favoured his cause and of these
foreign mercenaries, he overthrew the kings.
Having thus got power over all Egypt, Psammetichos
made for Hephaistos that gateway of the temple
at Memphis which is turned towards the South Wind;
and he built a court for Apis, in which Apis is kept
when he appears, opposite to the gateway of the
temple, surrounded all with pillars and covered with
figures; and instead of columns there stand to
support the roof of the court colossal statues
twelve cubits high. Now Apis is in the tongue
of the Hellenes Epaphos. To the Ionians and
to the Carians who had helped him Psammetichos
granted portions of land to dwell in, opposite to
one another with the river Nile between, and
these were called “Encampments”; these portions
of land he gave them, and he paid them besides
all that he had promised: moreover he placed
with them Egyptian boys to have them taught
the Hellenic tongue; and from these, who learnt
the language thoroughly, are descended the
present class of interpreters in Egypt. Now the
Ionians and Carians occupied these portions of
land for a long time, and they are towards the
sea a little below the city of Bubastis, on that
which is called the Pelusian mouth of the Nile.
These men king Amasis afterwards removed
from thence and established them at Memphis,
making them into a guard for himself against
the Egyptians: and they being settled in Egypt,
we who are Hellenes know by intercourse with
them the certainty of all that which happened
in Egypt beginning from king Psammetichos
and afterwards; for these were the first men
of foreign tongue who settled in Egypt: and
in the land from which they were removed
there still remained down to my time the
sheds where their ships were drawn up
and the ruins of their houses.
P.S. They were given LAND, not WIVES.
The royalty link is biblical Hebrew ancestry.
[NOTE: For these were the first men
of foreign tongue, I refer you to:
"Our reason for reviewing the linguistic
correspondence between Hebrew and
ancient Egyptian is quite simple. In this
case, we have an historically documented
encounter between these peoples and some
of the resulting similarities of language. The
Hebrews were slaves during some of their
stay in ancient Egypt. Therefore, it is not
surprising to find that the word for "slave"
in both languages is quite similar: abadim
in Hebrew, abata or aabt in ancient Egyptian.
Such an obvious example of linguistic
correspondence is easy to accept because
we know that historically contact existed
between these peoples. Many scholars
consider the earliest expression of the word
for Hebrew to have been Apiru, and later Habiru.
Such interpretations of linguistic correspondence
are quite frequently proposed."]
http://www.earthmatrix.com/linguistic/talmud_and_ancient_egyptian.html
CONTINUING:
Family Information - Pedigree of Husband:
LAMHFIONN, born circa 955 B.C.;
died near where Carthage was built.
Philistos of Syracuse dates founding
of Carthage to c. 1215 B.C. This tradition
makes the family native to the area, prior
to the coming of Queen Dido, ca. 814/813 B.C.
He was the father of:
Heber GLUNFIONN, born circa 930 B.C.
He was the father of:
Agnan FIONN, born circa 905 B.C.
He was the father of:
Febric GLAS, born circa 870 B.C.
He was the father of:
NENUALL, born circa 845 B.C.
He was the father of:
NUADADH - NUADHAD, born circa 820 B.C.
[Carthage founded ca. 814/813 B.C.;
approximates "His posterity continued
there to the eighth generation; and
were kings or chief rulers there
for one hundred and fifty years"]
He was the father of:
ALLADH, born circa 795 B.C.
He was the father of:
ARCADH - AREADH, born circa 770 B.C.
He was the father of:
DEAG[H], born circa 745 B.C.
He was the father of:
BRATH, born circa 720 B.C.
He was the father of:
BRIGUS - BREOGHAN, born circa 695 B.C.
He was the father of:
BILE, born circa 670 B.C.
He was the father of:
MILESIUS - GALAMH - [Míl Espáine],
born circa 645 B.C. [Born with the name Golam
or Galam, Míl remembers the druid Caicer's prophecy
that he and his people would settle in Ireland. This
corresponds to Psammetichos, when he had sent
to the Oracle of Leto in the city of Buto, where the
Egyptians have their most truthful Oracle, there was
given to him the reply that vengeance would come
when men of bronze appeared from the sea. And he
was strongly disposed not to believe that bronze men
would come to help him; but after no long time had
passed, certain Ionians and Carians who had sailed
forth for plunder were compelled to come to shore
in Egypt, and they having landed and being clad
in bronze armour, one of the Egyptians, not having
before seen men clad in bronze armour, came to
the fen-land and brought a report to Psammetichos
(Psamtik I) that bronze men had come from the sea
and were plundering the plain.]
He was the father of:
HEREMON [Érimón], born circa 620 B.C. = [The Biblical TAMAR]
taf
> taf, in my conclusion, I forgot to comment or your
> additional error about "This is language takes
> straight out of medieval saintly hagiography."
> The ancient writings were later filtered.
Just saying this, again and again, does not make it so. You have no
evidence that there was any ancient writing about this. Further, you
can't just pick and choose. The parts of it that you can twist to
produce the most tenuous similarity to your personal beliefs you claim
as clear documented evidence of ancient genealogical linkages. The
parts that are clearly similar to Medieval hagiography you simply
dismiss as 'filtering'. You are not just begging the question, you
are buggering it.
> I thus need to refer you again to:
> 053: DAUGHTERS [The Biblical TAMAR]
No, you don't.
> COMPARE:
>
> Upon his arrival in Egypt , Pharaoh Nectonibus,
> after learning of his great valor, wisdom and conduct
> in arms, made him General of his forces against
> the king of Ethiopia. At this time the Ethiopian’s
> were invading Egypt . Milesius once again was
> victorious, he forced the enemy to submit to the
> terms of peace set forth by the Egyptians.
You might as well write about the similarity of names in Lord of the
Rings with those in Scandinavian kings lists as somehow proving that
Frodo Baggins really existed. There was no Milesius. You haven't a
single document written within 3000 years of the supposed date when he
supposedly existed that names him. He is mythycal being found in a
second millennium AD foundation legend, and that his particular
(peculiar even) myth bears some similarity with other origin myths
says something about the nature of myth, not about the nature of
reality.
[snip an apparent attempt to bury the BS under a massive pile of
rubbish to mask the smell. Are you trying to bore us to death?]
> P.S. They were given LAND, not WIVES.
So BLOOMIN' what?
> The royalty link is biblical Hebrew ancestry.
Oh, well if you say so, then the complete absence of the slightest
minute bit of evidence shouldn't trouble us in the least. [snort]
Just admit that you are making it up as you go along, rather than
pretending that these bold unsupported statements have any basis in
documented historical reality.
> [NOTE: For these were the first men
> of foreign tongue, I refer you to:
> "Our reason for reviewing the linguistic
> correspondence between Hebrew and
> ancient Egyptian is quite simple. In this
> case, we have an historically documented
> encounter between these peoples and some
> of the resulting similarities of language. The
> Hebrews were slaves during some of their
> stay in ancient Egypt. Therefore, it is not
> surprising to find that the word for "slave"
> in both languages is quite similar: abadim
> in Hebrew, abata or aabt in ancient Egyptian.
First, cultures that lived side-by-side for millennia tend to borrow
words, and last time I checked the Hebrew speakers live right next
door to the Egyptians. Even were there an actual genetic link between
this etymological similarity, as opposed to it simply being
superficial convergence, it doesn't mean a thing about Ireland. Oh,
and by the way, aabt looks an awful lot like the Arabic word for slave
'abd, so it is probably a common Semitic root (as in the language-
group). This means that the source of their similarity need not have
involved Hebrew at all.
> Such an obvious example of linguistic
> correspondence is easy to accept because
> we know that historically contact existed
> between these peoples. Many scholars
> consider the earliest expression of the word
> for Hebrew to have been Apiru, and later Habiru.
> Such interpretations of linguistic correspondence
> are quite frequently proposed."]http://www.earthmatrix.com/linguistic/talmud_and_ancient_egyptian.html
>
You do realize that this is the work of an etymological crackpot?
right? You don't have to get past the second sentence of the essay to
know that this is not scholarship, but simple-minded connect-the-dots
word-play, just like you are doing.
> CONTINUING:
>
[more mythological nonsense deleted]
Didn't you say you had concluded? I guess that was another lie. They
just keep adding up, don't they?
And in spite of the attempts to bury this group under the sheer weight
of rancid irrelevancy, you still can't reliably trace this pedigree TO
Ireland, let alone to the absurd distances you claim.
taf
JacobSmith
===========================================
taf, you are completely wrong. I have concluded this discussion.
I have repeatedly asked you to read and refer to:
053: DAUGHTERS [The Biblical TAMAR]
(daughters of MATTANIAH - ZEDEKIAH)
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm#053
Then, you make comments that require going
back to the same items that are previously noted.
Again, to repeat, what available records show:
(1) "and it is not known what disease carried
him off; he was found dead, but his colour did
not change." He was poisoned by someone.
I already sent you a bog man who used hair gel,
made of vegetable plant oil mixed with resin from
pine trees found in Spain and southwest France.
Previously, Egyptians imported timber and resin
for building and mummification, from city of Byblos.
http://tinyurl.com/ycng7kl
(2) MILESIUS - GALAMH - [Míl Espáine],
born circa 645 B.C. [Born with the name Golam
or Galam, Míl remembers the druid Caicer's prophecy
that he and his people would settle in Ireland. This
corresponds to Psammetichos, when he had sent
to the Oracle of Leto . . .] I also mentioned, that
"One important word in the Carian language is gela,
translated king. . . . Local Turkish Caria: Geyre
[a to e], with Gela (Sicily) founded around 688 BC
by colonists from Rhodes and Crete. Born with the
name Golam or Galam, Míl remembers, becomes
born of the kings of the city of Miletus, which then,
like the city Gela in Sicily, is carried forward to Spain.
(3) Ireland: 'the island of Banda of the women' was
previously noted, with Carian, the island of victory of
the women. Under early Irish Brehon law, "although
Irish society under the Brehon Laws was male-dominated,
women had greater freedom, independence and rights to
property than in other European societies of the time.
Men and women held their property separately. The
marriage laws were very complex. For example, there
were scores of ways of combining households and
properties and then dividing the property and its
increase when disputes arose. Later, under the church
laws, women were disadvantaged." By the way, this is
the reason why the Irish pedigrees have much historical
value, as they begin {taw-mawr'} is from an unused root
meaning to be erect; TWOT - 2523; n m AV - palm tree
12; 12. In relation to Irish genealogies is Biblical Tarah
[Tarih] to geographical Teamhair (Tara), as well as to
Nahor's daughter Tipa with Tephi or Tea, as in Biblical
Tiphsah or Thapsacus. Thus, Biblical Tamar of Tahpanhes
[Daphnae - "Castle of the Jew's Daughter"], transformed
into Irish records, is Tamar Tephi: an erect stone over
the grave of Tea; Temair is Tea Mur, "the Wall of Tea".
Reference: Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book of Invasions.
(4) All the records show much female associations
and relationships. What you call "myth" is national
group family tradition, filtered as it was handed down.
From the female perspective in a male dominated era,
"Upon his arrival in Egypt , Pharaoh Nectonibus,
after learning of his great valor, wisdom and conduct
in arms, made him General of his forces against
the king of Ethiopia. At this time the Ethiopian’s
were invading Egypt . Milesius once again was
victorious, . . ." Pharaoh Nectonibus appears as
a corruption of Psamtik I (also spelled Psammeticus
or Psammetichus) with his known and given daughter
Nitocris I (alt. Nitiqret, Nitokris I) or Nito - metichus
(Necto - nibus).
(5) To the Ionians and to the Carians who had helped
him Psammetichos granted portions of land to dwell in,
opposite to one another with the river Nile between, and
these were called “Encampments”; these portions of land
he gave them. Encamp gives the idea of an enclosure, or
protection, as within the canopy of marriage obligations;
thus, they were given land, not wives, which assures the
said royalty link is biblical Hebrew ancestry, not Egyptian;
i.e., Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh, etc., are historical
grants of enclosed lands called “Encampments". They
"came to the fen-land", as in as "Fenechas", the law of
the Feni, or the freemen of Ireland.
(6) Again, Why Dowries? (pdf) notes among
the Jews daughters could not receive bequests
unless there were no surviving brothers in their
natal households (BS, Section 2). This exactly
applies to the Milesians taking of Ireland, within
the time frame determined from the records
themselves, using no preconditioned biases,
re: the daughters of the King of Judah. According
to early Irish law, "a daughter with brothers would
not normally receive a portion of the inheritance in
land, she would inherit movable property. However,
should there be no sons, some of the law tracts
allow the daughter to inherit a limited portion.
However, unless her husband was a foreigner
to the túath and had no land of his own, the land
would not descend to her sons, but instead
return to the other members of her agnatic kin
group. However, there was apparently pressure
for a woman with land to marry a relative to
keep the land within the kin group."
(7) life:
Kinship is the foundation of Ancient Brehon Laws
of Ireland, that is similar to Jewish land holding
regulations that required a land grant to a servant
to be retained only until the servant's year of liberty;
then it reverted back to the family of the prince.
Animals were critical to the survival of the clan,
in Ireland and ancient Israel. Brehon law has
linguistic foundations going back to 1000 B.C.:
Affinity Between the Hebrew Language and the Celtic.
"The laws were originally written in the Bearla Feini,
the Fenian dialect of Gaelic." Irish Kingship includes
regulations going back in time to holders of the office
of Aaronic High Priest in ancient Israel, whose lineage
is given in the Book [Stick] of Levi. In the eyes of the
law, an Irish King must be beyond reproach (innraic),
nor could he be guilty of theft, nor could he have any
physical blemish.
In biblical and Temple times, when a Kohen became
physically infirm, he could no longer serve. During
the period of the Holy Temple, Kohanim were required
to abstain from wine and all strong drink while performing
their priestly duties. Críth Gablach notes how the king
spends his week: Sunday is for drinking ale, Monday is
for judging, Tuesday is for playing fidchell, Wednesday
is for watching hounds hunt, Thursday is for sexual union,
Friday is for racing horses, and Saturday is for judging".
An example from one commentator: ["Sencha MacColl Cluin
was not wont to pass judgment until he had pondered upon
it in his breast the night before." This probably refers to a
judgment in a grave case involving human life. Judges of
the Hebrew nation in early times were accustomed
to fast the night and morning before passing a death
sentence.]
taf
> taf, you are completely wrong. I have concluded this discussion.
No, you haven't as you continue this discussion in this very post.
> I have repeatedly asked you to read and refer to:
> 053: DAUGHTERS [The Biblical TAMAR]
> (daughters of MATTANIAH - ZEDEKIAH)http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm#053
>
> Then, you make comments that require going
> back to the same items that are previously noted.
I make comments pointing out how vacuous your non sequiturs are. In
your mind, that requires a repeat of your magical mystery tour, but
this does not count as discussion because you have already said the
nonsense before. I guess we can add the word 'conclude' to those
others that have unique definitions in the Tinney Dictionary.
Regurgitating tripe does not make the meal more palatable.
> Again, to repeat, what available records show:
And he repeats again his 'proof': Irish knew that trees had sap; this
Indo-European and that Indo-European word use similar letters; the
Irish had women, WOMEN, of all things; the Irish owned land and kept
servants; the Irish didn't drink seven days-a week (a real stunner)
and sometimes slept.
Wow, that list of characteristics certainly mean they could only be
Hebrews.
You scour all of Irish culture and only come up with such a pathetic
list of coincidental superficial nonsense? And it doesn't even bother
you when you find evidence in direct contradiction:
> In biblical and Temple times, when a Kohen became
> physically infirm, he could no longer serve. During
> the period of the Holy Temple, Kohanim were required
> to abstain from wine and all strong drink while performing
> their priestly duties. Críth Gablach notes how the king
> spends his week: Sunday is for drinking ale, Monday is
> for judging, Tuesday is for playing fidchell, Wednesday
> is for watching hounds hunt, Thursday is for sexual union,
> Friday is for racing horses, and Saturday is for judging".
Judging? On the Hebrew Sabbath? No, I don't think so.
(And this is a perfect example of you inability to handle complex
material. You don't really think this list is a true itinerary? You
are fooling yourself if you think the Irish kings only engaged in
drinking or sexual union one day a week. This tract is hagiographic in
nature.)
And this is typical of the nonsense:
> "The laws were originally written in the Bearla Feini,
> the Fenian dialect of Gaelic."
A statement that might well be true, although probably over-
simplified. Also entirely unhelpful to the point attempting to be
made.
> Irish Kingship includes
> regulations going back in time to holders of the office
> of Aaronic High Priest in ancient Israel,
A statement that is completely invented by Mr. Tinney, the product of
his vivid imagination, and without the slightest shred of evidence
whatsoever.
> whose lineage
> is given in the Book [Stick] of Levi. In the eyes of the
> law, an Irish King must be beyond reproach (innraic),
> nor could he be guilty of theft, nor could he have any
> physical blemish.
The assumption here is apparently that two groups that were supposed
to be beyond reproach must somehow be connected. Utter nonsense,
given that it speaks to a certain commonality in human sociology and
psychology.
Here is logic, Tinney style. The Irish leaders had to be without
blemish. The sheep sacrificed at the Hebrew temples had to be without
blemish, therefore the Irish Kings descended from the sheep. That is
exactly the kind of logic you are using.
Conclude means to end. You promised to conclude. Please do so, since
you refuse to discuss the flaws in the medieval portion of this
pedigree that renders all of this earlier fantasy moot anyhow.
taf
JacobSmith
Irish knew that trees had sap
REPLY:
taf, your distortions are not evaluations.
Refer to: 053: DAUGHTERS [The Biblical TAMAR]
MILESIUS - GALAMH - [Míl Espáine], born
circa 645 B.C.: "The fleet of the sone of Milidh
came to Ireland . . . , to take it from the Tuatha
De Dananns; and they fought the battle of Sliabh
Mis with them on the third day after landing. In
this battle fell Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh,
wife of Milidh; and the grave of Scota is to be
seen between Sliabh Mis and the sea."
[Mummies Found in Outer Hebrides (Scotland)
"Analysis showed . . . bodies had been preserved
using naturally occurring acids and peat bogs."
The Annals of the Four Masters provides added
written evidence of an ancient Egyptian practice.
M3959.1 "The seventeenth year of Slanoll in the
sovereignty; and he died, at the end of that time,
at Teamhair Tara, and it is not known what disease
carried him off; he was found dead, but his colour
did not change. He was afterwards buried; and after
his body had been forty years in the grave, it was
taken up by his son, i.e. Oilioll mac Slanuill, and the
body had remained without rotting or decomposing
during this period. This thing was a great wonder
and surprise to the men of Ireland."]
He was poisoned by someone. One of the Bog Men
used hair gel, made of vegetable plant oil mixed with
resin from pine trees found in Spain and southwest
France. Prior to this time, Egyptians imported timber
and resin from the city of Byblos, for building and
mummification (cedar sawdust for mummification and
the resin, known as Cedria, for embalming.) The London
Medical Dictionary notes cedria is the pitch, or resin,
that distils from the cedar tree; and the cedrelaeum
is an oil obtained from the pitch or resin, and which
swims above it in boiling, and is collected with wool.
Pedanius Dioscorides remarks, that the best cedria
is thick, pellucid, and of a nauseous smell; when
poured out it does not spread, but collects in drops,
and preserves dead bodies from putrefaction.
Before the advent of anesthesia, medical surgery was a
terrifying prospect. Its victims could suffer indescribable
agony. Herodotus describes how the Scythians inhaled
hemp vapours to induce insensibility. Hemp was first
cultivated and then burned like incense in closed rooms.
The effect was intoxication and then oblivion. [4.75] The
Scythians, as I said, take some of this hemp-seed, and,
creeping under the felt coverings, throw it upon the red-hot
stones; immediately it smokes, and gives out such a vapour
as no Grecian vapour-bath can exceed; the Scyths, delighted,
shout for joy, . . .(Eight sons of Galamh of the shouts, who
was called Milidh of Spain). Their women make a mixture
of cypress, cedar, and frankincense wood, which they pound
into a paste upon a rough piece of stone, adding a little water
to it. With this substance, which is of a thick consistency,
they plaster their faces all over, and indeed their whole bodies.
A sweet odour is thereby imparted to them, and when they
take off the plaster on the day following, their skin is clean
and glossy.
. . .
and they being settled in Egypt, we who are Hellenes
know by intercourse with them the certainty of all that
which happened in Egypt beginning from king Psammetichos
and afterwards; for these were the first men of foreign tongue
who settled in Egypt: and in the land from which they were
removed there still remained down to my time the sheds
where their ships were drawn up and the ruins of their houses.
Encamp gives the idea of an enclosure, or protection,
as within the canopy of marriage obligations; thus,
they were given land, not wives, which assures the
said royalty link is biblical Hebrew ancestry, not Egyptian;
i.e., Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh, etc., are historical
grants of enclosed lands called “Encampments". They
"came to the fen-land", as in "Fenechas", the law of the
Feni, or the freemen of Ireland. The name of Scotland
is later derived from the Latin Scoti, the term applied to
Gaels. Its origins are found in Herodotus, The Fourth Book,
Entitled Melpomene. From Leipoxais sprang the Scythians
of the race called Auchatae; from Arpoxais, the middle brother,
those known as the Catiari and Traspians; from Colaxais,
the youngest, the Royal Scythians, or Paralatae. All together
they are named Scoloti, (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti) after one of
their kings: the Greeks, however, call them Scythians.
taf
> TAF: And he repeats again his 'proof':
> Irish knew that trees had sap
> ===========================
> REPLY:
> taf, your distortions are not evaluations.
No, but they adequately demonstrate how abjectly ridiculous your
supposed linkages are. You find the most insignificant similarities -
characteristics shared by the broadest range of human cultures, and
jump on each to say, "See, this proves that the Irish were Egyptians
and Hebrews", completely ignoring the more general commonalities.
Every single thing that you have mentioned, with the exception of the
amateur etymology that is valueless, relies on links so superficial
that any culture on earth could be so linked.
You again mention the irrelevant Hebrides mummies. These have
absolutely nothing in common with Egyptian mummies, other than that
the bodies failed to rot. They were not prepared in the same way, and
the associated evidence shows no linkages. They just both failed to
rot. You add to this yet another distinct case from the Four Masters,
where they didn't even try to mummify, and the body failed to rot.
The quote itself says that they were surprise, meaning no one tried to
mummify this corpse, it just happened (as does happen, from time to
time, exactly the same claim is made of St. Olaf, who I guess was also
son of a Pharaoh's daughter, then). So, one group goes through an
elaborate process of removing the organs, embalming, wrapping and
entombing. A second dumps someone in a bog. The third just puts
someone in a dry place and got a surprise when they dug them up.
What, prey tell, are these supposed to have in common that shows a
connection? The answer is that they haven't the slightest in common
other than that the body didn't rot, in each case for an entirely
different reason. Still, you lump them together, ignoring the
differences, ignoring all of the other mummies, the Inca, the
Tibetans, and even the Tirolean Iceman who just stumbled into a cave
and died - he must have been Egyptian too, right?
Enough. Your repeated intentional misquoting and attempts to slip
past the readers material that has been proven completely irrelevant
show you to be nothing but a snake-oil salesman without the slightest
interest in historical reality.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
<0141f716-63ec-4c5d...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
<at Tinney:>
> Enough. Your repeated intentional misquoting and attempts to slip
> past the readers material that has been proven completely irrelevant
> show you to be nothing but a snake-oil salesman without the slightest
> interest in historical reality.
There's always an interesting tension around those who pursue genealogy
with interests other than in 'historical reality', especially those who
seem to be trying to sell something. Some people attempt to sell
celebrity with false claims to some sort of hereditary entitlement to
prestige or power. Religion can also be 'sold' with genealogy. What is
Tinney's product?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
JacobSmith
> In article
> <0141f716-63ec-4c5d-8539-cf925b312...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
=================================
REPLY TO: Nat Taylor
According to taf, I am "a snake-oil salesman
without the slightest interest in historical reality."
Therefore, for your and other members consideration,
on this soc.genealogy.medieval list, I note:
SIDNEY B. SPERRY SYMPOSIUM,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_B._Sperry
held January 26, 1980, A SESQUICENTENNIAL LOOK
AT CHURCH HISTORY, Brigham Young University Campus
Provo, Utah, Sponsored by Religious Instruction,
Brigham Young University Church Educational System
Note: Sidney B. Sperry - Father of Religious Education at BYU
http://byureligiouseducationreview.com/2009WinterSidneySperry.php
MUMMIES ANO MANUSCRIPTS:
AN UPDATE ON THE LEBOLO—CHANDLER STORY
[H. Donald] Peterson began his teaching career in 1954
in the Seminary system of the Church and has taught also
in the Institute of Religion program. He is currently a
professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University.
He received an Bd.D. from Washington State university at
Pullman in 1965. His Church activities include service
on two high councils, twice as a ward bishop and a writer
for the Church Instructional Development Committee. He has
a keen and analytical interest in the Pearl of Great Price,
and is currently engaged in writing on that subject.
http://tinyurl.com/yh5qzje
"Lest the cold printed page fails to convey the humorous
intent of the above statement, it seems necessary to explain
that a mummified cranium of a sixteen-year-old Egyptian girl
was on display in an enclosed plexi-glass case next to the
rostrum at the front of the lecture hall. The author is confident
that this cranium was part of the Egyptian collection that was
received by Michael H. Chandler at the Customs House in
New York City in the Spring of 1833. They had been willed
to him by his Uncle Antonio Lebolo. The body of this mummy
head was dissected before the Academy of Natural Science
in Philadelphia December 10 and 17, 1833, by Dr. Samuel
George Morton M.D., who purchased the mummy from
Michael H. Chandler. The cranium is on loan to
Brigham Young University from the University of
Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia for one year."
Nat Taylor, you ask, "What is Tinney's product?"
ANSWERS:
Dr. James R. Clark was first a student and later a
colleague of Dr. Sperry's. He took the baton from
Brother Sperry and has passed it on to so many of us.
I was privileged to be instructed by both of these great
researchers and students of the Pearl of Great Price.
Dan C. Jorgensen, who was mission president in the
Italy North Mission, has made a major contribution
in his recent research on Antonio Lebolo and his family.
Mr. Francesco Morozzo of Castellamonte, Italy, who
now lives in Antonio Lebolo's house has been most
cooperative in his supplying of xeroxed documents
of the Lebolo family records. The genealogical research
efforts of Thomas Milton Tinney [now, Sr.] working in
collaboration with Brother Thomas Truitt of the Church
Historian's Office on the Michael H. Chandler family
line has been extremely basic in this research.
Brother Jay Todd, who presently serves as Editor
of the Ensign magazine, has written the most
comprehensive volume to date in his attempt
to locate and piece together the elusive parts
of this complex jigsaw puzzle in light of the
discovery made by Dr. Aziz Atiya back in 1966-67.
His Saga of the Book of Abraham, written shortly
after the Atiya find, has been consulted many,
many times.
. . .
Page 292
"Much of the credit for pointing the researchers in the
right direction as to the life of Michael H. Chandler and
his family must be given to Thomas Milton Tinney. Using
a genealogical approach he wrote Michael H. Chandler
and the Pearl of Great Price in three installments in 1975 . . ."
KEY REFERENCE: The Joseph Smith, Jr. Collection.
http://tinyurl.com/yff99qp
Since I am retired and permanently disabled, when it
is physically possible, my product and effort is to point
the highly qualified and scholarly researchers using
the soc.genealogy.medieval list, in the right direction.
WJho...@aol.com
even a critical link in the discovery of many details of that family. Let's
grant that.
Why can't you realize that that, on this list, gives you no standing to
pontificate endlessly about Egyptian Irish? The errors in your "genealogy" at
multiple points, have been pointed out to you over and over. Yet you refuse
to learn. You stand, like a popsicle in a windstorm at one spot dripping
strawberry mush over everyone else.
Be quiet. Listen. Not only are some of your sources stating items with no
evidence, some of your arguements are gross leaps of logic, and some of your
statements come from your own misreading of sources which say things quite
opposite to what you're claiming they say.
Will
WJho...@aol.com
tins...@yahoo.com writes:
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
> [both editions]>>
By the way. I know that you are not in Who's Who based on your genealogy
of the Michael Chandler family. So why are you?
Also one might suspect that the "Who's Who in Genealogy and Heraldry" is
one of those subscription ones that you can enter merely by a payment. Am I
right? Also it was a one-shot deal which failed when they made no money at
it.
Will
Nathaniel Taylor
<f6dcd2ba-8484-4b69...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
JacobSmith <tins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Nat Taylor, you ask, "What is Tinney's product?"
<snip>
> ... my product and effort is to point
> the highly qualified and scholarly researchers using
> the soc.genealogy.medieval list, in the right direction.
This 'right direction' appears to have nothing to do with genealogy as
it is commonly understood.
JacobSmith
>
> JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Nat Taylor, you ask, "What is Tinney's product?"
>
> <snip>
>
> > ... my product and effort is to point
> > the highly qualified and scholarly researchers using
> > the soc.genealogy.medieval list, in the right direction.
>
> This 'right direction' appears to have nothing to do with genealogy as
> it is commonly understood.
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook: http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
======================================
Reply to Nat Taylor. I believe you are correct.
Genealogy as it is commonly understood, is a
"static" evaluation, not directly connected to an
evaluation of variables in family performance, over
time. It is the same concept used in mathematics,
where calculus takes a problem that can’t be done
with regular math because things are constantly
changing, or have changed. However, taf sees my
conclusions as statements "completely invented by
Mr. Tinney, the product of his vivid imagination, and
without the slightest shred of evidence whatsoever."
I have suggested that taf lacks basic understanding.
taf has the seasoned mindset of the "generational historian",
which is excellent, when used within the sub set of history.
Genealogy in the "Information Age": History's New Frontier?
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/searchthissite.htm
However, I focus primarily on worldwide collective genealogy
and family history, over time, using comprehensive evidence
based family studies. I follow academic "genealogy method"
procedure, within a wide range of disciplines, professions and
applied, formal, natural and social sciences; humanities,
computer technology, religious studies, anthropology,
languages, business and education practices, sociology,
psychology, library and depository facilities, demography,
Internet skills and databases, health sciences, geography,
economics, cultural studies, law, history and social work.
This "genealogical perspective" is a scientific
method of looking to the past, by using a "reverse"
process of economic projection methodology; i.e.,
[an absent or imagined person (prior to genealogical
confirmation from primary source documentation) is
figured forth -- the "face created" as the Greek suggests
-- in words, as if present (after the pedigree is established
according to the current genealogical proof standard).]
In other words, extrapolating trends into the past, as a
function of conditions, characteristics and data records,
endogenous to current variables in family performance;
i.e., mapping back in time, variables in family history
records and conditions, that are themselves changing,
over the time span of interest. Definitional References:
Academic Education Learning Resources: Educators
http://tinyurl.com/yzvl8wl
Nathaniel Taylor
<09c5fec2-d504-4f03...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
JacobSmith <tins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ... �my product and effort is to point
> > > the highly qualified and scholarly researchers using
> > > the soc.genealogy.medieval list, in the right direction.
> >
> > This 'right direction' appears to have nothing to do with genealogy as
> > it is commonly understood.
>
> ======================================
> Reply to Nat Taylor. I believe you are correct.
>
> Genealogy as it is commonly understood, is a
> "static" evaluation, not directly connected to an
> evaluation of variables in family performance, over
> time. ...
<...>
> However, I focus primarily on worldwide collective genealogy
> and family history, over time, using comprehensive evidence
> based family studies. I follow academic "genealogy method"
> procedure, within a wide range of disciplines. ...
>
> This "genealogical perspective" is a scientific
> method of looking to the past, by using a "reverse"
> process of economic projection methodology; i.e.,
> [an absent or imagined person (prior to genealogical
> confirmation from primary source documentation) is
> figured forth -- the "face created" as the Greek suggests
> -- in words, as if present (after the pedigree is established
> according to the current genealogical proof standard).]
> In other words, extrapolating trends into the past ...
Tom, with respect, some of us know what you're attempting to do, but the
bottom line is that you're not doing it very well. Extrapolation and
speculation are not themselves anathema to genealogy (though some would
have it so); neither is the process of sketching an ethnographic or
collective genealogical history using varied data (archaeology,
linguistics, genetics, inference from tangential textual sources, etc.).
But in your case, your posts show that you lack the rigor and clarity
(and modesty) that are necessary to bring to such endeavors.
What is worse, you appear to succumb to the most important fatal flaw of
evidence-based genealogy, whether it is speculative 'extrapolation' or
concrete individual reconstruction: it is obvious that you are
cherry-picking things you think might be supportive evidence, to attempt
to build a path to a preconceived result. In your case the preconceived
result appears to be a sort of sacred genealogical history which you
hold as dogma. If this is so, then it is useless to discuss it with
you, since you would be incapable of being led away from your dogma,
either by those of us who interpret your evidence differently, or indeed
by the evidence itself. In my view this sort of blindness, when it
appears, is one of the saddest legacies of the peculiar -- but in some
other ways very fruitful -- marriage of genealogy and religion in our
contemporary American society.
Are you by any chance familiar with Dr. Charles Augustus Fernald? Your
posts are very reminiscent of his magnum opus, _Universal International
Genealogy and of the Ancient Fernald Families_ (1910). It is a
fascinating book, and the scan at archive.org hardly does it justice --
see here:
http://www.archive.org/details/universalinterna00fern
Anyway, Dr. Fernald clearly worked toward a preconceived result. And
his genealogy involved Egyptian pharaohs too. How curious.
But now I find I'm repeating myself. If you google "Tinney Fernald"
here's what comes up first:
http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-06/1149647754
pj.evans
>
> JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > ... my product and effort is to point
> > > > the highly qualified and scholarly researchers using
> > > > the soc.genealogy.medieval list, in the right direction.
>
> > > This 'right direction' appears to have nothing to do with genealogy as
> > > it is commonly understood.
>
> > ======================================
> > Reply to Nat Taylor. I believe you are correct.
>
> > Genealogy as it is commonly understood, is a
> > "static" evaluation, not directly connected to an
> > evaluation of variables in family performance, over
> > time. ...
>
> <...>
>
> > However, I focus primarily on worldwide collective genealogy
> > and family history, over time, using comprehensive evidence
> > based family studies. I follow academic "genealogy method"
> > procedure, within a wide range of disciplines. ...
>
>
>
> Are you by any chance familiar with Dr. Charles Augustus Fernald? Your
> posts are very reminiscent of his magnum opus, _Universal International
> Genealogy and of the Ancient Fernald Families_ (1910). It is a
> fascinating book, and the scan at archive.org hardly does it justice --
> see here:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/universalinterna00fern
>
> Anyway, Dr. Fernald clearly worked toward a preconceived result. And
> his genealogy involved Egyptian pharaohs too. How curious.
>
> But now I find I'm repeating myself. If you google "Tinney Fernald"
> here's what comes up first:
>
> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-06/1149647754
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook: http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Tinney's - pardon me, JacobSmith's posts here remind me in many ways
of _Enki Speaks_, which is a similar mix of a few grams of truth and
many kilos of invented history, etymology, and pseudoscience, sounding
plausible on the surface to people who don't have much knowledge of
any of the subjects involved, but clearly BS to those with even a
small amount of knowledge of any one of them.
Nathaniel Taylor
<2f86c775-90ec-4c7d...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
"pj.evans" <pj.eva...@usa.net> wrote:
> Tinney's - pardon me, JacobSmith's posts here remind me in many ways
> of _Enki Speaks_, which is a similar mix of a few grams of truth and
> many kilos of invented history, etymology, and pseudoscience, sounding
> plausible on the surface to people who don't have much knowledge of
> any of the subjects involved, but clearly BS to those with even a
> small amount of knowledge of any one of them.
True. What interests me is not so much what he says, or the way in
which he has cultivated a pseudo-academic babble to say it (though I
especially like the phrase from his last post, "academic genealogy
method procedure"), but rather the underlying issue that he has some
unshakeable belief (or desire to believe) in this particular, ancient,
sacred genealogy, which motivates all his output.
Ian Goddard
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
JacobSmith
> In a message dated 11/2/2009 10:19:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>
> > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > Who's Who in America,
> > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
> > [both editions]>>
>
> By the way. I know that you are not in Who's Who based on your genealogy
> of the Michael Chandler family. So why are you?
>
> Also one might suspect that the "Who's Who in Genealogy and Heraldry" is
> one of those subscription ones that you can enter merely by a payment. Am I
> right? Also it was a one-shot deal which failed when they made no money at
> it.
>
> Will
===================================================
I believe I was accepted into Who'sWho in America
because I lived in Davis, California. It is a well known
University City that has a famous University called
the University of California Davis. The 54th edition,
JacobSmith
> > tinst...@yahoo.com writes:
> > > Tom Tinney, Sr.
> > > Who's Who in America,
> > > Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> > > Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
> > > [both editions]>>
>
> > By the way. I know that you are not in Who's Who based on your genealogy
> > of the Michael Chandler family. So why are you?
>
> > Also one might suspect that the "Who's Who in Genealogy and Heraldry" is
> > one of those subscription ones that you can enter merely by a payment. Am I
> > right? Also it was a one-shot deal which failed when they made no money at
> > it.
>
> > Will
>
> ===================================================
I believe I was accepted into Who'sWho in America
because I lived in Davis, California. It is a well known
University City that has a famous University called
Millennium Edition, notes on page 4927, that I am
a genealogical research specialist and that my
avocation is matching scholarly record sources
with Mormon family history library systems. I
am listed in the "Professional Index" under
Humanities: Liberal Studies, United States,
State of California, City of Davis. After spending
many years in Utah, from teen years through mid-
life, in which I had copious amounts of time to
study every nook and cranny of the SLC FHL,
its changes over time; I also studied thoroughly
the MELVYL system as it related to genealogy
and family history research. I worked with the
library staff members at Shields Library in Davis,
who assisted me in contacting the Office of the
President of the UC system, to obtain information
and permission to publish data on library resources.
Previously, when I applied for certification and
became a CGRS, it included a careful study of
genealogy and family history record sources
at the University of Utah Marriott Library. After
three years of review of the Shields Library
System and direct review of UCLA, UCSB, NRLF,
the Sutro Library, etc., I published online:
Melvyl® System - University of California:
Worldwide Genealogy and Family History Research
http://tinyurl.com/yc4xybn
"The Melvyl® System for the University of California,
with more than 100 libraries, provides indexing to millions
of items in their holdings, digital collections and online
searchable databases. This is a significant resource for
worldwide genealogy and family history research. Melvyl®
is a registered trademark of The Regents of the University
of California."
This site includes [Understanding the availability of
genealogy records, within the combined books
and periodicals of the entire MELVYL® Catalog
collection, can be shown by various "genealog*"
and related word search examples. The current
Melvyl® catalog includes all formats of materials
including periodicals that were previously in
the Melvyl® Legacy System CAT and PE databases,
"but does not include records from some non-UC
sources that contributed to PE but not to CAT",
including: CULP (Public Library Periodicals),
SERHOLD (Medical Library Serials Holdings),
California State University (CSU) Library Holdings,
Stanford University Library, Getty Research Library
and the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL).
To preserve the original indexing and some features
lost on August 1, 2003, when the old Melvyl® Legacy
System was discontinued, database indexes from
the former Melvyl® Legacy System have been
included, with the following examples:
Melvyl® Legacy System Catalog Database search request:
Subject Terms: "genealog*" headings and keyword at ALL
libraries. (Numbers) - (Misc. One & Two)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
* Comparative example (dated 08 Dec 2005),
from the current Melvyl® catalog shows:
Search results: 32,428 Item(s)
Searched: Subject= genealog*
Collection: Entire Collection]
The Board of Advisors considered me worthy
of inclusion in Who'sWho in America, for the
years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, after
which time, my project at UCD was completed.
This project is now a small sub section of the
world wide evaluation of University resources at:
Schools - Colleges - Universities: Alumni and Genealogy Education
Worldwide comprehensive resource of educational institutions,
their genealogy & family history data, past & present students,
alumni, associations, faculty, friends and military personnel.
http://academic-genealogy.com/schoolscollegesuniversities.htm
This then has become an additional sub set of
Ancestor Roots Information: OneSource Genealogy
and Family History Searchable Databases
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancestorrootsinformationdatabases
OneSource Comprehensive Directory Index
Alphabetical Index: A to Z for the Family Genealogy
and History Internet Education Directory. Instructions
for use of Country - Nation Area Index:
A to Z at Ancestor Roots Information.
http://academic-genealogy.com/onesource.htm
I am a lifetime associate member of the California Aggie
Alumni Association, even though I did not officially attend
http://academic-genealogy.com/genealogyucd.htm
the University of California at Davis, and am still a very
inactive member of The Davis Genealogical Club & Library.
http://academic-genealogy.com/cityofdavisyolocountycalifornia.htm
I have additionally worked on Yolo County records,
in conjunction with the UCD Melvyl System.
http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=1256
I am a current member of the The Jewish Genealogical Society
of Sacramento (JGSS) and have provided them with a listing
of records in UCD Shields Library "[First Floor reference
consultants can direct patrons to specific records, such
as the multi-thousand "DS 101-15l" Jewish book collection
section, on the same floor, which contains some specific
genealogical and family records; or, to the Lower Level
"BM" section synagogue resources.] Etc.
http://www.jewishgen.org/jgs-sacramento/
I am linked by some prominent genealogical societies,
worldwide; some public and university library systems,
such as Brigham Young University, where I also did
a personal evaluation of their complete library system.
I have reviewed and visited the Library of Congress,
NY Public Library, Newberry in Chicago, Clayton
Library in Houston, Texas, LA Public Library, CA,
Allen County Public Library at Fort Wayne, IN, Etc.
Who's Who in Genealogy and Heraldry inclusion
means I was qualified in the eyes of the editors:
Mary Keysor Meyer and P. William Filby
http://www.antiqbook.nl/boox/chc/022934.shtml
Mary Keysor Meyer: Amazon publication listing.
http://tinyurl.com/yerm3tk
P. William Filby, a man who made enormous
contributions to the field of family history research,
died of a stroke 2 November 2002. While Bill Filby
never considered himself a genealogist, his dedicated
work as a bibliographer and an historian has enabled
thousands to discover records of their ancestors.
http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=6591
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
WJho...@aol.com
tins...@yahoo.com writes:
> I believe I was accepted into Who'sWho in America
> because I lived in Davis, California. It is a well known
> University City that has a famous University called
> the University of California Davis. The 54th edition,>>
I'm sure they didn't accept every resident of Davis.
Simply living isn't really that unique.
My suspicion is that you were a doctor before you retired, but I haven't
looked into it.
Will
JacobSmith
=====================================
REPLY: Please go back to the basics, Nat Taylor.
Information presented relates to internal consistency
within documents, irrespective of source designation,
as well as cross comparison over generations of time.
"science is, and should be presented as, a process
of building theories and models, checking them for
internal consistency and coherence, and testing
them empirically." There is no conflict in evidence;
only, a lack of understanding of what the data implies.
Theology & Science: The Bible Is Scientific
http://tinyurl.com/yflrkfh
pj.evans
It would be nice, then, if you actually _did_ science, instead of
wildly fantasizing about what might have been in some other world
where the Irish were really Egyptians, or maybe one of the lost tribes
of Israel (probably the world right next door to the one where the
Trojans were the ancestors of the Britons and the Franks).
Right now, what you actually have is bupkis.
JacobSmith
===================================
REPLY TO: pj.evans
What you think I said is indeed bupkis.
What I wrote is completely different.
Briefly, records show in descending data:
(1) The Scythians all together are
named Scoloti, (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
(2) Encamp gives the idea of an enclosure,
or protection, as within the canopy of marriage
obligations; thus, they were given land, not wives,
which assures the said royalty link is biblical
Hebrew ancestry, not Egyptian; i.e., Scota,
the daughter of Pharaoh, etc., are historical grants
of enclosed lands called “Encampments". They
"came to the fen-land", as in "Fenechas", the law
of the Feni, or the freemen of Ireland. This has
absolutely nothing to do with any "lost tribes
of Israel", or stone of destiny carried to Ireland,
etc.
(3) The name of Scotland is later derived from
the Latin Scoti, the term applied to Gaels, which
has its origins in Scythian (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
I never said the Irish were Egyptians. I mentioned:
Note carefully that women were making offerings
without "our men". In other words, the Hebrews
in Egypt, many who had lost their husbands in war,
had become core pagan, (as pagan as the records
in Ireland show), declaring allegiance as the
"daughter of Pharaoh"; even though the Hebrew
and Egyptian records validate their physical
ancestry was Hebrew.
(4) Eight sons of Galamh of the shouts, who was
called Milidh of Spain, is recorded in Irish resources.
CELT is a searchable online corpus of
multilingual texts of Irish literature and history.
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100054/text028.html
The History of Ireland (BOOK I-II)
(Author: Geoffrey Keating)
Corpus of Electronic Texts Edition Section 18
Of the journeying of the race of Gaedbeal
from Gothia to Spain as follows.
"Eight sons of Galamh of the shouts,
Who was called Milidh of Spain,
They hewed down a thousand fields;
[NOTE CAREFULLY: certain Ionians and Carians
who had sailed forth for plunder were compelled to
come to shore in Egypt, and they having landed
and being clad in bronze armour, one of the Egyptians,
not having before seen men clad in bronze armour,
came to the fen-land and brought a report to
Psammetichos (Psamtik I) that bronze men
had come from the sea and were plundering the plain.
PLEASE NOTE: . . . and were plundering the plain
VS. They hewed down a thousand fields;]
In what countries were they born?
Airioch Feabhruadh and Donn of conflicts
Were born in Scythia;
There were born in stream-filled Egypt
Eibhear Fionn and Aimhirgin; . . . "
I further mentioned: MILESIUS - GALAMH -
[Míl Espáine], born circa 645 B.C.
[Born with the name Golam or
Galam, Míl (born of the kings of
the city of Miletus) remembers druid
Caicer's prophecy that he and his
people would settle in Ireland.
This corresponds to Psammetichos,
when he had sent to the Oracle of Leto
in the city of Buto, where the Egyptians
have their most truthful Oracle, there was
given to him the reply that vengeance
would come when men of bronze
appeared from the sea.
(5) Herodotus describes how the Scythians
inhaled hemp vapours to induce insensibility.
Hemp was first cultivated and then burned
like incense in closed rooms. The effect
was intoxication and then oblivion.
[4.75] The Scythians, as I said, take some
of this hemp-seed, and, creeping under the
felt coverings, throw it upon the red-hot stones;
immediately it smokes, and gives out such a
vapour as no Grecian vapour-bath can exceed;
the Scyths, delighted, shout for joy, . . .(Eight
sons of Galamh of the shouts, who was called
Milidh of Spain). ALL connects together as one.
(6) Secondary confirmation of flagrant falsification
of chronology in Irish historical record systems:
061: ANGUS I - AO[E]NGUS OLMUCA[ID]CH -
[Óengus Olmucaid]
"After Aengus Olmucadha had been eighteen years
in the sovereignty of Ireland, he fell in the battle of
Carmann, by Enna Airgtheach. . . .
Research Notes:
A. Belinus the Great was a legendary king
of the Britons, as recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth.
He was the son of Dunvallo Molmutius and brother of
Brennius. Belinus and Brennius merged their armies
into one great one and invaded Gaul. After a year of
warfare, the joint army managed to submit all the
Frankish kingdoms in Gaul to their authority. Now with
an even greater army, Belinus lead his great army to
the Italian peninsula and threatened to invade Rome.
In history, Rome was captured by an individual named
Brennus, following the Battle of the Allia on July 18, 390 BC.
When the brother of Brennius died, (Belinus the Great),
he was succeeded by his son Gurguit Barbtruc. When
Gurguit Barbtruc was returning from a military voyage
to Denmark, he came across a fleet of thirty ships of
men and women, called Basclenses (Irish), under
the leadership of Partholoim.
Thus, Partholón, leader of the second group of people
to settle Ireland, appears synchronic to the era of
Gurguit Barbtruc, [circa 400 BC], which contradicts
and makes completely fictitious, all of the previously
listed time frames, handed down (in surviving, church
filtered and adjusted) medieval compiled records; i.e.:
2680 BC
Chronology of the Annals of the Four Masters
2061 BC
Geoffrey Keating's chronology
Time of Abraham (Biblical)
Irish synchronic historians
wjho...@aol.com
<<declaring allegiance as the
"daughter of Pharaoh"; even though the Hebrew
and Egyptian records validate their physical
ancestry was Hebrew.>>
Sorry no. There are *zero* Egyptian records which "validate" anyone coming to Egypt with Jeremiah, or even that Jeremiah existed. Likewise, since these records don't exist, they don't validate them as Hebrews.
Why do you keep doing this? You *know* that there are no Egyptian records like this, and yet you made these utterly bizarre statements.
Likewise the sole "Hebrew" record is one passage in the Bible. That's it. A passage. Not "records".
Will Johnson
JacobSmith
===============================================
REPLY: Wake up, Will Johnson.
Among other reference items, note:
Daphnae (Tahpanhes, Taphne; mod. Defenneh)
was an ancient fortress near the Syrian frontier
of Egypt, on the Pelusian arm of the Nile.
King Psammetichus established a garrison of
foreign mercenaries at Daphnae, mostly Carians
and Ionian Greeks (Herodotus ii. 154). After the
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar II
in 588 BC, the Jewish fugitives, of whom Jeremiah
was one, came to Tahpanhes.
. . .
The site was discovered by Prof. WM Flinders Petrie
in 1886; the name "Castle of the Jew's Daughter"
seems to preserve the tradition of the Jewish refugees.
There is a massive fort and enclosure; the chief
discovery was a large number of fragments of pottery,
which are of great importance for the chronology
of vase-painting, since they must belong to the
time between Psammetichus and Amasis, i.e.
the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th
century BC. They show the characteristics
of Ionian art, but their shapes and other details
testify to their local manufacture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnae
taf
> I believe I was accepted into Who'sWho in America
> because I lived in Davis, California.
> I also studied thoroughly
> the MELVYL system as it related to genealogy
> and family history research.
Yeah, that will do it. Living in Davis and knowing how to use a
computerized library card catalog. Such a rare set of accomplishments
that it invariably leads to nationwide acclaim.
taf
taf
> What you think I said is indeed bupkis.
>
> What I wrote is completely different.
Which brings us to the other problem. You can't seem to communicate.
You either quote screeds without indicating what, if anything, is
relevant, or you string together chains of big fancy words that you
seem to think mean something but only serve to obscure your
misunderstandings.
> Briefly, records show in descending data:
"descending data" is exactly such a nonsensical combination.
> (1) The Scythians all together are
> named Scoloti, (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
And away we go down the rabid hole.
> (2) Encamp gives the idea of an enclosure,
> or protection, as within the canopy of marriage
> obligations; thus, they were given land, not wives,
Back to the dictionary. 'Thus' means something along the lines of
'Therefor it follows that'. The idea is to have the part that comes
after thus to derive from the part before it, not to be a completely
concocted scenario that hasn't the slightest relationship to what came
before.
> which assures the said royalty link is biblical
> Hebrew ancestry, not Egyptian;
Which assures the person making this claim can't link two thoughts
together. No, that is not accurate. The person making the claim can
link two thoughts together, two thoughts that have absolutely nothing
to do with each other can be linked as if they are related. It is
taking non sequitur to the level of performance art.
> i.e., Scota,
> the daughter of Pharaoh, etc.,
Is a completely INVENTED mythical individual a classical eponymous
ancestor, created to provide a pleasing tale of the origins of a
people, but having no actual historical basis.
> are historical grants
> of enclosed lands called “Encampments". They
> "came to the fen-land", as in "Fenechas", the law
> of the Feni, or the freemen of Ireland. This has
> absolutely nothing to do with any "lost tribes
> of Israel", or stone of destiny carried to Ireland,
> etc.
Great - genealogy by analogy, etymology by entomology (i.e. making
word associations while drunk on grasshoppers). As I have said before,
you can turn yourself in circles with games of 'this word sounds sort
of like that word, which means this other thing". The enemies of the
crusaders were called Moors, which sounds like moors, marshy areas,
which word derives from the same root as mare or mar, a sea, which
sounds like seal (an animal that lives in the sea, part time, so we
are on the right track), and a seal is the embossed wax containing the
coat of arms, and the concept of coats of arms were brought back from
the crusades where their use had been observed among the Moors.
Therefor, the residents of North Africa are aquatic mammals. This is
perfectly ridiculous, as are your amateurish attempts.
Absolutely nothing to do with lost tribes, nor with tribes that were
never lost, and the only relationship to stones is that you pretty
much have to be stoned for any of this to sound deep and insightful
(and curiously, you refer to hemp below, so maybe I have hit on
something here).
> (3) The name of Scotland is later derived from
> the Latin Scoti, the term applied to Gaels, which
> has its origins in Scythian (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
Have you read any scholarship written in the last hundred years?
(actual scholarship?) This Isidorian just-so form of ethnic origins
has long since been shown to lack the slightest basis in actual
history.
> I never said the Irish were Egyptians. I mentioned:
> Note carefully that women were making offerings
> without "our men". In other words, the Hebrews
> in Egypt, many who had lost their husbands in war,
> had become core pagan, (as pagan as the records
> in Ireland show), declaring allegiance as the
> "daughter of Pharaoh"; even though the Hebrew
> and Egyptian records validate their physical
> ancestry was Hebrew.
Another example of your conversational ineptitude. Perhaps the reason
that people keep 'misportraying' your positions is that you have
failed to make yourself clear. For example, here you seem to be
suggesting that there are records in Egypt that validate the ancestry
of the Hebrews in Egypt. This is, of course, complete nonsense. There
are no such Egyptian records. The entire period of captivity is
completely unknown from the Egyptian side. Thus you must either again
be failing to communicate what you really mean to say, you are
completely delusional, or you are telling bold-faced lies. Which is
it? Further, you bring in Irish paganism as if it had some relevance:
"as pagan as the records in Ireland show". What does this mean? Do
you mean as pagan as the Irish records show the Irish were? If so, it
is completely irrelevant to the Hebrews being pagans while in Egypt.
Irrelevant unless you are drawing a parallel between Irish paganism
and Egyptian paganism, which is not only begging the question but is a
perfect example of highlighting the most superficial similarities and
totally ignoring the most glaring inconsistencies. Paganism in
Ireland bore no resemblance whatsoever to paganism in Egypt except
that neither worshiped the God of Abraham. Or did you mean as pagan as
the Irish records show the Hebrews were? There are no such records.
There is no possible interpretation that the reader can make of this
'datum' that is not fatally flawed. You must, then, have failed to
get your point across (assuming, that is, that you have a point that
is consistent with reality).
> (4) Eight sons of Galamh of the shouts, who was
> called Milidh of Spain, is recorded in Irish resources.
They were invented, as Irish myth.
> I further mentioned: MILESIUS - GALAMH -
Yes, you keep mentioning this myth, but you never expand on it or
explain it, you just spout gibberish. If you want to move this
forward, the onus is on you to actually explain yourself.
> This corresponds to Psammetichos,
So says you (now would be the time where a scholar would defend there
position, not just repeat it ad nauseum.
> (5) Herodotus describes how the Scythians
> inhaled hemp vapours to induce insensibility.
And finally we are getting to the root of things.
> [4.75] The Scythians, as I said, take some
> of this hemp-seed, and, creeping under the
> felt coverings, throw it upon the red-hot stones;
> immediately it smokes, and gives out such a
> vapour as no Grecian vapour-bath can exceed;
> the Scyths, delighted, shout for joy, . . .(Eight
> sons of Galamh of the shouts, who was called
> Milidh of Spain). ALL connects together as one.
Only if you are high does any of this connect. But perhaps that is
the connection.
> (6) Secondary confirmation of flagrant falsification
> of chronology in Irish historical record systems:
And so, when the evidence disagrees with your interpretation, it
dismissed as a flagrant falsification. When it agrees with your
interpretation you whole-heartedly embrace it. I worked with a
scientist who picked and chose her evidence in exactly this manner.
She got fired for it.
> 061: ANGUS I - AO[E]NGUS OLMUCA[ID]CH -
> [Óengus Olmucaid]
> "After Aengus Olmucadha had been eighteen years
> in the sovereignty of Ireland, he fell in the battle of
> Carmann, by Enna Airgtheach. . . .
>
> Research Notes:
Which are nothing but artificial linkages among unrelated events and
legends, entirely self-serving in their selection and interpretation.
As incoherent as your arguments are, the take-home message is clear:
this is the answer because I want this to be the answer, and no
contradiction in source material, no fabrication of evidence, no
outlandish mythology or ridiculous etymology will stand in the way of
reaching the desired conclusion.
taf
taf
> Information presented relates to internal consistency
> within documents, irrespective of source designation,
> as well as cross comparison over generations of time.
Except you are focusing exclusively on vague similarities that only by
the loosest interpretation can be called consistencies, and completely
ignoring, not even deigning to notice, glaring bold-faced
inconsistencies. You are using the antithesis of a scientific
approach. You are not being guided by the evidence to whatever answer
it leads, you have a pre-determined answer and then are making
twisting the evidence in gymnastic contortions to force it to match
the conclusion you had already reached.
> "science is, and should be presented as, a process
> of building theories and models, checking them for
> internal consistency and coherence, and testing
> them empirically." There is no conflict in evidence;
> only, a lack of understanding of what the data implies.
It is funny to see you quote this, and yet completely fail to
understand it. You are using it to say that if we state that the
evidence doesn't match your preconceived conclusion, that we must be
misinterpreting the evidence. That is not, AT ALL, what it is about.
How science works is that if the data doesn't match the hypothesis,
then the hypothesis should be reevaluated. (As in, if the manner by
which the Egyptians made mummies is completely different than the
manner by which the Hebrideans made mummies, and neither has any
similarity to the accidental phenomenon that could reflect
mummification but is probably just an invented story from the Irish,
then the hypothesis that these demonstrate commonality needs to be set
aside - conflicting evidence should cause you to change your
hypothesis, not to ignore the conflict as you are doing.)
> Theology & Science: The Bible Is Scientifichttp://tinyurl.com/yflrkfh
tripe! babbling self-satisfied begging of the question.
taf
taf
> Since I am retired and permanently disabled, when it
> is physically possible, my product and effort is to point
> the highly qualified and scholarly researchers using
> the soc.genealogy.medieval list, in the right direction.
Well, I hope it will soon be physically possible for you to do this,
for a change.
taf
norenxaq
>
>As incoherent as your arguments are, the take-home message is clear:
>this is the answer because I want this to be the answer, and no
>contradiction in source material, no fabrication of evidence, no
>outlandish mythology or ridiculous etymology will stand in the way of
>reaching the desired conclusion.
>
>taf
>
>----------------
>
so, why are you bothering discussing this with him?
norenxaq
>On Nov 3, 10:17 am, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I believe I was accepted into Who'sWho in America
>>because I lived in Davis, California.
>>
>>
>
>
>
where one lives has no bearing on whether one is accepted into any Who's Who
wjho...@aol.com
<<The site was discovered by Prof. WM Flinders Petrie
in 1886; the name "Castle of the Jew's Daughter"
seems to preserve the tradition of the Jewish refugees.>>
You're quoting the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica even though Wikipoopia doesn't make that clear. This name was given to this ruin by the local natives. That is hardly probative of a jewish princess having lived here with Jeremiah. I'm sure you KNOW this, you just want to blindly keep ignoring logic.
Castle of the Jew's daughter, quoted in 1880 hardly stands in any significant relationship to events which must have occurred over two thousand years before. And you know it. So knock it off. You're giving genealogy a bad name with your constant nonsense.
taf
> On Nov 2, 11:11 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <f6dcd2ba-8484-4b69-9a8a-827d4c6ed...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ... my product and effort is to point
> > > the highly qualified and scholarly researchers using
> > > the soc.genealogy.medieval list, in the right direction.
>
> > This 'right direction' appears to have nothing to do with genealogy as
> > it is commonly understood.
>
>
> Genealogy as it is commonly understood, is a
> "static" evaluation, not directly connected to an
> evaluation of variables in family performance, over
> time. It is the same concept used in mathematics,
> where calculus takes a problem that can’t be done
> with regular math because things are constantly
> changing, or have changed. However, taf sees my
> conclusions as statements "completely invented by
> Mr. Tinney, the product of his vivid imagination, and
> without the slightest shred of evidence whatsoever."
> I have suggested that taf lacks basic understanding.
Yes. To the criticism that the emperor has no clothes, you respond
that the critics simply are lacking in the broad perspective that you
hold. To compare your work to calculus is just a variant of the
Galileo defense. Well, you are no Galileo, nor are you Newton nor
Leibniz. You are like the political spokesman a few years back that
complained that his boss's critics among the 'reality based community'
were failing to see the larger picture. You make bold-faced claims
without evidence, and suggest that these flights of fancy represent a
higher form of thought. That is not genius.
> taf has the seasoned mindset of the "generational historian",
> which is excellent, when used within the sub set of history.
> However, I focus primarily on worldwide collective genealogy
> and family history, over time, using comprehensive evidence
> based family studies.
Try that again in English. The simple linking together of long words
does not invariably produce a coherent sentence.
> I follow academic "genealogy method" procedure,
See above.
> within a wide range of disciplines, professions and
> applied, formal, natural and social sciences; humanities,
> computer technology, religious studies, anthropology,
> languages, business and education practices, sociology,
> psychology, library and depository facilities, demography,
> Internet skills and databases, health sciences, geography,
> economics, cultural studies, law, history and social work.
What you are doing is splicing together any myth you can find and
declaring it genealogy. This is not like art, where 'art' is what
'artists' do. Just because you are a genealogist, that does not mean
that whatever you do is automatically genealogy.
> This "genealogical perspective" is a scientific
> method of looking to the past,
No, it is not. A genealogical approach could entail the use of a
scientific method, but not as you apply the scientific method. You,
rather, are using the opposite of a scientific method. You are
accepting superstition and myth, and then scouring the broadest range
of fields to cherry-pick superficial similarities that can be
misconstrued to support only if you ignore the most glaring
contradictions, then calling it all science.
> by using a "reverse"
> process of economic projection methodology;
See above, about putting big words together just for the sake of
sounding self-important.
> i.e.,
> [an absent or imagined person (prior to genealogical
> confirmation from primary source documentation) is
> figured forth
See above.
-- the "face created" as the Greek suggests
> -- in words, as if present (after the pedigree is established
> according to the current genealogical proof standard).]
See above.
> In other words,
Please!
> extrapolating trends into the past, as a
> function of conditions, characteristics and data records,
> endogenous to current variables in family performance;
OK, I take it back. See above.
> i.e., mapping back in time, variables in family history
> records and conditions, that are themselves changing,
> over the time span of interest.
Well, congratulations. You have managed an entire post with hardly a
single coherent sentence. Sure, it sounds impressive, all of those
big words all strung together, but you have managed a product less
than the sum of its parts. I am reminded of a comic on the perfect
thesis title, which relates "Nothing says 'academic rigor' like a long
string of dry scientific-sounding terminology and fancy buzzwords".
In short, you have used a lot of high-falutin' words to say absolutely
nothing coherent, but then, 'absolutely nothing coherent' is a perfect
description of your genealogical method, so maybe you have gotten your
point across.
Still, I can't help but see that phrase 'extrapolating trends' up
there. In and of itself, that proves that what you are doing is not
genealogy. You cannot extrapolate an ancestor. If you do, it ain't
genealogy. It may be anthropology or ethnology or mythology, but
genealogy it ain't, and all of the big words you can string together
doesn't make it so.
taf
Simon Fairthorne
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of taf
Sent: 04 November 2009 07:18
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Mummies found in Outer Hebrides: Kings of Ireland
On Nov 2, 5:01�pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> time. �It is the same concept used in mathematics,
> where calculus takes a problem that can�t be done
> with regular math because things are constantly
> changing, or have changed. �
What do you mean by "regular math" - excluding calculus and what else ?
What does the word "things" refer to?
Wearily
Simon
Renia
I've asked this before, myself. Todd is very keen to have a go at people
for responding to trolls and off-topic threads, but he is as guilty as
anyone.
Renia
> On Nov 3, 9:09 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> <<declaring allegiance as the
>> "daughter of Pharaoh"; even though the Hebrew
>> and Egyptian records validate their physical
>> ancestry was Hebrew.>>
>>
>> Sorry no. There are *zero* Egyptian records which "validate" anyone coming to Egypt with Jeremiah, or even that Jeremiah existed. Likewise, since these records don't exist, they don't validate them as Hebrews.
>>
>> Why do you keep doing this? You *know* that there are no Egyptian records like this, and yet you made these utterly bizarre statements.
>>
>> Likewise the sole "Hebrew" record is one passage in the Bible. That's it. A passage. Not "records".
>>
>> Will Johnson
>
> ===============================================
> REPLY: Wake up, Will Johnson.
>
> Among other reference items, note:
>
> Daphnae (Tahpanhes, Taphne; mod. Defenneh)
> was an ancient fortress near the Syrian frontier
> of Egypt, on the Pelusian arm of the Nile.
And what has this got to do with medieval Irish or Scottish genealogy?
Renia
>
> (1) The Scythians all together are
> named Scoloti, (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
>
<snippy>
>
> (3) The name of Scotland is later derived from
> the Latin Scoti, the term applied to Gaels, which
> has its origins in Scythian (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
Since when are the Scythians the ancestors of the Scots?
QUOTE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Approximate extent of Middle East Iranian languages in the 1st century
BC is shown in orange
The Scythians or Scyths[1] (Greek: ??????, ??????) were an Ancient
Iranian people of horse-riding nomadic pastoralists[2][3] who throughout
Classical Antiquity dominated the Pontic-Caspian steppe, known at the
time as Scythia. By Late Antiquity the closely-related Sarmatians came
to dominate the Scythians in this area. Much of the surviving
information about the Scythians comes from the Greek historian Herodotus
(c. 440 BC) in his Histories, and archaeologically from the exquisite
goldwork found in Scythian burial mounds in Ukraine and Southern Russia.
The name "Scythian" has also been used to refer to various peoples seen
as similar to the Scythians, or who lived anywhere in a vast area
covering present-day Ukraine, Russia and Central Asia�known until
medieval times as Scythia.[4]
ENDQUOTE
Renia
> In a message dated 11/2/2009 10:19:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>
>
>> Tom Tinney, Sr.
>> Who's Who in America,
>> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
>> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
>> [both editions]>>
>
> of the Michael Chandler family. So why are you?
>
> Also one might suspect that the "Who's Who in Genealogy and Heraldry" is
> one of those subscription ones that you can enter merely by a payment. Am I
> right? Also it was a one-shot deal which failed when they made no money at
> it.
I was invited to appear in "Who's Who in Genealogy and Heraldry" a few
years ago. I presumed it was because my name and email address is to be
found in genealogical mailing lists and newsgroups such as this one. I
ignored it and treated it as spam. Particularly because trolls and
non-genealogists, such as Tinney, appear in it.
JacobSmith
==================================
REPLY: I never took the time to read the article.
I did not think it was necessary, as Wikipedia is
very well known as an accurate, unbiased source.
My concern in Egyptian resources related to women,
like in the Hebrew women in Ireland; so, I concentrated
on sound documents, evaluated from a female viewpoint.
I found valuable, as a genealogical research specialist, the
writings of a female author, Amelia Ann Blanford Edwards,
(1831-1892). My thinking was that if the history evaluated is
directly tied to female groups, one must observe the records
from a woman's vantage point, to arrive at correct conclusions.
Amelia Edwards was born in 1831 in London. Her father had
been an army officer before becoming a banker. Her mother
was Irish. . . . Amelia embarked on a series of intrepid
expeditions, of which she wrote. Her accounts are notable
for her knowledge of her surroundings, her interest and
openness towards the people and customs of other countries,
and not least for the humour and enthusiasm which enliven
many of her experiences. . . . It was her third documented
journey, however, that substantially changed the direction
of Edwards' life. In 1870, she travelled to Egypt and sailed
a dahabiyeh up the Nile to Abu Simbel. There, she spent
six weeks excavating at the Temple of Rameses II. Her
animated and engaging account of the trip was published
as A Thousand Miles Up the Nile in 1877. . . . By the end
of the trip, Amelia was entirely smitten with Egyptology.
It would become the major work of the rest of her life. . . .
She left an extensive library of Egyptology and a collection
of Egyptian antiquities to University College, London.
With it went a bequest of 2,500 pounds, to establish
the first English chair in Egyptology. . . .
http://www.digital.library.upenn.edu/women/edwards/edwards.html
Digital Library Server at Penn Libraries
A Celebration of Women Writers:
"Pharaohs Fellahs and Explorers"
by Amelia Ann Blanford Edwards
http://tinyurl.com/yk5s3ah
. . .
"Chapter 2: The Buried Cities of Ancient Egypt."
http://tinyurl.com/yfvadsz
. . .
From that time to this, the Egypt Exploration Fund
has sent out explorers every season, having sometimes
two, and even three, simultaneously at work in different
parts of the Delta. Each year has been fruitful in discoveries.
Ancient geographical boundaries have been traced; the sites
of famous cities have been identified; sculptures, inscriptions,
arms, papyri, jewellery, painted pottery, beautiful objects in
glass, porcelain, bronze, gold, silver, and even textile fabrics,
have been found; a flood of unexpected light has been cast
upon the Biblical history of the Hebrews; the early stages
[Page 41] of the route of the Exodus have been defined;
an important chapter in the history of Greek art and Greek
epigraphy has been recovered from oblivion; and an
archæological survey of the Delta has been made,
nearly all the larger mounds having been measured
and mapped.
. . .
M. Naville selected as the scene of his first excavation
a celebrated mound in the Wady Tûmilât, between
Zagazig and Ismaïlia; a mound which Lepsius had
conjecturally identified with "Raamses," one of the twin
"treasure-cities" built by the forced labor of the Hebrew
colonists in the time of the Great Oppression. Of these
it is said in the first chapter of Exodus that "they built
for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses"; by
"treasure-cities" meaning fortified magazines, such as
the Egyptians were wont to erect for the safe custody
of grain and military stores.
. . .
But as the Greeks, according to the Greek method
of transcription, rendered "Pa" by "Bu," and "Bast"
by "Bastis," so the Hebrews, according to the Hebrew
method of transcription, rendered "Pa" by "Pi," and
"Bast" by "Beseth." thus it is as "Pi-Beseth" that
we read of Bubastis in the Bible. And so, in like
manner, the Hebrews changed "Pa" into "Pi," and
"Tum" into "Thom," when dealing with "Pa-Tum,"
of which they made "Pi-Thom." Accordingly, it is
of this very store-fort, "Pa-Tum," that we read in
the passage which I have already quoted from
the first chapter of Exodus "And they built for
Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pi-Thom and Raamses."
. . .
But till M. Naville excavated Tell-el-Maskhûtah,
Pithom of Succoth was but a name and a theory.
Now Pithom is a fact, and Sukut is a fact; and
when it is remembered that the departing Hebrews
"journeyed from Raamses to Succoth" on their way
to Etham and Pihahiroth, it at once becomes evident
that we have not only found one of the "treasure-cities"
built by their hands, but that we have identified the
district in which that great mixed multitude first halted
to rest by the way.
. . .
Now, it is a very curious and interesting fact that
the Pithom bricks are of three qualities. In the lower
courses of these massive cellar walls they are mixed
with chopped straw; higher up, when the straw may be
supposed to have [Page 50] run short, the clay is found
to be mixed with reeds–the same kind of reeds which
grow to this day in the bed of the old Pharaonic canal,
and which are translated as "stubble" in the Bible.
Finally, when the last reeds were used up, the bricks
of the uppermost courses consist of mere Nile mud,
with no binding substance whatever.
So here we have the whole pathetic Bible narrative
surviving in solid evidence to the present time. We go
down to the bottom of one of these cellars. We see
the good bricks for which the straw was provided.
Some few feet higher we see those for which the
wretched Hebrews had to seek reeds, or stubble.
We hear them cry aloud, "Can we make bricks
without straw ?"
Lastly, we see the bricks which they had to make,
and did make, without straw, while their hands were
bleeding and their hearts were breaking. Shakespeare,
in one of his most familiar passages, tells us of "sermons
in stones;" but here we have a sermon in bricks, and not
only a sermon, but a practical historical commentary
of the highest importance and interest.
. . .
It was, then, in 1884 that Mr. Petrie worked for the Egypt
Exploration Fund on the site of that famous city called in
Egyptian Ta-an, or Tsàn; transcribed as "Tanis" by the
Greeks, and rendered in the Hebrew as "Zoan." It yet
preserves an echo of these ancient names as the Arab
village of "Sàn."
. . .
The traveller who should turn his back upon
Saft el-Hen-neh and journey northward as far
as the shores of Lake Menzaleh, would there
find himself upon the scene of Mr. Petrie's work
in 1886 and at the foot of Tell Defenneh. Now,
Tell Defenneh is a large mound, or group of mounds,
situate close to Lake Menzaleh, at the extreme
north-eastern corner of the Delta; and the name
of this group of mounds, "Defenneh," is a corrupt
Arab version of "Daphnæ," the "Daphnæ of Pelusium"
of the Greek historians. The identity of Defenneh
and Daphnæ has never been questioned by scholars,
and the identity of both with the Biblical Tahpanhes
has also been admitted by the majority of Bible
commentators.
The history of Daphnæ begins with Psammetichus I.,
Prince of Saïs and Memphis, who fought his way to
the throne by the aid of Carian and Ionian mercenary
troops, and founded the Twenty-sixth Egyptian Dynasty.
This event dates from about 665 B.C. Here Psammetichus
constructed two large camps for the permanent
accommodation of his foreign soldiers, one on
each bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile,
and here they founded a large military colony.
In course of time, a Greek town sprang up in
the neighboring plain. This was the earliest
legalized settlement of Greeks in Egypt–a
settlement ninety years earlier than that
of Naukratis.
The foreigners continued to occupy Daphnæ
for nearly a century, till King Amasis, the fourth
successor of Psammetichus, removed them to
Memphis. Now, the immediate predecessor of
Amasis was Uabra, called by the Greek "Apries,"
and in the Bible "Hophra." It was during the reign
of Apries, about 585 B.C., that Jerusalem was
besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who took King Zedekiah
captive, put out his eyes, and bore him away, with
the bulk of the Jewish citizens, to Babylon. But
Zedekiah's daughters were left behind in Jerusalem,
then occupied by a Chaldean garrison under a
Chaldean governor. It was a time of plot and strife
and disorder; and finally Johanan, the son of Kareah,
acting as the guardian and adviser of the forlorn princesses,
conveyed them for safety to Egypt.. . . a mixed multitude,
in fact, consisting mainly of old men, women, and children
. . .
Meanwhile Apries, with royal hospitality, placed his
palace of Daphnæ at the disposal of the fugitive princesses,
and granted a large tract of land to their followers. . . .
we only know that Tahpanhes and Daphnæ were one
and the same, and that Tell Defenneh marks this interesting
meeting-point of Egyptian, Greek, Assyrian, and Hebrew
history. Mr. Petrie went therefore to Tell Defenneh to prove
or disprove an accepted identification. There, in the midst
of an arid waste, half marsh, half desert–far from roads,
villages, or cultivated soil–in view of an horizon bounded
by the heron-haunted lagoons of Lake Menzaleh and the
mud-swamps of the plain of Pelusium–he found three groups
of mounds. These groups lay from half a mile to a mile apart,
the intermediate flat being covered with stone chips, potsherds,
and the remains of brick foundations. These chips, potsherds,
and foundations marked the site of an important city, in which
the lines of the streets and the boundaries of two or three large
enclosures were yet visible. Two of the mounds were apparently
mere [Page 64] rubbish-heaps of the ordinary type; the third
being entirely composed of the burned and blackened ruins of
a huge pile of brick buildings, visible, like a lesser Birs Nimroud,
for a great distance across the plain. Arriving at his destination
towards evening, foot-sore and weary, Mr. Petrie beheld this
singular object standing high against a lurid sky, and reddened
by a fiery sunset. His Arabs hastened to tell him its local name;
and he may be envied the delightful surprise with which he learned
that it was known far and near as "El Kasr el Bint el Yahudi''–
the "Castle of the Jew's Daughter."
. . .
That this stronghold was actually built, as Herodotus states,
by Psammetichus I. was proved by the discovery of that king's
foundation deposits under the four corners of the building.
. . . Another room contained hundreds of amphora lids and
plaster jar-sealings, some stamped with the royal ovals
of Psammetichus; some with those of Neko, his son;
and some with those of Apries.
. . .
The great camp, in the midst of which the palace-fort
was built, also yielded a harvest of military relics. This
camp (the camp founded by Psammetichus for the Carian
and Ionian troops to whose valour he owed his crown)
measured 2000 feet in length by 1000 feet in breadth;
and though Mr. Petrie excavated but a corner of it, he
found hundreds of objects belonging to these ancient
Greek soldiers–arrow-heads in bronze and iron, horses'
bits, fragments of chain-work, iron bars, blacksmith's
tools, and the like. He also excavated part of the Greek
town in the plain, where large quantities of beautiful
carnelian, onyx, garnet, and other beads were found;
scraps of gold-work, indicating a large trade in articles
of personal adornment; and an immense number of
very small weights, such as could only be used by
jewellers and dealers in precious stones.
. . .
To return, however, to Jeremiah and his famous prophecy–
to that day when he took "great stones in his hand, and
placed them with mortar in the brick-work which was at
the entry of the Pharoah's House in Tahpahnes." In
illustration of this passage, I may here quote a few lines
from Mr. Petrie's private report addressed to the Honorary
Secretary and Executive Committee of the Egypt Exploration
Fund, during the month of April, 1886:
"This 'brickwork, or pavement' at the entry of Pharoah's House
has always been a puzzle to translators; but as soon as we
began to uncover the plan of the palace, the exactness of the
description was manifest; for here, outside the buildings
adjoining the central tower, I found by repeated trenchings
an area of continuous brickwork resting on sand, and
measuring about 100 feet by 60 feet, facing the entrance
to the buildings of the east corner.
"The roadway ran up a recess between the buildings,
and this platform, which has no traces of superstructures,
was evidently an open-air place for loading and unloading
goods, or sitting out in the air, or transacting business or
conversing–just such a place, in fact, as is made by the
Egyptians to this day in front of their houses, where they
drink coffee, and smoke in the cool of the afternoon,
and receive their visitors.
"Such seems to have been the object of this large platform,
which was evidently a place to meet persons who would
not be admitted into the palace or fort; to assemble guards;
to hold large levees; to receive tribute and stores; to unlade
goods; and to transact the multifarious business which, in
so hot a climate, is done in the open air. This platform
is therefore, unmistakably, the brickwork, or pavement,
which is at the 'entry of Pharaoh's House in Tahpanhes.'
The rains have washed away this area and denuded
the surface, so that, although it is two or three feet
thick near the palace, it is reduced in greater part
to a few inches, and is altogether gone at the
north-west corner."
Now, the Arabic name for a platform of this kind is "Balât;"
and that we have in this "Balât" the brickwork referred to
in the Bible is scarcely to be doubted by the most
determined sceptic. And it is to be noted that in
the alternative reading above mentioned, "the brickwork
which is at the entry of Pharaoh's house" is rendered
as "the pavement or square."
Here, therefore, the ceremony described by Jeremiah
must have been performed, and it was upon this spot
that Nebuchadnezzar was to spread his royal pavilion
It will be asked, perhaps, if Mr. Petrie actually found
the stones which Jeremiah laid with mortar in the thickness
of that pavement. He looked for them, of course,
turning up the brickwork in every part; and he did
find some large stones lying loosely on the surface.
But these had probably rolled down from the wreck
of the palace. At all events, it was impossible to
identify them.
[RESEARCH NOTE: Origin of "stone of destiny"]
I think this is sufficient, as the whole record is online.
Renia
> On Nov 3, 11:09 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> <<The site was discovered by Prof. WM Flinders Petrie
>> in 1886; the name "Castle of the Jew's Daughter"
>> seems to preserve the tradition of the Jewish refugees.>>
>>
>> You're quoting the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica even though Wikipoopia doesn't make that clear. This name was given to this ruin by the local natives. That is hardly probative of a jewish princess having lived here with Jeremiah. I'm sure you KNOW this, you just want to blindly keep ignoring logic.
>>
>> Castle of the Jew's daughter, quoted in 1880 hardly stands in any significant relationship to events which must have occurred over two thousand years before. And you know it. So knock it off. You're giving genealogy a bad name with your constant nonsense.
>
> ==================================
> REPLY: I never took the time to read the article.
> I did not think it was necessary, as Wikipedia is
> very well known as an accurate, unbiased source.
SPLORK!
WJho...@aol.com
to make a singular point.
No one has suggested that the Jewish remnant did *not* go to Egypt. At
least no one in this thread. However after they were there, and Jeremiah
prophecised destruction and Nebuchadnezzer actually did evidently destroy Taphnes
(as she states in the book you quoted), we here *nothing* further about
them. Nothing. Nothing about any of them.
There are no Egyptian records related to the Hebrew refugees being there,
and whether or not the "room" with the elaborate walls was a "royal" chamber
or not is a speculation, and at any rate not related to *who* the room was
built for or who lived in it. Likewise there are no Hebrew records related
to this, except the passage(s) in the Bible that have already been stated.
And that is where, like all of the ancient genealogy, this line has to end.
Speculating that a Gaelic custom is like a Hebrew custom is as worthless
as speculating that the Egyptians taught the Mayan how to build pyramids, or
that the Tibetans brought the idea of re-incarnation to the Cherokee.
Will
Ian Goddard
> BBC NEWS | UK | SCOTLAND |
> Mummies found in Outer Hebrides
> "Researchers believe islanders on South Uist
> started mummifying their dead at the same time
> as the ancient Egyptians." . . . "Analysis showed
> . . . bodies had been preserved using naturally
> occurring acids and peat bogs." . . . "Proof they
> were mummified comes from the fact that the
> bodies were gutted and carbon dating has
> shown them to have died up to 600 years
> before burial."
> ..followed by much rambling.
OK let's look at your starting point a little more carefully. This
seems to have been an instance of the Beeb's habit of plugging programs
by way of news items. In this case I didn't see the program and, as
it's all of 6 years old it won't be on iPlayer so I'm relying on what's
on the web. There's a longer but still non-academic write-up at
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/cladh-hallan/index.html with
the burials discussed on page III and more detailed discussion of some
aspects at http://archaeology.about.com/od/mummies/a/parkerpearson.htm
The differences between these accounts and the Beeb's version are
significant and some of the additional material isn't supportive of your
point of view.
In particular consider the following: "There was no sign that the
mummification methods were anything like as complex as those practised
in Ancient Egypt at that time and this appears to have been an entirely
local innovation". Read that last bit again: "this appears to have been
an entirely local innovation".
It's also noticeable that evisceration is, in the Beeb, version, given
as evidence of mummification. From the Sheffield site we discover that
there is no direct proof or even certainty about evisceration: "decay
was abruptly halted, most likely by evisceration". Again, note those
words: "most likely".
Standing back we can see that (a) we have a ritual foundation deposit in
part (b) consisting of a number of crouched inhumations and (c) the
dating points to the bodies having been stored for many generations
between death and burial.
All three of these points are well attested in European pre-history
without any need to invoke Mediterranean influences. In particular
point (c) goes back to megalithic times as material seems to have been
deposited as disarticulated bones in such monuments implying a storage
between death and deposition. (At this juncture it's probably worth
pointing out that at one time Mediterranean influence was once claimed
as the source of the megalithic tradition in Western Europe. That ended
once independent dating techniques showed that the megaliths were
considerably older than their supposed prototypes.)
There is less direct evidence of the further conclusions of (d)
mummification, (e) evisceration and (f) temporary burial in a bog or
similar environment.
If (d) is accepted then (f) seems a reasonable mechanism by which to
accomplish this. One might, however, turn this around and say that (d)
is possibly an accidental outcome of (f). Ritual deposit of valuable
objects in wetland environments was also part of the European Bronze Age
tradition so (f) could even be an extension of this. Even point (e)
might be seen as part of the European tradition as there have been
instances where evidence points to bones having been mechanically
defleshed before deposition.
For several decades the balance of British archaeological opinion has
been opposed to hypotheses requiring external influences where there is
no compelling evidence for such influences - not even where the
influences are supposed to be from elsewhere in Western Europe, let
alone from further afield. From what I've read on these web-sites I see
no basis for disagreeing with that opinion in respect of Cladh Hallan.
wjho...@aol.com
Thinking about modern practice, I wonder if this can be explained simply by some local petty chief deciding that he wanted to build his fort where a charnal house had been, and the bodies were moved.
Will
Renia
> That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that there was a time period between burial and re-burial.
>
> Thinking about modern practice, I wonder if this can be explained simply by some local petty chief deciding that he wanted to build his fort where a charnal house had been, and the bodies were moved.
I haven't been reading this thread, so I don't know anything about
Mummies in the Hebrides. However, I just spotted this snipped about
burial and re-burial.
Here in Greece, bodies are buried for three years only, then they are
moved somewhere else at further expense. I don't know the background to
this or the details, but I wonder if it is an ancient practice relevant
to other parts of Europe.
taf
> JacobSmith wrote:
>
> > (1) The Scythians all together are
> > named Scoloti, (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
>
> <snippy>
>
> > (3) The name of Scotland is later derived from
> > the Latin Scoti, the term applied to Gaels, which
> > has its origins in Scythian (Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti).
>
> Since when are the Scythians the ancestors of the Scots?
This is one of those 'just-so-stories' of the 'historians' of
centuries ago. It is certainly not unique to Mr. Tinney. If you
Google Scoloti, a good number of the pages you find will relate to
this invented Caspian origin of the Scots. It derived from the same
type of vague spelling similarities as the other etymologies
presented in this thread. Another such connection, equally bogus, is
the derivation of the Danes from the Dacians. They both begin
with Da, and between the simple innocent confusing and more credulous
connect-the-dots, it ended up becoming established consensus. It has
no basis in historical reality, but why let that stand in your way.
taf
JacobSmith
> mummification methods were anything like as complex as those practised
> in Ancient Egypt at that time and this appears to have been an entirely
> local innovation". Read that last bit again: "this appears to have been
> an entirely local innovation".
> Ian
=========================================
REPLY to Ian
Diodorus (who flourished in the 1st century BC) "recounts that
those Britons who inhabit the island called Iris (or Irin? it is in
the accusative, Irin) eat people."
Herodotus and the cannibals
In his 5th-century BC Histories, Herodotus provides
us with one of the earliest written accounts for the
practice of cannibalism (White 1992: 7). Cannibalism
or anthropophagy are terms which imply the use of
parts of the human body for food (Zivanovic 1982: 192)
although the definition may include anything from
consuming the ashes of a cremated relative to
devouring the barbecued limbs of one's enemies
(Myers 1984: 149).
. . .
That endocannibalism -- the consumption of one's
own deceased -- is a topos in Herodotus is most
clearly seen in his account of how Darius, King of Persia,
summoned the Greeks and asked them `what price would
persuade them to eat their fathers' dead bodies'; the Greeks
replied that there was no price that would entice them to
behave so (3.38).
. . .
Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) relates how the inhabitants
of Ireland are even more savage (agrioteroi) than those of Britain
'since they are man-eaters (anthropophagoi) ... and since they
count it an honourable thing when their fathers die, to devour
(katesthiein) them' (4.5.4).
http://tinyurl.com/y8r7dyr
Statements on "cannibalism" in Ireland appear
to be a misunderstanding of the burial customs.
In descending order, Ian, follow the "paper trail":
(1) Egyptians imported timber and resin from
the city of Byblos, for building and mummification
(cedar sawdust for mummification and the resin,
known as Cedria, for embalming.) London Medical
Dictionary notes cedria is the pitch, or resin, that
distils from the cedar tree; and the cedrelaeum is
an oil obtained from the pitch or resin, and which
swims above it in boiling, and is collected with wool.
Pedanius Dioscorides remarks, that the best cedria
is thick, pellucid, and of a nauseous smell; when
poured out it does not spread, but collects in drops,
and preserves dead bodies from putrefaction.
(2) LAMHFIONN, born circa 955 B.C.;
died near where Carthage was built.
Philistos of Syracuse dates founding
of Carthage to c. 1215 B.C. This tradition
makes the family native to the area, prior
to the coming of Queen Dido, ca. 814/813 B.C.
He was the father of:
Heber GLUNFIONN, born circa 930 B.C.
He was the father of:
Agnan FIONN, born circa 905 B.C.
He was the father of:
Febric GLAS, born circa 870 B.C.
He was the father of:
NENUALL, born circa 845 B.C.
He was the father of:
NUADADH - NUADHAD, born circa 820 B.C.
[Carthage founded ca. 814/813 B.C.;
approximates "His posterity continued
there to the eighth generation; and
were kings or chief rulers there
for one hundred and fifty years"]
He was the father of:
ALLADH, born circa 795 B.C.
He was the father of:
ARCADH - AREADH, born circa 770 B.C.
He was the father of:
DEAG[H], born circa 745 B.C.
He was the father of:
BRATH, born circa 720 B.C.
He was the father of:
BRIGUS - BREOGHAN, born circa 695 B.C.
He was the father of:
BILE, born circa 670 B.C.
He was the father of:
MILESIUS - GALAMH - [Míl Espáine],
born circa 645 B.C. [Born with the name Golam or
Galam, Míl (born of the kings of the city of Miletus)
Milesius once again was victorious, (Carian: Banda or Victory)
He was the father of:
HEREMON [Érimón], born circa 620 B.C.
= [The Biblical TAMAR]
(3) Milesian invasion, within its proper context,
relates to Carians, associated with the Sythians,
who spread south to ancient Israel and east to Italy
(Sicily), associated with Greece; from the area of modern
Turkey, down to Egypt; with ancient Hebrew - Egyptian
connections, at Tahpanhes, with the Royal daughters
of the King of Judah, that are attested to within Irish
written historical records, kept before the 6th century,
handed down and filtered.
(4) Herodotus describes how the Scythians inhaled
hemp vapours to induce insensibility. Hemp was first
cultivated and then burned like incense in closed rooms.
The effect was intoxication and then oblivion.
[4.75] The Scythians, as I said, take some of this
hemp-seed, and, creeping under the felt coverings,
throw it upon the red-hot stones; immediately it
smokes, and gives out such a vapour as no Grecian
vapour-bath can exceed; the Scyths, delighted,
shout for joy, . . .(Eight sons of Galamh of the shouts,
who was called Milidh of Spain). Their women make
a mixture of cypress, cedar, and frankincense wood,
which they pound into a paste upon a rough piece of
stone, adding a little water to it. With this substance,
which is of a thick consistency, they plaster their
faces all over, and indeed their whole bodies. A sweet
odour is thereby imparted to them, and when they take
off the plaster on the day following, their skin is clean
and glossy.
(5) Lia Fáil was thought to be magical: when the rightful
High King of Ireland put his feet on it, the stone was said
to roar in joy. [The Scythians, as I said, take some of this
hemp-seed, and, creeping under the felt coverings,
throw it upon the red-hot stones; immediately it
smokes, and gives out such a vapour as no Grecian
vapour-bath can exceed; the Scyths, delighted,
shout for joy,] The stone is also credited with
the power to rejuvenate the king and also to endow
him with a long reign. [Note: Knowledge of drugs
and Egyptian burial ideology conveyed to Ireland.]
http://tinyurl.com/cdmvrk
(6) [Indication of conveyed knowledge, adjusted to
local conditions, preservation process and climate]
"The seventeenth year of Slanoll in the sovereignty;
and he died, at the end of that time, at Teamhair Tara,
and it is not known what disease carried him off; he
was found dead, but his colour did not change.
[With this substance, which is of a thick consistency,
they plaster their faces all over, and indeed their whole
bodies. A sweet odour is thereby imparted to them,
and when they take off the plaster on the day following,
their skin is clean and glossy.]
He was afterwards buried; and after his body had been
forty years in the grave, it was taken up by his son,
i.e. Oilioll mac Slanuill, and the body had remained
without rotting or decomposing during this period.
From your example: [This was most likely a peat bog -
the corpse was turned into a 'bog body' and was then
retrieved and kept for hundreds of years. Just where
these 'bog mummies' were put is a mystery - was
there a special house for them or did they share
with the living, sitting among the rafters as in some
cultures today? How the man's body came to lose
its head and be given another with a new jaw is
anyone's guess!] [Most likely, a biological body
genealogy, composed of various family relatives.]
This thing was a great wonder and surprise to the
men of Ireland." From your second example,
[Mummification—the elaborate preparations used
to preserve human tissue long after death] was not
used in Ireland as a family unit manifestation of tribal
ancestor worship, for "This thing was a great wonder
and surprise to the men of Ireland": suggesting a male
dominated society, [High King and sub kings]; it being
used in display as a figure for hereditary authority descent,
even as the Egyptian Pharaoh was the religious and
political leader, as well as the bridge between life and death.
(7) One of the Bog Men used hair gel, made of vegetable
plant oil mixed with resin from pine trees found in Spain
and southwest France.
(8) Diodorus (who flourished in the 1st century BC)
"recounts that those Britons who inhabit the island
called Iris (or Irin? it is in the accusative, Irin) eat people."
(9) Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) relates how the inhabitants
of Ireland are even more savage (agrioteroi) than those of Britain
'since they are man-eaters (anthropophagoi) ... and since they
count it an honourable thing when their fathers die, to devour
(katesthiein) them' (4.5.4). [Methods used by various cultural
groups in the past to preserve human bodies after death
included the removal of internal organs]
All of the above, combined together, present compelling Gaelic
evidence for Egyptian - Carian - Hebrew - Scythian influences.
wjho...@aol.com
What is this supposed to be telling us? They had trade networks. How is that in any way related to your thesis?
Ian Goddard
It's telling us he doesn't know how to distinguish between the relevant
and irrelevant. But then we knew that already.
Ian Goddard
>> In particular consider the following: "There was no sign that the
>> mummification methods were anything like as complex as those practised
>> in Ancient Egypt at that time and this appears to have been an entirely
>> local innovation". Read that last bit again: "this appears to have been
>> an entirely local innovation".
>
>> Ian
>
> =========================================
> REPLY to Ian
>
> Diodorus (who flourished in the 1st century BC) "recounts that
> those Britons who inhabit the island called Iris (or Irin? it is in
> the accusative, Irin) eat people."
(You remind me of Oscar Wilde's apologising for writing a long letter
because he hadn't time to write a short one.)
But did Diodorus ever go there to find out for himself? This sort of
repeating travelers' tales is common it doesn't make them true, it just
makes them hearsay. Remember that if we believed all this sort of stuff
we'd still believe in monopods, people with their heads in their chests
and all manner of other fables.
Ian Goddard
> That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that there was a time period between burial and re-burial.
It's the prime reason for suggesting mummification in the first place
and hence the hook on which all the rest of this stuff was hung.
> Thinking about modern practice, I wonder if this can be explained simply by some local petty chief deciding that he wanted to build his fort where a charnal house had been, and the bodies were moved.
Doubtful. If the original location was in a bog it's unlikely that he'd
want to build a fort there. Even if he wanted to build a crannog he'd
have chosen open water. It fits in well enough with ritual deposits
being found under some roundhouses. IIRC I've heard of bits of dog
being used. The newborn infant mentioned on the Sheffield site also has
precedents I think.
AFAICS the only big oddity about this is the evidence that the bodies
were old. Actually, whilst I've been writing the above, I've just
thought of something which might, emphasise might, cast doubt on that
evidence. There isn't enough detail on the web to explain the
pre-treatment of the C14 samples. If the dated material was actually
collagen extracted from the bone then that's OK. If it was whole bone
that would include carbon from carbonate in the bone and that could have
included some exchanged with the environment. Normally one thinks of
this as contamination which would result in the date coming out too
young. However, one of the web-sites mentions shell sand as the
substrate for the site so in this case it could result in dates coming
out too old due to exchange of carbonate with the sand.
taf
> (katesthiein) them' (4.5.4).http://tinyurl.com/y8r7dyr
>
> Statements on "cannibalism" in Ireland appear
> to be a misunderstanding of the burial customs.
Perfect example of how this all goes disastrously wrong. The source
unambiguously says they were cannibals (anthropophagoi); that they
devoured them. The word anthropophagoi is unambiguous, and it does not
relate to burial. As the other quotes show, this claim had an explicit
cultural meaning to the people using it, and hence not likely to be
made lightly or confused. However, cannibalism doesn't fit into the
predetermined scheme, so you just arbitrarily wave away what the
source actually says and declare it to mean what you want it to mean.
A perfect example of twisting the evidence to fit the predetermined
conclusion, rather than deriving the conclusion from the evidence.
When you pervert the data to match the conclusion, it is no epiphany
to discover that it then supports the conclusion. It turns a
scholarly investigation into a pointless exercise in masturbatory
question begging. This is not the scientific method.
taf
pj.evans
> > mummification methods were anything like as complex as those practised
> > in Ancient Egypt at that time and this appears to have been an entirely
> > local innovation". Read that last bit again: "this appears to have been
> > an entirely local innovation".
> > Ian
>
> =========================================
> REPLY to Ian
>
>
> All of the above, combined together, present compelling Gaelic
> evidence for Egyptian - Carian - Hebrew - Scythian influences.
>
And not one of those people is documented anywhere that would be
considered even remotely reliable, thus making this 'evidence'
worthless.
Tell us why we shouldn't be laughing and pointing fingers at you, for
even thinking this is genealogy, rather than mythology.
JacobSmith
=========================================
REPLY:
"There are many hints and suggestions in the fragments
of ancient Irish history that have come down to us of the
former existence of a matriarchate throughout the
country ; indeed it is evident that the early historians
were much puzzled by what seemed to them an anomaly,
and laboured to invent explanations of some of the
relevant facts which they recorded. It is noteworthy
that all the famous assembly-places and palaces of
Ireland — such as Tara, Emain Macha, Tlachtga,
Tailltiu, etc. — had traditions attaching to them ascrib-
ing their foundation or inauguration to women."
http://www.archive.org/stream/irelandgeo00flet#page/n5/mode/2up
This matriarchal organization is properly connected with:
(a) "This thing was a great wonder and surprise to the men
of Ireland": suggesting a male dominated society, [High King
and sub kings]; it being used in display as a figure for hereditary
authority descent, even as the Egyptian Pharaoh was the religious
and political leader, as well as the bridge between life and death.
(b) Tara, center of the high kings of Ireland, where elaborate rites
occurred between future high kings of Tara and the goddess Medb.
(c) The Egyptian title: God's Wife of Amun.
Later during the twenty-sixth dynasty, the Saite king Psamtik I
would forcibly reunite Egypt in March 656 BC under his rule
and compel the God's Wife of Amun serving at the time,
Shepenupet II, daughter of Piye, to adopt his daughter Nitocris
as her chosen successor to this position.
(d) Nitokris I Shepenwepet III (prenomen: Nebetneferumut) -
daughter of Psamtik I. "Upon his arrival in Egypt, Pharaoh
Nectonibus, after learning of his great valor, wisdom
and conduct in arms, made him General of his forces
against the king of Ethiopia. At this time the Ethiopian’s
were invading Egypt. Milesius once again was victorious,
(Carian: Banda or Victory). . ." Pharaoh Nectonibus appears
as a corruption of Psamtik I (also spelled Psammeticus or
Psammetichus) with his known and given daughter
Nitocris I (alt. Nitiqret, Nitokris I) or
Nito - metichus (Necto - nibus).]
NOTE: (prenomen: Nebetneferumut)
Laughing and pointing fingers is not scholarly discourse;
it only shows the originators are nothing of substance.
taf
> On Nov 5, 8:39 pm, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Tell us why we shouldn't be laughing and pointing fingers at you, for
> > even thinking this is genealogy, rather than mythology.
>
> =========================================
> REPLY:
>
> "There are many hints and suggestions in the fragments
> of ancient Irish history that have come down to us of the
> former existence of a matriarchate throughout the
> country ; indeed it is evident that the early historians
> were much puzzled by what seemed to them an anomaly,
> and laboured to invent explanations of some of the
> relevant facts which they recorded.
You quote a scholar (admittedly a dated one, writing in 1922, as if
there hasn't been any studies of early Irish culture since then) who
out and out states that the early historians MADE THINGS UP while at
the same time using the writings of those early historians to
construct and support your pedigrees. Can't even see the inherent
contradiction in this, let alone the irony, can you?
> Laughing and pointing fingers is not scholarly discourse;
> it only shows the originators are nothing of substance.
I'm guessing you haven't actually hung out with scholars much.
taf
Ian Goddard
Certainly not with my old Irish archaeological colleagues!
JacobSmith
===========================================
Reply to taf
You are sad. I am not using the writing as you suggest.
Your reasoning is also dated, even though your apparent
credentials include that wonderful fact that you are still
alive in AD 2009, which makes you observations better
that everything else that went on or was discussed before.
There is an interesting pedigree created recently by an
individual called Bill Buchanan, dated 06 Dec 2008. He
states that the four books he has published online can
be copied and shared for free. His record is entitled:
the Ancestors of Anselan - 4-In-l. He notes recognition
to Mary H. Slawson, who is reputed to be a research
specialist for Ireland and etc. [Mary H. Slawson, Co-Host
of "Relatively Speaking", KSL Radio, and author of Getting
It Right: The Definitive Guide to Recording Family History
Accurately. Mary serves as the Irish Medieval Specialist
for the Salt Lake City Family History Library. Mary's other
family history activities include serving as the Chairwoman
of the Human Family Project (reconstruction of Irish clans
from 200 to 1600 A.D.) and Co-Founder and a Chairperson
for the Irish Genealogical and Historical Society. Mary has
worked as a Forensic Accountant for 35 years, specializing
in white collar crime in the public sector.]
http://www.wafamilyhistory.net/Expo2009/key_note.htm
The Ancestors of Anselan - 4-In-1 includes "constructing
an Irish genealogy from King Milesius to 1600 AD and this
project is the source of the gedcom file I received from
Mary Slawson". The file and other sources are noted.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11595290/The-Ancestors-of-Anselan-4In1
TINY URL:
http://tinyurl.com/yzmaae9
It is a simple matter in this computer era, to reconfigure
the online CELT, and files such as the above, strip them
of the incorrect dates and replace the files into historical
time periods wherein true relationships are established.
It must also be remembered, that since all other prior
documents before today, Friday, November 06, 2009,
are on the wrong internal standard of reference, that
everything said on this list by you and other "scholars",
is dead on arrival when it is published on this public list.
taf
> On Nov 6, 1:08 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> Reply to taf
>
> You are sad. I am not using the writing as you suggest.
You are using it as the whim moves you, selectively quoting from
within contradictory material, ignoring the parts you don't like,
distorting other parts to create similarities where none exist, using
material that modern scholars dismiss with derision either because is
is based on a scholarly standard long since abandoned as
insufficiently rigorous, or material that is completely unscholarly to
begin with (like advertising copy).
> Your reasoning is also dated, even though your apparent
> credentials include that wonderful fact that you are still
> alive in AD 2009, which makes you observations better
> that everything else that went on or was discussed before.
And of course you wouldn't understand, because you don't understand
scholarship. There was a time, hundreds of years ago, when scholars
were simply story tellers. They collected what information they could
find, but they couldn't exactly Google their topic, so that usually
meant talking to some older people with good memory for stories, and
they wrote down a mixture of what they heard, what documents they
could lay hands on, and a very large dose of plain old-fashioned
invention. This is the kind of work that Geoffrey of Monmouth
produced (or even San Isidro, who started with a defined goal and
invented to fill any gaps). He was a scholar, as the standards of the
day perceived scholarship. Centuries later, it came to be accepted
that such inventions were not a legitimate product for scholars (at
least as part of their day job). They then moved to a level of
collectors. They viewed their job as bringing together what was
written before and presenting it as is, with deduction to connect the
dots, but not outright invention (of course, it is easy to confuse the
two, for when those with poor deductive reasoning skills try to do
this, the product is indistinguishable from outright invention
anyhow).
What they had yet to develop was the ability to critically evaluate
what they were compiling, and so they credulously accepted the
inventions of the earlier historians. Again the issue is clouded by
the existence of non-scholarly antiquarians who were still in
invention mode.
The final shift happened at different times in different fields, but
in the fields of history and anthropology and genealogy, particularly
with regard to Western Europe, you could still see the 'old' school of
thought represented in the early-to-mid-20th century. To the new
school, though, it was no longer a legitimate representation of the
scholarly method to just credulous repeat what had been written in the
past. It was necessary to evaluate its authenticity, and if it failed
to meet an appropriately stringent set of criteria, or in fact if it
was directly contradicted by more reliable evidence, it needed to be
set aside. Again, though, almost a century later, we still have
people performing what in the 18th century would have been considered
scholarship, but in the 21st century only makes true scholars point
and laugh.
One of the hallmarks of this non-scholarship, as seen today, is the
citing of sources more than 75 years old without taking into account
that, first, their conclusions may derive from this older credulous
tradition and have since been rejected, and second, that in the last
75 years, the advances in the various applicable fields, from
dendrochronology to pollen analysis to DNA haplotyping to textual
analysis have produced significant changes in what we know about the
questions being addressed. In scholarship, one does not rely on
material from 1922 when there is material from a much more recent date
that incorporates a century's worth of progress in the field. We
really do know more (and more correctly) now than we did then. Another
tip-off is the failure to evaluate the reliability of any source,
ancient or modern. Particularly with the echo-chamber that is the
internet, we learn that there is no opinion too ridiculous to be out
there on the web, in spades. In spite of the advances in scholarship,
this means that critical evaluation is more important, not less,
because while there was a time when only the scholarly and the rich
had access to the distribution media for their ideas, now anyone with
an internet connection can post whatever nonsense they like.
Unfortunately, there are also those who are still practicing first-
millennium scholarship: like deciding the story they want to tell and
then looking form material to dress it up, make it look authentic, and
invent the missing connections by talking about second-millennium BC
ships censuses and other such tripe, without applying any of the
actual tools of modern scholarship.
> There is an interesting pedigree created recently by an
> individual called Bill Buchanan, dated 06 Dec 2008. He
Perfect example. "I found this on the internet" is not how a scholar
chooses their sources.
> He notes recognition
> to Mary H. Slawson, who is reputed to be a research
> specialist for Ireland and etc. [Mary H. Slawson, Co-Host
> of "Relatively Speaking", KSL Radio, and author of Getting
> It Right: The Definitive Guide to Recording Family History
> Accurately. Mary serves as the Irish Medieval Specialist
> for the Salt Lake City Family History Library. Mary's other
> family history activities include serving as the Chairwoman
> of the Human Family Project (reconstruction of Irish clans
> from 200 to 1600 A.D.) and Co-Founder and a Chairperson
> for the Irish Genealogical and Historical Society.
Even were these credentials considered appropriate to make Ms. Slawson
an expert on the topic, you indicate that Mr. Buchanan thanks her, as
if the sole act of thanking an expert makes one an expert, and hence
makes the product reliable. It just doesn't work that way.
> Mary has
> worked as a Forensic Accountant for 35 years, specializing
> in white collar crime in the public sector.]
Oh, that removes any doubt, Certainly a forensic accountant would be
an expert on Ireland, 2000BC.
> It is a simple matter in this computer era, to reconfigure
> the online CELT, and files such as the above, strip them
> of the incorrect dates and replace the files into historical
> time periods wherein true relationships are established.
Again, look at what you are saying. "It is simple in this computer
era to change material however you like." That it is easy to do does
not mean it is scholarly, or even prudent to do so.
> Respectfully yours,
This after insulting me? Look, it's OK not to like me, or not to
respect me, by to disrespect me and then conclude "Respectfully yours"
is just another hypocritical lie.
taf
WJho...@aol.com
tins...@yahoo.com writes:
> The Ancestors of Anselan - 4-In-1 includes "constructing
> an Irish genealogy from King Milesius to 1600 AD and this
> project is the source of the gedcom file I received from
> Mary Slawson". The file and other sources are noted.
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/11595290/The-Ancestors-of-Anselan-4In1
> TINY URL:
> http://tinyurl.com/yzmaae9>>
What you seem to however constantly ignore, is that the vast majority of
this material is not contemporary. IF we can even believe that bards (or some
such) actually kept these long lists of names memorized, we have to
additionally believe or have faith in this as a way to do genealogy.
In our own normal lives, we as genealogists, know perfectly well that most
people cannot even properly remember the details of their own
great-great-grandparents. And yet we're supposed to believe that someone remember details
of people who lived two or three thousand years before they did. It simply
is not credible.
Are you willing to state that this is mythology? Not genealogy?
I have Adam in my GEDCOM, but I know that it's not genealogy. I just
happen to carry the details of how people are purported to be linked, so I can
investigate the myth-building activities, not because I think it's accurate.
Will
Hovite
> > former existence of a matriarchate
mummies again!
taf
> In our own normal lives, we as genealogists, know perfectly well that most
> people cannot even properly remember the details of their own
> great-great-grandparents.
Or worse. When filling out my grandmother's death certificate, my
uncle gave her (his own mother) the wrong maiden name.
> And yet we're supposed to believe that someone remember details
> of people who lived two or three thousand years before they did. It simply
> is not credible.
There is actually a little bit of scholarly work on this, which makes
me somewhat less skeptical about this particular aspect.
Specifically, it has been argued that literacy is to blame - that non-
literate cultures, because they need to, have better developed centers
in the brain for such detailed memory. Even in the literate world,
there are cases of such detailed learning and memory, in areas where
it counts. Take for example medical students. They are required (as
much by the rigors of their long educational program as the actual
practice of medicine), to remember long lists of muscles, bones,
nerves, hormonal pathways, and not just their names but the relational
connections - not unlike what we are talking about here. Admittedly,
this is a selected population, but the same may have been true of
bards. All it takes is a good mnemonic, and they can remember just
about anything, and they pass the mnemonics from one generation of
doctors to the next.
My bigger concern is best illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon royal
pedigree. Some poor bloke had the Bernician pedigree down pat, and
then Bernicia got wiped off the face of Brittain. What do you do?
Learn a whole new set of mythical ancestors? No, lets just use the
same memorized list for Cerdic instead. But since it is just a list
of crusty old dead men, why not throw in some heroes while we are at
is. Modify the mnemonic a little, and we can now link together the
list of names with the hero stories we also have memorized (provides a
perfect opportunity to introduce the hero-stories, and also a
framework for them, such that you get a cooperative effect in terms of
keeping track of both. And as long as we are jimmying things, it
would be a lot easier to remember if it was alliterative, so again
since they are just names anyhow, let's add one here and duplicate one
there, and now the mnemonic is even easier to remember.
From my perspective, the problem is less with memory. It is that their
primary goal was not to represent an authentic historical tradition.
It was to represent a heroic tradition and to entertain their
audience, and which is more entertaining. A list of long-forgotten
names, or a set of heroes stitched together? If specific historical
details had fudged a little, it just didn't matter to them or their
audience. They were Michael Crichton, not Carl Sagan; The Burkes, not
Horace Round. (Of course, this assumes that these outrageous
pedigrees really are the work of bards, and not the work of 16th or
17th century pseudo-historians or 21st-century pseudo-genealogists,
acting with the same motivation.)
taf
wjho...@aol.com
At any rate, it was so completely outrageous that I didn't even bother to record it! Maybe it sounds familiar to someone. I wonder why I don't have a linkage to the Kings of Carthage or some such thing.
Will
pj.evans
> On Nov 6, 12:40 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In our own normal lives, we as genealogists, know perfectly well that most
> > people cannot even properly remember the details of their own
> > great-great-grandparents.
>
> Or worse. When filling out my grandmother's death certificate, my
> uncle gave her (his own mother) the wrong maiden name.
>
>
> taf
My mother wrote my father's obituary, and was greatly embarrassed when
she noticed - too late to fix it - that she'd put down the wrong
birthdate for him ... even though she had the information both on
paper and in the computer (multi-generational genealogy: fun for the
whole family).
We do our best to verify the information we have, even when it's two
or three generations closer to the original events. And sometimes that
handed-down-from-the-ancestors information is just plain wrong. (I've
upset a couple of favorite family apple-carts doing that.)
Ian Goddard
> On Nov 6, 12:40 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In our own normal lives, we as genealogists, know perfectly well that most
>> people cannot even properly remember the details of their own
>> great-great-grandparents.
>
> Or worse. When filling out my grandmother's death certificate, my
> uncle gave her (his own mother) the wrong maiden name.
Another example is my father-in-law who was so alienated from his father
by the time he married that he had his own brother's name & occupation
put on the wedding certificate instead.
>> And yet we're supposed to believe that someone remember details
>> of people who lived two or three thousand years before they did. It simply
>> is not credible.
>
> There is actually a little bit of scholarly work on this, which makes
> me somewhat less skeptical about this particular aspect.
> Specifically, it has been argued that literacy is to blame - that non-
> literate cultures, because they need to, have better developed centers
> in the brain for such detailed memory. Even in the literate world,
> there are cases of such detailed learning and memory, in areas where
> it counts. Take for example medical students. They are required (as
> much by the rigors of their long educational program as the actual
> practice of medicine), to remember long lists of muscles, bones,
> nerves, hormonal pathways, and not just their names but the relational
> connections - not unlike what we are talking about here. Admittedly,
> this is a selected population, but the same may have been true of
> bards. All it takes is a good mnemonic, and they can remember just
> about anything, and they pass the mnemonics from one generation of
> doctors to the next.
Doctors, however, have the written word as backup which can pass down
through time without relying on memory. If you do rely on memory and
word-of-mouth all it takes is one error anywhere along that chain of
transmission and all future generations get garbage without any external
check until archaeology comes along, mostly post-1922, to show it
couldn't have been so.
Ian Goddard
> On Nov 6, 1:08 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 10:11 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You quote a scholar (admittedly a dated one, writing in 1922, as if
>> there hasn't been any studies of early Irish culture since then) who
>> out and out states that the early historians MADE THINGS UP while at
>> the same time using the writings of those early historians to
>> construct and support your pedigrees. Can't even see the inherent
>> contradiction in this, let alone the irony, can you?
> ===========================================
> Reply to taf
>
> You are sad. I am not using the writing as you suggest.
> Your reasoning is also dated, even though your apparent
> credentials include that wonderful fact that you are still
> alive in AD 2009, which makes you observations better
> that everything else that went on or was discussed before.
taf, in his reply, has pointed out the huge steps in scholastic rigour
in the intervening years and has mentioned some of the supporting
scientific fields which have grown up since then, including my own old
field of palynology.
But let me illustrate the impact of this by pointing you back to
something I've already mentioned. In 1922 it would have been quite
respectable to have held that Western European megaliths were derived
from the Mediterranean world. Now, in 2009, and for at least 4 decades
before now, that derivation has been impossible to sustain. Radiocarbon
dating has shown that the megaliths are older than the supposed
Mediterranean prototypes.
It's nothing to do with taf's credentials or mine or anybody else's.
It's simply a consequence that knowledge has moved on. Much of 1922's
view of the past simply does not withstand current knowledge.
Monica Kanellis
switched the given names of the fathers of the bride and groom. Fortunately,
the bride married twice so her father was on another certificate as well.
With the other forename. But it sent me in circles for a while.
MK
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
JacobSmith
====================================
REPLY:
taf, I really like you. You offer an intelligent contest
in the realm of medieval genealogy. However, your
dated evaluation is clearly stated in these remarks:
"From my perspective, the problem is less with memory.
It is that their primary goal was not to represent an authentic
historical tradition. It was to represent a heroic tradition
and to entertain their audience, and which is more entertaining."
You must be speaking of those medieval church scribes that
were willfully injecting fabrications into official pagan documents,
so that they would look distorted and unreliably corrupted, even
though connected to the biblical origins (gentile, not semitic);
when compared to the more enlightened religious christian philosophy,
as it was being expounded within the transmission process from
a druid dominated, to priestly directed high king, sub kings
hierarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
"From my perspective" is just that, it is your perspective.
I respect your perspective even though it is not correct.
Writing systems have been around for a long time.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/bookspublicationsgenealogical.htm#Manuscripts
"Although the components of a writing system are
an integral part of any such system, the *purpose*
of a writing system can change. There is one essential
difference between modern and ancient writing systems;
this difference is of critical importance to our understanding
of ancient texts. Modern writing systems are semantically
based; their primary purpose is to transmit data, the content.
Ancient writing systems are phonetically based; their primary
purpose is to record speech, the words as spoken along with
all those components that identify the text as *that* text."
The biblical texts, Herodotus and Irish records
do include information in a manner which conveys
recorded speech, which has some oral tradition
and some myth; nevertheless, the key identity:
" the words as spoken along with all those
components that identify the text as *that* text."
Adam therefore is not myth. You misunderstand
the writing process. I would relate it to today in
the proceedings of a court reporter, presenting
evidence that has primary and hearsay data both
included within the handed down document.
You are well aware, or should be well aware
of the ancient idea of "so let it be written,
so let it be done", which conveys the male
dominated kingly power in which whatever
the king said was a life and death matter.
Queen Esther was sweet and stepped lightly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther
Modern specialists are inhibited by a male/female
upbringing within limited parental controls;
in that, in the evaluation of older record data,
consideration is not made for our own basic
upbringing of "politically correct" notions.
This poisons the water, in making historical
evaluations within the historical context.
taf, you fail miserably in this key aspect,
but this does not mean I don't like you.
What you have completely missed in your
statement, "It is that their primary goal was
not to represent an authentic historical tradition.
It was to represent a heroic tradition" is the actual
proof of chronological time periods, descending
within the ancient Irish documents. There are
listed in the Irish record sources, periods of
kingly take over within differing Milesius branch
pedigrees, and one sees the combination of
recorded speech and text identification (trees
cleared, a bog burst, a terrible plague) along
with the "my dad is better than your dad" data.
It is so clear and easy to follow, that any unbiased
modern genealogist can pick up the simple pattern.
http://crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol1/milesius.htm
As to modern technology, anyone that is anyone,
who does not want to make themselves a butt of
jokes and finger pointing, will not use the current
level of DNA analysis to try to come to an intelligent
conclusion on anything that relates to paper documents.
It is a mass of probabilities layered upon probabilities,
generalities that are based on scientific traditions,
that have a knack of constantly changing over time.
Exclusion capability does not create definitive inclusions.
taf
> On Nov 6, 1:59 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> However, your
> dated evaluation is clearly stated in these remarks:
> "From my perspective, the problem is less with memory.
> It is that their primary goal was not to represent an authentic
> historical tradition. It was to represent a heroic tradition
> and to entertain their audience, and which is more entertaining."
>
> You must be speaking of those medieval church scribes that
> were willfully injecting fabrications into official pagan documents,
> so that they would look distorted and unreliably corrupted, even
> though connected to the biblical origins (gentile, not semitic);
> when compared to the more enlightened religious christian philosophy,
> as it was being expounded within the transmission process from
> a druid dominated, to priestly directed high king, sub kings
> hierarchy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
Well, them too (the medieval priests), but you are yet again,
violating several of the tenets of scholarly research. Given a set of
records that conflict with your desired conclusion, you have simply
concluded that the records are all forgeries. You then assume that
they would not have done this had there not been records already that
showed something different. In so doing, you conjure into existence
"official pagan documents" when no such pagan chartulary ever existed.
You are then free to replace them with any story you want. In your
case it is this hilarious Hebrew Irish one (yes, that good old Irish
O'Levi family). Why this is not part of the scholarly process is that
someone else could conjure out of thin air a connection of the Irish
to the Carthigian, Trojans, Algonquins or Bantu (after all, you have
heard of the Black Irish haven't you), or even Martians. Once you
throw out the only surviving documents, you are left with a blank
slate, but a scholar must leave it blank, not color it in to match his
own whim. Further, your reason for dismissing the medieval material
is that it disagrees with your solution, and is therefore distortion
of some authentic original, whereas I would dismiss it as nonsense,
invention, implying no earlier knowledge that it was intended to
replace.
> "From my perspective" is just that, it is your perspective.
You have misunderstood me. 'My perspective' was in the relative
weight to give the two factors - the ability of humans to remember
long lists vs. the necessity of accuracy. It is not my perspective
that medieval bards were presenting heroic and not historic origin
tales. That is the general consensus of scholars in the field. It is
my perspective that this played a more significant role in the
resulting silly pedigrees than the inability of the Bards to remember
the original tree.
> I respect your perspective even though it is not correct.
Which is, of course, your own mistaken perspective.
> Writing systems have been around for a long time.
True, but irrelevant.
> The biblical texts, Herodotus and Irish records
And the legend of Gilgamesh, and the Odyssey, and Beowulf, and the The
Song of Roland, and the Legend of Robin Hood, the Leatherstocking
Tales, Robinson Crusoe, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly . . .
> do include information in a manner which conveys
> recorded speech, which has some oral tradition
> and some myth; nevertheless, the key identity:
> " the words as spoken along with all those
> components that identify the text as *that* text."
> Adam therefore is not myth.
Complete non sequitur. The same argument could be applied to Grendel.
> You misunderstand the writing process.
Do I?
> I would relate it to today in
> the proceedings of a court reporter, presenting
> evidence that has primary and hearsay data both
> included within the handed down document.
Of course you would, but I would relate it to Dan Brown writing
another silly book. Yes, he draws on historical documents, but he is
telling a story for entertainment purposes. It is not a
misunderstanding at all. It is simply a drastic difference of
opinion.
> You are well aware, or should be well aware
> of the ancient idea of "so let it be written,
> so let it be done", which conveys the male
> dominated kingly power in which whatever
> the king said was a life and death matter.
You are well aware of the phrase "Once upon a time"? You are applying
a flawed argument: kings had their commands accurately recorded. That
does not mean that every document is the accurate record of a king.
There is a much, MUCH broader history of the written word than you
would imply, and some of it is fiction.
> Modern specialists are inhibited by a male/female
> upbringing within limited parental controls;
> in that, in the evaluation of older record data,
> consideration is not made for our own basic
> upbringing of "politically correct" notions.
> This poisons the water, in making historical
> evaluations within the historical context.
> taf, you fail miserably in this key aspect,
I see, now you are faulting my parents for my failure to accept your
world-view.
> What you have completely missed in your
> statement, "It is that their primary goal was
> not to represent an authentic historical tradition.
> It was to represent a heroic tradition" is the actual
> proof of chronological time periods, descending
> within the ancient Irish documents.
Try that again in English. There are no such ancient Irish documents
in which chronological time periods descend.
> There are
> listed in the Irish record sources, periods of
> kingly take over within differing Milesius branch
> pedigrees, and one sees the combination of
> recorded speech and text identification (trees
> cleared, a bog burst, a terrible plague) along
> with the "my dad is better than your dad" data.
Trees, plagues, bogs and kingly strife are all pretty generic, and
could have been written about any time from ancient times to modern.
The genre of historical fiction uses exactly this technique, you take
a vague knowledge of life in an earlier time, some historical details,
and a lot of just unchanging knowledge about the forces and
motivations that affect every-day life and use them to create a plot,
inventing prototype characters and plot devices, and even precise
dialog, in order to tell an entertaining story.
> It is so clear and easy to follow, that any unbiased
> modern genealogist can pick up the simple pattern.
Someone once picked up a pattern - a correlation between the win-loss
record of the New York Mets and the days of rain in Kenya. The human
brain sees patterns even when none exists.
> As to modern technology, anyone that is anyone,
> who does not want to make themselves a butt of
> jokes and finger pointing, will not use the current
> level of DNA analysis to try to come to an intelligent
> conclusion on anything that relates to paper documents.
Completely false. It was used to address the paper-document claims
that Jefferson fathered children by a slave, and the result, while not
definitive, induced a paradigm shift among Jeffersonian historians.
It definitively refuted the (supposed) paper trail suggesting that
Anastasia escaped the Bolshevik murder of her family (and just this
week was used to show the precise mutation that caused the hemophilia
in the royal family). It has been used to demonstrate the Bantu
migration into Southern Africa, and to show the extent of population
replacement during the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England, and nobody is
laughing. Far from being good for nothing but mirth-induction, it is
now an established part of the repertoire of the anthropologist, the
historian and the genealogist.
> It is a mass of probabilities layered upon probabilities,
> generalities that are based on scientific traditions,
> that have a knack of constantly changing over time.
> Exclusion capability does not create definitive inclusions.
Don't really understand it at all, do you?
taf
JacobSmith
====================================
The Jefferson-Hemings Debate Goes to Court,
review by Jeffrey A. Winkler, dated June 26, 2009
. . .
"I found Mr. Hyland's approach to writing, In Defense,
quite novel and interesting. As a civil litigator and
former prosecuting attorney, Hyland presents his
case as it would be presented in a court of law.
Reliance on the facts, eyewitness testimony, the
elimination of hearsay evidence and the impeachment
of witnesses are integral in the making of Hyland's case.
In Defense, opens two specific areas of research
that, in my opinion, have been lacking in some
other analyses dealing with Jefferson-Hemings.
First, Thomas Jefferson's state of health is brought
to the fore. Hyland postulates that it would be unlikely
that Jefferson, at age 64 and in poor health, would
have been able to father Eston Hemings, who was
born in 1808. Eston of course was the only one of
Sally's children that can be linked to a Jefferson
family male via DNA tests. Second, Hyland introduces
the viable possibility that Jefferson's younger brother,
Randolph, or one of Randolph's sons, may in fact have
fathered Eston. Randolph, along with his sons would
fit the Y chromosome DNA match. Hyland deserves
high grades for incorporating these topics into his
book as both are essential to any reasonable
discussion of the facts associated with this debate.
In Defense also examines the views and opinions
of many major Jeffersonian biographers and scholars.
Some have steadfastly maintained one particular position
over the years, while others have reversed themselves,
both pro and con. Hyland delves into the possible
motivating factors for these reversals of opinion.
I found this particular aspect of the book to be
very interesting and enlightening."
Finally, no book on this topic would be complete
without a discussion of the DNA evidence presented
to the world by Dr. Eugene Foster in 1998. Mr. Hyland
covers the DNA question extensively with quotations,
thoughts and opinions of those who actually participated
in the study."
taf, your consideration as viable, that Thomas Jefferson,
a founder of the United States of America, had sex with
his daughter's 14 year old chamber maid, (a pedophile,
an all encompassing term to describe child predators
of many descriptions), falls in the same classification of
your belief that the Irish may indeed eat their parents.
"Don't really understand it at all, do you?"
Respectfully yours,
pj.evans
> Internet Education Directory: Academic Genealogyhttp://tinyurl.com/y8wqmfo
Irrelevant to this thread.
Also having no bearing on anything you have previously said.
And has nothing to do with anything previously brought up in this
thread.
'Academic genealogy' seems to be defined by you as pulling anything
you can find in a book or a paper and claiming it's relevant.
I wouldn't trust your work without checking it with authorities that
are more recent and more reliable.
taf
> The Jefferson-Hemings Debate Goes to Court,
Silly attempt to sell books by applying an inappropriate standard to a
historical question deleted.
> taf, your consideration as viable, that Thomas Jefferson,
> a founder of the United States of America, had sex with
> his daughter's 14 year old chamber maid,
Not what I said at all. What I said was that the use of DNA to address
historical questions is not the subject for laughter. I also said
that the application of DNA to the Jefferson question produced a
paradigm shift among scholars. I said nothing about the historical
reality of the conclusion, or that it is proven by DNA. DNA and other
modern tools are used by scholars, and their use has changed the
consensus from that held 100 years ago.
> falls in the same classification of
> your belief that the Irish may indeed eat their parents.
And again intentionally distorting my position. I never expressed
such a belief.
The voyager's tale of Irish cannibalism is unambiguous. It says they
were cannibals. There are several reasonable interpretations of
this. One is that they actually were cannibals. Anthropophagy, both
endo- and exo-cannibalism, occured in a broad range of cultures, and
cannot simply be dismissed out of hand in this case. A second is that
it was a metaphorical. You have already posted good indication that
cannibalism was equated with primitiveness. The accusation of
cannibalism among the Irish may simply have been used as a way to
express the backwardness of the Irish (as some Americans use sibling
incest with regard to the Appalachians). Or third, perhaps it was
simply a traveler's tale. Read Mandeville sometime. What is not a
reasonable conclusion is that when he said anthropophagy, he really
meant mummification. If you completely rewrite the sources to match
your hypothesis, the whole approach loses all credibility. It becomes
circular and pointless.
taf
pj.evans
> On Nov 7, 12:21 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> And again intentionally distorting my position. I never expressed
> such a belief.
>
> The voyager's tale of Irish cannibalism is unambiguous. It says they
> were cannibals. There are several reasonable interpretations of
> this. One is that they actually were cannibals. Anthropophagy, both
> endo- and exo-cannibalism, occured in a broad range of cultures, and
> cannot simply be dismissed out of hand in this case. A second is that
> it was a metaphorical. You have already posted good indication that
> cannibalism was equated with primitiveness. The accusation of
> cannibalism among the Irish may simply have been used as a way to
> express the backwardness of the Irish (as some Americans use sibling
> incest with regard to the Appalachians). Or third, perhaps it was
> simply a traveler's tale. Read Mandeville sometime. What is not a
> reasonable conclusion is that when he said anthropophagy, he really
> meant mummification. If you completely rewrite the sources to match
> your hypothesis, the whole approach loses all credibility. It becomes
> circular and pointless.
>
> taf
I would like to add here that I've never seen 'anthropophagi' used in
connection with mummification, or even with mummies in general. It's
always been quite clear that it referred to cannibalism. Any other
reading is, IMO, bizarre.
JacobSmith
=====================================
REPLY TO taf
I am concerned about the historical reality in conclusions.
(1) Cannibalism is related to the practice of headhunting.
(2) Celts nailed heads of personal enemies to walls, etc.
(3) European Celts practiced headhunting since the head
housed a person's soul. [How the man's body came
to lose its head and be given another with a new jaw is
anyone's guess!] [Most likely, a biological body
genealogy, composed of various family relatives,
"since the head housed a person's soul."]
(4) [the practice continued approximately to the end of
the Middle Ages in Ireland and the Scottish marches.]
(6) Within the historical context, statements on "cannibalism"
in Ireland appear to be a misunderstanding of the burial
customs;
i.e. Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) relates how the inhabitants
of Ireland are even more savage (agrioteroi) than those of
Britain
'since they are man-eaters (anthropophagoi) ... and since they
count it an honourable thing when their fathers die, to devour
(katesthiein) them' (4.5.4).
http://tinyurl.com/y8r7dyr
(a) they count it an honourable thing when their fathers
die, to devour (katesthiein) them' (4.5.4), confirms historical
fact in Ireland of a male dominated hereditary society.
[High King and sub kings; mummy being used in display
as a figure for hereditary authority descent, even as the
Egyptian Pharaoh was the religious and political leader,
as well as the bridge between life and death.]
(b) Mummies found in Outer Hebrides declares pointedly
that bodies had been preserved using naturally occurring
acids and peat bogs, not eaten; they did not devour them.
[decay was abruptly halted, most likely by evisceration]
(c) This is also verified in The Annals of the Four Masters
"The seventeenth year of Slanoll
in the sovereignty; and he died,
at the end of that time, at Teamhair Tara,
and it is not known what disease carried
him off; he was found dead, but his colour
did not change. He was afterwards buried;
and after his body had been forty years in
the grave, it was taken up by his son, i.e.
Oilioll mac Slanuill, and the body had
remained without rotting or decomposing
during this period. This thing was a great
wonder and surprise to the men of Ireland."
(d) Conclusion: Actual location specific
evidence declares pointedly that bodies
had been preserved using naturally occurring
acids and peat bogs, not eaten; they did not
devour them.
(e) The one and only reasonable interpretation is:
(i) The Irish Kings [people] wished to preserve
the memory of their ancestors. [and since
they count it an honourable thing when their
fathers die,]
(ii) The head housed a person's soul.
[Modern concept of brain function.]
(III) Local efforts were made to preserve bodies
by the process of bogs and tree products.
(iv) Veneration of trees is validated by Ogham;
referred to as the "Celtic Tree Alphabet",
based on a High Medieval Bríatharogam
tradition ascribing names of trees to the
individual letters. Trees provided bark for
writing, other products (resin) for body
preservation, tools and human comforts.
http://tinyurl.com/y88b38d
(f) [to devour (katesthiein) them' (4.5.4).] Kathesthiein
means to eat up, to consume, to devour. Reference:
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1,
page 263, under esthio, [to eat, drink]
. . .
A. 5.
Figuratively, the word means to
a. enjoy or sometimes table fellowship.
Celtic table convocations: "the body had
remained without rotting or decomposing
during this period. This thing was a great
wonder and surprise to the men of Ireland."
b. The Hebrew term (usually katesthiein in
the LXX) can denote consuming by the sword,
fire, heat, hunger and sickness, and divine wrath.
In warning or laments, we also find "to destroy".
http://tinyurl.com/ycypszv
(g) Strabo on the Land of the Jews
These districts (of Jerusalem and Joppa) lie towards
the north; they are inhabited generally, and each place
in particular, by mixed tribes of Egyptians, Arabians,
and Phoenicians. Of this description are the inhabitants
of Galilee, of the plain of Jericho, and of the territories
of
Philadelphia and Samaria, surnamed Sebaste by Herod;
but though there is such a mixture of inhabitants, the
report most credited, among many things believed
respecting the temple and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
is that the Egyptians were the ancestors of the present
Jews. An Egyptian priest named Moses, who possessed
a portion of the country called Lower Egypt, being
dissatisfied
with the established institutions there, left it and came
to
Judea with a large body of people who worshiped the
Divinity.
http://tinyurl.com/ydl53ct
Source: From Strabo, The Geography, Book XVI. ii.34-38,
40, 46, c. 22 CE quoted in the Ancient History Sourcebook.
Hovite
> ALLADH, born circa 795 B.C.
> BRATH, born circa 720 B.C.
These people are imaginary. No one was using names like this at the
time. It is a basic error that immediately exposes the fraud.
In that period men would have had names like Caratacos,
Cassivellaunos, Cingetorix, Dumnorix, Dubnovellaunos, Mandubracios,
Taximagulus, or Tincomarus.
Ian Goddard
archaeology. It's getting on a bit now but Herrity & Eogan seems to be
a lot more recent than 1922. More recent (1991 - how time flies!) but
primarily dealing with Ulster is Mallory & McNeill. The latter also
recommend the former, also books by O'Kelly and Harbison. Jim Mallory's
book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth"
should also be educational.
JacobSmith
===========================================
The Irish Family History Foundation is the co-ordinating body
for a network of government approved genealogical research
centres in the Republic of Ireland (Eire) and in Northern Ireland
which have computerised almost 40 million Irish Ancestral records,
primarily Church births (baptisms), marriages and deaths.
http://tinyurl.com/ylnk2ju
Irish Genealogy records for the surname BRAITH in Ireland
http://ifhf.brsgenealogy.com/surnames.php?surname=BRAITH
What does 'Brait' mean?
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Brait
A rough diamond. ... Origin: Cf.W. Braith variegated,
Ir. Breath, breagh, fine, comely. ...
Source: Websters Dictionary ... (01 Mar 1998) ...
[The name diamond is derived from the ancient
Greek ἀδάμας (adámas), "proper", "unalterable",
"unbreakable, untamed", from ἀ- (a-),
"un-" + δαμάω (damáō), "I overpower, I tame".]
[The Scythians, a group of nomadic people that
ruled the steppes, left evidence of their wealth
and riches even if they did not leave evidence
of their demise. Some of the Scythian's gold
jewelry is museum-worthy, but their burial mounds,
or kurgans, are often looted by those who seek
to make a quick dollar on the black market.
Scythian jewelry and other Scythian artifacts
can be seen on display, but no one knows
what items may have eluded archeologists.]
Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issyk_kurgan
http://www.archaeology.org/0001/newsbriefs/horses.html
At the Museums: All that Glitters is Scythian
http://www.archaeology.org/0001/abstracts/museum.html
. . .
Objects include bronze weapons and sculptures,
silver and bone ornaments, Scythian and Greek
ceramics, massive stone sculptures, and, of course,
gold. [Now for the historical "the Scythians are known
to have invaded Syria and Judea and sacked Nineveh
and Babylon," and An Account of Egypt notes certain
Ionians and Carians who had sailed forth for plunder
were compelled to come to shore in Egypt, and they
having landed and being clad in bronze armour, one
of the Egyptians, not having before seen men clad
in bronze armour, came to the fen-land and brought
a report to Psammetichos that bronze men had come
from the sea and were plundering the plain. Etc.]
Until the eighteenth century, most of our knowledge
of Scythian culture came from the fifth-century B.C.
historian Herodotus, who--in characteristically Greek
fashion--focused on the more barbaric habits of the
Scythians: their practice of consuming the blood
of the first man they killed in battle; accoutrements
fashioned from the skins of their enemies; their
fondness for cannabis and unwatered wine drunk
from gilded skulls. The Greeks, however, were
beholden to the Scythians, who controlled and
grew rich on the trade of grain from the steppe
that fed the urban centers of the Mediterranean.
JacobSmith
> > Note carefully that women were making offerings
> > without "our men". In other words, the Hebrews
> > in Egypt, many who had lost their husbands in war,
> > had become core pagan, (as pagan as the records
> > in Ireland show), declaring allegiance as the
> > "daughter of Pharaoh"; even though the Hebrew
> > and Egyptian records validate their physical
> > ancestry was Hebrew.
>
> Another example of your conversational ineptitude. Perhaps the reason
> that people keep 'misportraying' your positions is that you have
> failed to make yourself clear. For example, here you seem to be
> suggesting that there are records in Egypt that validate the ancestry
> of the Hebrews in Egypt. This is, of course, complete nonsense. There
> are no such Egyptian records. The entire period of captivity is
> completely unknown from the Egyptian side. Thus you must either again
> be failing to communicate what you really mean to say, you are
> completely delusional, or you are telling bold-faced lies. Which is
> it? Further, you bring in Irish paganism as if it had some relevance:
> "as pagan as the records in Ireland show". What does this mean? Do
> you mean as pagan as the Irish records show the Irish were? If so, it
> is completely irrelevant to the Hebrews being pagans while in Egypt.
> Irrelevant unless you are drawing a parallel between Irish paganism
> and Egyptian paganism, which is not only begging the question but is a
> perfect example of highlighting the most superficial similarities and
> totally ignoring the most glaring inconsistencies. Paganism in
> Ireland bore no resemblance whatsoever to paganism in Egypt except
> that neither worshiped the God of Abraham. Or did you mean as pagan as
> the Irish records show the Hebrews were? There are no such records.
> There is no possible interpretation that the reader can make of this
> 'datum' that is not fatally flawed. You must, then, have failed to
> get your point across (assuming, that is, that you have a point that
> is consistent with reality).
=========================
REPLY TO taf:
Egyptian links in Strabo on the Land of the Jews
Looking at it from a "gentile" perspective, he says:
These districts (of Jerusalem and Joppa) lie towards
the north; they are inhabited generally, and each
place in particular, by mixed tribes of Egyptians,
Arabians, and Phoenicians. Of this description
are the inhabitants of Galilee, of the plain of Jericho,
and of the territories of Philadelphia and Samaria,
surnamed Sebaste by Herod; but though there is
such a mixture of inhabitants, the report most
credited, among many things believed respecting
the temple and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, is
that the Egyptians were the ancestors of the
present Jews. An Egyptian priest named Moses,
who possessed a portion of the country called
Lower Egypt, being dissatisfied with the established
institutions there, left it and came to Judea with
a large body of people who worshiped the Divinity.
. . .
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/strabo.html
This is also further reinforced by the Petition to
Authorize Elephantine Temple Reconstruction
Mentioned: Darius II, Persian emperor from
425/4 to 405/4 BC, "To our lord, Bagohi,
governor of Yehud,"
NOTES:
(1) Bagohi is one of the names in the lists
of Judahites who returned from Babylon (see, e.g.,
Ezra 2:2; Neh 7:7). In the Bible the name is spelled
"Bigvai," or in Greek "Bagoas" (e.g., Judith 12:11).
Jews returned to the Land of Israel from the Babylonian
exile following the decree by the Persian King Cyrus,
the conqueror of the Babylonian empire in 538 BC,
also known as Cyrus's Declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_to_Zion
(2) The name Yehud was used for Judah
while it was a Persian province.
. . .
Now, our ancestors built this temple in the fortress
of Yeb in the days of the kingdom of Egypt; and when
Cambyses came to Egypt he found it (already) constructed.
NOTES:
(1) Cambyses invaded Egypt in 525 BCE.
(2) The Semitic Influence in Ancient Egypt
http://www.imninalu.net/hyksos.htm
[Yebamoth: (יבמות, "Levirate marriage");
(or Yebamot or Yevamot), referring to
the mandated marriage of a widow to
her brother-in-law, deals with the Jewish
law of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10)
and other topics, such as the status of
minors. It consists of 16 chapters.]
http://tinyurl.com/yzgwwe3
When King Psammetichus (ie. Psamtik II)
came to Elephantine, this was written by those
who sailed with Psammetichus the son of Theocles,
and they came beyond Kerkis as far as the river
permits. Those who spoke foreign tongues
(Greek and Carians who also scratched thei
names on the monument) were led by Potasimto,
the Egyptians by Amasis.
. . .
Later, in 591 BC, during the fourth year of his reign,
Psamtik II launched an expedition into Palestine
"to foment a general Levantine revolt against the
Babylonians" that involved, among other, Zedekiah
of the Kingdom of Judah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psamtik_II
COMPARE:
. . .
"The treaty's provision dealt with an actual situation.
It casts additional light on the story of martyrdom as
told in the Bible: the story of mutilated prisoners,
slaughtered children, and deportations; and the story
of these few who escaped from the horrors of torture,
of their flight to Egypt, and of the long arm that reached
out for the refugees into the land of their asylum. "
. . .
"Daphnae was supposed to have been built in the time
of the 26th dynasty in about 664 BC and existed until
about 565 BC. "
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ramses2.html
pj.evans
> On Nov 7, 11:33 pm, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 5:40 am, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ALLADH, born circa 795 B.C.
> > > BRATH, born circa 720 B.C.
>
> > These people are imaginary. No one was using names like this at the
> > time. It is a basic error that immediately exposes the fraud.
>
> > In that period men would have had names like Caratacos,
> > Cassivellaunos, Cingetorix, Dumnorix, Dubnovellaunos, Mandubracios,
> > Taximagulus, or Tincomarus.
>
> ===========================================
> The Irish Family History Foundation is the co-ordinating body
> for a network of government approved genealogical research
> centres in the Republic of Ireland (Eire) and in Northern Ireland
> which have computerised almost 40 million Irish Ancestral records,
>
> Irish Genealogy records for the surname BRAITH in Irelandhttp://ifhf.brsgenealogy.com/surnames.php?surname=BRAITH
>
> A rough diamond. ... Origin: Cf.W. Braith variegated,
> Ir. Breath, breagh, fine, comely. ...
> Source: Websters Dictionary ... (01 Mar 1998) ...
>
Has nothing to do with the point that those wonderful Irish names
you're citing in ancient times didn't exist at the time you're
claiming them for,
any more than any of your other posts actually back up your claims.
And in any case, that isn't a surname, it's a cognomen, a nickname.
Surnames came much, much later.
pj.evans
> > > I never said the Irish were Egyptians. I mentioned:
> =========================
> REPLY TO taf:
> Egyptian links in Strabo on the Land of the Jews
>
All of which is _still_ irrelevant to your claims that the Irish are
somehow Jews, or maybe Egyptians.
Do you do actual genealogy, or do you just pull paragraphs from old
books and string them together in hopes someone will believe you and
pay you for your fantasies?
taf
> I am concerned about the historical reality in conclusions.
>
> (1) Cannibalism is related to the practice of headhunting.
Stop right there. Only one manifestation of cannibalism is related to
headhunting. If you can't even get the first point right, it is not
even worth critiquing the rest, which just repeats the same illogical
flights of fancy.
taf
taf
>
> > On Nov 5, 5:40 am, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ALLADH, born circa 795 B.C.
> > > BRATH, born circa 720 B.C.
>
> > These people are imaginary. No one was using names like this at the
> > time. It is a basic error that immediately exposes the fraud.
>
> > In that period men would have had names like Caratacos,
> > Cassivellaunos, Cingetorix, Dumnorix, Dubnovellaunos, Mandubracios,
> > Taximagulus, or Tincomarus.
>
> ===========================================
> The Irish Family History Foundation is the co-ordinating body
> for a network of government approved genealogical research
> centres in the Republic of Ireland (Eire) and in Northern Ireland
> which have computerised almost 40 million Irish Ancestral records,
>
> Irish Genealogy records for the surname BRAITH in Ireland
You are entirely missing the point. Yes, the surname Braith exists in
modern Ireland. That is his point. It is exactly the kind of name a
modern pedigree concoctor would be expected to throw into a pedigree.
It has a form very much different than those found on ancient
memorials - the types of names the ancients actually used. Proving it
is a modern name, as you are doing, at best is irrelevant, at worst it
proves the opposite opinion.
> What does 'Brait' mean?http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Brait
> A rough diamond. ... Origin: Cf.W. Braith variegated,
> Ir. Breath, breagh, fine, comely. ...
> Source: Websters Dictionary ... (01 Mar 1998) ...
>
> [The name diamond is derived from the ancient
> Greek ἀδάμας (adámas), "proper", "unalterable",
> "unbreakable, untamed", from ἀ- (a-),
> "un-" + δαμάω (damáō), "I overpower, I tame".]
Jeez, this is talking about the English word 'diamond', not the Irish
word 'Brait', which has no similarity with δαμάω, and the two appear
not to share any common root.
> Until the eighteenth century, most of our knowledge
> of Scythian culture came from the fifth-century B.C.
> historian Herodotus,
You make it sound like the the eighteenth century represents the state
of the art. It doesn't.
taf
taf
> REPLY TO taf:
> Egyptian links in Strabo on the Land of the Jews
None of which have anything to do with anything relevant to this
discussion.
> (2) The Semitic Influence in Ancient Egypthttp://www.imninalu.net/hyksos.htm
Can't let this one pass without comment.
> [Yebamoth: (יבמות, "Levirate marriage");
> (or Yebamot or Yevamot), referring to
> the mandated marriage of a widow to
> her brother-in-law, deals with the Jewish
> law of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10)
> and other topics, such as the status of
> minors. It consists of 16 chapters.]http://tinyurl.com/yzgwwe3
That two bordering tribal societies share a common marital practice in
no way can be used to imply a directionality. This could just as well
be an Egyptian influence on ancient Hebrews. Or both may have picked
it up from the Caananites. Or it may represent a common heritage of
their shared Levantine tribal heritage. Or it could be coincidence.
And then, being such a Biblical scholar, you will know that it also
prohibits the marriage of a widow to her brother-in-law. Were you to
selectively cite that prohibition instead of selectively citing the
mandate, you would have to conclude that there was no influence. Yet
another example of cherry-picking. Heralding similarities, sweeping
conflicts under the carpet.
By the way, you need to be more careful in the use of 'Semitic' when
drawing anthropological conclusions. It means something completely
different to an anthropologist than the manner in which you are using
it.
taf
JacobSmith
===============================================
REPLY to Ian
Thanks for your suggestions. Since you are current
in your thinking, I'm sure you are well aware of the
fact of copyright laws. The Internet has many older
books online and it easier to post these resources.
Anyway, from a genealogical standpoint, I like to
give credit to originating authors. It follows, similar
to the pattern given in an academic genealogy, citing
the "parents" of modern ideas and tracing back in time.
It is called giving credit where credit is due. I'm sure
you know all about this process and how it works.
Also, I do not like to have current living people exposed
to libel and negative statements from the uneducated,
unlearned and emotionally immature, if there be any,
on this list or elsewhere on the world wide web (Internet).
JacobSmith
======================================
Brief reply to taf
Cannibalism and headhunting are forms of human aggression.
The head of John the Baptist was placed on a platter and given
to Salome, who gave it to her mother Herodias. This savage
act was done by Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, who
himself slaughtered thousands of Bethlehem infants. Herod,
the Great, in a civil and cultured society, consumed the lives
of infants for the purpose of political survival. As in marketing,
the situation was the introduction of a new competitor; Jesus
would eat into, weaken main religious support for Herod the Great.
Herod Antipas, his son, having sworn (recorded) to Salome,
to ask for whatever she wished, was forced (by legal edict of
an absolute monarch) to keep his own oath (word) as declared
before banquet guests. It is all food for thoughtful consideration.
Record keeping in antiquity; in an era where the word was the law.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God" is a statement right out of ancient history.
This is why it was so tremendously important for medieval church
scribes to attach ancient pagan documents to earlier biblical text.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm#053
. . .
Family Information - Pedigree of Husband:
Medieval church scribes willfully injected fabrications into official
pagan
documents, so that they would look distorted and unreliably corrupted,
even though connected to the biblical origins (gentile, not semitic);
when
compared to the more enlightened religious Christian philosophy, as it
was being expounded within the transmission process from a druid
dominated, to priestly directed high king, sub kings hierarchy.
. . .
BRATH, born circa 720 B.C.
[As in Brait, a rough diamond - Origin: Cf. W. Braith variegated,
Ir. Breath, breagh, fine, comely; a variation: Brath. The name
diamond is derived from the ancient Greek adámas, "proper",
"unalterable", "unbreakable, untamed", from (a-), "un-" + (damáō),
"I overpower, I tame", a characteristic of Carian - Scythian
warriors.]
He was the father of:
BRIGUS - BREOGHAN, born circa 695 B.C.
He was the father of:
BILE, born circa 670 B.C.
He was the father of:
MILESIUS - GALAMH - [Míl Espáine], born circa 645 B.C.
[Born with the name Golam or Galam, Míl (born of the kings
of the city of Miletus) remembers druid Caicer's prophecy
that he and his people would settle in Ireland. This corresponds
to Psammetichos, . . . Pharaoh Nectonibus appears as a corruption
of Psamtik I (also spelled Psammeticus or Psammetichus) with his
known and given daughter Nitocris I (alt. Nitiqret, Nitokris I)
or Nito - metichus (Necto - nibus); (prenomen: Nebetneferumut) ]
He was the father of:
HEREMON [Érimón], born circa 620 B.C. = [The Biblical TAMAR]
. . .
Cannibalism is related to the practice of headhunting and European
Celts
nailed heads of personal enemies to walls, etc. The practice
continued
approximately to the end of the Middle Ages in Ireland and the
Scottish
marches. The head housed a person's soul. Local efforts were made to
preserve bodies by the process of bogs and tree products. Veneration
of trees is validated by Ogham; referred to as the "Celtic Tree
Alphabet",
based on a High Medieval Bríatharogam tradition ascribing names of
trees
to the individual letters. Trees provided bark for writing, other
products
(resin) for body preservation, tools and human comforts. Sometimes, a
"biological body" genealogy appears to have been created, composed
of various family relatives. Bodies were preserved using naturally
occurring acids and peat bogs, not eaten; they did not devour them.
Later statements on "Cannibalism" in Ireland appear as
misunderstanding
of the burial customs; i.e. Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) relates how
the inhabitants of Ireland are even more savage (agrioteroi) than
those
of Britain 'since they are man-eaters (anthropophagoi) . . . and since
they
count it an honourable thing when their fathers die, to devour
(katesthiein)
them' (4.5.4). This does confirm the historical fact in Ireland of a
male
dominated hereditary society: High King and sub kings; mummy being
used in display as a figure for hereditary authority descent, even as
the
Egyptian Pharaoh was both religious and political leader, the bridge
between life and death. To eat, drink; figuratively, the word means
to enjoy or sometimes table fellowship. Thus, Celtic or Gaels table
convocations: "the body had remained without rotting or decomposing
during this period. This thing was a great wonder and surprise to the
men of Ireland." The Hebrew term (usually katesthiein in the LXX)
can denote consuming by the sword, fire, heat, hunger and sickness,
and divine wrath. In warning or laments, we also find "to destroy".
. . .
Family Information:
Though Solomon and his associates were religious in nature, they were
not
identified as prophets. The journey to Ireland parallels Elissa,
circa 800 B.C.
Ancient Milesius Ancestry notes that "Under the leadership of
Lamhfionnxe
"Lamhfionn" the family removed from Scythia to a place in Libya near
Carthage.
Scythians are known to have invaded Syria and Judea and sacked Nineveh
and
Babylon. At the Museums: All that Glitters is Scythian. Objects
include bronze
weapons and sculptures, silver and bone ornaments, Scythian and Greek
ceramics,
massive stone sculptures, and, of course, gold. See warrior's
equipment and horses.
After remaining in Lybia for eight (8) generations, they removed to
Brigansa
in Portugal." The History of Carthage notes King Nebuchadnezzar II of
Babylon
was conducting the 13 year siege of Tyre starting from 585 B.C.
Carthage became
independent of her mother city in political matters about this time.
Historically,
Carthage stationed troops and some type of central administration in
Sardinia
and Spain to control her domain. The cities, in return for
surrendering these
privileges, obtained Carthaginian protection, which provided the fleet
to
combat piracy and fought wars needed to protect these cities from
external
threats. Milesians (Irish) migration, after eight generations, from
the area
of Carthage, follows the colonist trading expansion pattern,
established
by Carthage. Additionally, the Milesian invasion, within its proper
context,
relates to Carians, associated with the Sythians, who spread south to
ancient
Israel and east to Italy (Sicily), associated with Greece; from the
area of modern
Turkey, down to Egypt; with ancient Hebrew - Egyptian connections, at
Tahpanhes,
with the Royal daughters of the King of Judah, that are attested to
within Irish
written historical records, kept before the 6th century, handed down
and filtered.
Ian Goddard
> On Nov 8, 3:18 am, Ian Goddard <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Can I suggest that you read a reasonably recent book on Irish
>> archaeology. It's getting on a bit now but Herrity & Eogan seems to be
>> a lot more recent than 1922. More recent (1991 - how time flies!) but
>> primarily dealing with Ulster is Mallory & McNeill. The latter also
>> recommend the former, also books by O'Kelly and Harbison. Jim Mallory's
>> book "In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth"
>> should also be educational.
>>
>> --
>> Ian
>>
>> Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
>> at nildram co uk
>
> ===============================================
> REPLY to Ian
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. Since you are current
> in your thinking, I'm sure you are well aware of the
> fact of copyright laws. The Internet has many older
> books online and it easier to post these resources.
Yes - and they may well be O-u-t O-f D-a-t-e.
This is what we're all trying to tell you. The more recent the source
the more likely it is to include more recently acquired knowledge.
The world of research does not stand still. If you were to go for an
older text it wouldn't, for instance, incorporate the results of carbon
dating as there were no carbon dates before the 1950s and relatively few
from Ireland until the Belfast Lab got into serious production in the
late 1960s.
The 1960s saw a transformation in archaeology everywhere with the
introduction of scientific techniques including Ireland with, for
instance, the Palaeoecology Lab at QUB. That provided independent
dating with carbon dating and subsequently dendrochronology (by
independent I mean that dates didn't depend on archaeological
interpretation of the artefacts, a situation which could and did result
in circular arguments), objective analysis of the technology (e.g.
metallurgical) and a wider view of the changes wrought on the
environment by man and vice versa.
Unless you understand the results of this transformation you will have
no framework to evaluate the sort of stuff which you keep churning out.
And you won't get that understanding from out-of-copyright texts on
the internet.
JacobSmith
===================================
REPLY to pj.evans:
I do actual genealogy related to facts, not fantasies.
If Strabo says Hebrews are actually Egyptians, then
the evidence, as I have presented it, says the Irish
have Hebrew royal blood, as well as Carian and Scythian.
This is a composite deduction from numerous references.
I do not deal in the obfuscation that taf presents constantly.
He is a highly skilled researcher, who makes deliberate and
calculated attempts to confuse medieval readers on this list;
re: medieval records in ancient Ireland, compiled and filtered.
I just showed that Egyptian sources define specifically, Jewish
culture sources, from original documentation found in Egypt.
taf said that there was no such thing, so he is left to obfuscate.
I repeat:
This is also further reinforced by the Petition to
Authorize Elephantine Temple Reconstruction
Mentioned: Darius II, Persian emperor from
425/4 to 405/4 BC, "To our lord, Bagohi,
governor of Yehud,"
NOTES:
(1) Bagohi is one of the names in the lists
of Judahites who returned from Babylon (see, e.g.,
Ezra 2:2; Neh 7:7). In the Bible the name is spelled
"Bigvai," or in Greek "Bagoas" (e.g., Judith 12:11).
Jews returned to the Land of Israel from the Babylonian
exile following the decree by the Persian King Cyrus,
the conqueror of the Babylonian empire in 538 BC,
also known as Cyrus's Declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_to_Zion
(2) The name Yehud was used for Judah
while it was a Persian province.
. . .
Now, our ancestors built this temple in the fortress
of Yeb in the days of the kingdom of Egypt; and when
Cambyses came to Egypt he found it (already) constructed.
That means that much before 525 BC, there was an affluent
Hebrew community, that had military and government status,
dealing in trade relations that could amass sufficient wealth
to build a local temple to the true god [Yahu is one form of
the divine name of Yahweh, the Israelite god (also: Yo and
Yah, as in the names "Yonatan" [1 Sam 14:1] and "Hodiyah"
[1 Chron 4:19]).]. . . . "they entered the temple and burned
it to the ground. They smashed the stone pillars that were
there. They demolished five great gateways constructed
of hewn blocks of stone which were in the temple; but their
doors (are still standing), and the hinges of those doors
are made of bronze. And the roof of cedar in its entirety,
with the . . . and whatever else was there, were all burned
with fire. As for the basins of gold and silver and other
articles that were in the temple, they carried all of them
off and took them as personal possessions."
NOTES:
(1) Cambyses invaded Egypt in 525 BCE.
Let us dwell just for an Irish wee moment on:
(1) Cambyses invaded Egypt
Updated, as of 8:11 a.m. PT, Mon., Nov . 9, 2009
[I hope you don't think I am just pulling paragraphs
from old books and am stringing them together.]
MSNBC Technology & Science: Science
Vanished Persian army said found in desert
http://tinyurl.com/yj9wtus
"Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring
and hundreds of human bones found in the vast
desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have
raised hopes of finally finding the lost army of
Persian King Cambyses II. The 50,000 warriors
were said to be buried by a cataclysmic
sandstorm in 525 B.C."
Sorry that I am behind by a half a day in posting.
I know you realize this is so very important to
the discussion at hand, concerning Ireland,
because the article also mentions this very
important fact: We have found the first
archaeological evidence of a story reported
by the Greek historian Herodotus,"
AND:
"According to Herodotus (484-425 B.C.),
Cambyses, the son of Cyrus the Great,
sent 50,000 soldiers from Thebes to attack
the Oasis of Siwa and destroy the oracle
at the Temple of Amun after the priests
there refused to legitimize his claim to Egypt."
I repeat therefore, if you missed the obvious:
Record keeping in antiquity; in an era where
the word was the law. "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God" is a statement right out
of ancient history. This is why it was so
tremendously important for medieval church
scribes to attach ancient pagan documents
to earlier biblical text. It was life or death.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm#053
. . .
Family Information - Pedigree of Husband:
Medieval church scribes willfully injected
fabrications into official pagan documents,
so that they would look distorted and unreliably
corrupted, even though connected to the biblical
origins (gentile, not semitic); when compared to
the more enlightened religious Christian philosophy,
as it was being expounded within the transmission
process from a druid dominated, to priestly directed
high king, sub kings hierarchy.
. . .
BRATH, born circa 720 B.C. [handed down record;
name shows up in current Irish records as valid, just
as names of trees in ogham alphabet are indigenous.]
JacobSmith
>
> read more »
wjho...@aol.com
You stated that this Jewish princess (as you say), or even this particular set of refugees with Jeremiah, was acknowledged by ancient Hebrew and Egyptian sources. But there are no Egyptian sources mentioning Jeremiah and there are no Egyptian sources mentioning a princess of the House of David being there.
No one has said that there are not ancient Hebrew (or Jewish if you will) sources, and no one has said that there are not references from Egypt about the Jews or references from Palestine about the Egyptians. That some reference exists is hardly the same thing as saying that ancient sources confirm this *particular* linkage you're trying to draw.
What Todd wants is the source for making this exact connection, not just *some* connection between some Hebrews and some Egyptians.
JacobSmith
======================================
REPLY in brief to wjhon...
The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVI,
(January-October 1957), has the article: "The
Problem of Ancient Oriental Shipping on the North Sea",
by B. Lundman. He states that on all the Frisian Islands
[See: Frisian and Free, Study of an ethnic minority of
The Netherlands, by Cynthia Keppley Mahmood, 1989],
quite a number of people with huge curved noses and
darker coloring are found. There are also instances of a
similar type found in the coastal areas of the British Isles.
These darker skin colored people, with slightly thick lips,
have almost "Jewish" noses, and convex "Iberian, nay
Assyrian profiles". This is similar to the population of
Cornwall, England with Semitic traces of the Jewish-
Armenoid type.
Significantly, as noted by Fig. 4- Ancient sea routes
between Asia Minor and the North, include connections
to Cyprus, the Etruscans, southern Spain, northwest France,
western Ireland, south and west England, including both
the passage through the English Channel and that around
the north of Scotland. "Mixed Armenoid types similar to
those found in western Europe exist in an area from
southwestern Arabia" and along the Persian Gulf, thence
east and southwards along the western and southwestern
coast of India. This continues on down to Ceylon and even
a little way along the southernmost part of the eastern coast,
in Tinnevelly. [The name of an ancient non-Aryan, Tamil
Kingdom at the extreme southern tip of the Indian peninsula,
as mentioned in The Hindu World, Vol. 2, pages 180-181.]
wjho...@aol.com
Whether any particular set of people living somewhere else is Jewish or not, has nothing at all to do with whether there are, as you said there are ancient Egyptian records for this particular set of Hebrew people. Dont' spout any more nonsense about some OTHER set of Hebrew people because no one cares. Address THIS set of Hebrew people.
You claim to be a genealogist and yet you apparently can't tell the difference between a claim about a *race* of people, versus a claim about *a* particular person.
Will
taf
> On Nov 9, 7:58 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 9:35 pm, JacobSmith <tinst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am concerned about the historical reality in conclusions.
>
> > > (1) Cannibalism is related to the practice of headhunting.
>
> > Stop right there. Only one manifestation of cannibalism is related to
> > headhunting. If you can't even get the first point right, it is not
> > even worth critiquing the rest, which just repeats the same illogical
> > flights of fancy.
>
> > taf
>
> ======================================
> Brief reply to taf
>
> Cannibalism and headhunting are forms of human aggression.
Again, you can't get beyond the first sentence without a gaff. Yes,
cannibalism has been used as a form of human aggression. However, not
all cannibalism is aggression. There is ceremonial cannibalism,
survival cannibalism, and ancestor cannibalism, which is the form
described for the Irish. To say that cannibalism is aggression and
headhunting is aggression, so they are linked as to oversimplify the
connections, and ignore the differences. Exactly what you do with
history.
> Family Information - Pedigree of Husband:
> Medieval church scribes willfully injected fabrications into official
> pagan
> documents, so that they would look distorted and unreliably corrupted,
> even though connected to the biblical origins (gentile, not semitic);
> when
> compared to the more enlightened religious Christian philosophy, as it
> was being expounded within the transmission process from a druid
> dominated, to priestly directed high king, sub kings hierarchy.
You just made all this up.
> Later statements on "Cannibalism" in Ireland appear as
> misunderstanding of the burial customs
You keep repeating this, as if by simple repetition a lie becomes
truth.
taf
taf
> I just showed that Egyptian sources define specifically, Jewish
> culture sources, from original documentation found in Egypt.
> taf said that there was no such thing, so he is left to obfuscate.
Do you not have the slightest qualms of conscience over such
distortions of the truth?
I have twice indicated that there were 'no such documents':
1) "For example, here you seem to be suggesting that there are records
in Egypt that validate the ancestry of the Hebrews in Egypt. This is,
of course, complete nonsense. There are no such Egyptian records. The
entire period of captivity is completely unknown from the Egyptian
side."
So, no Egyptian documents that validate the ancestry of Hebrews in
Egypt.
2) "There are no such ancient Irish documents in which chronological
time periods descend."
(Which I know is hard to parse, but it was in response to the
completely incoherent ". . . is the actual proof of chronological time
periods, descending within the ancient Irish documents.")
In other words, no Irish documents that, well, whatever you said.
Now how does your misquotation of "Egyptian sources define
specifically, Jewish culture sources, from original documentation
found in Egypt." You quotations don't even say what you say they do,
let alone say what I said they didn't.
You are just throwing mud now.
> I repeat:
. . . and repeat and repeat and repeat. Nonsense once, nonsense
twice, nonsense after nonsense after nonsense. What you can't seem to
do is present a coherent argument, nor explain your positions
concisely.
Try this. First, address a single topic per post. Second use your
own words, written from scratch and addressing the point of the post.
Third, do not quote, cite. You should be able to make your own
argument in your own words. Quoting extensively is lazy, sloppy, and
as you use them, disrespectful. Fourth, limit the length of your
post. If you can't make your point in a couple of paragraphs, you
won't make it in dozens. If you can make your point in a couple of
paragraphs, you won't make it in dozens.
taf
taf
And this is what you conceive to be the scholarly method? Copyright
law was enacted such that recent authors would be protected, not
ignored. It astounds me that to protect fragile scholars (again, you
clearly know nothing of scholars) you think it is better to completely
suppress their conclusions and leave only ignorant opinions or ancient
opinions, unalloyed by modern expertise. Yes, that sure is respecting
them. But, misquoting them, distorting them, as you have done in this
thread with several modern authors, well, that is not a problem. No,
this is not about protecting them or respecting them. It is about
sloppy, lazy pseudo-scholarship.
taf